While Fair Use does not cover copying and entire work to give to your friend, that act is perfectly legal if you use Music CD-Rs with the music tax on them.
Putting "contract" in quotes doesn't mean you can get away with the fact there is no contract, at all.
Just like every other object I purchase, when I purchase it, it is mine to do with as I see fit, barring violations of the law.
And, yes, I do have the right to do anything not barred by law. That is the most fundamental of rights in the US, so fundamental it's not even listed except by inferences about 'due process'.
Among the many things the law allows (or, rather, does not disallow) me to do is to make copies on mediums that have the 'music tax' on them, like music CD-Rs, and pass them out. As many copies as I want, including ones made from other copies.
You fucktard. Go learn something about the law and stop reguritating what corporations say. You have the right to do anything you want with anything you own, barring violations of the law or explicit contracts to the contrary that you signed before purchase.
I'm sorry, your original post made it sound like you were more intelligent than you were.
I apologize for wasting your time.
And, BTW, you've hallucinated something, because that scene didn't happen. By the time Faith shows, up, everyone knows Buffy and Angel slept together, it having been a rather large plot point of the previous season.
Of course, by 'two sluts', I'm assuming you mean Faith and Buffy, which is a rather idiotic charactization of Buffy at that time. But whatever. I know this must be complicated for you, but 'slut' usually means 'a girl who sleeps with a lot of guys'.
Anyway, you're probably thinking about when Faith was asking if Buffy had ever slept with Xander, at the start of the episode 'Bad Girls', where we learn about Faith's life philosophy: Want, Take, Have.
Which means you just classifed a plot that involves Faith accidently killing a person, going deep into denial that she doesn't care about that, and eventually betraying all her friends for people who won't 'judge' her (When it's just her who's judging herself.) and who don't think she's not as good as Buffy...as a 'soap opera'.
Man, I need to start watching soap operas, apparently.
Well, yes, the issue is artifical stuff. And even combinations of stuff...dogs usually won't eat mushrooms that can kill them, if they're growing on the ground. They will eat them if you stick them in a slice of pizza, or even cook them in butter.
But, anyway, the point I was trying to make: If you want kids to stop eating unhealthily, give them healthy choices, and don't give them unhealthy choices until they are responsible enough to handle them.
At my school, for example, we didn't get any choices until high school, where we could buy a (nasty greasy) pizza instead of the real lunch, and we could purchase soft drinks at any time. (Although we obviously couldn't drink them in class.)
Well, actually, in elementary school, we could purchase ice creams, and if you just had lunch money, you could skip lunch, and just purchase two of them. Which eventually became such a problem they stopped letting people who didn't buy lunch get ice cream.
But, anyway, the real problem is they serve nasty unhealthy food. Even the 'healthy' choices are unhealthy. There's absolutely no problem with which food students pick, the problem is the menu, period.
Give students health pizza instead of greasy pizza. Give them apple, orange, grape, whatever juice, instead of 'juice' that's '15% real juice'. Give them toasted bagels instead of the infamous 'grease rolls'.
And actually flavor the goddamn vegetables.
Yes, it's going to cost 4 dollars instead of two. Get over it, bite the damn bullet, you can't make a real meal for 2 dollars. It will hurt less if you stop spending money on idiotic monitoring systems. Hell, go back to taking cash and punch cards.
The damn school. Yes, monitoring lunch seems a bit silly for 12 year olds...but it's not silly for 8 year olds. However, a saner solution would be for the school to not let them eat crap by only offering healthy things.
The real problem is that the school (and many parents) have almost no concept of 'gradual responsiblities'.
There's still some, though, but mainly at the school boundaries, which is why, for example, in high school, freshmen are treated like morons. Because they are. They step out of middle school, which is literally a way to cage children up so they aren't wandering out in traffic, into high school, where you can do things like buy soft drinks from machines and you have to pick your own classes. And it takes freshmen a year to figure out that, while they can do many things they couldn't do before, this includes 'acting like idiots'.
