I have gambled many times many ways and it is nowhere near as addictive as gaming is. i have played video games since i was 5 i think, i am currently 36. in my 31 years as a gaming addict there never was enough time to game... oh i learned a few other hobbies but gaming was always the excuse for someone to get me to read or do other acts besides the gaming. portable gaming just made the problem worse, and i started to have money -- to rent games. so i rented. my grades in school suffered because i always had to have that gaming fix. when i skimmed through school and finally got a job, i used that income to you guessed it game. i had 14 credit cards and an inability to hold down a job -- because it interfered with my gaming. had i hit rock bottom? nope i got a bankruptcy and eliminated all my debt all $35,000 of it and with nothing to show for it, because i lived off cash advances when i couldn't hold down jobs just to keep all the bills paid. and that wasn't rock bottom not yet. i had had problem in years past with starcraft, and broke, living with my parents i found the sequel to a game i had played years ago, the old game being warcraft II. warcraft III was way more addictive and when it's expansion came out i played it for a long time warcraft III The frozen throne is a game i literally played 8,000 ladder matched games plus countless thousands of non ladder games such as DOTA. this was rock bottom for me. i would play a good 14-16 hours a day into just one game i read this website and other while waiting for matches or when i felt the game was lost and stopped trying. i was having issues sleeping at night and i wasn't on any drugs not even caffeine since i had no funding to pay for it. i basically cracked and developed PTSD but it went unnoticed and i finally got help i needed, for other issues that were not related to the gaming but perhaps were increased by it. i had to quit games cold turkey as in hospitals it is very hard to game seriously because everything with a cord is prohibited and i only saw people using handheld games, like a hand held poker game, for example. nothing even as close to as addictive as the warcraft 3 game. tbh i even occasionally play games but i set pretty strict rules about when and how much i can game. fortunately i like to read and watch movies, and it no longer is 'instead of gaming' but rather because i don't dare game more than a few times a day (currently playing League of Legends a dota clone, which was spawned from warcraft to keep up micro skills of ladder players.) it is a free to play game, and is slightly easier to play than regular warcraft 3 tft. but even with all this addiction i never bought in game items (and there are plenty of them to buy) though i can see how people can be addicted to that like gambling. the adrenaline rush of playing a game is way more addictive than drugs or money, because there are ways to find cheaper fixes that are just as addictive. money is nice don't get me wrong, and yes chemicals can make you feel good but, dude an AAA video game is $60 a computer to play it starts around $400, for decent parts, my personal rig cost me $1100 in parts, including os cost, and it plays everything out there. how much heroin can $1,200 buy you? whereas between renting and internet research finding the game that addicts you most can take you down a long and windy road that only requires a little bit of electricity compared to drug costs to get the same effect.
"The car's systems are advanced enough to force a controlled deceleration while maninting everything else"
until that Blue screen of death comes up, doh!
kosher roughly means blessed.
that is why there is a 'kosher' hot dog and 'kosher' pickles they are blessed by rabbi under judaic law. however jesus preached a few things about people who said they had to teach the laws to children when those laws were not written by god. at least thats my take on these matters...
where we're going we need roadways! solar freakin roadways! and before you say 'can't be done' the people doing it are doing it in the snowbelt. if you haven't seen the video watch it! i know they funded already but i was skeptical until they said they had used it in the snowbelt.
"More to the point, now that Occulus is highly capitalized via its facebook deal, its quite capable of ramping up production to meet demand at its price, BUT, it seems to me occulus dont seem to want its products in wide use yet , probably to protect their reputation whilst its still in development. If they just wanted cash, they could simply produce more."
this is exactly my point. if they wanted to they would take a page from sony http://store.sony.com/wearable-hdtv-2d-3d-virtual-7.1-surround-sound-zid27-HMZT3W/cat-27-catid-3D-Personal-Viewer and sell a vitual 750" screen as seen at 65' away. but they want real games that look nice and are meant for gaming. and sony is going to release a version that can be motion compensated for, as it's tv model is designed to be sit down and do your best to not move, because if you move the image doesn't change and sensitive folks get vertigo. whereas the gaming model is to track and move the image as smoothly as possible with as few vertigo as possible.
