Chewie and Yoda were apparently aquaintances and yet the Wookie never mentioned this to Han, or if he did, despite the trust between the two of them, Han didn't consider it to be a reason to believe in the Force
Tell him what? That a greendude had a light saber? Han Solo believes in Light sabers -hell, he's even seen one!
Perhaps more grating however was the death of Padme - it was utterly unnecessary, Vader did not know if she was dead or not and so Palpatine could easily have lied and told him she was. More than that though, it contradicted Leia's recollections in Jedi - where she remembers her "real mother."
Surely she is just remembering Mrs. Organa. Of course the other irritation with the film was the godawful dialogue
The DS could not have taken 16-18 years (as long as it takes Luke and Leia to grow up) to complete!
And how long should it take? And how do you know it wouldn't take 20 years?
Some of the Cathedrals in Europe took many hundreds of years to build. Ah but we are faster now? Are we?
The water tunnel under New York city (City Tunnel No. 3) was started in 1970, it is still not finished - they exepect it will take at least another 17 years to complete.
Perhaps all the construction workers on the Death Start didn't believe in absolute morals ("If you are not with us you are against us") and sabotaged the construction.
You can't start at the beginning, because all of the others rely on the introductions in 4. Episode 1 assumes you know what the "force" is, for example, whereas Obi-Wan explains it to us in 4.
He explains it with vauge waffle - "it surounds us and binds us together" - oh yeah. QuiGonJin mumbles enough about this to explain why he wants the kid. Its not as there is a "real" explanation as it is.
is a client which will insert random blocks of noise, which can be discareded at the other end - sure it would take longer, but you have deniability?;)
You have to think of IP rights as a concert ticket. With the ticket you can listen to the music at the concert, you can even give the ticket to a friend to go in you place, but should you really expect that you and your hundred buddys get in the door because you made a bunch of photocopys of the orginal ticket? No, of course not. Rights certainly don't transfer like that, the world would be a chaotic place if it did.
Except with a concert the work everytime. With a CD they expect to get paid over and over for soemthing done once. Quite imoral.
Hell, you could say that about american action movies in general. For decades they have show us a "hero" who does it HIS WAY - just because he thinks its right. He can kill and destroy and break any law - and its quit allright - because he is the hero and he says so.
Wow, I was wrong. You're not a troll, just an idiot.
Well, since you seem to be the product of several generations of inbreeding, I'm sure you are and expert on such matters.
1. you fail to grasp the idea of analogies.
Nope - You failed to use them usefully.
2. you repeatedly misunderstand my statement. I wasn't asking you why a certain law was a certain way.
I never said you did.
3. I never said downloading tv shows from torrent sites was legal. Please point me to the paragraph where I did.
Why should I - I never said you claimed that. Again you are just making stuff up.
4. you think you're so smug and correct, that you automatically assume anyone who disagrees with you, or gets upset with your tone, has to be a child.
No, your rudeness and lack of communicative skills made me assume that. 5. Where is 'here'? You've never once stated where you live. We are after all, talking about US Copyright laws here.
Failing at reading comprehension again. I said europe, and also said I didn't know if the US laws where the same.
Oh, and calling an ignoramus ignorant, is not being rude. It's called pointing out the obvious.
This is also why I call you a kid, this is the kid of brain dead idiocy kids spew.
6. When you fail to follow analogies, you call them fairytales.
No, when you use them as excuses to try and vindicate your notions i call them fairytales.
7. your answer to almost everything is "that's how the law is" without giving it any thought. I'm not talking about if a given law is correct or not, just making the point that new laws have to take previous laws into account.
You may wish that is what you did, but it wasn't.
Is it too much to ask that politicians explain why they pass laws? Or should we just accept them on blind faith? Your "that's just how the law is" attitude seems to suggest that we should.
Nope nope and nope.
Also, I didn't want to pick on you before, but since you did it again, let me point out that 'illegal violation of copyright law' is redundant. Is there ever a legal violation of any law?
I didn't "do it again", I was quoting a passage. But I'm glad to see you focus on such petty nonsense, clear indication that you know you have lost.