But no one ever seems to look at say 'What responsilities should we assume 5th graders should be able to handle?'.
Or things like 'What should we do if certain ones fail to be able to handle them?', which isn't really a reason to 'punish' them...they aren't 'bad', they're not at the assume maturity for their grade.
And, of course, the ones that resonates with this site, 'How should we handle ones that are much more responsible than their grade would indicate?'.
Let's get some child development specialists in here to tell us about when children should be responsible enough to wander the halls and still get to class on time without needing a 'hall pass', and when they should be responsible enough to not lie about having a dentist appointment, etc.
Of course, we'd feel free to alter the assumed responsiblity level of children if we learn they are not, in fact, that responsible, and make just them get a hall pass. Which should also rather embarrass them and make them resolved to be trustable.
It's perfectly safe to let two year olds decide what and when to eat, as long as you don't give them the option of stuff with sugar and other addictive substances in it.
People eat when they get hungry. If they fail to eat a certain thing they need, they will start craving it, or something with it in it.
It's perfectly safe at any age to remove the extremely unhealthy foods, and then let the kid eat as much of what remains in any combination at any time. You can even include the unhealthy stuff, although this can obviously result in an unhealthy kid. (And, yes, by any age, I technically include babies not on solid food, although they are actually incapable of the motor skills required to choose food, so that's moot.)
I really have to wonder how people think animals survive without someone telling them what to eat.
The danger comes about when they start eating too much or too little for phsycological reasons, or they gain access to unhealthy food and choose them over healthy foods because they taste better.
Sure. No taxpayers should have to pay for education.
And all education gained at the taxpayer's expense should be voided, right now. Go rip up your high school diploma, and probably your college one too. And back to school you go.
In the real world, you idiot, you're paying for their education because society paid for yours. It's not an unfair burden on childless people, it's a burden on people who were children. Which is, duh, everyone.
It arguably is unfair on immigrants from places with crappy education, and people who spring fully formed from their father's head. But no one else.
How the hell can you say you got a free lunch and then say:
But why should I feel compelled to give a kid a couple bucks every day so he can have what amounts to 50 cents worth of the crappiest battered and fried fishsticks dipped in rank heart-attack tartar sauce?
No one on a free or reduced lunch program has ever gotten any cash at all. The program simply doesn't work that way. You get a free or cheaper lunch.
And no school lunch program has ever made money in history. There's no mark-up on school lunches, in many places there's a mark-down, because the school takes in less money than it actually takes to make the food, so has to make up the difference out of its budget. (This was the exact reason that the first meal at my school was one dollar and the second was 2.20 or something...the meal actually cost 2.20, it's just the school made up the difference for the first meal.)
So saying it's 50 cents worth of food for 2 dollars is idiotic. Now, the school is obviously run by the government,and thus inefficent, but the inefficency is more than made up for by the prices the government gets...if you were to make any school lunch, it would cost at least the price you paid for it.
In fact, I dare you to make any nutrionally balanced meal for two dollars or whatever the going rate is now. No, wait, you have to make like ten different meals, so there's a menu. And all of them have to be something many kids will eat.
And, BTW, quite a few of us think providing meals for poor children is a hell of a lot better use of tax money than what laughingly passes for 'education' in this country. That's like the best possible justification of taxes in existence, feeding children who do not have enough food. And unlike food stamps or welfare, we know the money isn't going to support lazy parents, it's going to support kids who literally have no other options.
The assumption in my family was you didn't drink or smoke, and you ate at least somewhat healthy.
When we were young, soft drinks were special, once a week treats, not something we pulled out of the fridge. So was McDonalds.
And, so, at school, I ate the same way. Sure, I'd skip some vegatables or whatever, but I'd never consider eating a bag of chips for lunch, at least not willing, because that wasn't 'food', that was a snack.
I didn't do the silly trick in elementary school of purchasing two ice creams instead of one lunch, which enough kids did that they eventually stopped selling ice cream to kids who didn't buy lunch.
