Are you saying that movie critics should be able to halt the playing of movies completely just because they didn't like it?
Are you equating "that director makes really bad movies, and should stop doing that" with "that director makes really bad movies, and will be compelled to stop."
And by that logic movie critics should never write bad reviews, because nobody's forcing them to watch those movies. If Apple is acting immorally, what is wrong with calling them out on it?
Like teachers? Those people specifically tasked with educating the future of our country?
Like doctors, lawyers, engineers,
"Most" kids don't want to do shit. "Most" kids don't even have goals. And the ones that do have goals don't want to work for them. They think Big Dreams == Big Rewards.
No, you're just falling into the trap that most people have throughout human history; assuming that "kids today" are somehow morally deficient compared to your generation. I try to look at these things clearly. Kids in general today are more competitive than they were with my generation. They go to school for longer hours, they do more homework, they are more obsessed with competition, more obsessed with getting into a good school.
Right, that's why we don't reward professions that require a lot of education with money and prestige...oh wait we do. Well, that's why most kids say they want to be ditch diggers or work at Wal-Mart or at a slaughterhouse. Oh wait, they don't. Well, I guess it's like how we don't have a system of higher education that people come from all over the world to learn from...Oops, we do again. What was your point again? I'm guessing unlike a lot of the anti-US ranters here, you are actually from the US based on your criticism of US politicians and US TV shows, as if the rest of the world is any better on either of those fronts.
It's probably because parents in many other countries are way more interested in driving their kids or excel in social activities or in sports than in intellectual pursuits (or not driving them to excel in anything at all). If my parents and community had supported my academic interests as much as they supported my little league career, I'm sure I would have won a lot more spelling bees too. Much as I think Asians often push their kids *too* hard, it would be nice to be able to spell "necessary" consistently today without needing a spell checker.
Is a spelling bee really an "intellectual pursuit" though? It's rote memorization, and does not necessarily equate to true intellectualism; if you read the original writings of a lot of great thinkers, you see a lot of spelling mistakes, and I say this as a naturally great speller.
It's an astronomical mistake on a forum I've never heard of, unconnected to any sort of conspiracy or doomsday theory. Why does it even need to be publicly debunked to this extent? It kind of reminds me of that time James Randi went all ballistic over some obscure brands of speaker cables.
The blog writer complains that this rumor is "spreading like wildfire" but only cites to a single forum where the rumor apparently started. The blow writer then makes a snide comment about a "doomsday" forum, and then spends time with what appears to be an exasperated manner of speaking declaring that a supernova at that distance wouldn't cause any danger, only the original forum post never said it would--it basically saying how cool this would be to see. Why does it feel like a manufactured controversy? As best I can tell this anonymous forum poster may have been mistaken, but the reaction from the Discover blog is ridiculously out of proportion to that mistake.
No, you can have class action lawsuits with a single plaintiff and a defendant class. It's governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which expressly allows plaintiff and defendant classes. If WP says differently, WP is wrong.
Actually while you're wrong about class action lawsuits (they're more flexible than you seem to think), after looking at the article implies they filed the entire suit against 5,000 people at once, which wouldn't be a class action (though the court can make it one). If so, still nothing wrong with joining that many people in theory; each defendant can get their own representation and raise their own defenses.
No, I meant the movie company. The main viewpoint here is they shouldn't be able to stop filesharing of their movies, but most people on slashdot refuse to offer an alternative that would not bankrupt the movie companies.
Why is this sort of legal tactic allowed? The "sue everyone and let the court sort out who is guilty" attitude is ridiculous. Is there some kind of legislation that prevents this sort of behavior? Why isn't this illegal? It's obviously an abuse of the legal system, as far as I can tell.
How? If they have a legitimate claim against each of these defendants, why should it matter that they filed an unusually large number of claims?
Basically, I feel that this is extortion. Their tactic is: pay me x dollars or else you'll have to pay to fight an expensive civil suit. That's not ok.
