I agree. You know what I saw, though? Guitar Hero: Aerosmith for $20 on sale at KMART!. Thats a full real quality GH guitar for 20 bucks plus you get w/e crapola Aerosmith songs come with it (please don't think I'm some Aerosmith fan troll, it is just kinda obvious that most people share my same opinion of their music since it was $20).
But, yes. Given a choice, I'd rather buy a new game than a second guitar, or a replacement guitar since it seems to wear out much sooner than expected when people are reeming songs on expert with it.
I need you to reference evidence to what you've stated. The extensive data I've seen does not follow the false memes you've echoed here. Are you referencing a pundit or a research project? From the looks of your definitively false statements, I assume you're echoing paid pundits.
How much do you actually know about what you're talking about? I'm not asking you rhetorically (though that would be fun to poke at you with), but actually. Tell me what you know before I pay any credence to your b.s.
I can, however, rapidly destroy your b.s. with the fact that the average solar cell produces enough energy to pay for itself AND recycle itself into another working cell in 7 - 10 years. And the average lifespan being 28 years before requiring recycle. Do the math, if you can. 28-10 = 18 years of relatively free energy.
I'm happy to have informed you. Spread the word instead of the false memes you're trying to echo.
And the cost of energy and materials to produce the solar cells needed to capture said solar energy?
... is covered in usually 7 to 10 years of the average 28 years the cell will reliably produce energy. But what is also covered in that 7 to 10 years is the energy it would require to recycle that cell into a new working cell. Now you know; spread the word.
Please don't post/echo false memes unless you actually want to hear the truth.
That answer isn't insightful, its a blind shot in the dark cop-out for a real answer.
mark it troll if you like, but I'm probably right (pending an onslaught of evidence that FROM the author that is actually spot on and not googled after I post, lol)
I understand his approach to biology is free market capitalist. I've seen him preach that it works because he is living proof of it. True for him, and maybe for some others. Some great firms get their bread and butter from capitalism (Genentech (now Roche) makes Insulin in E. coli). I suppose the only drawback is that until they decide to talk about it, some great work and discoveries may remain private. But that's in their right, they don't owe anyone for their work.
Nevertheless, what he has done is outstanding. I'm not here to cheerlead no more than how I feel Richard Dawkins should also be talked about in this conversation. I just know that I have an opinion and it is that J.C. Venter does badass science.
I don't think the basis for Roe V Wade is as simple as not being able to observe/prove a crime. You can't murder a human unless that human is a person. That, alone, absolves an abortion of the crime.
When people decide to get violence removed/banned/controlled in video games, get ready for millions of gamers to call for the same treatment of books, film, TV, and the most violent of all, the news.
Be a parent, not a fascist. Freedom is hard if you cant govern yourself, but at least you have options.
... or they know that the constitutionally legitimate ways of finding evidence is not sufficient to gain conclusive evidence... so they just keep doing crime and getting away with it.
FYI, just because you can't be proven guilty doesn't make an act OK. And just because privacy can be used an excuse to not be properly convicted, a person is not absolved of any wrongdoing.
I'm sure you understand that if you can't prove I keyed your car, that doesn't make it ok for me to do so. Invade my rights to see the paint chips on the tip of my key in my pocket? F U
Really? I thought that if you have information regarding a crime, you may be required to testify and provide that information.
So if my gun is used to kill someone and I know who had it, but it wasn't me. I just say "prove it was me" and that's that? I find that very hard to believe.
And so it comes down to then asking those responsible people to testify as to who it was. In your anecdote, the car-thief did it and afaik the case ends there. I know you don't prove yourself innocent, and rather you are supposed to be proven guilty. And you can't be forced to testify against yourself --- but in this case if you will not admit responsibility for the actions identified to be attributed to the hardware you own or are responsible for --- then you should at least then be subpoenaed to identify, within your knowledge, who DID do it with YOUR network/computer/router/etc (that you've been identified to be responsible for).
And yes, I agree that the IP alone isn't sufficient. But on the contrary, the IP though not sufficient on its own, is still relevant and important.
I'm now thinking up anecdotes that relate registered weapons to owners and crimes... find gun @ crimescene, contact the registered owner. (Obviously not equating copyright infringement to murder, but rather equating responsibility/identification/crime in parallel arguments as to how a person might be implicated)
Not that I agree with the RIAA or their shady methods... But it would be nice to see a person who claimed not to have been file sharing, to actually be directly proven to have done so, and be charged for lying in court.
There is a difference between defending privacy and defending one's ability to escape legal process and/or 'get away with shit'. When reading on slashdot I often wonder which side people are coming from... self interest, or a sense of true right/wrong.