Likewise with soft drinks. Sure, once I got money and into high school with the vending machines, I'd buy them, and even randomly get addicted to caffeine, but not for lunch!
And now that we're grown up, I basically eat the same way. And don't smoke, and rarely drink. Not because I was repeatly told it was bad, but because the adults I saw didn't act that way.
Hell, if they want to make it a series, they could just give him a kid. Show him with a three year old for twenty seconds at the start of this movie, and then they can worry about casting the guy when they make the next one, where Ford will have a five minute cameo at the start.
I mean, there's like 60 years of history to work with at this point. Even if this one is set during the 60s, that lets them set the next one during the 80s.
Yes, but 'Pretender gene' sounds very odd to people who've never seen the show, and incredibly silly to anyone who watched the show and doesn't have it.
And Pretenders are the hypothetical people who have this and have amazing mental disipline and the ability to translating learning into immediate skills. It's an idealized version, someone who actually can do everything. Just like engineers on TV always know how to build exactly what's needed, or doctors always know of some revolutionary new treatment.
But no one is actually like that. It doesn't matter how good a layman's grasp of, say, human biology someone gets, that doesn't actually make them a doctor. Knowledge is not skills, and the ability to suck in all the data humanity knows about X in a week does not translate into being able to do X.
OTOH, if I were to get stranded on a desert island, I'd rather be with 5 of those people instead of 20 highly skilled people, because odds are someone knows, in theory, how to make a boat, and someone knows, in theory, how to navigate via the stars, and someone knows, in theory, how to find food, etc, etc. And eventually we can get from theory to practice. Whereas with the 20 we might have one boat engineer who can design a kickass boat, but can't even tell north from south at night. And 19 chemists or civil engineers.
And, of course, the show rocked, especially for people with this 'gene'. We always secretly thought we could do that.
BTW, I don't think it's a gene, anymore than ADD is genetic. I think it's 'over-stimulation' in childhood, where people end up always needing new things to think about.
It's not the 'Pretender gene', it's a sort of meta-ADD.
The ability to hyperfocus on one specific disipline and be able to fake it well enough, combined with the inability to just fucking pick a career, because everything else seems more interesting. It's classic ADD, except with a larger scope.
It's what many of the intelligent people who had ADD as kids evolve into. I'd call it 'adult ADD' except that's used for people who develop classic ADD as adults.
And the best way to decide what you want to actually do...figure out what you have the best grasp of in practice. Any fairly intelligent person with the ability to 'hyperstudy' something for three days straight can get a firm grasp of theory.
But can you do the math quantum physics requires?
Do you have the social skills that leading a social revolution requires? Politics is not logic-based.
Do you have the disipline to design complicated engineering projects in the correct way?
Do you have the skill to operate a musical instrument?
Etc, etc. Ignore what you know...you have the ability to know anything. Figure out what you can actually od, and then pick what you find most enjoyable, and leave everything else as a hobby.
When one puts a number on that URL, one is in fact representing oneself as that student.
Did you not read the article? To do that, they already had to be logged in as that student, and the assertation is that they accessed their own records. They didn't misrepresent themselves, and there was no security failure that let them see other people's.
The failure was the concept 'On date X, we will put a link within the system to this web page that already exists, so they can see their status', which is a fucking stupid form of security. And is trivially breakable by anyone who was paying attention last year.
Huh? Why would Lars recognize a droid he spent two days with 25 years earlier?
And wasn't CP3O a different color at the time?
And if he somehow recognized him, why would he say 'this might be your father's droid' to Luke, when he clearly doesn't want to talk about Anakin at all to Luke.
Whether or not he knew the real story, or believed Anakin died when 'Vader' purged all the Jedi, we don't know. But 'Luke's father' was clearly not a topic in Lars' house, except the safe 'He was a fighter pilot in the Clone Wars'. They didn't even tell him he was a Jedi.
