Well, since I usually do know what I'm doing in a courtroom, I guess that takes care of that issue. There's no "lose" for a witness who is not themselves the defendant or the plaintiff.
There's plenty to lose if they're going after his estate, which his family would otherwise inherit. So again, they need to get a lawyer if they don't want to lose the case because they didn't know how or whether to respond to some motion or other, assuming they even knew about the motion. Even civil cases can be a serious pain, and they definitely have someting at stake here.
You'd be lucky to even see the inside of a courtroom. Unless you know what you're doing, you'll probably lose before you even make it that far, on procedural issues alone.
The RIAA is going to have a problem with this. Not just an image problem - a legal problem.
The survivors just have to say "I don't know for sure. You'll have to ask him. Anything else is just speculation, and I'm not under oath to speculate."
The RIAA is probably thinking they'll settle for sure. Putting up a defense is expensive.
I'll accept the first couple points. I'd only heard the term sapper used to refer to combat engineers, never to suicide bombers. And the drug thing is mainly anecdotal, but this country has never lacked for hypocrites, flip-floppers, etc., so like I said, it wouldn't surprise me.
On October 18, 1964, a South Vietnamese government firing squad executed Viet Cong terrorist Nguyen Van Troi after convicting him of a May 1963 unsuccessful attempt to assassinate U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.
Oh yeah, terrorism would've have no useful effect for the Vietnamese during the war huh? The assassination of the two 'masterminds' behind the Vietnam War wouldn't have helped their cause at all./sarcasm
That's not terrorism. Those guys were directly responsible for the war. How can that be considered terrorism? Cutting off the head? Sound familiar?
Wtf are you talking about? Sappers is a term that referred to combat engineers, not suicide bombers.
"Lets just let the U.N. handle international things, Vietnam showed us we shouldn't be sending our troops abroad." Thirty years later. "Somalia has fallen to warlords after the U.N. pulled out when the U.S. did, Syria and Iran is giving weapons to Hizballah right in front of U.N. troops and genocide, sorry ethnic cleansing, is still being committed in parts of Africa since the U.N. is so determined to build up the African Union (yes this is an actual organization). Won't the U.S. do something about all this?!"
This is just your ramblings. Got any evidence that it is the same people making both claims? Not that it would really surprise me, but this still has nothing to do with whether terrorism would have been possible or useful for the Vietnamese. Did you not read the previous posts or what?
(If the War of 1812 is too far back, what about China? Or better yet, Vietnam?)
Didn't have time to address this point earlier, but let me take a shot at it now. Vietnam? How were they going to attack civilians? They didn't have the means to attack anyone outside of the area. They also didn't really have the need. They weren't losing. Yes, we had a much more powerful military, but it was not designed for that kind of war. We probably could have won eventually, but it would have been at a high cost, and there probably wouldn't have been much of anything left of the country afterwards. And really, what would we have gained after all that?
What you mean like the War of 1812 when the British burned down the nation's capital? I'm a little rusty on my early 19th century history but I'm pretty sure Americans didn't form terrorist groups and blow up civilians in England.
The British weren't blindly dropping bombs on buildings, not knowing exactly who's inside either. If they had won, and occupied the country, then things might have been different. But like I said, I don't know if terrorism would have been effective back then. Communication, transportation, high-powered explosives, etc., are all absent. Can't see it working out very well.
You really expect a military force that is putting up with terrorists attacks that break the rules of war to follow the rules of war laid by civilized man? You don't want them to torture terrorists, but how do you expect them to operate?
I'd expect them to follow the rules, or admit that they can't and won't follow the rules. They want to break the rules and then lie about it. That's cowardly. As for the terror tactics that are being used against us, I expect we'd see the same thing if the U.S. was occupied by some middle-eastern country.
Care to cite some examples? Some so-called "soldiers" in Afghanistan may have been uniformed and even registed with the (former) Taliban government, but were they following the Geneva Convention? The rules of engagement? Operating independently and therefore classified as AWOL/renegade/rogue units?
You really expect a military force that is far outclassed by its enemies to follow the rules laid out by its attackers? They were all operating fairly independently because we destroyed their infrastructure. How else are they going to operate? Convenient when the rules are stacked in your favor and you can call anyone a criminal. Pretty much just like what we're doing with our own laws here in the states. Make enough laws, and everyone's guilty of something. Then you can just prosecute your enemies.
What is the point of killing the poor people, who can't even afford cars - how are they going to change anything?
Not directly, but their deaths can frighten the rest of the population into demanding that the UK, e.g., pull out of Iraq, so that the attacks will stop. That's the idea anyway. Of course if the population allows that to happen, then people know that all you have to do is start blowing up buses and the government will comply with your demands. Not a good precedent to set.
Let's see... Well, in the blog you can find the name of two people that got out of their lawsuit. I am sure that 5 minutes alone with Google will allow you to find the name of their lawyers... That said, 'please' would have been welcome;)
That would be great, if they lived (and were licensed to practice) in my state. I'm kind of thinking along the lines of something useful to people that live in the other 48 states. More than 2 lawyers would be required for that I would imagine.