They think they have a suit. They're offering a settlement agreement beforehand. Don't see the issue.
Of course, it's easier to blame pirates for the failure to properly monetize your film. Couldn't be Hollywood's fault, could it?
What would you suggest they do to monetize their films?
Yadda yadda, outrageous, MAFFIIIIIAAAA, etc. etc., but what's their alternative? The most common solution offered on slashdot for the people who make these movies is basically to just allow piracy.
If you're about ten (which I think was Tolkein's intended audience) then as I recall it's fantastic compared to the other books offered to you at that age.
I didn't like it much as a kid, either, preferring C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle. The story isn't especially thrilling, and there's a distinct impression that the writer is talking down to you.
was just chatting to a friend about this and he then sent me this as a very effective removal tool
No, no, for the best malware removal tool you need to get this one. Run it straight from the download link and give it administrator access when it installs. Don't mind the spelling errors, it's really a first-rate piece of software.
I don't know about that, I enjoyed SC1 single player more than battlenet, maybe because I could play leisurely against the computer and not have to worry about being zerg rushed by some manic 14 year old, or some 32 year old basement dweller who focuse all of his frustrations with life into mastering every aspect of SC strategy and tactics.
The worst were disks that would scramble the original disk if you tried copying it. But honestly, I know the Slashdot kool-aid is mixed with a generous dose of "piracy never hurt any company anytime ever," but for a lot of those 80's companies piracy put them out of business. The "key disk" protection probably was the most successful, but even that only really worked on a large scale when computer games got more mainstream and the players were less likely to know about cracking copy protection.
Slashdot Mirror
"Lawyer" is not an attractive job...
When non-lawyers write the law, they frequently do a lousy job. Laws are written in a very formalized, precise way on purpose.
Complaining to his Senator with a bunch of emails where he used a fake name. Still stupid, but the emails alone aren't putting him in jail.
Are you saying that movie critics should be able to halt the playing of movies completely just because they didn't like it?
Are you equating "that director makes really bad movies, and should stop doing that" with "that director makes really bad movies, and will be compelled to stop."
And by that logic movie critics should never write bad reviews, because nobody's forcing them to watch those movies. If Apple is acting immorally, what is wrong with calling them out on it?
Trust me when I say you were born at the right time.
Hey it's Paul Simon!
Like teachers? Those people specifically tasked with educating the future of our country?
Like doctors, lawyers, engineers,
"Most" kids don't want to do shit. "Most" kids don't even have goals. And the ones that do have goals don't want to work for them. They think Big Dreams == Big Rewards.
No, you're just falling into the trap that most people have throughout human history; assuming that "kids today" are somehow morally deficient compared to your generation. I try to look at these things clearly. Kids in general today are more competitive than they were with my generation. They go to school for longer hours, they do more homework, they are more obsessed with competition, more obsessed with getting into a good school.
The US is savagely anti-intellectual.
Right, that's why we don't reward professions that require a lot of education with money and prestige...oh wait we do. Well, that's why most kids say they want to be ditch diggers or work at Wal-Mart or at a slaughterhouse. Oh wait, they don't. Well, I guess it's like how we don't have a system of higher education that people come from all over the world to learn from...Oops, we do again. What was your point again? I'm guessing unlike a lot of the anti-US ranters here, you are actually from the US based on your criticism of US politicians and US TV shows, as if the rest of the world is any better on either of those fronts.
It's probably because parents in many other countries are way more interested in driving their kids or excel in social activities or in sports than in intellectual pursuits (or not driving them to excel in anything at all). If my parents and community had supported my academic interests as much as they supported my little league career, I'm sure I would have won a lot more spelling bees too. Much as I think Asians often push their kids *too* hard, it would be nice to be able to spell "necessary" consistently today without needing a spell checker.
Is a spelling bee really an "intellectual pursuit" though? It's rote memorization, and does not necessarily equate to true intellectualism; if you read the original writings of a lot of great thinkers, you see a lot of spelling mistakes, and I say this as a naturally great speller.
