I'm not sure it doesn't make sense, especially not capitalized. Take a game like the original Deus Ex, for example. Sure, it wasn't a fully interactive world, but within a level, you could go to hundreds of places, some of them useful, some of them less so. I spent hours on each level, going everywhere, just checking everything out. But I didn't have to. I could also have just gone to the objectives and done the mission. Add the extra interactivity, and some detail to make it interesting, but non-essential, to explore around a bit.
Don't generalize that too much, though. Mediterranean maybe, but here in Belgium, and our neighbors France, Germany and the Netherlands (which, you'll have to admit, is a sizeable part of Europe), we generally move out after university, or as soon as we find a job.
Or, much simpler, jail their head representatives in the country. This can actually be done. To give an example, in Belgian health&safety legislation, the CEO of a company is directly responsible, under criminal law, for the safety of his employees. He has well defined duties which he must perform, and if he doesn't, and a work accident occurs that can be traced back to this, then the CEO faces jail time and a fine. Believe me, all CEO's who are aware of this fact are very concious of safety issues within their company, and quite willing to listen when their safety advisor proposes measures.
What he said. I have a great international health insurance from my company, up to a maximum cost that is largely sufficient for nearly the entire world, but when I went on honeymoon to America, my travel agent, my mother (who knows the sector pretty well), and even our embassy advised me to get an extra policy, with an even higher maximum, because apparently American healthcare is among the most expensive worldwide. So how was you pre-Obamacare system so great again?
Who's cherrypicking now?
Horrible things have happened in the name of religion, but then, horrible things have happened in the name of science too. Should we get rid of that as well?
There's one health effect I know of that might affect those living close to a wind turbine, and that's the effect of the strobe shadow created by the turning of the blades. It's been shown to affect health when exposed to it for longer periods. Other than that, no known health effects from living close to one.
Actually, while we may not yet be at CSI or Bones level, forensics can be an amazing thing, so it's not like we have no way to test the stories told by shooters.
When.... I mean if I throw someone off a bridge, they won't be able to recognize me when I'm standing right in front of them doing my best "me" impression.
Can't speak for other countries, but here in Belgium it's not so much the police but the media who will convict you the moment you get even tangentially connected to an investigation. Oversight on the police is pretty strong here, and any kind of procedural fault results in no conviction at all (which is handily abused by lawyers, who will help you get away with mass murder because your arrest warrant wasn't motivated properly). So yes, it seems to be dependent on the country. The media thing gets pretty bad, though, digging into private lives, spreading wild speculations as facts, and then, when it turns out it wasn't you after all, they just jump to the next victim. No apology given.
This. Companies like to see big fat black numbers at the bottom of the balance sheet. They really don't sit around stroking a pet of some kind and cackling maniacally at their next scheme to put one over on those nasty consumers. Truth is, they don't care about you, they just want your money. If they see ways to get at it better, they'll use them. In this case, targeted advertising should be more effective,, since it will offer you stuff you want (if the targeting system is halfway smart, at least), so you would more likely be interested. Meanwhile, the company can save money because now they just have to advertise to the people who might buy their stuff instead of to everybody, hoping to hit the few % of consumers who need their product. Basically, it's smart missiles vs carpet bombing, and I think we can all agree that smart missiles should cause less collateral damage.
Oh, and before anyone gets the wrong idea: I am 100% against companies gathering (and holding indefinitely) personal data of people who did not give it up freely, knowing what they are getting themselves into. But I am also cynical enough to believe that a large percentage of Facebook, smartphone app, etc users would just shrug if you told them, and say they don't really care. Frankly, I myself don't much care if the corporate world knows I want to buy an inflatable pool, a bulk amount of whipped cream, and a used industrial vacuum cleaner. Let them make of that what they will. I do, however, draw the line at personal information I did not give to them. I do not want to receive mail/phone calls/creepy ads that state my (alleged) location/names of my close friends/etc, unless I gave that information to you personally.
I have read the books, and while a big deal is made about sex, it's more about the not getting any. Up until the last book, that is, where there is indeed some (quickly faded to black and not very explicit) canoodling going on.
I dunno. I regularly take 2 aspirin instead of one when I need them, on my doctor's advice. He said one would not be enough to suppress pain, since I am larger than average.
