But they didn't have enough interaction between the characters; you didn't really get time to know them. Anyway, unless the series creators have revealed that you-know-who really does buy it in the end, I can't see how you can interpret it to definitely be that way. I found the ending ambiguous.
No, that goes beyond the limit of non-commercial use. I could beat someone over the head with the box, that's not non-commercial use (even though I'm not making money by doing it). It's common sense. He knew exactly what that would entail, he's just trying to make it sound like MS is being all contradictory.
The most important ethical concerns nowadays deal with biotechnology I think. Cloning, genetic engineering, even animal rights. The other big thing nowadays is urbiquitous surveillance technology; plenty of real-world examples of that to bring up in class. The free software issue is unimportant at best.
I didn't. I like a sad ending usually, but the problem with CB is they didn't develop the characters enough. 26 30-minute episodes wasn't really enough to flesh it out. The same ending after a 52-episode run would have been better.
Microsoft isn't at fault here. Good grief, all everyone here does is complain about Microsoft's draconian licensing system, then when they try and give something away they get jumped all over.
I mean, geeze. In that e-mail exchange the story linked to, one participant wasn't making sense, and it certainly wasn't Microsoft. 'Here, have this software' 'There's no license' 'Well you can use it for non-commercial use' 'Just this software?'. That last one kills me; he knows perfectly well that 'for that single piece of software we gave you you don't need a license' doesn't imply in any way that he doesn't need a license for ANY Microsoft software ever again. Don't try to make it sound like MS is being all contradictory.
I don't really give a damn. This is my freaking country, and I'm going to oppose this sort of junior dictator garbage, DESPITE the fact that someone somewhere else is doing worse. Good grief, since when is "well they're doing it worse than me" an excuse?
But what are you (in the larger sense as well) going to say if Bush DOES get (re-)elected? Lots of and lots of people are pissed that he is in office - aka "King George" comments. But if he does in fact manage to win re-election - let's say that the Democrats really can't get thier stuff together and fail to put up a good fight - then what will you say?
It depends if he wins legitimately or not. Our comments are predicated on the fact that the Florida election was a travesty. If he wins in a similar matter the "King George" comments will continue. If he wins fairly they'll stop.
That's what emulator sites like to say, but to be honest there isn't really a definite law on this. A physical device that performs the same function as another, patented device may in fact be illegal.
I just hope CmdrTaco doesn't update the story with some lame "April fools!" -comment. Let the story be.
Yep, last year was kind of sad. "Ha ha, we got you!" "No you didn't. Every April Fools post was immediately recognized as a ham-handed, completely unsubtle hoax."
I mean, how can you react to like 200 messages recognizing the hoax and criticizing you for making it so obvious with "ha ha we got you"?
So, what fundamental right does the ACLU stand up for when they sue a small community for putting up a nativity scene in front of a public building, but fail to sue any non-Christian (but still religious) display in front of another public building. You can't name one case where they've done that. If you can, please provide the link.
Actually, it's not. As a matter of fact, everytime I see it I wince then roll my eyes. It's about as subtle as an iron pipe to the head; hell, I can't remember ever finding it even slightly amusing.
Well, Heinlein was a conservative in issues of war and national defense. His social beliefs were a bit looser, but reportedly he wasn't happy about all those hippies being attracted to his books.
In his early life he was actually quite far to the left; a borderline socialist, even. But as he grew older he swung pretty hard over to the other side. Ironically his later books seem more liberal than his earlier ones, but I think that's just because of his obsession with unrestricted sex...
A lot of people would argue that his politics couldn't be pigeonholed like that, and I guess there's some point to that, but from what I've heard during the latter half of the 20th century he sided with the conservative side pretty heavily.
No. The book had similar sentiments to the movie, but they weren't tongue-in-cheek; Heinlein was pretty far to the right (to put it one way, during the cold war he was a pro-nuclear activist.
Yep, I've had people tell me essentially that the "well-regulated militia" was a throwaway line that had no meaning; basically it was an aesthetic addition to the sentence.
It's like the conspicuous flags. If your car sports more than five American flags, I can almost guarantee you couldn't name a single item on the bill of rights. Except maybe the second.
Slashdot Mirror
who knows what we can see with this...?
I do, I do! Astronomical phenomena.
But they didn't have enough interaction between the characters; you didn't really get time to know them. Anyway, unless the series creators have revealed that you-know-who really does buy it in the end, I can't see how you can interpret it to definitely be that way. I found the ending ambiguous.
No, that goes beyond the limit of non-commercial use. I could beat someone over the head with the box, that's not non-commercial use (even though I'm not making money by doing it). It's common sense. He knew exactly what that would entail, he's just trying to make it sound like MS is being all contradictory.
