As a devout Christian and avid watcher of American sci-fi TV series, I can confidently report that "In his image" means "looks and acts exactly like a human, with the possible exception of the shape of the ears and / or forehead."
Under most circumstances I'm no fan of unnecessary sequels and I'd love to see Hollywood actually come up with an original movie. That said, I hope they do make Blade Runner 2, just so I can screw with people who think BR is the OMG BEST FILM EVER. I can't wait to go up to some pretentious English major and say "Bladerunner was a pretty good movie, but I thought Bladerunner 2: Electric Sheep Boogaloo was way better." It'll be a riot!
I don't think we can invoke Einstein when discussing BTTF time travel, as Einstein's version of time travel involves moving at speeds close to / faster than the speed of light (88 miles per hour is not fast enough).
>we have seen the commerce clause turned on its very head
>censorship is the accepted norm for "solving" disagreements about what we see
I'm afraid the judicial ship has already sailed on these two. The war on drugs is based on the commerce clause, and censorship of TV and Radio and redaction of documents released under the freedom of information act have all held up in court.
I realize this will sound like the stereotypical slashdot corporations-are-evil attitude, but I think we need something slightly more complicated. Without going into details, the result should be:
-If $giant_corporation sues $little_guy and wins, everyone pays their own legal bills
-If $giant_corporation sues $little_guy and loses, $giant_corporation pays all the costs for the entire trial
-If $little_guy sues $giant_corporation and wins, $giant_corporation pays $little_guy's legal fees, but not other court costs
-If $little_guy sues $giant_corporation and loses, everyone pays their own legal fees
Defining $giant_corporation and $little_guy are somewhat problematic, but the decision should be made based on the total annual income of each party, or on the total annual legal expenses of each party, or some combination thereof, without actually considering weather the litigants are individuals or corporations.
This system is somewhat biased against people who can afford to represent themselves legally, but imo that's preferable to the current system where $little_guy always loses by default because even if he wins the legal bills will ruin him (if $little_guy is the defendant) or eat up his entire settlement (if $little_guy is the one doing the suing).
Actually, sometimes I do just take the fruits of someone's work without paying them. I do this when I use works that are in the public domain.
We have a contract in our society that says that creators of works are entitled to a limited monopoly over the distribution of their works. They are given this limited monopoly to encourage the creation of works so that, when the copyright covering a work expires, the public domain will be enhanced and all will benefit. This enhancement of the public domain is the underlying justification for all intellectual property law.
If you take the limited monopoly and make it a permanent monopoly, as is currently the case in the US, the benefit to the public is eliminated. The content creators have broken their side of the contract, and as such I am no longer under any obligation to respect my side.
Preemptive rebuttals to probable arguments, please disregard if you do not agree with the argument stated in quotes:
(1)"But the law is the law and if you don't like it you should get it changed, but don't just break it!"
legal != moral. The law used to require that anyone discovering an escaped slave turn him in to the authorities. Are you suggesting that you would not break this law if it were still in force? How about a more modern example. Currently according to the letter of the law, if two consenting 17 year-olds have sex with each other they are both rapists and should be branded as sex offenders for life. Would you suggest that all sexually active minors be imprisoned and registered as sex offenders because "its's the law"? If not, please explain why "the law is the law" applies in some cases and not others.
(2)"Congress extended copyright terms, not authors! Don't punish content creators for laws that they did not create!"
Authors willingly enter into contracts with the publishing companies that pay lobbyists to get copyright terms extended. By supporting the publishers that pay the lobbyists, they are supporting the extension of copyright terms. I do consider it morally correct to pay independent creators for their work for this reason, though I would still pirate a work by an independent creator if the creator refused to sell it to me for whatever reason.
(3)"You are just a cheap mom's-basement-dwelling pirate trying to justify your illegal and illicit actions as you cry yourself to sleep every night! (also you're probably a virgin!)"
