It was there, but it wasn't the centerpiece. The sex and violence is all we've seen of the new movie, however... which is a worrisome indication that maybe that's all there is to this movie.
Yeah, I'm surprised that TFA is all worked up about the loss of Klingons (which is kind of a shame), but seems to be OK with the fact that the new movie, from all they've shown us so far, is a mindless sex and violence movie. That's the real travesty: turning Trek into that. Those are entertaining movies, but that's not what Trek has ever been about.
Learn to comprehend what's going on. They're not saying it's Apple's fault for not making the iPod compatible, they're saying Apple can't attempt to stop them from doing that work themselves.
It's entirely reasonable for Apple to say "We're not going to support that", but when they say "We're not going to support that and we'll sue you if you try to make it work", we have a fucking problem.
When their job is to be a prick to you (which is crystal clear to be the case from the post that had started this thread), then yes, yes! There is a damn reason!
No. Being an asshole to someone just trying to get by makes you an asshole. It doesn't make you some kind of damn hero, sticking it to the man. The only person you're "sticking it to" is some unfortunate guy on the other end of the line whose only crime is not being able to get a desirable job to support himself. Cause that's mature.
And if you want to stick to a job which involves outright lying to people all the day, then better be prepared to be treated accordingly. It's part of what you get money for.
The fact that the employee should be prepared for such treatment in no way justifies the treatment.
He should be taken out back and shot instead of making him out to some 'geek hero', which is is not.
Yeah, he is. Just because you hate him doesn't mean plenty of people don't admire what he's been able to accomplish. I don't always agree with the man's methods, but the fact remains that what he's done is damn impressive.
a) Not everyone is in a position to quit a miserable job. Rest assured, if they're miserable they're either looking for a better job or trapped where they are.
b) The fact that there are less miserable jobs out there is no reason to be a prick to someone who's just trying to do their job.
I think the GP meant for rental, though I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments with respect to buying games. Rental is something I might do digitally. Permanent purchase is loathsome.
(a) The pirates deserve to be slammed for STEALING (Yes I said it, because that's what it is!)!
Damn right! I've gotten sick of all these idiots trying to justify their quest for free stuff by claiming it's not stealing. You're taking something without permission: it's stealing, bitches.
I personally disagree. I thought the movie was decent, although certainly not as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade. It was certainly better than Temple of Doom, so you can't even say it was the worst in the series.
Seriously. Anyone who can look me in the eye and call Crystal Skull worse than Temple of Doom is most likely lying to themselves, bitter because they had impossibly high expectations built up over time, or on drugs. I will never understand how the fans can bitch about Crystal Skull, but apparently accept Temple of Doom.
My math was a bit off, cause I was calculating for 10 movies, not 12. But even so, it's $120, tops, to go to the movies every week for a year. It'll probably be less than that... I know in my town I can go to a matinee for $6, which means a total cost of only $72.
b) who gives a flip about a silly single (non-touch) screen gaming device these days?
Anyone who's paid attention, and realized that almost no one does anything noteworthy with the touch screen on the DS. I love my DS, but I don't kid myself that the touch screen makes it any better than my PSP. If games actually used it well, it might be cool. As it is, it's just there.
It's not the same at all. When you pay a lower rate for in-state tuition, you're benefiting from the money you (and other taxpayers) have paid in. The guy halfway across the country hasn't paid in, so he doesn't get the benefit. Having in-state rates for all students would make as much sense as using Colorado taxes to build Virginia roads.
The system never had anything to do with physical location, it had to do with using taxpayer money to the maximum benefit of the people who paid those taxes. As it should be.
I never said copyright is a natural right. I said the right to profit (actually, I worded it a bit badly, it's the right to attempt to profit) from one's work is a natural right.
Additionally, you said that this wasn't a natural right in the US. Even if the law said this (and it doesn't), that wouldn't mean it's not a natural right in the US, it would just mean that the US is infringing it.
I don't think you understand what a "natural right" is. They exist everywhere, regardless of race, country, creed, law, whatever. That's not to say they're recognized in all those places, but the right exists whether it's being oppressed or not.
No, copyright is government legislation that came after the constitution.
You're splitting hairs the size of an atom. No, if you want to be technical about it, the clause in the constitution is not copyright... it's what gives the government permission to enact copyright. The result is the same: copyright is clearly constitutional. It's explicitly allowed by the constitution.
Oh really? I choose to profit from this post. If that's my right, who owes me the check? I guess as reader, you do...you can pay me here, kthx.
Poor argument. Your post (besides the fact that you're laying out the "terms" in the very thing you wish to profit from, which would be illegal as hell anyway) is something you've freely given to me. You might say you wish to profit from it, but you've already put it in my hands. If you restricted my access to it somehow until I'd paid you, then you'd have an example that held some water.
Tell me, from what principle do you derive this "right" to profit?
It's a natural right, much like your right to not be murdered. I don't have to derive it from anything, it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Just kidding, all beer is crap that I would never let past my lips.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Oops! I guess that'll teach me to proofread my work. :)
It was there, but it wasn't the centerpiece. The sex and violence is all we've seen of the new movie, however... which is a worrisome indication that maybe that's all there is to this movie.