The most important ethical concerns nowadays deal with biotechnology I think. Cloning, genetic engineering, even animal rights. The other big thing nowadays is urbiquitous surveillance technology; plenty of real-world examples of that to bring up in class. The free software issue is unimportant at best.
A written license was given via email. You can use this for non-commercial uses. End of story.
I didn't. I like a sad ending usually, but the problem with CB is they didn't develop the characters enough. 26 30-minute episodes wasn't really enough to flesh it out. The same ending after a 52-episode run would have been better.
Microsoft isn't at fault here. Good grief, all everyone here does is complain about Microsoft's draconian licensing system, then when they try and give something away they get jumped all over.
I mean, geeze. In that e-mail exchange the story linked to, one participant wasn't making sense, and it certainly wasn't Microsoft. 'Here, have this software' 'There's no license' 'Well you can use it for non-commercial use' 'Just this software?'. That last one kills me; he knows perfectly well that 'for that single piece of software we gave you you don't need a license' doesn't imply in any way that he doesn't need a license for ANY Microsoft software ever again. Don't try to make it sound like MS is being all contradictory.
Zzt. Bush certainly can make laws. He just can't introduce them in congress. But he can (and has) certainly made laws for other people to introduce.
I don't really give a damn. This is my freaking country, and I'm going to oppose this sort of junior dictator garbage, DESPITE the fact that someone somewhere else is doing worse. Good grief, since when is "well they're doing it worse than me" an excuse?
But what are you (in the larger sense as well) going to say if Bush DOES get (re-)elected? Lots of and lots of people are pissed that he is in office - aka "King George" comments. But if he does in fact manage to win re-election - let's say that the Democrats really can't get thier stuff together and fail to put up a good fight - then what will you say?
It depends if he wins legitimately or not. Our comments are predicated on the fact that the Florida election was a travesty. If he wins in a similar matter the "King George" comments will continue. If he wins fairly they'll stop.
That's what emulator sites like to say, but to be honest there isn't really a definite law on this. A physical device that performs the same function as another, patented device may in fact be illegal.
Despite a tremendous expenditure of willpower, I just can't bring myself to give a damn what Bill O'Reilly thinks.
Actually they're better than last years, which isn't saying much.
I just hope CmdrTaco doesn't update the story with some lame "April fools!" -comment. Let the story be.
Yep, last year was kind of sad. "Ha ha, we got you!" "No you didn't. Every April Fools post was immediately recognized as a ham-handed, completely unsubtle hoax."
I mean, how can you react to like 200 messages recognizing the hoax and criticizing you for making it so obvious with "ha ha we got you"?
So, what fundamental right does the ACLU stand up for when they sue a small community for putting up a nativity scene in front of a public building, but fail to sue any non-Christian (but still religious) display in front of another public building. You can't name one case where they've done that. If you can, please provide the link.
Here. And here.
You're right, I couldn't name one. I could name two though.
Why can't I have a cool name like Suresh Ramasubramanian?
Stupid boring anglo-saxon name, bah.
Classical New York liberal (like me, woo).
Borg icon is funny.
Actually, it's not. As a matter of fact, everytime I see it I wince then roll my eyes. It's about as subtle as an iron pipe to the head; hell, I can't remember ever finding it even slightly amusing.
Actually, I think in the same place that Asimov mentioned Heinlein he mentioned Reagan as going through the same process.
Well, Heinlein was a conservative in issues of war and national defense. His social beliefs were a bit looser, but reportedly he wasn't happy about all those hippies being attracted to his books.
In his early life he was actually quite far to the left; a borderline socialist, even. But as he grew older he swung pretty hard over to the other side. Ironically his later books seem more liberal than his earlier ones, but I think that's just because of his obsession with unrestricted sex...
A lot of people would argue that his politics couldn't be pigeonholed like that, and I guess there's some point to that, but from what I've heard during the latter half of the 20th century he sided with the conservative side pretty heavily.
No. The book had similar sentiments to the movie, but they weren't tongue-in-cheek; Heinlein was pretty far to the right (to put it one way, during the cold war he was a pro-nuclear activist.
Praising Starship Troopers as satire is a great way to annoy Heinlein fans, if you're into that sort of thing. I am.
Huh? How is it underappreciated? You can't throw a rock without hitting a geek quoting from/talking about that movie.
Yep, I've had people tell me essentially that the "well-regulated militia" was a throwaway line that had no meaning; basically it was an aesthetic addition to the sentence.
It's like the conspicuous flags. If your car sports more than five American flags, I can almost guarantee you couldn't name a single item on the bill of rights. Except maybe the second.