This is an ad-hominem attack, even if you drop the parts about me being a virgin and crying myself to sleep every night. Please address the merits of the argument instead of attacking me personally.
I haven't read the source materials, but I the strong implication (I'm think it's outright stated, but I don't have a citation) is that the usurper was taxing and oppressing the people to an unbearable degree that King John never did. I don't think there's really enough evidence to determine weather Robin did what he did out of loyalty to John or out of hate for oppression, because those two motivations both dictated the same actions.
This reply is relevant and insightful because torrenting a game uses up one copy that could have gone to a paying customer, just like the seat you used in your theater example.
>Drinking water may cause cancer.
>Looking at the sun may cause blindness.
Well, my research indicates that nearly 100% of cancer victims were water drinkers, while only a statistically insignificant percentage of visually challenged individuals admit to staring into the sun. So there you have it, drinking water does cause cancer, and looking at the sun does not cause blindness.
I understand that using feminine pronouns is the politically correct thing to do, but in the context of this sentence I think it's fair to assume that the engineer in question is most likely male.
Reverse Tachyon Pulse: I'm sorry Life Support, it's been great working with you, but things just aren't working out.
Life Support: Come on, I need this job! I've got kids to support!
Reverse Tachyon Pulse: This isn't easy for me either, but you knew when you fired me from the main deflector that I might fire key systems. Can you send Antimatter Containment into my office on your way out?
Slashdot Mirror
Coincidentally, this is also the date when the large hadron collier will finally finish repairs and conduct it's first successful test.
As a devout Christian and avid watcher of American sci-fi TV series, I can confidently report that "In his image" means "looks and acts exactly like a human, with the possible exception of the shape of the ears and / or forehead."
Under most circumstances I'm no fan of unnecessary sequels and I'd love to see Hollywood actually come up with an original movie. That said, I hope they do make Blade Runner 2, just so I can screw with people who think BR is the OMG BEST FILM EVER. I can't wait to go up to some pretentious English major and say "Bladerunner was a pretty good movie, but I thought Bladerunner 2: Electric Sheep Boogaloo was way better." It'll be a riot!
I don't think we can invoke Einstein when discussing BTTF time travel, as Einstein's version of time travel involves moving at speeds close to / faster than the speed of light (88 miles per hour is not fast enough).
I think that, if I had a time machine, I could come up with a more lucrative business plan than smuggling drugs.
>we have seen the commerce clause turned on its very head
>censorship is the accepted norm for "solving" disagreements about what we see
I'm afraid the judicial ship has already sailed on these two. The war on drugs is based on the commerce clause, and censorship of TV and Radio and redaction of documents released under the freedom of information act have all held up in court.
Anybody know of a Southern California ISP based in Austin, TX?
I realize this will sound like the stereotypical slashdot corporations-are-evil attitude, but I think we need something slightly more complicated. Without going into details, the result should be:
-If $giant_corporation sues $little_guy and wins, everyone pays their own legal bills
-If $giant_corporation sues $little_guy and loses, $giant_corporation pays all the costs for the entire trial
-If $little_guy sues $giant_corporation and wins, $giant_corporation pays $little_guy's legal fees, but not other court costs
-If $little_guy sues $giant_corporation and loses, everyone pays their own legal fees
Defining $giant_corporation and $little_guy are somewhat problematic, but the decision should be made based on the total annual income of each party, or on the total annual legal expenses of each party, or some combination thereof, without actually considering weather the litigants are individuals or corporations. This system is somewhat biased against people who can afford to represent themselves legally, but imo that's preferable to the current system where $little_guy always loses by default because even if he wins the legal bills will ruin him (if $little_guy is the defendant) or eat up his entire settlement (if $little_guy is the one doing the suing).
(1) there's no +1, heartwarming, so we have to get by with what we have
So they're going to make some games suitable for 10 year olds? I keed, I keed!
