It was threats of violence that canceled the movie. Saying coding had anything to do with it is like saying you should be able to patent something that people have been doing for ages, because your implementation is 'on the internet'.
They're computer crackers. What are they going to do? Why all the fear?
There's always been fear about the 'evil hackers' and the terrible, magical things they can do. From Wikipedia:
Mitnick served five years in prison--four and a half years pre-trial and eight months in solitary confinement--because, according to Mitnick, law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone", meaning that law enforcement told the judge that he could somehow dial into the NORAD modem via a payphone from prison and communicate with the modem by whistling to launch nuclear missiles.
To hear Sony explain to its shareholders how spending tens of millions of dollars to produce and millions more to promote a movie that they now have no plans to release is a good thing.
"It's win-win. We avoid the risk of bad publicity from someone blowing up a theatre showing the movie, and with all the attention from the threat combined with the fact that it can't be seen in theatres, home media sales will be through the roof! People will be lining up to buy the movie that was 'too dangerous to be shown in theatres' while thumbing their noses at the terrorists who don't want them to see it."
I'm pretty sure that if you modify, sign, and return a contract that was given to you, you need to get explicit approval of the changes (generally by having the other party initial them) for them to be binding.
I think it's a pretty good test to use as a guideline, actually--when used appropriately, just like any other tool. First, it obviously can't be used with movies with a tiny cast or one that is constrained for important plot reasons. Is the movie about life inside a male prison or a true event where a plane with 10 men as passengers crashed? Then the test shouldn't be used. If there's very little dialog at all, the test probably doesn't fit either.
But what if the movie doesn't fall into any of those--if it's a movie with a large cast with lots of people talking? What if all the dialog is with men or about them, with no compelling plot reason for it? Does that send a message? Is that a message you want to subject yourself to?
That's up to you, of course. As is whether the movie in question fails the test but has a valid reason. Only an idiot would suggest that this test--which originally appeared as part of a conversation between two characters in a comic strip--should determine whether a movie can be released, though.
In the live demonstration, the "gunman" entered the school armed with an assault rifle, opening fire with dummy rounds first in the school library then rampaging through hallways and classrooms. But he had only a few minutes to wreak havoc.
So, for the low cost of $20k-$100k multiplied by the number of schools this is installed in, we can limit a gunman with an assault rifle to only a few minutes of rampaging. While it's true that with many problems, mitigation can be very valuable even if a complete solution can't be found, I can't say that allowing someone minutes to mow down children with an assault rifle is all that much mitigation, especially for the cost to implement it.
Even if they're not trying to get you to admit to other violations, if they knew who cheated, they wouldn't ask for people to come forward. Why would they? Because they want to be known for their kinder, gentler handling of cheaters? No, any time the responsible party is 'given the opportunity to come forward' it's because the people making the generous offer don't know who is responsible and figures it's worth a try.
It follows research into the possible impact of 3D imaging on still-developing eyes. Few countries currently have guidelines about 3D usage.
And what research is this referring to? The article gives no information about the alleged research, though it does mention Nintendo's warning on the 3DS which just happens to say the 3D feature should only be used by children 7 years or older.
The vaccine uses a common cold virus genetically engineered to carry a tiny piece of Ebola DNA. Sprayed up the nose, it saved all nine monkeys tested for infection.
Saved? I can believe that none of the vaccinated monkeys caught Ebola, but I'd hardly call that 'saving' them. I'd also think calling a vaccine 100% effective is a bit premature with only nine test subjects.
What I really want a home to do though, is to clean itself. Self-clean the toilets, the sinks, the shower and bathtub, the tile, the carpet, the kitchen, and to be able to lift dust off of things and dispose of it.
But a really smart home will eventually realize the most efficient way to keep the house clean is to eliminate the people and pets in it...
At the end of the 10 year period, to show their contempt and disdain for the filthy and polluting energy source, they will order all remaining coal in the country burned.
