(At first I thought the moderators were on crack. Then I remembered this was Slashdot, home to the folks who know less about women than they do about law, despite claiming to be authorities on both.)
Gee, we'll replace an unrealistic figure with a real one that people have been conditioned to identify as unattractive. We'll leave the unrealistic outfits and the ogle-me attitudes the same. But people are still offended! Conclusion: "basically nothing will make them happy, because they enjoy preaching and making people feel bad." WTF?
C'mon, logic is the sort of thing you're supposed to actually get right round here.
... but some of us want (and deserve) to have sex without love. I get love from my mom, and I talk deep stuff with her often. I don't want a girl to feel close to, I just need to screw real bad, or at least jerk myself to release the chemicals so I'm not in so much pain.
I don't think you meant "deserve." If you did, you're wrong; nobody's obligated to fuck you.
And if you're actually in pain, see a doctor; there's something wrong with you.
But for some unknown reason, it's considered just fine to read about sex, but terrible to want to watch it. It's a silly double standard.
No. It's considered silly, escapist, and a little sad to read a puerile Harlequin about some woman being ravished in a castle, but just fine to read Lady Chatterley's Lover. It's considered silly, escapist, and a little sad to watch a puerile porn film where the roommates get it on with the pizza guy, but just fine to watch Eyes Wide Shut.
The difference is that more of the books have positive aesthetic qualities, Valley of the Penises notwithstanding.
You're not a more liberal industry just because you're prone to porn. While it's easy to bash attitudes toward sex and nudity (especially for the average adolescent-male Slashdotter who sees these attitudes as denying him what he would otherwise have), doing so doesn't make Joe Porndirector a sophisticate. Even if he does call his films art.
In terms of the trade shows: do the actions and costumes of the characters these "boothbabes" represent (and if they don't, what's their raison d'etre?) make any statement or even just make sense within the context of the game? If not, then it's immature, no matter if it's liberal or prudish, sex or porn.
This is stupid. Of course you shouldn't trust it. You should fix the holes yourself, and not allow the worm on your system.
However, for those who are less security-conscious, this is a Good Thing. Not infallible, and not the best alternative, but perhaps (and only perhaps; I don't know enough to judge) better than leaving the system wide open.
For those of you who don't bother reading the linked article: the series premise stated by CmdrTaco in the Slashdot summary was a joke. Here's TrekToday on the subject:
Paramount's press release did not officially confirm the next series' setting, but this news makes it all but certain that the series will indeed be set aboard a 22nd-Century Enterprise.
Except that not all suits result in long, drawn-out trials, even those that aren't settled. The game companies will move to dismiss for failure to state a valid claim, and this should succeed. If it doesn't they'll move for summary judgment and win there. Maybe file a counterclaim under Rule 11, though the courts are really loath to impose sanctions for frivolous lawsuits.
Those of you ready to condemn the legal system (again) please note that no court has yet said the case has merit, and no court ever will. This case would not survive summary judgment.
...considering the number of times I've gotten email from The Internet Law Journal, passing itself off as an academic law journal and asking for students to volunteer their services.
As LB pointed out, the US can't claim rights on the moon because they signed an international treaty. LB, as a nongovernmental power, could claim it (of course, the US will just make him give it back).
Depends on what language you're referring to, but not necessarily. Sometimes language is convoluted to precisely specify. Sometimes it's to be as general and inclusive as possible. Sometimes it's to reconcile two precedents that aren't very compatible. Sometimes it's simply meant to confuse.
Laws are not programs nor mathematical theorems. Perhaps I should make that my sig.
Well, you'll be happy to know that the Court has set out a more structured test for obscenity. (Miller, I think, though that's off the top of my head.) It's been around quite a while.
Like how is "Well, it was a nice big fart. I'm feeling very gaseous at this point." worse than "Dick suggests maybe getting a mega-Dick to help out, but you know, you remember the time the King ate mega-Dick under the table...?"
Context, as the FCC rightly points out. In the light of a larger quote, it was obvious that the perceived sexual references in the latter required a guttermind on the part of the listener. (Hint: "eating someone under the table" can simply mean consuming more than him.)
It's a summary of case law, not a regulation. It's meant to expand on the Pacifica standard.
Personally, this is the problem I have with people talking law on Slashdot; the programmers and engineers seem to think law is formulaic, that there's a bright-line test for everything. Language and actions are not so precise.
I didn't read the article, but The Net sucked, so this article must suck. In addition, because it was written by a journalist and not a hacker, it must have misunderstood the image and confused the distinction we like to make between hackers (us, good) and crackers (them, bad).
The Copyright Act requires a signed, written transfer of copyright. A click-through agreement or a posted "Terms of Use" doesn't cut it, no matter what Microsoft says. At best, they can claim that you're licensing them to use the work, but as Microsoft's lawyers have often pointed out, a license and a transfer are completely different creatures.
Infinity minus one day is still infinity. Yes, I know some higher-up said that that would be a constitutional limited time, but he's made fun of in every copyright class in existence.