If it's so easy and is "much needed technology" why hasn't someone done this already? Programming FPGAs really isn't that hard...
C also has a lot to recommend it. For example, c-like syntax. real world, not a toy language etc.
In Soviet Russia, internet stops effective from being Hitler!
Like all real mathematicians, I solve my quantum linear equations by hand.
Competition is great, but the last thing I want is ten different systems, each with 1 or 2 exclusive titles that I really want to play.
Actually, sometimes I do just take the fruits of someone's work without paying them. I do this when I use works that are in the public domain.
We have a contract in our society that says that creators of works are entitled to a limited monopoly over the distribution of their works. They are given this limited monopoly to encourage the creation of works so that, when the copyright covering a work expires, the public domain will be enhanced and all will benefit. This enhancement of the public domain is the underlying justification for all intellectual property law.
If you take the limited monopoly and make it a permanent monopoly, as is currently the case in the US, the benefit to the public is eliminated. The content creators have broken their side of the contract, and as such I am no longer under any obligation to respect my side.
Preemptive rebuttals to probable arguments, please disregard if you do not agree with the argument stated in quotes:
(1)"But the law is the law and if you don't like it you should get it changed, but don't just break it!"
legal != moral. The law used to require that anyone discovering an escaped slave turn him in to the authorities. Are you suggesting that you would not break this law if it were still in force? How about a more modern example. Currently according to the letter of the law, if two consenting 17 year-olds have sex with each other they are both rapists and should be branded as sex offenders for life. Would you suggest that all sexually active minors be imprisoned and registered as sex offenders because "its's the law"? If not, please explain why "the law is the law" applies in some cases and not others.
(2)"Congress extended copyright terms, not authors! Don't punish content creators for laws that they did not create!"
Authors willingly enter into contracts with the publishing companies that pay lobbyists to get copyright terms extended. By supporting the publishers that pay the lobbyists, they are supporting the extension of copyright terms. I do consider it morally correct to pay independent creators for their work for this reason, though I would still pirate a work by an independent creator if the creator refused to sell it to me for whatever reason.
(3)"You are just a cheap mom's-basement-dwelling pirate trying to justify your illegal and illicit actions as you cry yourself to sleep every night! (also you're probably a virgin!)"
This is an ad-hominem attack, even if you drop the parts about me being a virgin and crying myself to sleep every night. Please address the merits of the argument instead of attacking me personally.
I would say it is definitely worth the risk, considering it's impossible to go 0.1 faster.
My favorite part of this is when Ender goes on an insane rant about how much he hates Jews.
I haven't read the source materials, but I the strong implication (I'm think it's outright stated, but I don't have a citation) is that the usurper was taxing and oppressing the people to an unbearable degree that King John never did. I don't think there's really enough evidence to determine weather Robin did what he did out of loyalty to John or out of hate for oppression, because those two motivations both dictated the same actions.
This reply is relevant and insightful because torrenting a game uses up one copy that could have gone to a paying customer, just like the seat you used in your theater example.
So by the same logic can we call Neil Armstrong a spacecraft?
I'll wait until they make a movie based on Gene Ray's Timecube.
>Drinking water may cause cancer.
>Looking at the sun may cause blindness.
Well, my research indicates that nearly 100% of cancer victims were water drinkers, while only a statistically insignificant percentage of visually challenged individuals admit to staring into the sun. So there you have it, drinking water does cause cancer, and looking at the sun does not cause blindness.
I understand that using feminine pronouns is the politically correct thing to do, but in the context of this sentence I think it's fair to assume that the engineer in question is most likely male.
Reverse Tachyon Pulse: I'm sorry Life Support, it's been great working with you, but things just aren't working out.
Life Support: Come on, I need this job! I've got kids to support!
Reverse Tachyon Pulse: This isn't easy for me either, but you knew when you fired me from the main deflector that I might fire key systems. Can you send Antimatter Containment into my office on your way out?