I've been trying to find the Genesis version at flea markets and used game stores around here for a while, without much success. The only person that had it wanted as much as the game probably cost when it was new.
Hmmm, take a product that somebody else produced. Modify it slightly, slap your name tag on it, and sell. Sounds familiar.
How is this insightful at all? He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. They didn't modify it slightly, they pretty much screwed the whole thing up. Butchered it, if you will. It bears even less resemblance to Shadowrun than MechAssault does to Mechwarrior (the last license they butchered). Once again, someone gets voted up for taking a shot at MS by mods who don't know what they're doing either.
It was President Clinton, not a Republican, who signed the DMCA (and the Bono Act and the NET Act). Granted, Clinton couldn't have stopped those bills from becoming law, as they had at least 67 percent support in both houses.
I realize that. I'm not trying to pin the blame on one party over the other. Both are backing this crap. Just pointing out that Canada has elected someone who seems to be quite willing to follow U.S. lead. Not a good thing.
You missed the point of the security system - it's to stop game developers bypassing the Microsoft licensing fees. If you have to pay MS to write games for the XBox then their business model of subsidising the hardware works. If you can avoid it, then XBox is a financially losing proposition.
Ok, a couple of things then. If you're a developer, you're not going to put yourself into a position to get sued into oblivion by Microsoft by developing a game without paying them. But, if it's easy to copy games, and therefore you don't sell very many (I don't know that that's what would happen, but that's the fear), then you're going to look for other platforms to create games for. So Microsoft loses there.
It still won't let you run unsigned code, so actually it does do quite a bit.
Maybe, but who cares that you can't make it run Linux? You can download games and actually play them now. That's good enough for 98% of the people who would be interested in this development.
What happens if they look at the size of the disk - wouldn't it report being a 1gb?
No, it would report the size of the partition being viewed. Without a partition tool, they wouldn't even know the other partition existed, let alone be able to view it.
If they got rid of adverts, they'd have nothing to fill that time with.
More shows? We can watch twice as many shows in the same amount of time. Sounds good to me. Sure they'll have reruns, but most of us don't have time to watch everything anyway, so it'll be new to us.
It took 50 years for the American society to get programmed with the idea that we have to watch commercials or we might miss something in our program. It will take some time to unlearn that habit.
My wife seems to have picked it up pretty quickly. If I'm not hitting the FF button within half a second of a commercial coming on, I get punched in the arm or pinched or something. Of course she's chinese, so perhaps they're different.
How many government teachers and librarians accidentally hit this site while trying to teach school kids about the research value of the Internet for learning about our government?
I'd imagine only the ones that had no idea what they were doing and had never visited the site before (and what teacher wouldn't at least look at sites that they are going to show to the kids beforehand?)
It's also the website that resulted in one of the reoccurring elementary school pranks. A rather naive kid might ask another kid "Hey, how can I find out when James K. Polk was president?" The other kid would reply, "Oh simple, just go to whitehouse.com."
Plenty of anecdotal stuff there, but no actual evidence that such pranks are actually common, or even occur at all.
In 1997, the Clinton administration sent Dan Parisi a cease and desist letter stating, "... we do not challenge your right to pursue it or to exercise your First Amendment rights, but we do challenge your right to use the White House, the President, and the First Lady as a marketing device. For adult internet users, that device is, at the least, part of a deceptive scheme. For younger Internet users, it has more disturbing consequences." The letter had no effect and the site stayed up.
Again, perhaps if people actually had evidence to back up their claims, something would be done about it. Everything I've seen is hearsay and speculation. Most libraries use blocking software, and that site is on every blocking list out there. I don't see it as the huge problem that you do.
In 1998 Jim Salmon was so appalled by the idea of how many kids get tricked into going to this site that he personally pointed all of his domains to that site, hoping to generate enough controversy to get people to shut the site down...
Instead we develop laws and policies that strike an appropriate balance between our freedoms and the responsibility we have to help such kids. As such, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable response to the efforts of those who seek to exploit children.
Except that it is (like pretty much all legislation dealing with obscenity and such) extremely vague and therefore almost entirely unenforceable. So, once again Congress has wasted the time and money of taxpayers in pandering to those who are either too stupid to realize what they're doing, or too blinded by their religion to admit that this is absolutely worthless legislation that will likely be struck down by the courts. Of course then the politicians just blame the courts for their own stupidity in crafting legislation that is quite obviously not going to pass muster in the courts. It's not like they don't have a ton of examples of this already. People never seem to catch on though.
Slashdot Mirror
There's plenty to lose if they're going after his estate, which his family would otherwise inherit. So again, they need to get a lawyer if they don't want to lose the case because they didn't know how or whether to respond to some motion or other, assuming they even knew about the motion. Even civil cases can be a serious pain, and they definitely have someting at stake here.
You'd be lucky to even see the inside of a courtroom. Unless you know what you're doing, you'll probably lose before you even make it that far, on procedural issues alone.