If I were the prosecutor, I would go after WHO is responsible for the hardware. And if they claim to not be the perpetrator, then I would require them to identify who it is (since they are responsible for their connections/hardware/etc).
Don't mod me down for making sense... I don't like the system either...
This post is not true for the following reasons: 1) Your car/license pops up on speed camera. The registered owner, the person responsible for the car, will receive a ticket in the mail. That person is being charged w/ the crime. You are also asked that if you were not the driver of the car you are responsible for, that you identify the person who was at that date/time. This is real. What you said about how you can't get ticketed is simply false. In 2004, my company, who had rented a car to me, had been passed a traffic-camera ticket from the registered owners (the rental agency), they in turn passed it on to me... And guess what, I was driving the car at the time and the exchange of information as to who was actually operating the vehicle at the time was apparent. GUILTY. (The ticket was like $120)
2) Its not like you're randomly assigned an IP. IP addresses have specific ranges that apply for different regions/ISPs/etc. So that narrows it down from 'random' to some much more likely probability since you're connecting to the same ISP with the same range of IPs to hand out. Secondly, and I would *hope* this is how it works in law, it isn't as simple as having had that IP "...at one point in time..." but rather that you had it at *THAT* point in time. It would not really hold logical weight, in court, to charge a previous owner of a car who had sold it in 2001, for a speeding infraction that happened in 2008 simply because he had had the license/registration at one point in time.
Anyway... Your post is not 5-Insightful, but rather 2 or 1 - misleading and wrong.
Not proving myself to a computer game (that's stupid, but I"m sure you knew it was when you said it) -- rather proving myself to myself. And the real word here is ACCOMPLISHMENT. To have a sense of accomplishment, one must accomplish a feat that took effort to overcome and make happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. You know what I saw, though? Guitar Hero: Aerosmith for $20 on sale at KMART!. Thats a full real quality GH guitar for 20 bucks plus you get w/e crapola Aerosmith songs come with it (please don't think I'm some Aerosmith fan troll, it is just kinda obvious that most people share my same opinion of their music since it was $20).
But, yes. Given a choice, I'd rather buy a new game than a second guitar, or a replacement guitar since it seems to wear out much sooner than expected when people are reeming songs on expert with it.
I need you to reference evidence to what you've stated. The extensive data I've seen does not follow the false memes you've echoed here. Are you referencing a pundit or a research project? From the looks of your definitively false statements, I assume you're echoing paid pundits.
How much do you actually know about what you're talking about? I'm not asking you rhetorically (though that would be fun to poke at you with), but actually. Tell me what you know before I pay any credence to your b.s.
I can, however, rapidly destroy your b.s. with the fact that the average solar cell produces enough energy to pay for itself AND recycle itself into another working cell in 7 - 10 years. And the average lifespan being 28 years before requiring recycle. Do the math, if you can. 28-10 = 18 years of relatively free energy.
I'm happy to have informed you. Spread the word instead of the false memes you're trying to echo.
And the cost of energy and materials to produce the solar cells needed to capture said solar energy?
... is covered in usually 7 to 10 years of the average 28 years the cell will reliably produce energy. But what is also covered in that 7 to 10 years is the energy it would require to recycle that cell into a new working cell. Now you know; spread the word.
Please don't post/echo false memes unless you actually want to hear the truth.
That answer isn't insightful, its a blind shot in the dark cop-out for a real answer.
mark it troll if you like, but I'm probably right (pending an onslaught of evidence that FROM the author that is actually spot on and not googled after I post, lol)
...physical intimidation..... ... he 'jumped' from a building to his death...
sounds more like mob/thug intimidation and ending to me....
Apple is gangsta, I just didn't think they would send goons to kill a man over a prototype.
I understand his approach to biology is free market capitalist. I've seen him preach that it works because he is living proof of it. True for him, and maybe for some others. Some great firms get their bread and butter from capitalism (Genentech (now Roche) makes Insulin in E. coli). I suppose the only drawback is that until they decide to talk about it, some great work and discoveries may remain private. But that's in their right, they don't owe anyone for their work.
Nevertheless, what he has done is outstanding. I'm not here to cheerlead no more than how I feel Richard Dawkins should also be talked about in this conversation. I just know that I have an opinion and it is that J.C. Venter does badass science.
... the creator of what? If you demand Carl use science, you do the same. Let me guess, I'll have to place faith in repeated memes instead...
I'll bank on evidence and hold to theories backed by substantial evidence.
whine more...
forgot to mention.... he's on a boat!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORTyaK3d4eA
look him up...
