Suit yourself. I don't see that karma means all that much... especially compared to taking pride in and responsibility for your words. The more so when they're unpopular.
Frankly, I it seems to me that your insulting tone, rather than your opinions, would get these posts moderated down. Which is why your going AC looks more like a dodge, and your reasons like rationalizations. Either way, an AC has little right to demand to be taken seriously.
Now be fair. The 1990s US-based Doctor Who was far superior, despite the obvious handicaps of cgi and a big budget. That's why it did so well.
I'm being facetious, of course... I love the old Dr. Who stuff, puppets and all. And I think you're dead on: a big budget is more often a handicap than a help.
I've been thinking a lot about Napster, the idea behind it, and the potential such things hold for free speech. I just found a free software project which looks very cool: FreeNet
Maybe this is old news to some of you, but it was new to me, so I thought I'd point it out.
You must be easily amused as well. There's about two minutes of "story" in the original movie.
Lol... you've a certain point, but I disagree. The plot's not elaborate, but the dialogue is important to building the character's positions, and, as I recall, rather concise.
I have to say, I have my doubts about Tim Burton and this film. He's one of those visual guys - almost strictly visual - and Planet of the Apes is very much story-driven.
It wasn't really a movie which depended on creating an atmosphere; it was more cerebral than that. It was loudly metaphorical, and Taylor was more a abstraction than a character. He was Man. Or rather a facet of Man, distilled in such a way as to promote the writer's point. It was meant to be disturbing.
And I just have a hunch Burton's going to miss a lot of that. Without replacing it with another metaphor, either. Burton's films lack discipline and direction. That can be okay if you're trying for a simple visual experience, but Planet of the Apes seems a poor choice for that.
But then, I thing Lucas has similar problems (and talents), and I disliked The Phantom Menace for similar reasons... your mileage may vary.:-)
I've said it all along! Why it seems like yesterday I told my high-school science class: "I think we're all aliens. The carbon of our bodies was brought from outside the solar system by killer asteroids. It was in the form of buckyballs filled with cosmic helium. It's so clear - don't you see?"
But they laughed at me! Laughed! The fools... they'll be sorry... they'll all be sorry!
The article contains a common error - 'a computer program which removes DVD copy-protection'. As I understand it, DeCSS has nothing to do with copying. It removes the playback 'protection'.
You're right, of course... but why the heck is this fact going completely unrecognized by both the media and the court? I realize I'm a geek, but the idea that you can't protect against somebody copying a disc bit-by-bit doesn't seem that complex to me.
Is this just a Jedi mind trick on the part of the MPAA? "DeCSS IS a pirating tool!" For the life of me, I can't figure out how this case is holding any water at all.
You know, I'm not one to be all uptight about what stories "belong here" and all that stuff... but don't you sort of wonder how many "Blame Canada" stories we need?
Cool! Now I can finally run an X session on my P100, and run apps on boxes outside the firewall via email! This should be a huge performance improvement over running programs locally with Windows 98...
God knows, I wish I shared your confidence. But frankly, the sorts of Constituional limitations you're talking about haven't meant diddley since the New Deal. To quote F.D. Roosevelt, "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation."
Let me call your attention the Congressional power granted by Article I, Section VIII, Clause III: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Doesn't sound too bad... but it has become so. Since FDR started packing the courts, its interpretation has been expanded to mean, "any activity with an economic effect in more than one state."
Take the Brady (anti-gun) Bill: "crimes committed with guns, and especially handguns, have created a substantial burden on interstate commerce". The Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Violence Against Women Act. You name it. Everything affects interstate commerce.
For 40 years not a single Federal Law was overturned because the power to make it wasn't ennumerated in Article I, Section VIII. Only recently have courts boldly decided that the pipe-bombing of a Pennsylvania car isn't a federal crime, even though there was a bottle of Florida orange juice from in the trunk.
And you're telling me that Article I, Section IX, Clause V is going to prevent this sort of taxation? IANAL, but I looking at what's gone before, I'd say this is an extremely naive stance. The courts will assuredly side with Washington. Again.
Congress could tax imports to, rather than exports from, any state. (Article I, Section VIII, Clause 1)
Congress could tax the sale, rather than the export. The sale could be argued to take place just about anywhere, even "cyberspace".