Erm, all TVs, analog and digital, are already required to have a V-chip, which does exactly what you're talking about.
The reason the censors don't go away is because they never wanted to protect children, which is now a five minute process on any modern TV. It's because they don't want that content to exist at all.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the point of the expression, that you will not hold your breath until that time, because you'd die.
While Fair Use does not cover copying and entire work to give to your friend, that act is perfectly legal if you use Music CD-Rs with the music tax on them.
Just like every other object I purchase, when I purchase it, it is mine to do with as I see fit, barring violations of the law.
And, yes, I do have the right to do anything not barred by law. That is the most fundamental of rights in the US, so fundamental it's not even listed except by inferences about 'due process'.
Among the many things the law allows (or, rather, does not disallow) me to do is to make copies on mediums that have the 'music tax' on them, like music CD-Rs, and pass them out. As many copies as I want, including ones made from other copies.
You fucktard. Go learn something about the law and stop reguritating what corporations say. You have the right to do anything you want with anything you own, barring violations of the law or explicit contracts to the contrary that you signed before purchase.
Yeah, I can't wait until 1994 gets here!
I apologize for wasting your time.
And, BTW, you've hallucinated something, because that scene didn't happen. By the time Faith shows, up, everyone knows Buffy and Angel slept together, it having been a rather large plot point of the previous season.
Of course, by 'two sluts', I'm assuming you mean Faith and Buffy, which is a rather idiotic charactization of Buffy at that time. But whatever. I know this must be complicated for you, but 'slut' usually means 'a girl who sleeps with a lot of guys'.
Anyway, you're probably thinking about when Faith was asking if Buffy had ever slept with Xander, at the start of the episode 'Bad Girls', where we learn about Faith's life philosophy: Want, Take, Have.
Which means you just classifed a plot that involves Faith accidently killing a person, going deep into denial that she doesn't care about that, and eventually betraying all her friends for people who won't 'judge' her (When it's just her who's judging herself.) and who don't think she's not as good as Buffy...as a 'soap opera'.
Man, I need to start watching soap operas, apparently.
Season 5 of E:FC was what people think Buffy was if people didn't watch Buffy. ;)
But, anyway, the point I was trying to make: If you want kids to stop eating unhealthily, give them healthy choices, and don't give them unhealthy choices until they are responsible enough to handle them.
At my school, for example, we didn't get any choices until high school, where we could buy a (nasty greasy) pizza instead of the real lunch, and we could purchase soft drinks at any time. (Although we obviously couldn't drink them in class.)
Well, actually, in elementary school, we could purchase ice creams, and if you just had lunch money, you could skip lunch, and just purchase two of them. Which eventually became such a problem they stopped letting people who didn't buy lunch get ice cream.
But, anyway, the real problem is they serve nasty unhealthy food. Even the 'healthy' choices are unhealthy. There's absolutely no problem with which food students pick, the problem is the menu, period.
Give students health pizza instead of greasy pizza. Give them apple, orange, grape, whatever juice, instead of 'juice' that's '15% real juice'. Give them toasted bagels instead of the infamous 'grease rolls'.
And actually flavor the goddamn vegetables.
Yes, it's going to cost 4 dollars instead of two. Get over it, bite the damn bullet, you can't make a real meal for 2 dollars. It will hurt less if you stop spending money on idiotic monitoring systems. Hell, go back to taking cash and punch cards.
I really like the idea of solving a crappy situation with monitoring the people in that situation. Yeah, that's the ticket.
It was mule.
The damn school. Yes, monitoring lunch seems a bit silly for 12 year olds...but it's not silly for 8 year olds. However, a saner solution would be for the school to not let them eat crap by only offering healthy things.
The real problem is that the school (and many parents) have almost no concept of 'gradual responsiblities'.
There's still some, though, but mainly at the school boundaries, which is why, for example, in high school, freshmen are treated like morons. Because they are. They step out of middle school, which is literally a way to cage children up so they aren't wandering out in traffic, into high school, where you can do things like buy soft drinks from machines and you have to pick your own classes. And it takes freshmen a year to figure out that, while they can do many things they couldn't do before, this includes 'acting like idiots'.
But no one ever seems to look at say 'What responsilities should we assume 5th graders should be able to handle?'.
Or things like 'What should we do if certain ones fail to be able to handle them?', which isn't really a reason to 'punish' them...they aren't 'bad', they're not at the assume maturity for their grade.
And, of course, the ones that resonates with this site, 'How should we handle ones that are much more responsible than their grade would indicate?'.
Let's get some child development specialists in here to tell us about when children should be responsible enough to wander the halls and still get to class on time without needing a 'hall pass', and when they should be responsible enough to not lie about having a dentist appointment, etc.
Of course, we'd feel free to alter the assumed responsiblity level of children if we learn they are not, in fact, that responsible, and make just them get a hall pass. Which should also rather embarrass them and make them resolved to be trustable.
People eat when they get hungry. If they fail to eat a certain thing they need, they will start craving it, or something with it in it.
It's perfectly safe at any age to remove the extremely unhealthy foods, and then let the kid eat as much of what remains in any combination at any time. You can even include the unhealthy stuff, although this can obviously result in an unhealthy kid. (And, yes, by any age, I technically include babies not on solid food, although they are actually incapable of the motor skills required to choose food, so that's moot.)
I really have to wonder how people think animals survive without someone telling them what to eat.
The danger comes about when they start eating too much or too little for phsycological reasons, or they gain access to unhealthy food and choose them over healthy foods because they taste better.
And all education gained at the taxpayer's expense should be voided, right now. Go rip up your high school diploma, and probably your college one too. And back to school you go.
In the real world, you idiot, you're paying for their education because society paid for yours. It's not an unfair burden on childless people, it's a burden on people who were children. Which is, duh, everyone.
It arguably is unfair on immigrants from places with crappy education, and people who spring fully formed from their father's head. But no one else.
But why should I feel compelled to give a kid a couple bucks every day so he can have what amounts to 50 cents worth of the crappiest battered and fried fishsticks dipped in rank heart-attack tartar sauce?
No one on a free or reduced lunch program has ever gotten any cash at all. The program simply doesn't work that way. You get a free or cheaper lunch.
And no school lunch program has ever made money in history. There's no mark-up on school lunches, in many places there's a mark-down, because the school takes in less money than it actually takes to make the food, so has to make up the difference out of its budget. (This was the exact reason that the first meal at my school was one dollar and the second was 2.20 or something...the meal actually cost 2.20, it's just the school made up the difference for the first meal.)
So saying it's 50 cents worth of food for 2 dollars is idiotic. Now, the school is obviously run by the government,and thus inefficent, but the inefficency is more than made up for by the prices the government gets...if you were to make any school lunch, it would cost at least the price you paid for it.
In fact, I dare you to make any nutrionally balanced meal for two dollars or whatever the going rate is now. No, wait, you have to make like ten different meals, so there's a menu. And all of them have to be something many kids will eat.
And, BTW, quite a few of us think providing meals for poor children is a hell of a lot better use of tax money than what laughingly passes for 'education' in this country. That's like the best possible justification of taxes in existence, feeding children who do not have enough food. And unlike food stamps or welfare, we know the money isn't going to support lazy parents, it's going to support kids who literally have no other options.
The assumption in my family was you didn't drink or smoke, and you ate at least somewhat healthy.
When we were young, soft drinks were special, once a week treats, not something we pulled out of the fridge. So was McDonalds.
And, so, at school, I ate the same way. Sure, I'd skip some vegatables or whatever, but I'd never consider eating a bag of chips for lunch, at least not willing, because that wasn't 'food', that was a snack.
I didn't do the silly trick in elementary school of purchasing two ice creams instead of one lunch, which enough kids did that they eventually stopped selling ice cream to kids who didn't buy lunch.
