Well, you and I disagree. I believe Sarah Palin is pushing to get creationism taught as a first step in the door to having only creationism taught. I don't believe she is at all willing to have an honest debate (just watch her debate for an election; she's dishonest and does not answer questions). I also believe that there is a huge gap between what you were originally talking about - suggesting teachers use incorrect theories as teaching aids - and what Sarah Palin wants. I would also be very concerned about how this would be implemented. Does the honest debate go into the textbook? Do you think Sarah Palin wants the textbook chapter to read Chapter 1: Creationism as an Incorrect Theory? I certainly don't. I'm sure she would have it read Chapter 1: Creationism. Chapter 2: Evolution would have to be skipped in the interest of time.
That is exactly what she is proposing. That creationism and biblical science be taught as a theory of science and addressed as a theory of science, and that students learn to work through alternate theories. I understand you think she doesn't actually mean that, but that is in fact what she proposed.
"Teach both," she said. "You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Source
She's talking about debating the facts; you're proposing teaching children by bringing up theories that were disproven. There is a difference. The fact is that she wants both taught because she believes in creationism - not that it is something that was once believed and we can learn critical thinking by evaluating it and then dismissing it - she believes it. What you are suggesting is, in fact, not what she proposed at all.
I think it would be wonderful to teach the biblical theory: flat earth sitting on a firmament; with the sun planets and stars under a dome of water,.... and slowly work through why these ideas were rejected.
That's a fine idea but that's not what Palin proposes; bringing it up in a discussion about Sarah Palin's qualifications as a crazy person is irrelevant.
"The only way we'll have a half-decent president in January is if a miracle happens, and a third party gets elected"
But what if Obama had renounced his party affiliation yesterday and joined a third party - then, by your "logic" he'd be a good president! Perfect! [Just because someone isn't a Democrat or a Republican does not mean they're a saint, genius.]
Hey, I got through that and didn't invoke Nazis once!
"but think about the type of people who play Madden and other EA games. They don't care about DRM, all they really care about is shiny graphics and the newest players on various football teams."
Nice stereotyping. Any other generalizations you can point out based on what games people play?
It's not the distinction. The point would be that it's a good faith gesture that would help a case for leniency. Convicts are rewarded with early parole for good behavior; just think of this action as rewarding good behavior.
I get all my legal knowledge from Law and Order so this could be all wrong.
HA HA HA! Thank you - you just brightened my day with that post. Hilarious.
You start your post by saying, "No they [the public at large] don't [listen to RIAA-backed music]" and then the rest of your post concerns how you don't. The sheer arrogance that you represent EVERYONE is hilarious. Bravo. Well done.
I seriously doubt a movie with the same scenes as GTA would get an NC-17 rating. Furthermore, given that the MPAA is nothing more than a corrupt branch of the major studios [See "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"], the rating a GTA movie would receive would depend on a number of factors completely unrelated to the content of the film. The movie ratings process is secretive and arbitrary. I wouldn't pin your hat on an analogy to that, if I were you.
But don't take my word for it, do a little research.
Also, your simplification of the whole thing is quite amusing. You say GTA shouldn't be sold to minors. Do you believe this should be mandated by law?
"You can't take every freaking item and pretend it's yours, though, just because you put it in a different order, which is essentially what this person did."
Have you read the work in question? And have you read the encyclopedias that already exist regarding Harry Potter that Rowling's corporate masters have chosen not to sue (for comparison's sake)?
My point - although I realize it was poorly made - was as follows:
The parent seemed to be suggesting that taking a work, making a summarization of the points contained in the original work, and calling it your own original work is completely inappropriate. But if we look at Cliff Notes - that is exactly what that company is built upon and their summarizations are considered original works.
I apologize for not making that a clear point. I do think that your assessment that I've made a complete fool of myself is a little silly. This is Slashdot, after all - who cares?
"On the other hand we are talking about taking another's work, and simply taking all the details in it and compiling them into a work you call your own."
When do you think this Bill Shakespeare guy will get around to suing Cliff and his "Notes"? Based on your expert legal assessment of the situation, I'd say he's got an excellent case.
"It's that his movies suck and he just destroyed any chance of there being a good movie made from whichever game he raped this time."
The rights owners still have to sign off on Boll making the film. At this point, we know Boll makes bad movies but companies are still giving him options to their franchises (Blizzard notwithstanding). They're the responsible ones.
Why are companies still doing business with this guy? Has no one seen Alone in the Dark?
"The original point was that GTA is probably why EA is making this move right now."
The original point was that Take Two only has GTA and since GTA is coming out shortly, EA wants to get in on it. That argument comes from an incorrect premise. The original poster hasn't apologized and admitted his error. This discussion cannot continue until that apology is received.
It's nice that he allowed you to break the law and face no consequences for it? That's ridiculous. That type of behavior is just as bad as a cop abusing his or her power. The law should be applied with an even-hand. You were irresponsible and deserved a ticket.
Sony is not a company I wish to support. After installing rootkits on the computers of their own paying customers, then insulting those who took issue with it, then suing lik-sang.com over the right of resale, they've used up all the good faith I might have offered them.
"Kindle books seem to be uniformly, and significantly, cheaper than the non-Kindle editions."
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Since Kindle has DRM, you never truly own any book you buy that way. You've got no guarantee that the book you rent from Amazon is going to be on your Kindle tomorrow. So, it's apples versus oranges because when I buy a book made from real paper, I have complete and total control over it.
Now, if you'd like to make an apt comparison - apples to apples - there's this place called a library that rents books. It is significantly less expensive to rent your books from the library than to rent your books from Amazon.