Oh, and calling an ignoramus ignorant, is not being rude. It's called pointing out the obvious.
And that is why I think you are a kid. Not only is it rude, it shows extreme lack of mental acuity - just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant.
But enough - you are a rude jerk and I intend to ignore you from now on.
You are kidding right? Calling me ignorant for once. But since an apology doesn't appear to be forthcomming, by all means let flame.
By analysing your posting skills and deciding that since nobody can be this ignorant you had to be trolling? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's just the logical deduction.
Only if one has no logical skills or perhaps a mental impairment. You are the one who refuses to accept laws and spins all kinds of fairytales trying to rationalise what you want.
Someone writes "I think what it boils down to, is that it is perfectly legal to download one copy of a show..."
To which I say "No. Unless they specifically have given you permission, it is an ilegal violation of copyright."
To which you say "Well, you're right, and you're wrong." - and then go on invent a story about a friend who record it for you etc. And I then correct you: THIS IS ILLEGAL HERE. It is NOT an opinion, it is not something that I make up and need to defend. IT IS THE LAW (I also add that I don't know if US law is different); here you are not allowed to get someone else to make a digital copy for you. Period.
Now instead of accepting this YOU totally ignore it and try to change the subject and say "but here in the USA, recording shows off TV is not illegal". To which I say "It isn't here either, but that wasn't what he was talking about." (He being you since I had overlooked it was the same person).
You then fall back to the previous notion that you have the right to get someone else to do the legwork. And I reiterate NO YOU DON'T. Not here, that's fact - not opinion. You don't want to accept the facts and want me to make up arguments for why the world can't be the way you like.
I asked you to explain your position, and you respond with "because one is illegal and the other is not", which did not even approach the subject.
My position was to quote the law, which was the subject as far as I am concerned.
I asked you to explain the difference between the two things I mentioned, and you responded that you just "didn't answer the way" I liked.
But that's the way it was. You postulate two positions where you are unable to see the difference, and one is ilegal and one is not. Why have they decided to make the laws that way? Political compromise I suppose, but what do I know - if you want to find that out YOU do the legwork and look it up.
Please answer the questions posed to you in an adult and logical manner,
I have continuously stated the position of the law, if you find that illogical - well that's not my problem.
... and not by restating your opinion without further explanation.
I haven't really stated my opinion.
The only thing insulting in this thread,
Was you.
... is your complete and utter lack of logic and reasoning. You have not responded to any of my questions, you've simply restated your point of view with no explanation whatsoever.
I have restated the point of view of the law since you seem to have some problems with reading comprehension.
And then you have the balls to tell me you're correcting my miscomprehension?!? Exactly WHAT did you correct? NOTHING. Not a god damn thing.
Well, I can understand how you missed it, seeing as you didn't actually read what I have written. One example:
You: The point I was making, was that while you have the right to make the copy, you're not violating copyright by having someone else do the legwork for you, when you yourself have the right to do said legwork (and so does the other guy).
Me: And I was saying YES YOU ARE, In europe at least. You may do it, a stranger may not do it for you (immediate family living in your household may.)
It's clear to me that either you're monumentally ignorant on the subject, or you're just trolling.
And it suddenly became clear to me that you aren't an adult but a rude child. You need to learn not to insult people who don't agree with you. Seeing how you answer with "just because" and no reasoning whatsoever, I'm going to assume the latter.
I didn't answer "just because". I did however tell you why the currently is as it is.
Either way, I'm not going to waste more of my time discussing this with you.
This may explain your confusion. I wasn't disgussin, I was correcting some of your miscomprehension.
Its a pity slashdot doesn't have a feature to ignore insulting people.
"One is illegal, one is not." That's not an answer.
Oh but it is, its just not a answer you like.
Why is one illegal and not the other?
Because the lawmakers have been persuaded that this is the best way to make the law. So you're basically saying it's illegal for me to give a friend a VHS tape of last night's Desperate Housewives? She missed it, I have it on tape, and so for her that's just tough noogies that I'm not allowed to give her the tape?