Their idea of 'security' seems to be defined as "A conceptual medium by which masses of people may be persuaded to embrace a proposed idea."
Scary.
I don't think the basis for Roe V Wade is as simple as not being able to observe/prove a crime. You can't murder a human unless that human is a person. That, alone, absolves an abortion of the crime.
Got proof?
It boils down to this: Crusades = ok, premarital sex = da debbil.
When people decide to get violence removed/banned/controlled in video games, get ready for millions of gamers to call for the same treatment of books, film, TV, and the most violent of all, the news.
Be a parent, not a fascist. Freedom is hard if you cant govern yourself, but at least you have options.
... or they know that the constitutionally legitimate ways of finding evidence is not sufficient to gain conclusive evidence... so they just keep doing crime and getting away with it.
FYI, just because you can't be proven guilty doesn't make an act OK. And just because privacy can be used an excuse to not be properly convicted, a person is not absolved of any wrongdoing.
I'm sure you understand that if you can't prove I keyed your car, that doesn't make it ok for me to do so. Invade my rights to see the paint chips on the tip of my key in my pocket? F U
Really? I thought that if you have information regarding a crime, you may be required to testify and provide that information.
So if my gun is used to kill someone and I know who had it, but it wasn't me. I just say "prove it was me" and that's that? I find that very hard to believe.
And so it comes down to then asking those responsible people to testify as to who it was. In your anecdote, the car-thief did it and afaik the case ends there. I know you don't prove yourself innocent, and rather you are supposed to be proven guilty. And you can't be forced to testify against yourself --- but in this case if you will not admit responsibility for the actions identified to be attributed to the hardware you own or are responsible for --- then you should at least then be subpoenaed to identify, within your knowledge, who DID do it with YOUR network/computer/router/etc (that you've been identified to be responsible for).
And yes, I agree that the IP alone isn't sufficient. But on the contrary, the IP though not sufficient on its own, is still relevant and important.
I'm now thinking up anecdotes that relate registered weapons to owners and crimes... find gun @ crimescene, contact the registered owner. (Obviously not equating copyright infringement to murder, but rather equating responsibility/identification/crime in parallel arguments as to how a person might be implicated)
I would assume its a bureaucratic/political issue, or a powers-that-be issue.
Nothing stands in the way of progress more than big money.
myself included as well (not redundant, this is called support)
Not that I agree with the RIAA or their shady methods... But it would be nice to see a person who claimed not to have been file sharing, to actually be directly proven to have done so, and be charged for lying in court.
There is a difference between defending privacy and defending one's ability to escape legal process and/or 'get away with shit'. When reading on slashdot I often wonder which side people are coming from... self interest, or a sense of true right/wrong.
If I were the prosecutor, I would go after WHO is responsible for the hardware. And if they claim to not be the perpetrator, then I would require them to identify who it is (since they are responsible for their connections/hardware/etc).
Don't mod me down for making sense... I don't like the system either...
This post is not true for the following reasons:
1) Your car/license pops up on speed camera. The registered owner, the person responsible for the car, will receive a ticket in the mail. That person is being charged w/ the crime. You are also asked that if you were not the driver of the car you are responsible for, that you identify the person who was at that date/time. This is real. What you said about how you can't get ticketed is simply false. In 2004, my company, who had rented a car to me, had been passed a traffic-camera ticket from the registered owners (the rental agency), they in turn passed it on to me... And guess what, I was driving the car at the time and the exchange of information as to who was actually operating the vehicle at the time was apparent. GUILTY. (The ticket was like $120)
2) Its not like you're randomly assigned an IP. IP addresses have specific ranges that apply for different regions/ISPs/etc. So that narrows it down from 'random' to some much more likely probability since you're connecting to the same ISP with the same range of IPs to hand out. Secondly, and I would *hope* this is how it works in law, it isn't as simple as having had that IP "...at one point in time..." but rather that you had it at *THAT* point in time. It would not really hold logical weight, in court, to charge a previous owner of a car who had sold it in 2001, for a speeding infraction that happened in 2008 simply because he had had the license/registration at one point in time.
Anyway... Your post is not 5-Insightful, but rather 2 or 1 - misleading and wrong.
Not proving myself to a computer game (that's stupid, but I"m sure you knew it was when you said it) -- rather proving myself to myself. And the real word here is ACCOMPLISHMENT. To have a sense of accomplishment, one must accomplish a feat that took effort to overcome and make happen.
And you'll never be a great video gamer. You don't do work. And that's totally OK. I'm not good at tennis or breakdancing.