A case in point. It's nice to know that companies can, literally, sweep the earth from under our feet, and there's nothing we can do about it...

Not for long, hopefully! Proposed Changes

As one of the talking heads is quoted as saying in the above linked article:

A 'rare' and sensible insight! Now let's hope the government can get a move on actually passing it, as a bill, through Parliment.

echo^^

While I'm sure there will be anti-patent people saying that since the process is "Inspired by origami and children's pop-up books" there's nothing novel or original in it, and prior art should invalidate their patents, for once I'm not sure I agree. I watched the video, and was inspired. Disruptive applications doesn't say the half of it!

And do you take the elevator to the company gym? :P

I laugh the equivalent of 100 stomach crunches everytime I see people drive a mile to the gym to use the running machines...

She was obviously referring to flying pyramids.

Bet you, and the headmaster, felt stupid years later when Stargate came out and she was proved right...

Hmm, in his words:

Personally I disagree with this 'philosophy', and his opinion that story telling games is done badly, or only through use of cutscenes. I remember playing games like System Shock (the original version, kind of remade as bioshock, I believe) or Deus Ex, to mention two story driven fpses and, for example, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows over Amn in which the short and very infrequent 'cutscenes' definitely added colour to a long and convoluted plot.

It is true poor gameplay will ruin a game, whereas lack of story might not (c.f. the Civ franchise), but that's no reason not to put a story in if the game allows for one. In this though I do agree with him, 2 mins play, 2 mins cutscene, repeat is not the way to do it!

For those who cannot be bothered to actually rtfa:

The actual kickstarter page

I have to say, this strikes me as a damn fine idea. Even if people do not participate in the kickstarter itself the game will still be on sale on Steam once completed, and with a large marketing headstart. win-win.

1. There will be less glaciated area, worldwide, next year than there was last year. There will be less glaciated area, worldwide, in 5 years time than there is now.
2. The arctic ice sheets will contain less ice next year than they did last year, measured across the year. The arctic ice sheets will contain less ice in 5 years time than they do this year, measured across the year.

Simply put, some people can see further than the end of their nose! (I apologise, implying you are shortsighted is not likely to help.)

Imagine a large pot, full of water, let's say a gallon. Now, put that pot on a stove. Does all the water in that pot, in your mind, immediately become hot, or boil? No? Why not? Is it going to get hotter? How long does it take? Is the end result in doubt? How much bigger than that pot is the Earth? Is the end result in doubt?

I'm 99% sure your answer to the last question will differ to your answer to the identical question that preceded it. To be fair so does mine, but only as a matter of degree. Or to rephrase that, the only doubt in my mind is the exact number of degrees, and that is inherently unpredictable, due to the action or inaction of others.

You may chose to believe what you want, and I'll defend your right to do so. It is your actions, and the actions of everyone else (and that includes business as usual inaction) that I take issue with. The problem with beliefs is that they seem remarkably resistant to logic. And it is logic that is the basis for science, not what we wish were true, not what we believe!

I tend to agree, but there's a small problem with this scenario, one which the courts are probably very aware of, the outcome of which results in the same situation of indefinite incarceration as before:

You (claim) to have forgotten the password to your encrypted drive. Unfortunately for you the drive still exists, and remains in the 'legal custody' of the law enforcement brigade.
1. The judge doesn't believe you: You get jailed, indefintely, for contempt, for refusing the divulge the password. Aforementioned law enforcement folks do their best to decrypt your drive.
2. The judge does believe you: You get jailed (and maybe bailed, depending on the nature of the beast) awaiting continuation of the trial, while aforementioned law enforcement folks do their best to decrypt your drive. This could take some time...

If anything, 2. is an argument for using relatively weak passwords, especially if you have a bad memory. After all, it is a truism in IT security that if someone has physical access to your machine you have no security. The only question is time, and in this case how much of it you want to do for your non-compliance (vs. the amount you will do for whatever crime you've been accused of, if found guilty).

Do you still go to those terrorist meetings where you discuss blowing stuff up and assassinating heads of state with the other members of your terrorist cell?

1. Yes
2. No

Failure to answer will be seen as a sign of guilt.

What does a film producer produce?

There's more to being a successful musician / band than simply writing a few catchy lyrics and putting them to a banging bass beat. (Feel free to change the preceeding words to suit your preferred genre of music, the principle remains the same...)

A good producer will make suggestions and edits, offer encouragement and support, provides logistical services and marketing...all of which contribute to the appeal of a band, and their financial success. Sure, there will be musicians that can do these things from themselves, but that's not where their skill set lies. After all, presumably what they're good at is making music.

I'm not disagreeing with what appears to be the majority that record companies on the whole are partially failing in their role, especially in regards modern day logistics and distribution, but, I'm sorry, the issue is not as clear cut, black and white simple as most people seem to make out. If it were then most, if not all ,musicians and bands simply wouldn't use major record companies, they'd do it all themselves. Some do. But not the ones who have become household names. Surely that must tell us something?

Wally! ;-)

ps: Pronounced s. Whenever you see the letters 'p' and 's' together at the start of a word, do not pronounce the 'p', for example in pseudonym, psilocybin, or psst!
y: Pronounced eye or, more simply i. Why? Exactly! Um...
che. Pronounced key. Because without it everything would remain locked up in your brain.

And if that doesn't work there's always the fall back: Because it is!

Ah, thank you for the clarification. (Would have been easier to see if you'd replied to my post rather than its parent, but it's the thought that counts)

And, in that case, apologies to LostCluster, for my lack of faith ;-)

I do still agree that the interesting thing about this ruling is the equivalence of game data & goods.

Unless the summary has been changed, and I see no edit addendum you appear to have failed your speed reading / skimming test:

And, despite most of the comments I've read so far, this is something new (tm). Money stolen from you (or your bank) at knife point has a real world equivalent and use. Car keys stolen from you at knife point have a physicality, and real world use. A book stolen from you at knife point has a real world, physical, existence.

This ruling puts (some) virtual items on the same footing. Now, I don't think this is an earth shattering precedent, but it is interesting for a couple of reasons: It goes some way towards legitimising virtual currencies (with attendant tax implications); it raises questions regarding the sale of virtual (game) goods, between players in mmo's, in violation of the tos of the game (according to first sale doctrine, and hence with additional legal implications); and it drives home the point, as if it really needed it, that 'on a computer' is not a valid distinction for avoiding laws, or something that requires new laws.

In reality I do suspect that none of the above (except maybe the taxable side of online 'earnings' will ever arise from this, but it is, to my mind anyway, still interesting, and not nothing. A rare display of common sense from a judge, if nothing else.