With a Palm, they can look busy and professional though.
The RIAA is probably thinking they'll settle for sure. Putting up a defense is expensive.
That's not terrorism. Those guys were directly responsible for the war. How can that be considered terrorism? Cutting off the head? Sound familiar?
Wtf are you talking about? Sappers is a term that referred to combat engineers, not suicide bombers.
This is just your ramblings. Got any evidence that it is the same people making both claims? Not that it would really surprise me, but this still has nothing to do with whether terrorism would have been possible or useful for the Vietnamese. Did you not read the previous posts or what?
Didn't have time to address this point earlier, but let me take a shot at it now. Vietnam? How were they going to attack civilians? They didn't have the means to attack anyone outside of the area. They also didn't really have the need. They weren't losing. Yes, we had a much more powerful military, but it was not designed for that kind of war. We probably could have won eventually, but it would have been at a high cost, and there probably wouldn't have been much of anything left of the country afterwards. And really, what would we have gained after all that?
The British weren't blindly dropping bombs on buildings, not knowing exactly who's inside either. If they had won, and occupied the country, then things might have been different. But like I said, I don't know if terrorism would have been effective back then. Communication, transportation, high-powered explosives, etc., are all absent. Can't see it working out very well.
I'd expect them to follow the rules, or admit that they can't and won't follow the rules. They want to break the rules and then lie about it. That's cowardly. As for the terror tactics that are being used against us, I expect we'd see the same thing if the U.S. was occupied by some middle-eastern country.
You really expect a military force that is far outclassed by its enemies to follow the rules laid out by its attackers? They were all operating fairly independently because we destroyed their infrastructure. How else are they going to operate? Convenient when the rules are stacked in your favor and you can call anyone a criminal. Pretty much just like what we're doing with our own laws here in the states. Make enough laws, and everyone's guilty of something. Then you can just prosecute your enemies.
Not directly, but their deaths can frighten the rest of the population into demanding that the UK, e.g., pull out of Iraq, so that the attacks will stop. That's the idea anyway. Of course if the population allows that to happen, then people know that all you have to do is start blowing up buses and the government will comply with your demands. Not a good precedent to set.
That would be great, if they lived (and were licensed to practice) in my state. I'm kind of thinking along the lines of something useful to people that live in the other 48 states. More than 2 lawyers would be required for that I would imagine.
Get a Genesis emulator and download the ROM.
How is this insightful at all? He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. They didn't modify it slightly, they pretty much screwed the whole thing up. Butchered it, if you will. It bears even less resemblance to Shadowrun than MechAssault does to Mechwarrior (the last license they butchered). Once again, someone gets voted up for taking a shot at MS by mods who don't know what they're doing either.
Great. Now explain how to find such a lawyer.
I realize that. I'm not trying to pin the blame on one party over the other. Both are backing this crap. Just pointing out that Canada has elected someone who seems to be quite willing to follow U.S. lead. Not a good thing.
Didn't you guys just elect GWB's flappy-headed clone? Your days are probably numbered.
Actually it was the other way around... and he ended up impaled
Ok, a couple of things then. If you're a developer, you're not going to put yourself into a position to get sued into oblivion by Microsoft by developing a game without paying them. But, if it's easy to copy games, and therefore you don't sell very many (I don't know that that's what would happen, but that's the fear), then you're going to look for other platforms to create games for. So Microsoft loses there.
Maybe, but who cares that you can't make it run Linux? You can download games and actually play them now. That's good enough for 98% of the people who would be interested in this development.
No, it would report the size of the partition being viewed. Without a partition tool, they wouldn't even know the other partition existed, let alone be able to view it.
More shows? We can watch twice as many shows in the same amount of time. Sounds good to me. Sure they'll have reruns, but most of us don't have time to watch everything anyway, so it'll be new to us.
My wife seems to have picked it up pretty quickly. If I'm not hitting the FF button within half a second of a commercial coming on, I get punched in the arm or pinched or something. Of course she's chinese, so perhaps they're different.
I'd imagine only the ones that had no idea what they were doing and had never visited the site before (and what teacher wouldn't at least look at sites that they are going to show to the kids beforehand?)
Plenty of anecdotal stuff there, but no actual evidence that such pranks are actually common, or even occur at all.
Again, perhaps if people actually had evidence to back up their claims, something would be done about it. Everything I've seen is hearsay and speculation. Most libraries use blocking software, and that site is on every blocking list out there. I don't see it as the huge problem that you do.
And someone else buys into the hype....
Except that it is (like pretty much all legislation dealing with obscenity and such) extremely vague and therefore almost entirely unenforceable. So, once again Congress has wasted the time and money of taxpayers in pandering to those who are either too stupid to realize what they're doing, or too blinded by their religion to admit that this is absolutely worthless legislation that will likely be struck down by the courts. Of course then the politicians just blame the courts for their own stupidity in crafting legislation that is quite obviously not going to pass muster in the courts. It's not like they don't have a ton of examples of this already. People never seem to catch on though.