Been watching too many movies, have we? Even if they could just eliminate the upstarts without the law caring (and I doubt they do), it's much cheaper and more effective to just ensure that the startup gets so bound up in legal tape, sees its costs skyrocket, and ultimately goes under. It involves a lot less illegal activity, and creates a nice example for any other candidates who feel like trying this.
Hey! I enjoyed Sucker Punch. It was, above all, a beautiful movie (in the visual sense). The story was meh (but had some nice ideas), though I did enjoy trying to link what was happening in the different levels of "reality" (I tried to use the word thought provoking in connection with this movie, but reality overwrote me). They could have done a lot more with it, though, maybe switch back and forth a couple of times to the real world (asylum). However, you can not deny that all the "dream travel" parts were action-packed pieces of delicious, sweet eye-candy (and I don't mean just the boobs). With some better writers, that movie could have been a classic.
I find it funny that the same people here on slashdot who complain about music copyright being ridiculous, and that they just copy at no cost to anyone, are also those who complain that China is stealing our ideas and IP, and copying everything. The theory is the same. You get to use something you were not meant to use without remuneration for its creator.
Could they do stuff differently? Sure. But for the moment, the holder of the copyright can decide how he spreads his product, and it is not up to you to decide that he should give it away for free. If he chooses to do so (and many bands do), great. If not, then you'll just have to pay to enjoy his product. If you don't, you are breaking a law. Maybe not "thou shalt not steal", but a law nonetheless. And you are taking away from the producer the right to spread his product as he sees fit.
I should point out that not all legal systems value precedent as much as the US system. A lot of countries (my native Belgium included) use law as written as a basis for guilt or innocence, setting much lower value on previous cases (although they can be used to give credibility to an interpretation of the law).
Of course, the lawsuits would probably take place in a different country, with a different legal system. Not all legal systems put precedent over law-as-written.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure it doesn't make sense, especially not capitalized. Take a game like the original Deus Ex, for example. Sure, it wasn't a fully interactive world, but within a level, you could go to hundreds of places, some of them useful, some of them less so. I spent hours on each level, going everywhere, just checking everything out. But I didn't have to. I could also have just gone to the objectives and done the mission. Add the extra interactivity, and some detail to make it interesting, but non-essential, to explore around a bit.
Don't generalize that too much, though. Mediterranean maybe, but here in Belgium, and our neighbors France, Germany and the Netherlands (which, you'll have to admit, is a sizeable part of Europe), we generally move out after university, or as soon as we find a job.
Or, much simpler, jail their head representatives in the country. This can actually be done. To give an example, in Belgian health&safety legislation, the CEO of a company is directly responsible, under criminal law, for the safety of his employees. He has well defined duties which he must perform, and if he doesn't, and a work accident occurs that can be traced back to this, then the CEO faces jail time and a fine. Believe me, all CEO's who are aware of this fact are very concious of safety issues within their company, and quite willing to listen when their safety advisor proposes measures.
What he said. I have a great international health insurance from my company, up to a maximum cost that is largely sufficient for nearly the entire world, but when I went on honeymoon to America, my travel agent, my mother (who knows the sector pretty well), and even our embassy advised me to get an extra policy, with an even higher maximum, because apparently American healthcare is among the most expensive worldwide. So how was you pre-Obamacare system so great again?
If by "free" you mean "with enough strings attached to knit warm winter sweaters for all the elephants in Africa and Asia combined", then yes.
Seriously, have you seen what Greece has had to do to keep getting its money?
Who's cherrypicking now? Horrible things have happened in the name of religion, but then, horrible things have happened in the name of science too. Should we get rid of that as well?
There's one health effect I know of that might affect those living close to a wind turbine, and that's the effect of the strobe shadow created by the turning of the blades. It's been shown to affect health when exposed to it for longer periods. Other than that, no known health effects from living close to one.
Actually, while we may not yet be at CSI or Bones level, forensics can be an amazing thing, so it's not like we have no way to test the stories told by shooters.
When.... I mean if I throw someone off a bridge, they won't be able to recognize me when I'm standing right in front of them doing my best "me" impression.
