Well, come on! You can't expect them to give away their trade secrets, right? I mean, why would they lie about something this important?
It's all explained right here:
The Tilley Foundation, Inc. is a research and development agency for inventors and investors interested in new and innovative projects.
Many great ideas are lost to lack of funds, technical support, fabrication, patent rights and some are simply stolen from the original inventor.
If he explains his ideas, next thing you know everyone on the block will have a perpet... errr... one.
WegBert
Re:Leftist Propaganda **SPOILERS**
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
But wouldn't it be more along the lines of "the way the world would be had the pre-crime event gone the other way?" I don't think what people see is a completely formulated world; where would the stuff that actually happened have gone? Especially in Anderton's case, a rather lengthy amount of time had passed since his son had been kidnapped. It seems rather unlikely that those memories would be able to be erased/modified to fit into the context of a world with his son.
Of course, we really have no sense of how plausible any of this is in the context of the story, because we only have the rather ambiguous statements of one of the strangest characters in the movie to go by! Anyways, I think that if it is the case that it was all Anderton's dream, that brings a whole new aspect to the movie. I'll have to see it again and look for any hints as to how it actually happened.
That's a poor analogy. In what way is spam analogous to paper/blood?
Paper is a physical object I write on. Blood is a physical object that supports human life. Spam is an unsolicited commercial mailing, which has no implicit form. It could be on paper, in an e-mail, or in words spoken. In this particular case, we are referring to e-mail spam. Outlawing spam doesn't mean outlawing e-mail. It means outlawing companies from sending unsolicited commercial messages to be by way of e-mail.
And don't raise first amendment rights either! Like the post to which you replied said, organizations aren't people. Commercial speech is regulated and regulateable, which was also the posters point. It is perfectly logical then, that the government could rightly regulate spam via e-mail.
If I'm not mistaken (and I probably am), death threats written on paper are indeed illegal to some extent. That doesn't make the paper it is written on or the blood it is written with illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, come on! You can't expect them to give away their trade secrets, right? I mean, why would they lie about something this important?
It's all explained right here:
If he explains his ideas, next thing you know everyone on the block will have a perpet... errr... one.
WegBert
But wouldn't it be more along the lines of "the way the world would be had the pre-crime event gone the other way?" I don't think what people see is a completely formulated world; where would the stuff that actually happened have gone? Especially in Anderton's case, a rather lengthy amount of time had passed since his son had been kidnapped. It seems rather unlikely that those memories would be able to be erased/modified to fit into the context of a world with his son.
Of course, we really have no sense of how plausible any of this is in the context of the story, because we only have the rather ambiguous statements of one of the strangest characters in the movie to go by! Anyways, I think that if it is the case that it was all Anderton's dream, that brings a whole new aspect to the movie. I'll have to see it again and look for any hints as to how it actually happened.
That's a poor analogy. In what way is spam analogous to paper/blood?
Paper is a physical object I write on. Blood is a physical object that supports human life. Spam is an unsolicited commercial mailing, which has no implicit form. It could be on paper, in an e-mail, or in words spoken. In this particular case, we are referring to e-mail spam. Outlawing spam doesn't mean outlawing e-mail. It means outlawing companies from sending unsolicited commercial messages to be by way of e-mail.
And don't raise first amendment rights either! Like the post to which you replied said, organizations aren't people. Commercial speech is regulated and regulateable, which was also the posters point. It is perfectly logical then, that the government could rightly regulate spam via e-mail.
If I'm not mistaken (and I probably am), death threats written on paper are indeed illegal to some extent. That doesn't make the paper it is written on or the blood it is written with illegal.
WegBert