Now, this makes more sense than something that tries to cram everything you can do on your smart phone/tablet into a tiny screen strapped to your wrist. The wrist is a convenient space to mount a device. For most applications, it just isn't a convenient space to use said device.
Slashdot Mirror
And from the smoking ruins, Sony emerged triumphant, ruler of this brave new world.
Please. I'd just download one.
Of course! This clears up everything! Now I understand quantum physics completely!
I believe that even as we speak, they're busy putting together a massive 'Bun Kittens' advertising campaign.
It was threats of violence that canceled the movie. Saying coding had anything to do with it is like saying you should be able to patent something that people have been doing for ages, because your implementation is 'on the internet'.
Actually, it was Paramount that pulled Team America.
There's always been fear about the 'evil hackers' and the terrible, magical things they can do. From Wikipedia:
"It's win-win. We avoid the risk of bad publicity from someone blowing up a theatre showing the movie, and with all the attention from the threat combined with the fact that it can't be seen in theatres, home media sales will be through the roof! People will be lining up to buy the movie that was 'too dangerous to be shown in theatres' while thumbing their noses at the terrorists who don't want them to see it."
Um... would you like a beer, perchance?
Daleks nothing, those look more like the turrets from Portal to me. Pleeeease let someone at Microsoft load the turret voices onto them.
I'm pretty sure that if you modify, sign, and return a contract that was given to you, you need to get explicit approval of the changes (generally by having the other party initial them) for them to be binding.
If you let it. I think the people in this project are concerned about corporations suing the neighbors who 'illegally use' their patented seeds.
I think it's a pretty good test to use as a guideline, actually--when used appropriately, just like any other tool. First, it obviously can't be used with movies with a tiny cast or one that is constrained for important plot reasons. Is the movie about life inside a male prison or a true event where a plane with 10 men as passengers crashed? Then the test shouldn't be used. If there's very little dialog at all, the test probably doesn't fit either.
But what if the movie doesn't fall into any of those--if it's a movie with a large cast with lots of people talking? What if all the dialog is with men or about them, with no compelling plot reason for it? Does that send a message? Is that a message you want to subject yourself to?
That's up to you, of course. As is whether the movie in question fails the test but has a valid reason. Only an idiot would suggest that this test--which originally appeared as part of a conversation between two characters in a comic strip--should determine whether a movie can be released, though.
So, for the low cost of $20k-$100k multiplied by the number of schools this is installed in, we can limit a gunman with an assault rifle to only a few minutes of rampaging. While it's true that with many problems, mitigation can be very valuable even if a complete solution can't be found, I can't say that allowing someone minutes to mow down children with an assault rifle is all that much mitigation, especially for the cost to implement it.
Even if they're not trying to get you to admit to other violations, if they knew who cheated, they wouldn't ask for people to come forward. Why would they? Because they want to be known for their kinder, gentler handling of cheaters? No, any time the responsible party is 'given the opportunity to come forward' it's because the people making the generous offer don't know who is responsible and figures it's worth a try.
And what research is this referring to? The article gives no information about the alleged research, though it does mention Nintendo's warning on the 3DS which just happens to say the 3D feature should only be used by children 7 years or older.
And now I'm starting my day by picturing abortions sold as sex slaves. Thank you so much for that.
Saved? I can believe that none of the vaccinated monkeys caught Ebola, but I'd hardly call that 'saving' them. I'd also think calling a vaccine 100% effective is a bit premature with only nine test subjects.
But a really smart home will eventually realize the most efficient way to keep the house clean is to eliminate the people and pets in it...
Wow... my sister must have some sort of strange immunity.
He really should have gotten rid of that shirt...
Sir! The undersea power farm--it's covered in eels!
At the end of the 10 year period, to show their contempt and disdain for the filthy and polluting energy source, they will order all remaining coal in the country burned.
Now, this makes more sense than something that tries to cram everything you can do on your smart phone/tablet into a tiny screen strapped to your wrist. The wrist is a convenient space to mount a device. For most applications, it just isn't a convenient space to use said device.