Michael Hopcroft Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 I really don't have a problem with game companies protecting their IPs. Especially in the case of the online games the article is talking about. With single player abandonware, at least the people putting it out seem conscious of not putting up stuff that actually has much chance of being re-issued in a new format (like bringing old console games back to handheld consoles and phones/tablets). The private server crowd seems to have a huge segment in it for the money. Let's say Sony shuts down EQ and EQ2 when (if) EQ Next comes out. (Unlikely, but this is a hypothetical.) Then some private servers for EQ and EQ2 spring up to "archive" the games for posterity. Whether they monetize their efforts or not (unlikely, running servers costs money, as does maintaining an online game), they are taking money out of the pockets of the IP owners. It doesn't matter if the IP owners have really deep pockets, it's still theft. Even making single player versions of the clients and distributing them has a similar, though likely smaller, effect. So, big fat "meh." If someone wants to run a game server, let them program a game to run on it. So there's no public domain for electronic media? This is not going to be a popular question, but has the idea of a public domain in the first place ceased to be relevant? If every work of intellectual pursuit is property (which nobody doubts), then the idea of a property with no owner is absurd. Wouldn't everything be owned by someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 See "Prior Art". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 The argument is the public IS someone...it's all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Everest is shedding giant chunks of glaciers, and it's putting climbers in danger death tribble 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Sure! Duke Nukem came out in 1907, didn't it? Well, there is that. My grandpa played it when he was a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Chemistry Ph.D. student illustrates her thesis in comic book death tribble 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted April 21, 2015 Report Share Posted April 21, 2015 Old Glory, New Controversy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted April 21, 2015 Report Share Posted April 21, 2015 Let Michelle Manhart be forever known as forsworn, an oathbreaker. Don't they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" in the Air Force? Trampling the flag is protected free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted April 21, 2015 Report Share Posted April 21, 2015 It's like the ultimate mixture of controversies. Can we fit immigration in there somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted April 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2015 New evidence on tool-assisted hunting by chimpanzees death tribble 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted April 21, 2015 Report Share Posted April 21, 2015 It's like the ultimate mixture of controversies. Can we fit immigration in there somewhere? Only in the sense that flat earth versus round earth is a controversy--i.e. the matter is entirely settled as far as any scholar or moderately sane layman is concerned, but there are still some crazies who support the incorrect side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted April 21, 2015 Report Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'm not sure why her playboy appearance was relevant. Or her military service. Cygnia 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted April 21, 2015 Report Share Posted April 21, 2015 Her military service is relevant because someone who has sworn or affirmed an oath to support and defend the Constitution should know better than to violate someone else's First Amendment right to free speech. Her Playboy appearance is relevant because some people would consider what she did with the flag there to be as bad as or worse than what the protesters were doing with theirs. wcw43921 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted April 21, 2015 Report Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'm not sure why her playboy appearance was relevant. Or her military service. One could make the argument that this incident brings up First Amendment issues, and Playboy has been a source of controversy and a supporter of First Amendment freedoms. Or one could figure that "Sex Sells" and her Playboy appearance was mentioned by the author to drive up interest in the story. As for her military service--I figure United States military personnel past and present are more likely to respect and even cherish the flag, having very likely joined up out of a sense of patriotism and desire to protect their country. (This may even apply to draftees, especially those before the Vietnam era.) One of the most touted arguments against desecrating the flag is the phrase, "Men and women have fought and died for that flag!" (See footnote) Manhart herself said that when she saw the protesters trampling the flag she thought of the flag-draped coffins bearing American servicemen, and that in her mind they were trampling on those coffins. So yes, her military service was relevant to the story, as it was her motivation for interfering with the protest. Let Michelle Manhart be forever known as forsworn, an oathbreaker. Don't they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" in the Air Force? Trampling the flag is protected free speech. I'm not a fan of flag desecration, but I agree--although it's not the worst thing she could have done. This story tells about a 2004 incident where a protester at an appearance by Dick Cheney was attacked by a 66-year old former United States Marine. This was a man exercising his right to petition the Government--the Vice President--for redress of grievances, and he was put in a headlock and his mouth gagged. The man who did it was very likely applauded for his action ("Way to go, Marine! Semper Fi!") and I imagine that if someone were to tell him to his face that he forsook his oath to uphold the Constitution, that he went back on his word--that someone would likely get attacked himself. Then there are all the American military personnel who participated in the "enhanced interrogation techniques" inflicted upon people suspected of terrorism and insurgency in Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere in the world, in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Men and women who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution--to bear true faith and obedience to same--and few, if any, stood up to say that it was wrong, that it should not be done. They feared the consequences of disobeying their orders, of "letting the terrorists win," and so they dishonored themselves and their nation by allowing these things to happen, and by participating in them. Yes, Ms. Manhart violated her oath--but she is by no means the most egregious offender. (Footnote) The problem with this argument is that the US flag is not the only flag--and our freedom not the only cause--for which men and women have given their lives. Tyrants, warmongers, liberators, egalitarians--causes just and unjust, noble and hateful, have had their supporters who were willing to give their lives, and did so--perhaps even gladly. Dying or sacrificing for a cause does not give the cause any greater credence or nobility--the cause itself must be worth the sacrifice. But if you try to say this to someone who opposes desecration you need to be very careful, lest that person take it the wrong way, i.e., "You're saying German soldiers died for Naziism? Are you comparing American soldiers to Nazis? HOW DARE YOU!!!" Just a word of caution. Lucius and Vurbal 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted April 22, 2015 Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 Sounds like this Russian Anti aircraft system was never exported to Ukraine. http://www.armamentresearch.com/russian-96k6-pantsir-s1-air-defence-system-in-ukraine/ But of course there are no Russian troops in Ukraine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 22, 2015 Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 Old Glory, New Controversy Let Michelle Manhart be forever known as forsworn, an oathbreaker. Don't they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" in the Air Force? Trampling the flag is protected free speech. It's like the ultimate mixture of controversies. Can we fit immigration in there somewhere? I've always liked this response: NSFW Language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted April 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 Computer Killer! death tribble 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 22, 2015 Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 Computer Killer! Yeah, that's a good advert for responsible gun ownership right there. ...he's a homeopath. LOL that explains the rage I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndianaJoe3 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Yeah, that's a good advert for responsible gun ownership right there. ...he's a homeopath. LOL that explains the rage I guess. Now I'm trying to picture a homeopathic gun. One bullet in 1,000,000,000 magazines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 1,000th a full charge in the shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 So when you shoot your TV, you do it in the name of Elvis. In whose name do you shoot your computer? Hm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Ada Lovelace? tkdguy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Now I'm trying to picture a homeopathic gun. One bullet in 1,000,000,000 magazines? Squirt Gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Computer Killer! Terrible group. That guy really needs more practice, he clearly hasn't mastered the fundamentals. tkdguy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Model for Rockwell's Rosie the Riveter painting dies at 92 death tribble 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts