Ok, what exactly has The Register done to draw such hostility? Sure they are biased. But do they get the facts wrong? National Enquirer basically just makes things up. The Register seems to be more of a commentary on the IT industry and should certainly be taken with a grain of salt, but I don't think that makes them all that bad. Hell, most, if not all, news sources are biased in some way. At least you know the biases of The Register. They are quite blatant about it.
I am assuming that you are simply trolling, but since there are many uninformed people out there that would be inclined to believe what you say, I feel I have to respond. Bon Apetite!
fact: a gun in the house is more likely to fire a bullet in to the body of a member of that household than an intruder or criminal.
First of all, this much over-used "fact" comes from a single study (Kellermann Arthur & Reay Don, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.) that has long since been discredited. If you'd like to find out what guns in the home are really likely to do, read Gary Kleck'sstudy. He's a former gun-control nut that has seen the light after doing his own studies. According to him, guns are used in defense of home and family between 1 million and 2 million times a year in the US. In the vast majority of these cases the gun isn't even fired. In the majority of the rest of the cases, nobody is injured.
fact: armed robbery adds significant amount of jail time to a sentence than an unarmed one.
Sure, and murder adds quite a bit to a jail sentence too, but it's not gonna matter much to the victim.
fact: the police are currently outgunned and outarmed over criminals because of the NRA's opposition to even the most COMMON SENCE gun control laws.
This makes very little sense to me. Automatic weapons, and many semi-automatic weapons are already outlawed everywhere except under special circumstances and with special licenses. How exactly are police outgunned? Outnumbered, sure. But outgunned? The problem is the same one I mentioned before. Criminals don't obey the law!! Duh! That's why they're criminals! You expect that if we outlaw guns that the criminals will just give them up and never try to get them again? What planet do you live on?
fact: the 2nd amendment not only says "militia".. it says "well organized militia", which is something you gun nuts are way too quick to ignore. Most people who own guns in the U.S. do not take proper safety precautions, they do not know how to properly care for and fire their weapons, and THERE IS NO FSCKING WAY they could be considered "well organized militias"
This is the only thing you've said that makes any kind of sense at all. The one thing that I actually might be inclined to support is a firearms license. Similar to a driver's license, it would certify that you know how to properly handle, fire, and secure a firearm. It would not be tied to any individual firearm, but there could likely be different classes of license for different sorts of guns. The problem with requiring such a license for ownership is that it can be abused by the government to prevent certain people from owning guns, for arbitrary reasons, even if they could pass the license requirements. I don't think it's a good idea for us to have to beg the government for the right to defend ourselves and our families.
As for the militia part, let me paraphrase something that has been written elsewhere: "the "militia" the second amendment refers to is not a formal military unit -- which the Constitution forbids states to raise [Art. I ' 10, cl. 3 -- but a colonial system which required that every household be armed and every trustworthy man serve with his own arms." There are some very different views on both sides. We aren't likely to settle those differences here on/.
Except for the fact that all able-bodied men, and in this age of enlightenment it would include women as well, are considered part of the militia. That's the way it was when the Constitution was written, and if the shit hit the fan today, it would be the same. We're too damn soft these days. Attempting to confiscate all the guns would be the stupidest possible thing I can think of. No possible way to get them all. No way to prevent more from coming into the country (witness the War On Drugs for confirmation of that). So we end up with a disarmed population, armed criminals, and way too fucking few police to make the slightest bit of difference. Yeah.. I can see how that would be such a huge improvement.
They can ask you to leave any time they want, for any reason.
This is where your argument is flawed, I believe. They can't tell you to leave for just any reason. They can tell you to leave if you're protesting because they can reasonably claim that you are disturbing their customers. They can't tell you to leave simply because you're comparing prices. That's an expected behavior for customers. They can't tell you to leave because you're black. That would not be protected.
It has nothing to do with who paid for what. Disney takes stuff that has been around forever and remakes it, and then tries to make sure that their stuff never becomes available to anyone else to remake... ever. Disney deserves to get fucked because of the way they have been fucking the public over for decades. Marvel has done no such thing. Perhaps you can see why people don't feel the hostility towards Marvel that they do towards Disney?
When I was designing some sites for the Air Force a while back, I had to make sure they passed all the tests for availability to those with disabilities. Sucks if Congress doesn't have to do that, this being a democracy and all. Guess people with disabilities just don't need access to our government.
Re:No, you can't get MTV a la cart, read it again.
on
Cable TV A La Carte?
·
· Score: 1
I thought that's why they put filters on the cable going into the house or building. To prevent you from getting service that you haven't paid for.
Well, since these are the people that Rosen and the RIAA are concerned with persuading, it makes sense that these are the people that she would want to be speaking to. Do you think they should have had some soccer moms and middle managers thrown in for good measure or something?
The only commodity being sold is the time that it takes someone to gather the plat to sell on ebay. Since the vast majority of us sell our time (and expertise or muscle as well in most cases) to make a living, this doesn't seem very different.
As someone else pointed out, #1 is perfectly legit since he wasn't talking about broadband vs. AOL, but dialup. #2 you already conceded. #4 isn't really a reason, more of an excuse. As for #3, yeah, that could be a problem for some people, so that's really the only one that I agree with. All in all though, I don't think his post was elitist at all.
No problem. You point to the sign that says you don't sell NC17 or whatever games to anyone under 18. Just like they have posted signs about cigarettes and alcohol.
I have a couple of warts on my foot. I've been getting a laser treatment. They zap my foot repeatedly with a laser to kill the warts. It's not much fun, trust me. That took care of the worst one, but there are a couple others that were stubborn. Now my doctor has me putting this cream on them at night and then covering it with duct tape. In the morning I remove the tape and scrub the area with a pumice stone while I'm showering. It's only been a week so far, but it's looking pretty good. Hopefully they'll be gone for good pretty soon.
It never ceases to amaze me how common it is for slashdotters to fail to understand that there is a difference between something which is infinitely reproduceable for virtually no cost and something which is not. Trying to treat them exactly the same is simply moronic.
Nah. Linux doesn't support DRM. It can't, since the source is available and anyone could remove or disable the DRM portions. So all MS will have to do is go along with Hollywood and the record industry and demand that all operating systems be required by law to support DRM. Linux will become The Choice of Thieves and Terrorists(TM). Easy as pie (and a few hundred million in bribe^N^N^N^N^Ncampaign contributions.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, what exactly has The Register done to draw such hostility? Sure they are biased. But do they get the facts wrong? National Enquirer basically just makes things up. The Register seems to be more of a commentary on the IT industry and should certainly be taken with a grain of salt, but I don't think that makes them all that bad. Hell, most, if not all, news sources are biased in some way. At least you know the biases of The Register. They are quite blatant about it.
I am assuming that you are simply trolling, but since there are many uninformed people out there that would be inclined to believe what you say, I feel I have to respond. Bon Apetite!
/.
fact: a gun in the house is more likely to fire a bullet in to the body of a member of that household than an intruder or criminal.
First of all, this much over-used "fact" comes from a single study (Kellermann Arthur & Reay Don, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.) that has long since been discredited. If you'd like to find out what guns in the home are really likely to do, read Gary Kleck's study. He's a former gun-control nut that has seen the light after doing his own studies. According to him, guns are used in defense of home and family between 1 million and 2 million times a year in the US. In the vast majority of these cases the gun isn't even fired. In the majority of the rest of the cases, nobody is injured.
fact: armed robbery adds significant amount of jail time to a sentence than an unarmed one.
Sure, and murder adds quite a bit to a jail sentence too, but it's not gonna matter much to the victim.
fact: the police are currently outgunned and outarmed over criminals because of the NRA's opposition to even the most COMMON SENCE gun control laws.
This makes very little sense to me. Automatic weapons, and many semi-automatic weapons are already outlawed everywhere except under special circumstances and with special licenses. How exactly are police outgunned? Outnumbered, sure. But outgunned? The problem is the same one I mentioned before. Criminals don't obey the law!! Duh! That's why they're criminals! You expect that if we outlaw guns that the criminals will just give them up and never try to get them again? What planet do you live on?
fact: the 2nd amendment not only says "militia".. it says "well organized militia", which is something you gun nuts are way too quick to ignore. Most people who own guns in the U.S. do not take proper safety precautions, they do not know how to properly care for and fire their weapons, and THERE IS NO FSCKING WAY they could be considered "well organized militias"
This is the only thing you've said that makes any kind of sense at all. The one thing that I actually might be inclined to support is a firearms license. Similar to a driver's license, it would certify that you know how to properly handle, fire, and secure a firearm. It would not be tied to any individual firearm, but there could likely be different classes of license for different sorts of guns. The problem with requiring such a license for ownership is that it can be abused by the government to prevent certain people from owning guns, for arbitrary reasons, even if they could pass the license requirements. I don't think it's a good idea for us to have to beg the government for the right to defend ourselves and our families.
As for the militia part, let me paraphrase something that has been written elsewhere: "the "militia" the second amendment refers to is not a formal military unit -- which the Constitution forbids states to raise [Art. I ' 10, cl. 3 -- but a colonial system which required that every household be armed and every trustworthy man serve with his own arms." There are some very different views on both sides. We aren't likely to settle those differences here on
Here's a few more facts for you.
Except for the fact that all able-bodied men, and in this age of enlightenment it would include women as well, are considered part of the militia. That's the way it was when the Constitution was written, and if the shit hit the fan today, it would be the same. We're too damn soft these days. Attempting to confiscate all the guns would be the stupidest possible thing I can think of. No possible way to get them all. No way to prevent more from coming into the country (witness the War On Drugs for confirmation of that). So we end up with a disarmed population, armed criminals, and way too fucking few police to make the slightest bit of difference. Yeah.. I can see how that would be such a huge improvement.
unless..... he used his secret anti-linux storm troopers to sabotage it in the middle of the night.
Well, duh! What other explanation could there be??
They can ask you to leave any time they want, for any reason.
This is where your argument is flawed, I believe. They can't tell you to leave for just any reason. They can tell you to leave if you're protesting because they can reasonably claim that you are disturbing their customers. They can't tell you to leave simply because you're comparing prices. That's an expected behavior for customers. They can't tell you to leave because you're black. That would not be protected.
It has nothing to do with who paid for what. Disney takes stuff that has been around forever and remakes it, and then tries to make sure that their stuff never becomes available to anyone else to remake... ever. Disney deserves to get fucked because of the way they have been fucking the public over for decades. Marvel has done no such thing. Perhaps you can see why people don't feel the hostility towards Marvel that they do towards Disney?
When I was designing some sites for the Air Force a while back, I had to make sure they passed all the tests for availability to those with disabilities. Sucks if Congress doesn't have to do that, this being a democracy and all. Guess people with disabilities just don't need access to our government.
I thought that's why they put filters on the cable going into the house or building. To prevent you from getting service that you haven't paid for.
Football James : "I've noticed that you're the Cincinatti Bengals, would you like some help?"
Ouch.
That's $2.25 per number, in case that was unclear.
In Texas, they charge you $2.25 to get on the list for 3 years. Ya'll getting charged in other states?
Well, since these are the people that Rosen and the RIAA are concerned with persuading, it makes sense that these are the people that she would want to be speaking to. Do you think they should have had some soccer moms and middle managers thrown in for good measure or something?
The only commodity being sold is the time that it takes someone to gather the plat to sell on ebay. Since the vast majority of us sell our time (and expertise or muscle as well in most cases) to make a living, this doesn't seem very different.
I just patented movie cafes. Thanks for the idea tho :)
Mostly on the south or east sides of SA tho :)
As someone else pointed out, #1 is perfectly legit since he wasn't talking about broadband vs. AOL, but dialup. #2 you already conceded. #4 isn't really a reason, more of an excuse. As for #3, yeah, that could be a problem for some people, so that's really the only one that I agree with. All in all though, I don't think his post was elitist at all.
No problem. You point to the sign that says you don't sell NC17 or whatever games to anyone under 18. Just like they have posted signs about cigarettes and alcohol.
There's no reason they would have to allow kids to buy the game. They card for other things, why not this?
I have a couple of warts on my foot. I've been getting a laser treatment. They zap my foot repeatedly with a laser to kill the warts. It's not much fun, trust me. That took care of the worst one, but there are a couple others that were stubborn. Now my doctor has me putting this cream on them at night and then covering it with duct tape. In the morning I remove the tape and scrub the area with a pumice stone while I'm showering. It's only been a week so far, but it's looking pretty good. Hopefully they'll be gone for good pretty soon.
I often wonder if an essential member of any development team of the future will be a lawyer.
They already are if you intend to release to the public or sell whatever you're creating.
Did you forget what site you're reading?
It never ceases to amaze me how common it is for slashdotters to fail to understand that there is a difference between something which is infinitely reproduceable for virtually no cost and something which is not. Trying to treat them exactly the same is simply moronic.
Perhaps stand up and disturb everyone in your row plus the people immediately behind you on your way to the exit?
How is that any different than someone getting up to go to the bathroom? Give me a break. Some people are a bit oversensitive.
He was obviously just trying to get out of paying his bill. Seems he was quite successful in that respect.
Nah. Linux doesn't support DRM. It can't, since the source is available and anyone could remove or disable the DRM portions. So all MS will have to do is go along with Hollywood and the record industry and demand that all operating systems be required by law to support DRM. Linux will become The Choice of Thieves and Terrorists(TM). Easy as pie (and a few hundred million in bribe^N^N^N^N^Ncampaign contributions.