Congress could tax the use of the internet for commerce, in proportion to the gross value of sales made thereupon.
Congress could give the states consent to lay Imposts or Duties internet sales (bad enough), and then tax the states (worse).
I'm sure that a creative politician could do much better than what I've been able to come up with off the top of my head.
And regarding your former post...
I think Washington DC will get anthraxed or nuked before the more reactionary segments of the US Population will permit a nationwide sales tax..
You really are the optimist, aren't you? After the personal income tax (which required the 16th amendment!), the death tax, national gas tax, capital gains tax, blah, blah, blah, you think the John Birch Society is crawl out of their hole with an A-bomb now??
The open source community is pure communism, and one of the few examples of a real world community acctually working. "From each one according to ability, to each one according to need".
Dang it, cut that out! You're making me wanna quit hacking, for crying out loud! rassa-frassa-frickin-commie-mumble-mumble-mumble.. .
"Those who can't, teach" is an overgeneralization. Education in the States isn't in the best of shape, but some of the teachers are indeed talented and in it for the right reasons.
I was damned glad to read your post. Although I'd have been more encouraged yet to see a public school teacher speak up... I guess I expect more from a private school teacher;-) Keep up the good work.
sesquiped thought my other post unintelligent:-( I'll have to try again!
I tend to agree, US citizens vs. US Government... my money goes on the Government. But then, it may turn out to be more complex than that. Modern armies seem to have difficulty fighting guerilla wars, do they not?
I'll resist my temptation to go into details, but the Belgians may have saved World War I, fighting the 2 million man, highly mechanized German army. My understanding is that privately-held arms played a significant role. Hungary successfully revolted against the USSR in 1956. Vietnam, Aftghanistan... and these are examples of one country versus another. Convincing your troops to attack their own people would be much harder. At least one would like to think. One might hope as well to see factions of the military take sides against the government.
Besides, our means of production are in civilian hands, and it'd be difficult to use any but very small-scale tactics without seriously disrupting the infrastructure. An army needs supplies. Indiscriminately killing civilians, like with chemical weapons, would disrupt things as badly as mass destruction of material goods.
I believe that the National Guard is pretty much under the control of the Federal Government, as are the state militias. Not likely candidates for a revolt.
By the way, I also agree: I'd put up with a lot more crap from the Feds before I'd want anything as horrid as this. Even the UCITA won't do it!;-) We're speaking of very hypothetical (and disturbing) situations.
Does that mean that you have no other choice than to physically go to some place and enter your vote there?
Not even by snail-mail?
Americans may use the mail to vote by "absentee ballot". You don't actually have to be absent from where you live. A Google search on that phrase will provide many explanations. I don't believe this is very popular, however.
This "right" is infringed every time you fly a commercial plane or enter certain public buildings. Why is that?
Regarding federal laws and airlines: same reason you can't get a speedy trial, publish certain stock information, or demand warrants from game wardens. Same reason the President can, in practice, declare war. The Constitution's restrictions aren't observed.
Not that the Constitution would ensure that you could. Airlines are under no obligation to let you on their planes, if you don't comply with their wishes. Neither do you have a right to enter all public buildings. Your compliance with the requests of the proprietors to disarm could be required for admission.
Since you're familiar with the Ennumerated Powers which the Constitution gives congress, perhaps you can point out the one which justifies gun control?
The Constitution certainly in no way demands federal gun control. Article I Section VIII, by not granting it, forbids it. The Second Amendment forbids it again.
And where does it say, "the priviledge [sic] of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Most of the authors of the Constitution considered the keeping of arms to be a natural right. This is not hard to show.
Nor does it mention an INDIVIDUALS right to bear arms, for that matter.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
You notice it does not say "the states". The "well regulated Militia" business is a subordinate clause. The sentence stands without it, and its meaning is clear. It is in any case fairly easy to verify what many of the signers of that document thought on the topic.
Not that we need to be bound by what they thought. The world has indeed changed quite a bit. As it so happens, I think their thoughts are still on the money.
You cannot make the argument that individuals need to bear arms to protect their freedom.