Likewise with soft drinks. Sure, once I got money and into high school with the vending machines, I'd buy them, and even randomly get addicted to caffeine, but not for lunch!
And now that we're grown up, I basically eat the same way. And don't smoke, and rarely drink. Not because I was repeatly told it was bad, but because the adults I saw didn't act that way.
I thought that was called Middle School?
I mean, there's like 60 years of history to work with at this point. Even if this one is set during the 60s, that lets them set the next one during the 80s.
And Pretenders are the hypothetical people who have this and have amazing mental disipline and the ability to translating learning into immediate skills. It's an idealized version, someone who actually can do everything. Just like engineers on TV always know how to build exactly what's needed, or doctors always know of some revolutionary new treatment.
But no one is actually like that. It doesn't matter how good a layman's grasp of, say, human biology someone gets, that doesn't actually make them a doctor. Knowledge is not skills, and the ability to suck in all the data humanity knows about X in a week does not translate into being able to do X.
OTOH, if I were to get stranded on a desert island, I'd rather be with 5 of those people instead of 20 highly skilled people, because odds are someone knows, in theory, how to make a boat, and someone knows, in theory, how to navigate via the stars, and someone knows, in theory, how to find food, etc, etc. And eventually we can get from theory to practice. Whereas with the 20 we might have one boat engineer who can design a kickass boat, but can't even tell north from south at night. And 19 chemists or civil engineers.
And, of course, the show rocked, especially for people with this 'gene'. We always secretly thought we could do that.
BTW, I don't think it's a gene, anymore than ADD is genetic. I think it's 'over-stimulation' in childhood, where people end up always needing new things to think about.
The ability to hyperfocus on one specific disipline and be able to fake it well enough, combined with the inability to just fucking pick a career, because everything else seems more interesting. It's classic ADD, except with a larger scope.
It's what many of the intelligent people who had ADD as kids evolve into. I'd call it 'adult ADD' except that's used for people who develop classic ADD as adults.
And the best way to decide what you want to actually do...figure out what you have the best grasp of in practice. Any fairly intelligent person with the ability to 'hyperstudy' something for three days straight can get a firm grasp of theory.
But can you do the math quantum physics requires?
Do you have the social skills that leading a social revolution requires? Politics is not logic-based.
Do you have the disipline to design complicated engineering projects in the correct way?
Do you have the skill to operate a musical instrument?
Etc, etc. Ignore what you know...you have the ability to know anything. Figure out what you can actually od, and then pick what you find most enjoyable, and leave everything else as a hobby.
What computer store has the resources to program changes into an OSS application? What kind of crazy universe is this?
I will give all my damn business to a place that will sell me a 6 foot USB extension cable for less than 20 dollars.
Did you not read the article? To do that, they already had to be logged in as that student, and the assertation is that they accessed their own records. They didn't misrepresent themselves, and there was no security failure that let them see other people's.
The failure was the concept 'On date X, we will put a link within the system to this web page that already exists, so they can see their status', which is a fucking stupid form of security. And is trivially breakable by anyone who was paying attention last year.
I'm getting sick of the analogies that are idiotic here. If you compare a public website to a private residence, you're about as stupid as they come.
Tell me, who gave you authorization to go to slashdot.org? No one? Get the fuck out of here, you trespasser.
It's even sillier than the ATO, because it's not as if they could find out other people's information, just their own.
And wasn't CP3O a different color at the time?
And if he somehow recognized him, why would he say 'this might be your father's droid' to Luke, when he clearly doesn't want to talk about Anakin at all to Luke.
Whether or not he knew the real story, or believed Anakin died when 'Vader' purged all the Jedi, we don't know. But 'Luke's father' was clearly not a topic in Lars' house, except the safe 'He was a fighter pilot in the Clone Wars'. They didn't even tell him he was a Jedi.
The reason the censors don't go away is because they never wanted to protect children, which is now a five minute process on any modern TV. It's because they don't want that content to exist at all.