It's an astronomical mistake on a forum I've never heard of, unconnected to any sort of conspiracy or doomsday theory. Why does it even need to be publicly debunked to this extent? It kind of reminds me of that time James Randi went all ballistic over some obscure brands of speaker cables.
The blog writer complains that this rumor is "spreading like wildfire" but only cites to a single forum where the rumor apparently started. The blow writer then makes a snide comment about a "doomsday" forum, and then spends time with what appears to be an exasperated manner of speaking declaring that a supernova at that distance wouldn't cause any danger, only the original forum post never said it would--it basically saying how cool this would be to see. Why does it feel like a manufactured controversy? As best I can tell this anonymous forum poster may have been mistaken, but the reaction from the Discover blog is ridiculously out of proportion to that mistake.
No, you can have class action lawsuits with a single plaintiff and a defendant class. It's governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which expressly allows plaintiff and defendant classes. If WP says differently, WP is wrong.
Actually while you're wrong about class action lawsuits (they're more flexible than you seem to think), after looking at the article implies they filed the entire suit against 5,000 people at once, which wouldn't be a class action (though the court can make it one). If so, still nothing wrong with joining that many people in theory; each defendant can get their own representation and raise their own defenses.
Actually this falls clearly under the rules governing class action lawsuits. This was intentional, not a loophole.
Uhm, how about make good films?
So you're arguing people only get bad movies off bittorrent, and will refrain from downloading good movies?
No, I meant the movie company. The main viewpoint here is they shouldn't be able to stop filesharing of their movies, but most people on slashdot refuse to offer an alternative that would not bankrupt the movie companies.
Why is this sort of legal tactic allowed? The "sue everyone and let the court sort out who is guilty" attitude is ridiculous. Is there some kind of legislation that prevents this sort of behavior? Why isn't this illegal? It's obviously an abuse of the legal system, as far as I can tell.
How? If they have a legitimate claim against each of these defendants, why should it matter that they filed an unusually large number of claims?
Basically, I feel that this is extortion. Their tactic is: pay me x dollars or else you'll have to pay to fight an expensive civil suit. That's not ok.
They think they have a suit. They're offering a settlement agreement beforehand. Don't see the issue.
Of course, it's easier to blame pirates for the failure to properly monetize your film. Couldn't be Hollywood's fault, could it?
What would you suggest they do to monetize their films?
Yadda yadda, outrageous, MAFFIIIIIAAAA, etc. etc., but what's their alternative? The most common solution offered on slashdot for the people who make these movies is basically to just allow piracy.
The Bond of the books wasn't an especially interesting character.
If you're about ten (which I think was Tolkein's intended audience) then as I recall it's fantastic compared to the other books offered to you at that age.
I didn't like it much as a kid, either, preferring C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle. The story isn't especially thrilling, and there's a distinct impression that the writer is talking down to you.
Not an especially good one. And I say that as a Tolkien fan.
Thank you, libertarians.
was just chatting to a friend about this and he then sent me this as a very effective removal tool
No, no, for the best malware removal tool you need to get this one. Run it straight from the download link and give it administrator access when it installs. Don't mind the spelling errors, it's really a first-rate piece of software.
I don't know about that, I enjoyed SC1 single player more than battlenet, maybe because I could play leisurely against the computer and not have to worry about being zerg rushed by some manic 14 year old, or some 32 year old basement dweller who focuse all of his frustrations with life into mastering every aspect of SC strategy and tactics.
The worst were disks that would scramble the original disk if you tried copying it. But honestly, I know the Slashdot kool-aid is mixed with a generous dose of "piracy never hurt any company anytime ever," but for a lot of those 80's companies piracy put them out of business. The "key disk" protection probably was the most successful, but even that only really worked on a large scale when computer games got more mainstream and the players were less likely to know about cracking copy protection.