the occulus rift is a devkit, people have been asking for 3-d headset displays since digital tech made it possible. those people are not ready to own a rift yet, because it has one major game engine, and decent games take time to mature. i bought planetary annihilation when it was early in development and it was awesome but it is so much harder than a normal rts and the interface is so different that i stopped playing it, i might have enjoyed it better had they had weaker ais or no nukes allowed modes, which maybe it has by now, but playing it from beta was not a plesant experience. saying that the occulus rift should 'let the market decide the price' when games are all crappy and in early alpha development would be almost suicide. i bought the original playstation 1 just for final fantasy and the few rpgs they had all got me mad at buying a ps, cause i had no games i liked. sony almost died to me, but eventually good games came along and made it worth the money. so there is a litlle chicken and egg dillema because in order for people to 'eat the chicken' at a bbq no one can eat the mutant egg of the chicken for breakfast. if you do what philips did with the CDI (computer disc interactive) and release the system to everyone without securing launch titles it will fail. if you launch a system like sony, but promise on paper lots of games, maybe it will work for some, but others will be pissed at the lack of quality of the games that were rushed to fill the void. however what the rift is trying to do is they somehow knew the first chicken would come from that egg, and decided to hatch feed and grow it until it could lay eggs for chickens and once that was successful then they had bbq, and some people could still eat the eggs, of the other chickens.
i think that for as long as i have waited for VR in the home that the occulus and the ps4 both getting head tracking VR is very cool, and i will use whichever one works better. so if occulus or sony delays their head tracking vr units i might even get impatient and get the one that is released, rather than wait on reviews. but only if that model can do 3-d bluray movies (i have 3 3d bluray capable computers if you count my ps3) either with a standard pc or with a ps4. if it doesn't do movies it is dead to me, and games are less important. support for google earth streetview would be very, very interesting.
correction dk1 units sel for $470 dk2 are not even on ebay yet. and dk1 weren't hd capable... they were more to just test game engines.
i guess if dogs can smell memory sneakernets into dictatorships to provide outside information is doomed. i wonder can they smell a blu-ray too? cause 25 GB is a lot of storage...
mark, the oculus rift2 devkit can play a few game engines, but it is not released to the public yet! it's not about shipping a full retail model in china, it is that chinese companies are requiring their employees to buy (at $350) the one per custom limit then selling them on ebay or like sites for $470 http://www.ebay.com/itm/BRAND-NEW-Oculus-Rift-DK1-Virtual-Reality-Headset-NEVER-USED-/151342637965?pt=US_Video_Glasses&hash=item233cb9638d
$120 profit at posting time. to compound the issue the devkit includes chips that have been discontinued, and are no longer available unlike a 'retail' model which will use custom chips, from a vendor like intel or amd or someone else.
no landfills are very dry. to avoid contaminating local water they tend to have a 500 year plastic liner, and what little moisture is there from the garbage itself. i know they put off methane but that is largely from organics not plastics.
sorry i was lazy that day here is a link http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/biodegradable.htm
plastic can be made of corn and sugar. that does not make 'plastic' a viable food. however we have been requiring biodegradable plastics for decades now, they don't degrade in landfills but they do in the wild. also recycling has been vastly improved and that means less plastic in landfills and in the wild. scientists thought they'd see more plastic but people have suggested this is based on the amount of plastic produced, without even considering possible reasons like more recycling. also some pretty bright people have figured out where in the ocean to place nets that capture all the floating garbage, without having to use ships to 'drag' all across the ocean. perhaps that information is old, perhaps someone has been harvesting ocean plastic to recycle it.
"The difficulty with anonymous cowards is knowing when one is the same person. The coward to which Chrisq was responding was appeal to Descartes. The problem with Descartes is that you can only prove your own existence to yourself. In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence. So even though you and others say that there's no evidence that I'm existing in a dream or simulation there's no way for me to verify their existence."
while i can't prove that i exist to you, surely i can reference data that suggests that corporations will do almost anything to raise the bottom line, and that includes lying, cheating, and stealing.
red dwarf mocked virtual reality in it's 5th season(1993), yet it took the japanese 2 years later to build a mono-chromatic(red lcd) despite red dwarf mocking full immersion which i think there are finally ps4 vr headsets as well as the oculus rift.
technically flat screens are old tech was it in 1989 was my first handheld with a lcd was a gameboy, and my first laptop in 1997 came with a color lcd screen and technically there was no barrier to an oculus rift after lcds became reliable. other than bandwidth related to high definition signaling.
now we 'see' these bluetooth smart watches when people said we'd never have a radio watch that could be used to call people even if it's radio range is literally measured in feet.
what does all this prove? it proves that companies are greedy and have screwed people over time and time again with garbage tech designed to last fewer years.
i can also prove that laserprinters are still using 1994 processors to handle the buffers of the print queue. when a watch has a chip that can drive a low def screen and digital radio transmission 'proven' 1994 tech is still preferred over energy saving modern chips.
