Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 25th, 2017 @ 2:41pm
i have gone the opposite route on that, by downloading roms i already own. (which is what rom-supplying persons note as the only legal way to posess a dumped rom) it's more convenient than hooking up different systems to play a game or two on each, plus emulators let you do things like screenshots and, oh, save state whenever you like? pretty handy when you don't have another half hour or whatever to get to some point you can save. or you can put a game down for months without having your saves gone or corrupt when you pick it up again.
it's nice when your console or cartridge dies or partially dies.
those are definitely bonuses to emulators. downside is roms that are not so well dumped or emulated by one of the offerings.
i can well imagine that console companies like nintendo could make an even bigger killing if they made a box that emulated all their disparate legacy platforms and provided some conviniences of third party emulators. just imagine say, zelda fans being able to play all of the games on one little box.
Re: Easy line: ACTUAL violence versus mere opinion -- even if urging violence.
You are conflating at least two meanings of the word "platform". That is a poor way to make an argument, intentional or not.
I am no fan of corporations. I think i would align myself with Jefferson in that matter. But i do not see any upside to regulating them as utilities. What is popular now will pass later, and they have no monopoly other than what people will hand them. Treating them as a utility (or like broadcast television) would only reinforce their position and introduce a new level at which bad decisions can be made.
"When did it get so acrimonious, and why? The whole "I hate evil patent trolls" seems to be an invention of the last decade, where did it come from?"
It got acrimonious, at least in volume, around the same time "I hate patent trolls" was invented; i.e., when patent trolls became a thing.
I don't see any of these as left-leaning, or anti-patent. What i see is a fair contingent of anti-bad-patent people taking action, sometimes because they have noticed the climate, and sometimes because patent trolls with no business other than trolling with a portfolio of unused bad patents decides to troll them.
Why would Red Hat fund this theoretical anti-patent brigade? And what exactly are your claims regarding Red Hat somehow violating some other party's patents?
Sure, the trolls, like spammers and scammers and bot herders, omly need a tiny fraction of targets to fall for their scheme for it to be profitable. With trolls, they count on anyone not gullible or unresponsive to be less sympathetic and less vocal. The caliber of their evidence is never very high. If it were better, one would see more traditional infringement cases.
It's a wonder to this commenter that organizations still bork the simplest security measures and have these poorly secured systems connected to the internet.
OK i lie, it isn't a wonder to me at all. The only thing i find mildly astonishing is that these organizations, or those who hire them, are surprised when it is brought to their attention. Although, that surprise may be feigned as well.
I think the problem may be people who are educated as you have been.
As to who cares, a lot of people care. Your dismissal is not going to have the effect you wish here. But take solace in the fact that plenty in the US and elsewhere share your lovely sentiments about the stone age buffoons who invented shit like 0, stunning civilizations, architecture, and who regularly provide the rest of the world with brilliant physicians and physicists. As for the many on the subcontinent who cannot be those things, yeah, screw the poor, it's their own fault. But for government and business, not sure what you are getting at, since they act largely the same most everywhere else.
Is it needed that anyone has yet to bring up the issue? Cathy is pointing out that there is an angle. VARA is so vague that someone may attempt to use it, and for reasons other than actually protecting copyright.
Normally, one would hope that the stupid is taken out of laws before they are passed, but it is not, and we have countless example of how the laws are misused afterward. (Or sometimes laws retroactively cover egregious unethical and awful behavior.) Why does it need to have already happened to "[point] out there's a copyright angle to the monument controversy: the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA)". The angle is there, whether or not anyone has yet used it.
What can happen, given current circumstances, occupies a rather large chunk of human thought. Sometimes we don't do it enough. Sometimes we do it badly. Sometimes we do it badly, and don't examine enough what are the consequences of doing it badly. But we do it.
Anyone may still start another sports team or league. I would also point out that, in the way most libertarians seem to envision markets, all monopolies are legal. (And you know the markets will always tend toward a monopoly or oligopoly.)
If you want to fight locally everywhere to stop counties and cities from subsidizing stadiums and all the extra police presence, or argue that corporations should be limited in extent and time for a singular purpose, I'm all for that.
Not sure where you get your ideas about what Mike personally believes about particular things. As far as i have been able to tell, he is all for limiting the powers of some of these creatures.
Not sure how any of the above is fascism, although the way many corp/gov interactions go, it has an element of reverse fascism to it.