I beg to differ. In the US, I'm sorry to say, the train of abuses and usurpations aren't getting any shorter. The day may one day come when these evils are no longer sufferable. I daresay it'll come all the sooner if we're disarmed.
IMHO as well, a people who are not to be trusted with guns are certainly not to be trusted with votes.
Guns for indivudals serve only 2 purposes - Crime, and protection from crime.
As if the latter weren't enough! Or are the police to protect us? Why should a guy, paid $30k a year, risk his life for me when I won't defend my own? The courts say he doesn't have to... even if he gets there in time.
Guns are useful for sport. They are useful for hunting. They are useful for protecting our freedom. They are useful for training, in case of war. And they symbolize the dignity of a free people, governed by their own consent.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the changelog per se, but What New in Perl 5.6 might be of interest.
Frankly, I it seems to me that your insulting tone, rather than your opinions, would get these posts moderated down. Which is why your going AC looks more like a dodge, and your reasons like rationalizations. Either way, an AC has little right to demand to be taken seriously.
I'm being facetious, of course... I love the old Dr. Who stuff, puppets and all. And I think you're dead on: a big budget is more often a handicap than a help.
Maybe this is old news to some of you, but it was new to me, so I thought I'd point it out.
How about this: anyone who expects to be taken seriously should log in, so he can take credit and responsibility for his posts.
There's about two minutes of "story" in the original movie.
Lol... you've a certain point, but I disagree. The plot's not elaborate, but the dialogue is important to building the character's positions, and, as I recall, rather concise.
Concise being another thing Burton's never been.
Sorry, that cgi stuff just doesn't convince me... something's too artificial; you can still tell.
Now a rubber hand-puppet chasing The Doctor - that's convincing! Boy, sometimes I have to remind myself it's just television...
I didn't love it. Of course, whether you know me is somewhat debatable. :-)
And don't think I didn't notice, you snuck a reference to Natalie Portman in there!
Oops. I did too. But I won't mention grits.
Damn.
It wasn't really a movie which depended on creating an atmosphere; it was more cerebral than that. It was loudly metaphorical, and Taylor was more a abstraction than a character. He was Man. Or rather a facet of Man, distilled in such a way as to promote the writer's point. It was meant to be disturbing.
And I just have a hunch Burton's going to miss a lot of that. Without replacing it with another metaphor, either. Burton's films lack discipline and direction. That can be okay if you're trying for a simple visual experience, but Planet of the Apes seems a poor choice for that.
But then, I thing Lucas has similar problems (and talents), and I disliked The Phantom Menace for similar reasons... your mileage may vary. :-)
I've always wondered: who thought sending three guys and one girl was a good reproductive strategy for this mission? Three girls and one guy, sure.
But they laughed at me! Laughed! The fools... they'll be sorry... they'll all be sorry!
You're right, of course... but why the heck is this fact going completely unrecognized by both the media and the court? I realize I'm a geek, but the idea that you can't protect against somebody copying a disc bit-by-bit doesn't seem that complex to me.
Is this just a Jedi mind trick on the part of the MPAA? "DeCSS IS a pirating tool!" For the life of me, I can't figure out how this case is holding any water at all.
Just a thought. :-)
Let me call your attention the Congressional power granted by Article I, Section VIII, Clause III: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Doesn't sound too bad... but it has become so. Since FDR started packing the courts, its interpretation has been expanded to mean, "any activity with an economic effect in more than one state."
Take the Brady (anti-gun) Bill: "crimes committed with guns, and especially handguns, have created a substantial burden on interstate commerce". The Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Violence Against Women Act. You name it. Everything affects interstate commerce.
For 40 years not a single Federal Law was overturned because the power to make it wasn't ennumerated in Article I, Section VIII. Only recently have courts boldly decided that the pipe-bombing of a Pennsylvania car isn't a federal crime, even though there was a bottle of Florida orange juice from in the trunk.
And you're telling me that Article I, Section IX, Clause V is going to prevent this sort of taxation? IANAL, but I looking at what's gone before, I'd say this is an extremely naive stance. The courts will assuredly side with Washington. Again.
I'm sure that a creative politician could do much better than what I've been able to come up with off the top of my head.
And regarding your former post...