Awww, you were so close to it but you still missed the real point. Any bar you put up to block someone's progress is a good thing. If you have a locked door, you might stop 60% of the criminals trying to come in. If you have a locked door and a warning sign about a dog, you might stop 65% of the criminals. Locked door, warning sign, security cameras - 70%.
You see - security precautions are about preventing people from unauthorized behavior and putting up safeguards that, when violated, can be found out quickly to stop the behavior from continuing.
"All a terrorist would have to do is the same thing, walk around or drive around, take some pictures, study the area for a few hours/minutes and they will have all of the same information."
You don't lock your door, do you? I mean - if someone wants to break into your house, they can break the lock so why bother locking at all? There are ways around the lock on your door.
Yeah, just because a step might not provide a complete solution doesn't mean you don't take that step in order to hinder others.
"How in the world you're expecting to use an OLD codec to reencode a video stored in a NEW codec, to reduce the file-size of a video by a factor of 5, while NOT losing HUGE amounts of picture quality, is vastly beyond my comprehension."
Maybe he's using an old prescription in his glasses? That way - he can't see the difference. It's a win-win situation for everyone except his optometrist.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you and I disagree. I believe Sarah Palin is pushing to get creationism taught as a first step in the door to having only creationism taught. I don't believe she is at all willing to have an honest debate (just watch her debate for an election; she's dishonest and does not answer questions). I also believe that there is a huge gap between what you were originally talking about - suggesting teachers use incorrect theories as teaching aids - and what Sarah Palin wants. I would also be very concerned about how this would be implemented. Does the honest debate go into the textbook? Do you think Sarah Palin wants the textbook chapter to read Chapter 1: Creationism as an Incorrect Theory? I certainly don't. I'm sure she would have it read Chapter 1: Creationism. Chapter 2: Evolution would have to be skipped in the interest of time.
Do you really think in an honest debate biblical creationism stands a chance?
Do you really think that's what Palin is proposing?
That is exactly what she is proposing. That creationism and biblical science be taught as a theory of science and addressed as a theory of science, and that students learn to work through alternate theories. I understand you think she doesn't actually mean that, but that is in fact what she proposed.
"Teach both," she said. "You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Source
She's talking about debating the facts; you're proposing teaching children by bringing up theories that were disproven. There is a difference. The fact is that she wants both taught because she believes in creationism - not that it is something that was once believed and we can learn critical thinking by evaluating it and then dismissing it - she believes it. What you are suggesting is, in fact, not what she proposed at all.
I think it would be wonderful to teach the biblical theory: flat earth sitting on a firmament; with the sun planets and stars under a dome of water, .... and slowly work through why these ideas were rejected.
That's a fine idea but that's not what Palin proposes; bringing it up in a discussion about Sarah Palin's qualifications as a crazy person is irrelevant.
Enjoy your moral high ground. You've bested me. I am ashamed of myself.
But what if Obama had renounced his party affiliation yesterday and joined a third party - then, by your "logic" he'd be a good president! Perfect! [Just because someone isn't a Democrat or a Republican does not mean they're a saint, genius.]
Hey, I got through that and didn't invoke Nazis once!
Nice stereotyping. Any other generalizations you can point out based on what games people play?
Look, I've got to use the toilet badly. Could you stop posting on Slashdot and get over here to fix this already?
I get all my legal knowledge from Law and Order so this could be all wrong.
Shock! Gasp!
Different people work better with different models of keyboards.
Fixed that for you. Don't presume to speak for me.You start your post by saying, "No they [the public at large] don't [listen to RIAA-backed music]" and then the rest of your post concerns how you don't. The sheer arrogance that you represent EVERYONE is hilarious. Bravo. Well done.
But don't take my word for it, do a little research.
Also, your simplification of the whole thing is quite amusing. You say GTA shouldn't be sold to minors. Do you believe this should be mandated by law?
The parent seemed to be suggesting that taking a work, making a summarization of the points contained in the original work, and calling it your own original work is completely inappropriate. But if we look at Cliff Notes - that is exactly what that company is built upon and their summarizations are considered original works.
I apologize for not making that a clear point. I do think that your assessment that I've made a complete fool of myself is a little silly. This is Slashdot, after all - who cares?
People admit/brag about crimes they've never come close to committing all the time. Have you even looked at those claims at all?
I think there's a good chance you haven't got a really deep understanding of this case.
Why are companies still doing business with this guy? Has no one seen Alone in the Dark?
Spoiler: There will be stories that appear on Slashdot that you do not care about. Not everything will apply to you, you egomaniac!
It's nice that he allowed you to break the law and face no consequences for it? That's ridiculous. That type of behavior is just as bad as a cop abusing his or her power. The law should be applied with an even-hand. You were irresponsible and deserved a ticket.
Sony is not a company I wish to support. After installing rootkits on the computers of their own paying customers, then insulting those who took issue with it, then suing lik-sang.com over the right of resale, they've used up all the good faith I might have offered them.
Since Kindle has DRM, you never truly own any book you buy that way. You've got no guarantee that the book you rent from Amazon is going to be on your Kindle tomorrow. So, it's apples versus oranges because when I buy a book made from real paper, I have complete and total control over it.
Now, if you'd like to make an apt comparison - apples to apples - there's this place called a library that rents books. It is significantly less expensive to rent your books from the library than to rent your books from Amazon.
You see - security precautions are about preventing people from unauthorized behavior and putting up safeguards that, when violated, can be found out quickly to stop the behavior from continuing.
You're missing the fucking point.
Yeah, just because a step might not provide a complete solution doesn't mean you don't take that step in order to hinder others.