Can't speak for other countries, but here in Belgium it's not so much the police but the media who will convict you the moment you get even tangentially connected to an investigation. Oversight on the police is pretty strong here, and any kind of procedural fault results in no conviction at all (which is handily abused by lawyers, who will help you get away with mass murder because your arrest warrant wasn't motivated properly). So yes, it seems to be dependent on the country. The media thing gets pretty bad, though, digging into private lives, spreading wild speculations as facts, and then, when it turns out it wasn't you after all, they just jump to the next victim. No apology given.
Awww, not my sole! I just had that meuniered.
I find your statement intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
This. Companies like to see big fat black numbers at the bottom of the balance sheet. They really don't sit around stroking a pet of some kind and cackling maniacally at their next scheme to put one over on those nasty consumers. Truth is, they don't care about you, they just want your money. If they see ways to get at it better, they'll use them. In this case, targeted advertising should be more effective,, since it will offer you stuff you want (if the targeting system is halfway smart, at least), so you would more likely be interested. Meanwhile, the company can save money because now they just have to advertise to the people who might buy their stuff instead of to everybody, hoping to hit the few % of consumers who need their product. Basically, it's smart missiles vs carpet bombing, and I think we can all agree that smart missiles should cause less collateral damage.
Oh, and before anyone gets the wrong idea: I am 100% against companies gathering (and holding indefinitely) personal data of people who did not give it up freely, knowing what they are getting themselves into. But I am also cynical enough to believe that a large percentage of Facebook, smartphone app, etc users would just shrug if you told them, and say they don't really care. Frankly, I myself don't much care if the corporate world knows I want to buy an inflatable pool, a bulk amount of whipped cream, and a used industrial vacuum cleaner. Let them make of that what they will. I do, however, draw the line at personal information I did not give to them. I do not want to receive mail/phone calls/creepy ads that state my (alleged) location/names of my close friends/etc, unless I gave that information to you personally.
I have read the books, and while a big deal is made about sex, it's more about the not getting any. Up until the last book, that is, where there is indeed some (quickly faded to black and not very explicit) canoodling going on.
You get (some of) what you want and still complain?
Well, alright, if you think homeopathy is spelled P-L-A-C-E-B-O.
I dunno. I regularly take 2 aspirin instead of one when I need them, on my doctor's advice. He said one would not be enough to suppress pain, since I am larger than average.
Been watching too many movies, have we? Even if they could just eliminate the upstarts without the law caring (and I doubt they do), it's much cheaper and more effective to just ensure that the startup gets so bound up in legal tape, sees its costs skyrocket, and ultimately goes under. It involves a lot less illegal activity, and creates a nice example for any other candidates who feel like trying this.
Well, if they got Oscars, arguably more people might bother making them, put more money into them, and we might get more (some might even be good).
Hey! I enjoyed Sucker Punch. It was, above all, a beautiful movie (in the visual sense). The story was meh (but had some nice ideas), though I did enjoy trying to link what was happening in the different levels of "reality" (I tried to use the word thought provoking in connection with this movie, but reality overwrote me). They could have done a lot more with it, though, maybe switch back and forth a couple of times to the real world (asylum). However, you can not deny that all the "dream travel" parts were action-packed pieces of delicious, sweet eye-candy (and I don't mean just the boobs). With some better writers, that movie could have been a classic.
Links or it didn't happen.
Why should the International Panel on Climate Change care about our online rights?
I find it funny that the same people here on slashdot who complain about music copyright being ridiculous, and that they just copy at no cost to anyone, are also those who complain that China is stealing our ideas and IP, and copying everything. The theory is the same. You get to use something you were not meant to use without remuneration for its creator.
Could they do stuff differently? Sure. But for the moment, the holder of the copyright can decide how he spreads his product, and it is not up to you to decide that he should give it away for free. If he chooses to do so (and many bands do), great. If not, then you'll just have to pay to enjoy his product. If you don't, you are breaking a law. Maybe not "thou shalt not steal", but a law nonetheless. And you are taking away from the producer the right to spread his product as he sees fit.
I should point out that not all legal systems value precedent as much as the US system. A lot of countries (my native Belgium included) use law as written as a basis for guilt or innocence, setting much lower value on previous cases (although they can be used to give credibility to an interpretation of the law).
Of course, the lawsuits would probably take place in a different country, with a different legal system. Not all legal systems put precedent over law-as-written.