I think Washington DC will get anthraxed or nuked before the more reactionary segments of the US Population will permit a nationwide sales tax..
You really are the optimist, aren't you? After the personal income tax (which required the 16th amendment!), the death tax, national gas tax, capital gains tax, blah, blah, blah, you think the John Birch Society is crawl out of their hole with an A-bomb now??
You'll forgive me if I remain skeptical.
Dang it, cut that out! You're making me wanna quit hacking, for crying out loud! rassa-frassa-frickin-commie-mumble-mumble-mumble.. .
"Those who can't, teach" is an overgeneralization. Education in the States isn't in the best of shape, but some of the teachers are indeed talented and in it for the right reasons.
I was damned glad to read your post. Although I'd have been more encouraged yet to see a public school teacher speak up... I guess I expect more from a private school teacher ;-) Keep up the good work.
I'd read this but I didn't make the connection. Ick! Maybe "progressive" wasn't the right word. Thanks for the link.
I tend to agree, US citizens vs. US Government... my money goes on the Government. But then, it may turn out to be more complex than that. Modern armies seem to have difficulty fighting guerilla wars, do they not?
I'll resist my temptation to go into details, but the Belgians may have saved World War I, fighting the 2 million man, highly mechanized German army. My understanding is that privately-held arms played a significant role. Hungary successfully revolted against the USSR in 1956. Vietnam, Aftghanistan... and these are examples of one country versus another. Convincing your troops to attack their own people would be much harder. At least one would like to think. One might hope as well to see factions of the military take sides against the government.
Besides, our means of production are in civilian hands, and it'd be difficult to use any but very small-scale tactics without seriously disrupting the infrastructure. An army needs supplies. Indiscriminately killing civilians, like with chemical weapons, would disrupt things as badly as mass destruction of material goods.
I believe that the National Guard is pretty much under the control of the Federal Government, as are the state militias. Not likely candidates for a revolt.
By the way, I also agree: I'd put up with a lot more crap from the Feds before I'd want anything as horrid as this. Even the UCITA won't do it! ;-) We're speaking of very hypothetical (and disturbing) situations.
Not even by snail-mail?
Americans may use the mail to vote by "absentee ballot". You don't actually have to be absent from where you live. A Google search on that phrase will provide many explanations. I don't believe this is very popular, however.
I am, of course, not an Arizonan, and thus don't know much about McGrath. But I'm intrigued: what's the story?
Regarding federal laws and airlines: same reason you can't get a speedy trial, publish certain stock information, or demand warrants from game wardens. Same reason the President can, in practice, declare war. The Constitution's restrictions aren't observed.
Not that the Constitution would ensure that you could. Airlines are under no obligation to let you on their planes, if you don't comply with their wishes. Neither do you have a right to enter all public buildings. Your compliance with the requests of the proprietors to disarm could be required for admission.
The Constitution certainly in no way demands federal gun control. Article I Section VIII, by not granting it, forbids it. The Second Amendment forbids it again.
And where does it say, "the priviledge [sic] of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Most of the authors of the Constitution considered the keeping of arms to be a natural right. This is not hard to show.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
You notice it does not say "the states". The "well regulated Militia" business is a subordinate clause. The sentence stands without it, and its meaning is clear. It is in any case fairly easy to verify what many of the signers of that document thought on the topic.
Not that we need to be bound by what they thought. The world has indeed changed quite a bit. As it so happens, I think their thoughts are still on the money.
You cannot make the argument that individuals need to bear arms to protect their freedom.
I beg to differ. In the US, I'm sorry to say, the train of abuses and usurpations aren't getting any shorter. The day may one day come when these evils are no longer sufferable. I daresay it'll come all the sooner if we're disarmed.
IMHO as well, a people who are not to be trusted with guns are certainly not to be trusted with votes.
Guns for indivudals serve only 2 purposes - Crime, and protection from crime.
As if the latter weren't enough! Or are the police to protect us? Why should a guy, paid $30k a year, risk his life for me when I won't defend my own? The courts say he doesn't have to... even if he gets there in time.
Guns are useful for sport. They are useful for hunting. They are useful for protecting our freedom. They are useful for training, in case of war. And they symbolize the dignity of a free people, governed by their own consent.