Slashdot Mirror
(At first I thought the moderators were on crack. Then I remembered this was Slashdot, home to the folks who know less about women than they do about law, despite claiming to be authorities on both.)
Gee, we'll replace an unrealistic figure with a real one that people have been conditioned to identify as unattractive. We'll leave the unrealistic outfits and the ogle-me attitudes the same. But people are still offended! Conclusion: "basically nothing will make them happy, because they enjoy preaching and making people feel bad." WTF?
C'mon, logic is the sort of thing you're supposed to actually get right round here.
I don't think you meant "deserve." If you did, you're wrong; nobody's obligated to fuck you.
And if you're actually in pain, see a doctor; there's something wrong with you.
And we all know that the Japanese video-game and comics markets are known for their sophistication and maturity...
Yes, anime freaks, that's sarcasm.
No. It's considered silly, escapist, and a little sad to read a puerile Harlequin about some woman being ravished in a castle, but just fine to read Lady Chatterley's Lover. It's considered silly, escapist, and a little sad to watch a puerile porn film where the roommates get it on with the pizza guy, but just fine to watch Eyes Wide Shut.
The difference is that more of the books have positive aesthetic qualities, Valley of the Penises notwithstanding.
You're not a more liberal industry just because you're prone to porn. While it's easy to bash attitudes toward sex and nudity (especially for the average adolescent-male Slashdotter who sees these attitudes as denying him what he would otherwise have), doing so doesn't make Joe Porndirector a sophisticate. Even if he does call his films art.
In terms of the trade shows: do the actions and costumes of the characters these "boothbabes" represent (and if they don't, what's their raison d'etre?) make any statement or even just make sense within the context of the game? If not, then it's immature, no matter if it's liberal or prudish, sex or porn.
This is stupid. Of course you shouldn't trust it. You should fix the holes yourself, and not allow the worm on your system.
However, for those who are less security-conscious, this is a Good Thing. Not infallible, and not the best alternative, but perhaps (and only perhaps; I don't know enough to judge) better than leaving the system wide open.
Could be worse. Could be he thinks "Search for Spock," "The Final Frontier" and "Generations" were good.
You're on crack. Or you're JonKatz under an alias. Or both.
For those of you who don't bother reading the linked article: the series premise stated by CmdrTaco in the Slashdot summary was a joke . Here's TrekToday on the subject:
Wow... they've created a Photopia!
Except that not all suits result in long, drawn-out trials, even those that aren't settled. The game companies will move to dismiss for failure to state a valid claim, and this should succeed. If it doesn't they'll move for summary judgment and win there. Maybe file a counterclaim under Rule 11, though the courts are really loath to impose sanctions for frivolous lawsuits.
Those of you ready to condemn the legal system (again) please note that no court has yet said the case has merit, and no court ever will. This case would not survive summary judgment.
That's not pro bono. That's a contingency fee basis.
...considering the number of times I've gotten email from The Internet Law Journal, passing itself off as an academic law journal and asking for students to volunteer their services.
As LB pointed out, the US can't claim rights on the moon because they signed an international treaty. LB, as a nongovernmental power, could claim it (of course, the US will just make him give it back).
Depends on what language you're referring to, but not necessarily. Sometimes language is convoluted to precisely specify. Sometimes it's to be as general and inclusive as possible. Sometimes it's to reconcile two precedents that aren't very compatible. Sometimes it's simply meant to confuse.
Laws are not programs nor mathematical theorems. Perhaps I should make that my sig.
Who's talking about software? That's generally out of the FCC's jurisdiction.
Well, you'll be happy to know that the Court has set out a more structured test for obscenity. (Miller, I think, though that's off the top of my head.) It's been around quite a while.
Like how is "Well, it was a nice big fart. I'm feeling very gaseous at this point." worse than "Dick suggests maybe getting a mega-Dick to help out, but you know, you remember the time the King ate mega-Dick under the table...?"
Context, as the FCC rightly points out. In the light of a larger quote, it was obvious that the perceived sexual references in the latter required a guttermind on the part of the listener. (Hint: "eating someone under the table" can simply mean consuming more than him.)
It's a summary of case law, not a regulation. It's meant to expand on the Pacifica standard.
Personally, this is the problem I have with people talking law on Slashdot; the programmers and engineers seem to think law is formulaic, that there's a bright-line test for everything. Language and actions are not so precise.
I didn't read the article, but The Net sucked, so this article must suck. In addition, because it was written by a journalist and not a hacker, it must have misunderstood the image and confused the distinction we like to make between hackers (us, good) and crackers (them, bad).
(All further posts to this effect are redundant.)
The Copyright Act requires a signed, written transfer of copyright. A click-through agreement or a posted "Terms of Use" doesn't cut it, no matter what Microsoft says. At best, they can claim that you're licensing them to use the work, but as Microsoft's lawyers have often pointed out, a license and a transfer are completely different creatures.
Infinity minus one day is still infinity. Yes, I know some higher-up said that that would be a constitutional limited time, but he's made fun of in every copyright class in existence.
The original Wizardry entrepreneur's name was Boltac.