It was defeated. I said it was fear-mongering. Why warn someone of something that you don't have any proof is a threat?
The other line I said, which I don't know if it as effective, but it amused me greatly:
"My great, great, great grandfather made his fortune by genetically altering flowers to have new colors, so this isn't as new as people think"
If you have a great idea, you should see it through. You can always go back to college later, and the experience of pursuing it will be far more beneficial to you than any class you could possibly take.
If you don't have a great idea, than dropping out of college is stupid and will gain you very little.
I feel like a lot of replies to your posts are missing your point, which is sad because it is a good one.
I believe the parents point is this:
If you WANT more music/art from someone, than a system that allows that person to spend the majority of their time working on it is beneficial to both of you.
Saying that someone doesn't deserve to be rewarded for their efforts and given the opportunity to pursue them full time will only result in getting less of what they have to offer.
I looked this up. On the moon you'd have an average of 1.282 seconds latency (the distance from the earth to the moon in light seconds).
It's interesting because I always though of the speed of light limitation as something that prevented serious space travel. But it looks like there may be some much more practical concerns than I thought.
Unfortunetely, its not the mobile device market, its the apple tablet market. Aside from the discountinued HP touchpad, all of the other tablets and phones still use the widescreen resolution.
For giant monitors I prefer widescreen, and for phones that have to have the widescreen form factor anyway, it makes sense.
But for the tablets the narrow approach doesn't make sense. In portrait mode its to skinny to fit everything in it, and in landscape mode its hard to fit everything with the limited height.
So are you trying to say that if we'd just be ok with having a significantly higher death rate from car accidents, as well as a large cloud of smog over every city, than we'd be able to save 15k on a new car, AND shave a couple seconds off of getting up to 60mph?
Your post is very well spoken and clearly well informed, but I'm not quite sure what the message I'm supposed to take away from it is.
#1 reason I like Git is:
With tortoiseGit, you can right click on any folder and choose "create repository here"
And than you're done.
Its that easy
It isn't just physical harm that people are afraid of.
Whether its asking out a pretty girl, trying to start your own business, asking for a raise, or simply presenting an unorthodox idea, there are all kinds of important risks in the real world.
If we all tried to play it safe, never took a chance, than our society would simply stagnate.
Ultimately its the people who aren't afraid to take a chance that will lead us, and if we're doing something to reduce the risktakers in the name of being safe, than I fear for our future.
Nothing in LA Noire was particularly fun to do. The chase scenes were tedious, the clue hunting was boring and monotonous (this coming from a guy who loves adventure games), and the inability to retry things and skip through dialog just made the conversations painful and annoying.
In fact everyone I've talked about it tends to agree. The problem with the game is there's no fun in it. Nothing to look forward to, or ever care about.
Reading this article, at least now I know why.
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I websurfed, weak and weary,
Quoth the server, "404".
"All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance -- unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion -- have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.
Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/overview.html#ixzz1QVrlPM12
"
The states can regulate obscenity so long as it has no free speech to protect. If the kid had bought a hustler or playboy and not just a magazine full of naked women, they would have had a pretty solid case to work with as he could have claimed he was interested in the information in it, but since it was deemed as just obscene, they were allowed to to restrict it to minors.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=629
I skimmed through it, and they seem to be looking at it as pure obscenity, so the free speech issue never comes up.
Video games on the other hand have a much stronger case for free speech. And once you can prove that it is trying to convey ideas, than it is protected by first amendment
Yeah, I respect that. And certainly if these emulators had been released under similar licenses, than there would be nothing to complain about.
Ultimately I think it comes down to at least making a vague effort to try to respect the wishes of the person who did all that work for free.
If the author says have at it, than have at it. But if not, I feel like the very least we can do to reward the time they put into it, is to not try and do something that will make them regret it.
True. But I don't have to feel sorry for the guy when he gets pulled
Yeah, I think "based off of some other work" is to weak of a statement. It's more like "blantantly ripping someone else's work off"
I agree with you on principle. We grow by building off of what others have done. Its the fundamental principle that lets us keep moving forward.
But this guy expressly ignored the original creator's wishes by trying to sell it even when they said it's not allowed. And to make matters worse, it seems that the original creates DID make a android port. So not only did he practically steal their work, he used to to compete with their own product.
Its not that I have a problem with selling OSS software. My issue is with someone who is not actively involved in a project profitting off the work of those who are.
The way I see it is, Team A puts a lot of effort and pride into something they want to share with everyone. For whatever reason, Team A decides not to sell it or try to make money, they instead decide to let other people have it so that they can enjoy it too.
Person B comes in, recompiles project and than sell its to other people. And Team A doesn't get any of that money, or benefit in anyway from them doing so.
Person B==Sleezeball.
But I don't know, maybe I am to biased on this. I wrote a plugin for Notepad++ that lets you compare files, and all I can think about it is how shitty I'd feel if someone took my source recompiled it as Compare++ and started trying to charge people money for it. Even if whatever license I put it under allows such things, I still think its disrespectful.
"I've seen the forgeries I've sent out." -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US), about forging net news articles