So basically, if they just shift from LIVE to a TIME DELAYED model, they could go right on transmitting and not be considered "performing" under the current act.
As J. Scalia points out, the 'standard' the Court has chosen is unclear. Maybe that would be legal, maybe it wouldn't be. We'll never know until either 1) Congress amends the law to be clear about that; 2) Someone tries it and the Court reverses this opinion in a useful way; or 3) Someone tries it and the Court rules squarely on that in light of this opinion.
One thing is for sure: Only someone with lots of resources and a lot of daring will even attempt to find out by actually trying it.
Yes. Sorry about the fucked up apostrophes, quotation marks, etc. I just copied and pasted from the opinion without previewing the post, like everyone does. I can't believe it's 2014 and this sort of thing still isn't automatically handled properly.
This case boiled down to one major issue: Whether the allegedly infringing conduct in this case was engaged in by either Aereo, or by its users. Don't get hung up on the public performance v. private performance issue; it was really certain that if Aereo was liable, that the performance was public; if it were the users, it would be private.
J. Scalia's dissent does a good job of explaining the issue:
There are two types of liability for copyright infringement: direct and secondary. As its name suggests, the former applies when an actor personally engages in infringing conduct. Secondary liability, by contrast, is a means of holding defendants responsible for infringement by third parties, even when the defendants âoehave not themselves engaged in the infringing activity.â It applies when a defendant âoeintentionally induc[es] or encourag[es]â infringing acts by others or profits from such acts âoewhile declining to exer- cise a right to stop or limit [them].â
Most suits against equipment manufacturers and service providers involve secondary-liability claims. For example, when movie studios sued to block the sale of Sonyâ(TM)s Betamax videocassette recorder (VCR), they argued that Sony was liable because its customers were making unauthorized copies. Record labels and movie studios relied on a similar theory when they sued Grokster and StreamCast, two providers of peer-to-peer file-sharing software.
This suit, or rather the portion of it before us here, is fundamentally different. The Networks claim that Aereo directly infringes their public-performance right. Accordingly, the Networks must prove that Aereo âoeperform[s]â copyrighted works, Â106(4), when its subscribers log in, select a channel, and push the âoewatchâ button. That process undoubtedly results in a performance; the question is who does the performing. If Aereoâ(TM)s subscribers perform but Aereo does not, the claim necessarily fails.
The Networksâ(TM) claim is governed by a simple but profoundly important rule: A defendant may be held directly liable only if it has engaged in volitional conduct that violates the Act.
A comparison between copy shops and video-on-demand services illustrates the point. A copy shop rents out photocopiers on a per-use basis. One customer might copy his 10-year-oldâ(TM)s drawingsâ"a perfectly lawful thing to doâ" while another might duplicate a famous artistâ(TM)s copyrighted photographsâ"a use clearly prohibited by Â106(1). Either way, the customer chooses the content and activates the copying function; the photocopier does nothing except in response to the customerâ(TM)s commands. Because the shop plays no role in selecting the content, it cannot be held directly liable when a customer makes an infringing copy.
Video-on-demand services, like photocopiers, respond automatically to user input, but they differ in one crucial respect: They choose the content. When a user signs in to Netflix, for example, âoethousands of . . . movies [and] TV episodesâ carefully curated by Netflix are âoeavailable to watch instantly.â That selection and arrangement by the service provider constitutes a volitional act directed to specific copyrighted works and thus serves as a basis for direct liability.
The distinction between direct and secondary liability would collapse if there were not a clear rule for determining whether the defendant committed the infringing act. The volitional-conduct requirement supplies that rule; its purpose is not to excuse defendants from accountability, but to channel the claims against them into the correct analytical track. Thus, in the example given above, the fact that the copy shop does not choose the content simply means that its culpability will be assessed using secondary-liability rules rather than direct-liability rules.
So which is Aereo: the copy shop or the video-on-demand service? In truth, it is neither. Rather, it is akin to a copy shop that provides its patrons with a library card. Aereo offers access to an automated system consisting of routers, servers, transcoders, and dime-sized antennae. Like a photocopier or VCR, that system lies dormant until a subscriber activates it. When a subscriber selects a pro- gram, Aereoâ(TM)s system picks up the relevant broadcast signal, translates its audio and video components into digital data, stores the data in a user-specific file, and transmits that fileâ(TM)s contents to the subscriber via the Internetâ"at which point the subscriberâ(TM)s laptop, tablet, or other device displays the broadcast just as an ordinary television would.