Here it would be legal for you to do so when its VHS, because its analog, but it would be illegal if you made a digital copy. You also conveniently ignored my liquor license comparison.
Its because its not relevant. You can make a million different comparisons about thing or the other, it doesn't change the law. If you want that, go into politics. (its also totally out there, its very unlikely anyone could convincingly prove that they thought they could just download tv programs on some primitive website for free. Rational thought should tell them that it is illegal.)
The Pirate Bay is a Swedish site with a reputation earned by standing up against legal threats.
I would say they are a group of somewhat immature people who have been thumbing their noises at people because nobody has seriously tried to close them down. When that happens, they will be closed.
The point I was making, was that while you have the right to make the copy, you're not violating copyright by having someone else do the legwork for you, when you yourself have the right to do said legwork (and so does the other guy).
And I was saying YES YOU ARE, In europe at least. You may do it, a stranger may not do it for you (immediate family living in your household may.)
What's the difference between me recording something on DVD off TV and giving a friend a copy of it, versus me recording it, making an Xvid and allowing a friend to ftp to my computer and download it directly? What is the difference?
One is illegal, one is not. Do you, as a consumer, have the legal responsibility to make sure the vendor you get your downloadable content from is a fully licensed vendor?
Slashdot Mirror
Chewie and Yoda were apparently aquaintances and yet the Wookie never mentioned this to Han, or if he did, despite the trust between the two of them, Han didn't consider it to be a reason to believe in the Force
Tell him what? That a greendude had a light saber? Han Solo believes in Light sabers -hell, he's even seen one!
Perhaps more grating however was the death of Padme - it was utterly unnecessary, Vader did not know if she was dead or not and so Palpatine could easily have lied and told him she was. More than that though, it contradicted Leia's recollections in Jedi - where she remembers her "real mother."
Surely she is just remembering Mrs. Organa.
Of course the other irritation with the film was the godawful dialogue
No argument there *G*
The DS could not have taken 16-18 years (as long as it takes Luke and Leia to grow up) to complete!
And how long should it take? And how do you know it wouldn't take 20 years?
Some of the Cathedrals in Europe took many hundreds of years to build. Ah but we are faster now? Are we?
The water tunnel under New York city (City Tunnel No. 3) was started in 1970, it is still not finished - they exepect it will take at least another 17 years to complete.
Perhaps all the construction workers on the Death Start didn't believe in absolute morals ("If you are not with us you are against us") and sabotaged the construction.
What do we get?
You can't start at the beginning, because all of the others rely on the introductions in 4. Episode 1 assumes you know what the "force" is, for example, whereas Obi-Wan explains it to us in 4.
He explains it with vauge waffle - "it surounds us and binds us together" - oh yeah. QuiGonJin mumbles enough about this to explain why he wants the kid. Its not as there is a "real" explanation as it is.
To shut up and grow up.
Mod: -2 Uses moral relativism to justify doing nothing.
Mod: -3: Only the Sith think in absolutes.
And of course those with an IQ larger than a dead rat will find those two amusing since they contradict each other.
Pity this place doesn't have an ignore function.
Mod: -1 crackpot
Mod: -1 fanatic
Mod: -1 Low IQ
Mod: -2 Makes world more dangerous to live in
is a client which will insert random blocks of noise, which can be discareded at the other end - sure it would take longer, but you have deniability? ;)
Freedom does not have a price tag.
ah, so you think its ok to kill and slaughter if you put the right label on it. How inhuman of you.
Communism has killed over 100 million people, yet I do not hear you complaining about that.
If you murder your wife, you are not going to get off because someone else has.
The invasion of iraq has killed more than saddam could, and created tons of emenies. That's what shotgun diplomacy gets you.
You have to think of IP rights as a concert ticket. With the ticket you can listen to the music at the concert, you can even give the ticket to a friend to go in you place, but should you really expect that you and your hundred buddys get in the door because you made a bunch of photocopys of the orginal ticket? No, of course not. Rights certainly don't transfer like that, the world would be a chaotic place if it did.