I don't see how any debate is stifled, but everyone who opens up like you do generally gets a pass from much of the commentariat. But you do perhaps seem to subscribe to a form of libertarianism, which i have seen before, but not frequently at all, with which i find some common ground.
Maybe if you un-stifle yourself and engage a bit more constructively, others would join whatever discussion you might wish to have.
The US already limits it. At the very least, do you think this is a sensible expansion of government and spending of funds? Do you imagine it will accomplish much of anything? Even if you are a proponent of tighter border security, how do you feel about the already much expanded security apparatus since 09/11/2001, and the quality of work they have been doing?
You are missing the point. The danger is with the insane government interaction when visiting.
You should apply your statistics to your opening paragraph, and any and all claims about the direct effects of terrorism in the US as well. Who is selling what, now?
Oh. So by "borders" they mean "agencies and offices of government"? That would be venue for installing cameras and all the other listed efforts that might lead to more trust for America (I think they mean the US).
When you want to label all sort of things and people as "the left", regardless of what they say or do, or disregard anything as "attached to the left" instead of judging it on its own merits, then those are belief system and critical thinking problems no one can fix for you and your fellow travelers. If one were to carefully craft everything so as to not connect some idea with "the left", then y'all would just point to it as insidious leftist propaganda masquerading as something palatable to your zone of the right end of the spectrum. The classic small government conservative politicians sell their to you constantly, but we never actually receive the product, do we? What we actually get is bigger government, and some sick joke of stripping out any protections humans were given against corporations and governments.
I can't even understand some people's definition of "the left", but they are happy to push it everywhere.
Your additional comments (qualifications for the right, or something?) made me realize i have a question. What is it about BLM which is inherently "left"?
It's like any manner of other things, even health and life-threatening things from which the Wall Street types or other relevant sorts cannot fully insulate themselves, which they promote against their own self-interests. As for Wall Street, they already long ago destroyed the way the investment and return part of capitalism is supposed to operate, including those who like to wave the flag of capitalism political as clearly and morally superior to any other forms or mixes of economies.
On the post: If 'Everyone Just Wants Free Stuff' Is Responsible For Piracy, Why Can't Nintendo Keep Its Classic Consoles In Stock?
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 25th, 2017 @ 2:41pm
it's nice when your console or cartridge dies or partially dies.
those are definitely bonuses to emulators. downside is roms that are not so well dumped or emulated by one of the offerings.
i can well imagine that console companies like nintendo could make an even bigger killing if they made a box that emulated all their disparate legacy platforms and provided some conviniences of third party emulators. just imagine say, zelda fans being able to play all of the games on one little box.
On the post: TV Station Falls For Pranksters; Sues Them For Fraud
Response to: stderric on Aug 25th, 2017 @ 10:54am
This is like miltary policy and child-rearing rolled into one.
On the post: Nazis, The Internet, Policing Content And Free Speech
Re: Trap Sprung!
a lot of the individual ideas you list have merit, only they have nothing to do with various service providers or the issue discussed here.
On the post: Nazis, The Internet, Policing Content And Free Speech
Re: Easy line: ACTUAL violence versus mere opinion -- even if urging violence.
I am no fan of corporations. I think i would align myself with Jefferson in that matter. But i do not see any upside to regulating them as utilities. What is popular now will pass later, and they have no monopoly other than what people will hand them. Treating them as a utility (or like broadcast television) would only reinforce their position and introduce a new level at which bad decisions can be made.
On the post: Supreme Court Has Another Chance To Help Take Down The Patent Trolls
Re: What do you think is really happening?
It got acrimonious, at least in volume, around the same time "I hate patent trolls" was invented; i.e., when patent trolls became a thing.
I don't see any of these as left-leaning, or anti-patent. What i see is a fair contingent of anti-bad-patent people taking action, sometimes because they have noticed the climate, and sometimes because patent trolls with no business other than trolling with a portfolio of unused bad patents decides to troll them.
Why would Red Hat fund this theoretical anti-patent brigade? And what exactly are your claims regarding Red Hat somehow violating some other party's patents?
On the post: Copyright Troll Insists Septuagenarian Is An Enormous Copyright Infringer, Then Runs Away After Backlash
On the post: Intelligence Committee Pins A 'Surveil Me' Sign On Wikileaks' Back In Latest Authorization Bill
Re: Seems appropriate to me
On the post: Contractor Exposes Personal Information Of 1.8 Million Chicago Voters On AWS
OK i lie, it isn't a wonder to me at all. The only thing i find mildly astonishing is that these organizations, or those who hire them, are surprised when it is brought to their attention. Although, that surprise may be feigned as well.