Yeah, I'm surprised that TFA is all worked up about the loss of Klingons (which is kind of a shame), but seems to be OK with the fact that the new movie, from all they've shown us so far, is a mindless sex and violence movie. That's the real travesty: turning Trek into that. Those are entertaining movies, but that's not what Trek has ever been about.
Learn to comprehend what's going on. They're not saying it's Apple's fault for not making the iPod compatible, they're saying Apple can't attempt to stop them from doing that work themselves.
It's entirely reasonable for Apple to say "We're not going to support that", but when they say "We're not going to support that and we'll sue you if you try to make it work", we have a fucking problem.
Except he did, at one point, help code the products.
When their job is to be a prick to you (which is crystal clear to be the case from the post that had started this thread), then yes, yes! There is a damn reason!
No. Being an asshole to someone just trying to get by makes you an asshole. It doesn't make you some kind of damn hero, sticking it to the man. The only person you're "sticking it to" is some unfortunate guy on the other end of the line whose only crime is not being able to get a desirable job to support himself. Cause that's mature.
And if you want to stick to a job which involves outright lying to people all the day, then better be prepared to be treated accordingly. It's part of what you get money for.
The fact that the employee should be prepared for such treatment in no way justifies the treatment.
Wow. You just compared Bill Gates to brutal, genocidal dictators. You officially have no sense of perspective. Good day.
He should be taken out back and shot instead of making him out to some 'geek hero', which is is not.
Yeah, he is. Just because you hate him doesn't mean plenty of people don't admire what he's been able to accomplish. I don't always agree with the man's methods, but the fact remains that what he's done is damn impressive.
a) Not everyone is in a position to quit a miserable job. Rest assured, if they're miserable they're either looking for a better job or trapped where they are.
b) The fact that there are less miserable jobs out there is no reason to be a prick to someone who's just trying to do their job.
I think the GP meant for rental, though I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments with respect to buying games. Rental is something I might do digitally. Permanent purchase is loathsome.
(a) The pirates deserve to be slammed for STEALING (Yes I said it, because that's what it is!)!
Damn right! I've gotten sick of all these idiots trying to justify their quest for free stuff by claiming it's not stealing. You're taking something without permission: it's stealing, bitches.
I personally disagree. I thought the movie was decent, although certainly not as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade. It was certainly better than Temple of Doom, so you can't even say it was the worst in the series.
Seriously. Anyone who can look me in the eye and call Crystal Skull worse than Temple of Doom is most likely lying to themselves, bitter because they had impossibly high expectations built up over time, or on drugs. I will never understand how the fans can bitch about Crystal Skull, but apparently accept Temple of Doom.
My math was a bit off, cause I was calculating for 10 movies, not 12. But even so, it's $120, tops, to go to the movies every week for a year. It'll probably be less than that... I know in my town I can go to a matinee for $6, which means a total cost of only $72.
He didn't specify more than one person, so the sensible assumption is one person.
I actually found it cheaper to buy an HDTV than to go to the movies once a month for a year.
You are doing something horribly wrong. Cost of going to the movies once a month for a year: $100, tops. Cost of an HDTV: $300+.
I own a PSP - i don't want the same content I have already played on PS2/other console.
Sequels/prequels are not "the same content".
b) who gives a flip about a silly single (non-touch) screen gaming device these days?
Anyone who's paid attention, and realized that almost no one does anything noteworthy with the touch screen on the DS. I love my DS, but I don't kid myself that the touch screen makes it any better than my PSP. If games actually used it well, it might be cool. As it is, it's just there.
It's not the same at all. When you pay a lower rate for in-state tuition, you're benefiting from the money you (and other taxpayers) have paid in. The guy halfway across the country hasn't paid in, so he doesn't get the benefit. Having in-state rates for all students would make as much sense as using Colorado taxes to build Virginia roads.
The system never had anything to do with physical location, it had to do with using taxpayer money to the maximum benefit of the people who paid those taxes. As it should be.
The answer is simple: un-join your machine from the domain! ;)
I never said copyright is a natural right. I said the right to profit (actually, I worded it a bit badly, it's the right to attempt to profit) from one's work is a natural right.
Additionally, you said that this wasn't a natural right in the US. Even if the law said this (and it doesn't), that wouldn't mean it's not a natural right in the US, it would just mean that the US is infringing it.
I don't think you understand what a "natural right" is. They exist everywhere, regardless of race, country, creed, law, whatever. That's not to say they're recognized in all those places, but the right exists whether it's being oppressed or not.
Nope. VIII is my third-favorite, after VII and X, respectively.
No, copyright is government legislation that came after the constitution.
You're splitting hairs the size of an atom. No, if you want to be technical about it, the clause in the constitution is not copyright... it's what gives the government permission to enact copyright. The result is the same: copyright is clearly constitutional. It's explicitly allowed by the constitution.
Oh really? I choose to profit from this post. If that's my right, who owes me the check? I guess as reader, you do...you can pay me here, kthx.
Poor argument. Your post (besides the fact that you're laying out the "terms" in the very thing you wish to profit from, which would be illegal as hell anyway) is something you've freely given to me. You might say you wish to profit from it, but you've already put it in my hands. If you restricted my access to it somehow until I'd paid you, then you'd have an example that held some water.
Tell me, from what principle do you derive this "right" to profit?
It's a natural right, much like your right to not be murdered. I don't have to derive it from anything, it is.