Except with a concert the work everytime. With a CD they expect to get paid over and over for soemthing done once. Quite imoral.
unless you're untouchable [piratebay.org]
That's something Slashdot should run as a poll - how long until the untouchables become touchable?
But how will other people know how to find you if there isn't a common clearing house so to speak?
What steps might the U.S. take to attempt to counter it?
Why, they would liberate the chinese people of course!
Hell, you could say that about american action movies in general. For decades they have show us a "hero" who does it HIS WAY - just because he thinks its right. He can kill and destroy and break any law - and its quit allright - because he is the hero and he says so.
Marvelous.
Wow, I was wrong. You're not a troll, just an idiot.
Well, since you seem to be the product of several generations of inbreeding, I'm sure you are and expert on such matters.
1. you fail to grasp the idea of analogies.
Nope - You failed to use them usefully.
2. you repeatedly misunderstand my statement. I wasn't asking you why a certain law was a certain way.
I never said you did.
3. I never said downloading tv shows from torrent sites was legal. Please point me to the paragraph where I did.
Why should I - I never said you claimed that. Again you are just making stuff up.
4. you think you're so smug and correct, that you automatically assume anyone who disagrees with you, or gets upset with your tone, has to be a child.
No, your rudeness and lack of communicative skills made me assume that.
5. Where is 'here'? You've never once stated where you live. We are after all, talking about US Copyright laws here.
Failing at reading comprehension again. I said europe, and also said I didn't know if the US laws where the same.
Oh, and calling an ignoramus ignorant, is not being rude. It's called pointing out the obvious.
This is also why I call you a kid, this is the kid of brain dead idiocy kids spew.
6. When you fail to follow analogies, you call them fairytales.
No, when you use them as excuses to try and vindicate your notions i call them fairytales.
7. your answer to almost everything is "that's how the law is" without giving it any thought. I'm not talking about if a given law is correct or not, just making the point that new laws have to take previous laws into account.
You may wish that is what you did, but it wasn't.
Is it too much to ask that politicians explain why they pass laws? Or should we just accept them on blind faith? Your "that's just how the law is" attitude seems to suggest that we should.
Nope nope and nope.
Also, I didn't want to pick on you before, but since you did it again, let me point out that 'illegal violation of copyright law' is redundant. Is there ever a legal violation of any law?
I didn't "do it again", I was quoting a passage. But I'm glad to see you focus on such petty nonsense, clear indication that you know you have lost.
Oh, and calling an ignoramus ignorant, is not being rude. It's called pointing out the obvious.
And that is why I think you are a kid. Not only is it rude, it shows extreme lack of mental acuity - just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant.
But enough - you are a rude jerk and I intend to ignore you from now on.
How was I being rude?
... and not by restating your opinion without further explanation.
... is your complete and utter lack of logic and reasoning. You have not responded to any of my questions, you've simply restated your point of view with no explanation whatsoever.
You are kidding right? Calling me ignorant for once. But since an apology doesn't appear to be forthcomming, by all means let flame.
By analysing your posting skills and deciding that since nobody can be this ignorant you had to be trolling? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's just the logical deduction.
Only if one has no logical skills or perhaps a mental impairment. You are the one who refuses to accept laws and spins all kinds of fairytales trying to rationalise what you want.
Someone writes "I think what it boils down to, is that it is perfectly legal to download one copy of a show..."
To which I say "No. Unless they specifically have given you permission, it is an ilegal violation of copyright."
To which you say "Well, you're right, and you're wrong." - and then go on invent a story about a friend who record it for you etc. And I then correct you: THIS IS ILLEGAL HERE. It is NOT an opinion, it is not something that I make up and need to defend. IT IS THE LAW (I also add that I don't know if US law is different); here you are not allowed to get someone else to make a digital copy for you. Period.
Now instead of accepting this YOU totally ignore it and try to change the subject and say "but here in the USA, recording shows off TV is not illegal".
To which I say "It isn't here either, but that wasn't what he was talking about." (He being you since I had overlooked it was the same person).