On the post: Two Bollywood Film Producers Get Court To Block Tons Of Sites In India, Including Archive.org
Re: who cares
As to who cares, a lot of people care. Your dismissal is not going to have the effect you wish here. But take solace in the fact that plenty in the US and elsewhere share your lovely sentiments about the stone age buffoons who invented shit like 0, stunning civilizations, architecture, and who regularly provide the rest of the world with brilliant physicians and physicists. As for the many on the subcontinent who cannot be those things, yeah, screw the poor, it's their own fault. But for government and business, not sure what you are getting at, since they act largely the same most everywhere else.
On the post: Because Of Course There Are Copyright Implications With Confederacy Monuments
Re: Too speculative
Is it needed that anyone has yet to bring up the issue? Cathy is pointing out that there is an angle. VARA is so vague that someone may attempt to use it, and for reasons other than actually protecting copyright.
Normally, one would hope that the stupid is taken out of laws before they are passed, but it is not, and we have countless example of how the laws are misused afterward. (Or sometimes laws retroactively cover egregious unethical and awful behavior.) Why does it need to have already happened to "[point] out there's a copyright angle to the monument controversy: the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA)". The angle is there, whether or not anyone has yet used it.
What can happen, given current circumstances, occupies a rather large chunk of human thought. Sometimes we don't do it enough. Sometimes we do it badly. Sometimes we do it badly, and don't examine enough what are the consequences of doing it badly. But we do it.
On the post: NFL Tells ICE That Parody Shirts Are Counterfeits
Re:
American Tax Dollars pay for any wrongdoing
US tax dollars pay for lots of wrongdoing, not as a side effect, but as the main purpose.
On the post: NFL Tells ICE That Parody Shirts Are Counterfeits
Re: LLC = Limited Libertarian Culture.
If you want to fight locally everywhere to stop counties and cities from subsidizing stadiums and all the extra police presence, or argue that corporations should be limited in extent and time for a singular purpose, I'm all for that.
Not sure where you get your ideas about what Mike personally believes about particular things. As far as i have been able to tell, he is all for limiting the powers of some of these creatures.
Not sure how any of the above is fascism, although the way many corp/gov interactions go, it has an element of reverse fascism to it.
I don't see how any debate is stifled, but everyone who opens up like you do generally gets a pass from much of the commentariat. But you do perhaps seem to subscribe to a form of libertarianism, which i have seen before, but not frequently at all, with which i find some common ground.
Maybe if you un-stifle yourself and engage a bit more constructively, others would join whatever discussion you might wish to have.
On the post: Proposed Law Would Turn US Borders Into Unblinking Eyes With A Thirst For Human DNA
Re: border status
On the post: Proposed Law Would Turn US Borders Into Unblinking Eyes With A Thirst For Human DNA
Re: Re: Those weren't jokes
You should apply your statistics to your opening paragraph, and any and all claims about the direct effects of terrorism in the US as well. Who is selling what, now?
On the post: Proposed Law Would Turn US Borders Into Unblinking Eyes With A Thirst For Human DNA
Building America's Trust Act
Oh. So by "borders" they mean "agencies and offices of government"? That would be venue for installing cameras and all the other listed efforts that might lead to more trust for America (I think they mean the US).
On the post: FCC Begins Weakening The Definition Of Quality Broadband Deployment To Aid Lazy, Uncompetitive ISPs
Re: Who is Your Target Audience?
I can't even understand some people's definition of "the left", but they are happy to push it everywhere.
Your additional comments (qualifications for the right, or something?) made me realize i have a question. What is it about BLM which is inherently "left"?
On the post: FCC Begins Weakening The Definition Of Quality Broadband Deployment To Aid Lazy, Uncompetitive ISPs
Re: Wall Street is very short sighted
On the post: Broadband ISP Cox Will Now Charge You $50 More To Avoid Usage Caps, Overage Fees
On the post: The Snopes Fight Is Even Way More Complicated Than We Originally Explained
Re: "Even Way More Complicated" -- Who cares?
On the post: The Snopes Fight Is Even Way More Complicated Than We Originally Explained
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>