Adultery is one of the grounds for divorce. While NJ did move out of the dark ages in 2007 when it added reasonable no-fault divorce grounds there are still some advantages to having fault grounds (you can skip some of the waiting periods the no-fault grounds usually require, and some people still hope they'll get a judge who will "punish" the other person in the "which stuff do I get and who pays who alimony/child support" part).
Some people are smart enough to realise that while the earthquake/tsunami was the initial cause the same end result could occur via some other event causing cooling failure at a nuke plant.
Completely junking nuke plants seems a rather short sighted reaction, but what it has to do with Japan is obvious to anyone with at least 3 brain cells.
You don't flick through magazines? Read the first few pages of a book in a bookshop? Listen to a youtube video from a new album that has just been released? Does your wife sniff a perfume before buying it? You sound like you arguing that you should buy everything regardless how little you use it. That not owning the item completely should be illegal.
Aside from youtube (which may of may not in each case) those are things that the seller allows you to do as part of their marketing. Most places let you flip through the book or magazine, but don't let you take it home for the night or photocopy it for example. Some stores that sell perfume/companies that make perfume clearly think they'll make more sales if they eat the cost of samples.
However, if a particular store doesn't let you try something first that is there right. Not buying from them is fine, forcing them to do so is not.
I think you've blown my original post out of proportion. I bought four boxsets (and two more since then because my example for a month ago). I only downloaded a handful of episodes from one season. After the first one finished, I purchased a helluva lot more than I took.
I won't buy a boxset of Desparate Housewives without seeing an episode first. Whether it's on television (I did not like it) or streaming or on YouTube doesn't matter.
I can't tell if you're intentionally not understanding (trolling) or really don't.
I didn't say your were a huge pirate or pirated everything.
But your example arguing that you weren't a pirate was the action of pirating something.
It doesn't matter that you purchased more than you took. You still pirated something.
If you're telling me you bouught a magazine or book, impulsively, without reading a few pages and without being aware of it I don't believe you. When you go buy a carpet, you feel how it feels on your feet before you buy it.
I certainly have impulsively bought a book without reading a few pages. Because I liked the author and had all their other books. So sure I was aware of it before. I've bought a book because I read a review without ever even seeing the book. I've certainly paid for and watched a movie that I had never even heard the name of before walking into the cinema.
If people could not find out what something was like, I guarantee there would be fewer sales for everything. If books and magazines were behind a glass counter, you can guarantee you would get fewer sales.
Of course there would be fewer sales. But that isn't what you claimed. You claimed no sales, which is completely different.
And again, it doesn't matter. The copyright holder is allowed use suboptimal marketing. They are allowed to do something (or not do something) even though it will result in fewer sales. As an aside there are probably cases where is wouldn't result in fewer sales too - selling a book filled with blank paper will likely see more sales if you don't allow anyone to flip through it before buying, or a really bad movie, or a really bad video game, etc.
You worked around their choice in the case of the TV series mentioned, and I have no moral objection to you doing so. It is however called pirating (the argument about whether that's a reasonable term to use is also irrelevant to this duscussion) and claiming it isn't because you bought it later is silly.
I buy thing in the supermarket precisely because I've never tried them on occassions. I buy books I haven't read before. I buy tickets to movies I haven't seen before. I go to restaurants at which I've never eaten before. I buy video games I've never played or played a demo of before.
I'm pretty sure most magazines, radios, and television stations don't let you run your ad for free to see if you like their services. And most banks don't let you trial borrow $500,000 (though interest free periods on credit cards are common of course).
The free samples approach is a popular form of marketing, but you don't get to force others into marketing things using your prefered method. Well you do for the topic at hand via downloading it without their authorization - but it's pirating and pretending it isn't is just silly.
I recently felt like watching DS9 so I started torrenting a season of it. After watching an episode I proceeded to buy four box sets online.
Ah not linux. However, that's a very poor argument. You just claimed to torrent but your are not a pirate and your explanation of that is an example of how your pirated an episode of a TV series.
And no, it doesn't make a difference that you then bought it afterwards. The copyright holder has decided not to use torrents as a try-before-you-buy distribution model, which as the copyright holder is their right regardless of whether it makes economic sense or not.
Why the fuck would I buy something before knowing what it is like first?
Becuase that is the deal the copyright holder is offering you. If you don't like that deal then don't take it and don't watch the thing at all.
See the Jetsons - heck there's a link a few comments back...
That's a flying car. A personal flying vehicle which isn't a plane (no wings for lift), isn't a helicopter (no rotors), doesn't use a jet, no big fans, etc. Essentially a magical* flying device that is used as a car is used for personal transport but it flies instead of drives.
Yes you saw something completely different than a roundabout decades ago that was a bad design . That clearly means that even though roundabouts have been shown to be faster and safer than other intersection types in a couple of dozen other countries they must be bad. Your anecdote about something completely different is much more important than decades of experience with actual roundabouts.
Of course sadly you are right, as is the article (well the summary). Americans are simply too stupid to use what must be the simplest intersection possible (it's 3 or more non-stop signed T-intersections arranged in a circle) as evidenced by your argument.
Of course counter to that, I live in NJ and there's a roundabout 30 seconds drive from my driveway.
Slashdot Mirror
Great so now the driver opens their window and holds their cell phone out of it. That'll improve things.
Upwind of the local toddler day care center for bonus points.
Asbestos is a rock you idiot. From peridotite mostly - you know the damn mantle where funguses are not exactly common.
I'm pretty sure it is illegal for them to steal the stuff you have in bag too, yet that doesn't seem to help.
* Yes, yes. It increases their risk significantly and hence they'll pick a different bag.
Sure, but it is not as fixed as you seem to think.