You then fall back to the previous notion that you have the right to get someone else to do the legwork. And I reiterate NO YOU DON'T. Not here, that's fact - not opinion.
You don't want to accept the facts and want me to make up arguments for why the world can't be the way you like.
I asked you to explain your position, and you respond with "because one is illegal and the other is not", which did not even approach the subject.
My position was to quote the law, which was the subject as far as I am concerned.
I asked you to explain the difference between the two things I mentioned, and you responded that you just "didn't answer the way" I liked.
But that's the way it was. You postulate two positions where you are unable to see the difference, and one is ilegal and one is not. Why have they decided to make the laws that way? Political compromise I suppose, but what do I know - if you want to find that out YOU do the legwork and look it up.
Please answer the questions posed to you in an adult and logical manner,
I have continuously stated the position of the law, if you find that illogical - well that's not my problem.
I haven't really stated my opinion.
The only thing insulting in this thread,
Was you.
I have restated the point of view of the law since you seem to have some problems with reading comprehension.
And then you have the balls to tell me you're correcting my miscomprehension?!? Exactly WHAT did you correct? NOTHING. Not a god damn thing.
Well, I can understand how you missed it, seeing as you didn't actually read what I have written. One example:
You: The point I was making, was that while you have the right to make the copy, you're not violating copyright by having someone else do the legwork for you, when you yourself have the right to do said legwork (and so does the other guy).
Me: And I was saying YES YOU ARE, In europe at least. You may do it, a stranger may not do it for you (immediate family living in your household may.)
Just the facts - not opinion.
Please answer the questions posed to yo
It's clear to me that either you're monumentally ignorant on the subject, or you're just trolling.
And it suddenly became clear to me that you aren't an adult but a rude child. You need to learn not to insult people who don't agree with you.
Seeing how you answer with "just because" and no reasoning whatsoever, I'm going to assume the latter.
I didn't answer "just because". I did however tell you why the currently is as it is.
Either way, I'm not going to waste more of my time discussing this with you.
This may explain your confusion. I wasn't disgussin, I was correcting some of your miscomprehension.
Its a pity slashdot doesn't have a feature to ignore insulting people.
"One is illegal, one is not."
That's not an answer.
Oh but it is, its just not a answer you like.
Why is one illegal and not the other?
Because the lawmakers have been persuaded that this is the best way to make the law.
So you're basically saying it's illegal for me to give a friend a VHS tape of last night's Desperate Housewives? She missed it, I have it on tape, and so for her that's just tough noogies that I'm not allowed to give her the tape?
Here it would be legal for you to do so when its VHS, because its analog, but it would be illegal if you made a digital copy.
You also conveniently ignored my liquor license comparison.
Its because its not relevant. You can make a million different comparisons about thing or the other, it doesn't change the law. If you want that, go into politics. (its also totally out there, its very unlikely anyone could convincingly prove that they thought they could just download tv programs on some primitive website for free. Rational thought should tell them that it is illegal.)
No, the cure is: Acceptance.
So those of us who doesn't think she is hot, are we supposed to call it a heresy?
The Pirate Bay is a Swedish site with a reputation earned by standing up against legal threats.
I would say they are a group of somewhat immature people who have been thumbing their noises at people because nobody has seriously tried to close them down. When that happens, they will be closed.
The point I was making, was that while you have the right to make the copy, you're not violating copyright by having someone else do the legwork for you, when you yourself have the right to do said legwork (and so does the other guy).
And I was saying YES YOU ARE, In europe at least. You may do it, a stranger may not do it for you (immediate family living in your household may.)
What's the difference between me recording something on DVD off TV and giving a friend a copy of it, versus me recording it, making an Xvid and allowing a friend to ftp to my computer and download it directly?
What is the difference?
One is illegal, one is not.
Do you, as a consumer, have the legal responsibility to make sure the vendor you get your downloadable content from is a fully licensed vendor?
I suspect yes.
I don't know what Fedora is.
I don't know about the laws in many countries in Europe except the one where I was born, but here in the USA, recording shows off TV is not illegal.
It isn't here either, but that wasn't what he was talking about.