The only question is whether those performances are the product of Aereoâ(TM)s volitional conduct.
They are not. Unlike video-on-demand services, Aereo does not provide a prearranged assortment of movies and television shows. Rather, it assigns each subscriber an antenna thatâ"like a library cardâ"can be used to obtain whatever broadcasts are freely available. Some of those broadcasts are copyrighted; others are in the public do- main. The key point is that subscribers call all the shots: Aereoâ(TM)s automated system does not relay any program, copyrighted or not, until a subscriber selects the program and tells Aereo to relay it. Aereoâ(TM)s operation of that system is a volitional act and a but-for cause of the resulting performances, but, as in the case of the copy shop, that degree of involvement is not enough for direct liability.
In sum, Aereo does not âoeperformâ for the sole and simple reason that it does not make the choice of content. And because Aereo does not perform, it cannot be held directly liable for infringing the Networksâ(TM) public-performance right.
However, that's not the decision that the Court reached. Instead, J. Scalia describes the Court's opinion as:
The Courtâ(TM)s conclusion that Aereo performs boils down to the following syllogism: (1) Congress amended the Act to overrule our decisions holding that cable systems do not perform when they retransmit over-the-air broadcasts;4 (2) Aereo looks a lot like a cable system; therefore (3) Aereo performs.
Making matters worse, the Court provides no criteria for determining when its cable-TV-lookalike rule applies. Must a defendant offer access to live television to qualify? If similarity to cable-television service is the measure, then the answer must be yes. But consider the implications of that answer: Aereo would be free to do exactly what it is doing right now so long as it built mandatory time shifting into its âoewatchâ function. Aereo would not be providing live television if it made subscribers wait to tune in until after a showâ(TM)s live broadcast ended. A subscriber could watch the 7 p.m. airing of a 1-hour program any time after 8 p.m. Assuming the Court does not intend to adopt such a do-nothing rule (though it very well may), there must be some other means of identifying who is and is not subject to its guilt-by-resemblance regime.
Two other criteria come to mind. One would cover any automated service that captures and stores live television broadcasts at a userâ(TM)s direction. That canâ(TM)t be right, since it is exactly what remote storage digital video recorders (RSâ"DVRs) do, and the Court insists that its âoelimited holdingâ does not decide the fate of those devices. The other potential benchmark is the one offered by the Gov- ernment: The cable-TV-lookalike rule embraces any entity that âoeoperates an integrated system, substantially dependent on physical equipment that is used in common by [its] subscribers.â The Court sensibly avoids that approach because it would sweep in Internet service providers and a host of other entities that quite obviously do not perform.
That leaves as the criterion of cable-TV-resemblance nothing but thâ(TM)olâ(TM) totality-of-the-circumstances test (which is not a test at all but merely assertion of an intent to perform test-free, ad hoc, case-by-case evaluation). It will take years, perhaps decades, to determine which automated systems now in existence are governed by the traditional volitional-conduct test and which get the Aereo treatment. (And automated systems now in contemplation will have to take their chances.)
The Court's opinion states that it doesn't have an effect beyond Aereo and Aereo-like services:
Aereo and many of its supporting amici argue that to apply the Transmit Clause to Aereoâ(TM)s conduct will impose copyright liability on other technologies, including new technologies, that Congress could not possibly have wanted to reach. We agree that Congress, while intending the Transmit Clause to apply broadly to cable companies and their equivalents, did not intend to discourage or to control the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies. But we do not believe that our limited holding today will have that effect.
For one thing, the history of cable broadcast transmis- sions that led to the enactment of the Transmit Clause informs our conclusion that Aereo âoeperform[s],â but it does not determine whether different kinds of providers in different contexts also âoeperform.â For another, an entity only transmits a performance when it communicates contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds of a work.
And we have not considered whether the public performance right is infringed when the user of a service pays primarily for something other than the transmission of copyrighted works, such as the remote storage of content.
But, as J. Scalia points out:
The Court vows that its ruling will not affect cloud-storage providers and cable- television systems, but it cannot deliver on that promise given the imprecision of its result-driven rule.
486 computers had 'mp3' codecs and they were around in 1991 and was standardized in 1994. standardized means many people had access to working code by then.