There's a reasons there's a "Comments, Rebuttals, and Justification for Deviations" section on the worksheets (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/ix-d.pdf and http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/ix-c.pdf), and that http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/app9f.pdf uses the magic words "should" and "discretionary".
no one cares about modern reactors, they care about the reactors they actually have.
One would hope the lawyer they have give the contract (at least) a once over has at least five minutes of experience with the usual traps.
Adultery is one of the grounds for divorce. While NJ did move out of the dark ages in 2007 when it added reasonable no-fault divorce grounds there are still some advantages to having fault grounds (you can skip some of the waiting periods the no-fault grounds usually require, and some people still hope they'll get a judge who will "punish" the other person in the "which stuff do I get and who pays who alimony/child support" part).
No, because collapsed office blocks don't spew radioactive material into the environment.
Dead people are irrelevant. Living people scared of evil magical radiation are what matters.
Some people are smart enough to realise that while the earthquake/tsunami was the initial cause the same end result could occur via some other event causing cooling failure at a nuke plant.
Completely junking nuke plants seems a rather short sighted reaction, but what it has to do with Japan is obvious to anyone with at least 3 brain cells.
Did you just not read the thing you quoted?
If the "work contract" has such a clause you either get it changed or you walk away.
They can't stop you walking away, because you haven't signed the damn thing.
Obviously. Just don't claim is isn't pirating.
Aside from youtube (which may of may not in each case) those are things that the seller allows you to do as part of their marketing. Most places let you flip through the book or magazine, but don't let you take it home for the night or photocopy it for example. Some stores that sell perfume/companies that make perfume clearly think they'll make more sales if they eat the cost of samples.
However, if a particular store doesn't let you try something first that is there right. Not buying from them is fine, forcing them to do so is not.
I didn't say your were a huge pirate or pirated everything.
But your example arguing that you weren't a pirate was the action of pirating something.
It doesn't matter that you purchased more than you took. You still pirated something.
I certainly have impulsively bought a book without reading a few pages. Because I liked the author and had all their other books. So sure I was aware of it before. I've bought a book because I read a review without ever even seeing the book. I've certainly paid for and watched a movie that I had never even heard the name of before walking into the cinema.
Of course there would be fewer sales. But that isn't what you claimed. You claimed no sales, which is completely different.
And again, it doesn't matter. The copyright holder is allowed use suboptimal marketing. They are allowed to do something (or not do something) even though it will result in fewer sales. As an aside there are probably cases where is wouldn't result in fewer sales too - selling a book filled with blank paper will likely see more sales if you don't allow anyone to flip through it before buying, or a really bad movie, or a really bad video game, etc.
You worked around their choice in the case of the TV series mentioned, and I have no moral objection to you doing so. It is however called pirating (the argument about whether that's a reasonable term to use is also irrelevant to this duscussion) and claiming it isn't because you bought it later is silly.
The first party is Sony, since that's who makes a "first party game" that uses PSN.
Note, that they aren't god. Their predictions of the outcome of doing something can be wrong without that meaning they lied when making the claims.
I buy thing in the supermarket precisely because I've never tried them on occassions. I buy books I haven't read before. I buy tickets to movies I haven't seen before. I go to restaurants at which I've never eaten before. I buy video games I've never played or played a demo of before.
I'm pretty sure most magazines, radios, and television stations don't let you run your ad for free to see if you like their services. And most banks don't let you trial borrow $500,000 (though interest free periods on credit cards are common of course).
The free samples approach is a popular form of marketing, but you don't get to force others into marketing things using your prefered method. Well you do for the topic at hand via downloading it without their authorization - but it's pirating and pretending it isn't is just silly.
Let me guess, it's all linux?
Ah not linux. However, that's a very poor argument. You just claimed to torrent but your are not a pirate and your explanation of that is an example of how your pirated an episode of a TV series.
And no, it doesn't make a difference that you then bought it afterwards. The copyright holder has decided not to use torrents as a try-before-you-buy distribution model, which as the copyright holder is their right regardless of whether it makes economic sense or not.
Becuase that is the deal the copyright holder is offering you. If you don't like that deal then don't take it and don't watch the thing at all.
because where you live there aren't any marginal politicians who will say crazy shit just to get in the papers.
See the Jetsons - heck there's a link a few comments back...
That's a flying car. A personal flying vehicle which isn't a plane (no wings for lift), isn't a helicopter (no rotors), doesn't use a jet, no big fans, etc. Essentially a magical* flying device that is used as a car is used for personal transport but it flies instead of drives.
* by current science/technology.
So try something more different (and better) than linux:
plan9 or inferno.
Inferno can just run inside windows or OSX.
I can't reach.
or in other words permanently free of germs that haven't developed resistance to another potential treatment for when they make you sick.
You should have probably run the article by your reading comprehension department too.
Because that would be a small plane, not a flying car.
That the plane can also drive on a road is irrelevant to it being a plane.
A flying car it should be noted doesn't even have wheels to drive on a road, it flies all the time.
Are you really that dumb?
It couldn't be that other people who read slashdot are in fact developers, and hence interested in such articles?
Yes you saw something completely different than a roundabout decades ago that was a bad design . That clearly means that even though roundabouts have been shown to be faster and safer than other intersection types in a couple of dozen other countries they must be bad. Your anecdote about something completely different is much more important than decades of experience with actual roundabouts.
Of course sadly you are right, as is the article (well the summary). Americans are simply too stupid to use what must be the simplest intersection possible (it's 3 or more non-stop signed T-intersections arranged in a circle) as evidenced by your argument.
Of course counter to that, I live in NJ and there's a roundabout 30 seconds drive from my driveway.