Trick is of course to make you believe it, 99.9% of them don't convince me. Of course you can watch something for other reasons, fun, beauty, effects - and computer actors don't get old, you could keep going with a series for decades (assuming you have someone who can write that is...)
Warner sees the investment as negligible compared with the threat to the whole industry ... which is negligible since if people want to see it in the cinema they will and if they won't they won't. Funny they haven't learned that yet.
Oh, wait...that doesn't make sense either. Its censorship in the sense that it limits other peoples creativity because you have to avoid touching thing already copyrighted.
My point is that there'll be less incentive for a US network to purchase Red Dwarf and fill it full of commercials, if it's possible to download it off the net.
Except its a crap point. By that reasoning there would be no reruns. Why would people watch a rerun when they could have seen it the first time? Why show a movie on TV when its been show in the cinema? (after all people have seen it in the cinema) Why release a tv series on DVD when its been shown on tv etc etc.
They shouldn't have any rights over something as ephemeral as that as well. Next thing, they'll be copyrighting the air and forcing you to pay to breathe.
Lol, yep that site proves that people are too stupid to think in the US - they only like to watch premasticated gruel. "Oh his movie is deceptive" yeah if you have a negative IQ - why is it that everybody else understands them except over there.
...when the movie he's accepting the award for is filled with the same, presented as fact.
Except it isn't. Sure a lot of not too intelligent people are unable to understand them and gets scared and start yelling their head of that he is an evil liar.
Except its all fact, he doesn't lie once - if he did all his "victims" would have dragged him to court and sued his ass of. And they didn't.
I wonder where that misconception comes from.. that for something to be called a Documentary it must not have an opinion.
Yes they are documentaries, he documents things as they are, and sure he has an opinion - but he doesn't lie. If he did, someone would drag him into court and win a stack of money - and nobody ever has.
was designed to apply to political speach. You have the right to speak out against the government. You do not have the "right" to public obsentity, profanity, any of the myriad of things "artists" claime are "speach."
Wrong. Free speech is also the right to say FUCK. I live in a free country where we don't have your shitty censorship. If someone wants to say fuck at 4 in the afternoon in a program they do that. And if someone doesn't like it - guess what - they don't watch that damn program.
Free speech is everything, not just the stuff you think is ok.
Slashdot Mirror
Trick is of course to make you believe it, 99.9% of them don't convince me. Of course you can watch something for other reasons, fun, beauty, effects - and computer actors don't get old, you could keep going with a series for decades (assuming you have someone who can write that is...)
Well i'm glad it doesn't. Sounds totally pathetic.
Now we'll run of out space even sooner ;)
Clever ;) (Btw i have no spelling mistakes, i have an error correcting modem!)
If enough of us do it, politeness and manners can once again be the norm at the theater.
Or get knifed to death by psyco youth.
Warner sees the investment as negligible compared with the threat to the whole industry
... which is negligible since if people want to see it in the cinema they will and if they won't they won't. Funny they haven't learned that yet.
It isn't - its cheap crap. What we need is crystal storage ;)
We are all Slashdot.
I don't see your point.
You don't decide how the world thinks. Everbody doesn't do it your way.
Not me - i say something outrageous now and then to keep the karma down ;)
>>Copyright is censorship.
Chocolate cake is rape.
Oh, wait...that doesn't make sense either.
Its censorship in the sense that it limits other peoples creativity because you have to avoid touching thing already copyrighted.
With a two year delay.
My point is that there'll be less incentive for a US network to purchase Red Dwarf and fill it full of commercials, if it's possible to download it off the net.
Except its a crap point. By that reasoning there would be no reruns. Why would people watch a rerun when they could have seen it the first time?
Why show a movie on TV when its been show in the cinema? (after all people have seen it in the cinema)
Why release a tv series on DVD when its been shown on tv etc etc.
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
They shouldn't have any rights over something as ephemeral as that as well. Next thing, they'll be copyrighting the air and forcing you to pay to breathe.
What he should have written was Copyright is immoral.
... someone will crack it in a short while... the problem is that copyright and royalties remain. Bad morals, someone should be fighting that instead.
Lol, yep that site proves that people are too stupid to think in the US - they only like to watch premasticated gruel. "Oh his movie is deceptive" yeah if you have a negative IQ - why is it that everybody else understands them except over there.
*shakes head in wonderment*
...when the movie he's accepting the award for is filled with the same, presented as fact.
Except it isn't. Sure a lot of not too intelligent people are unable to understand them and gets scared and start yelling their head of that he is an evil liar.
Except its all fact, he doesn't lie once - if he did all his "victims" would have dragged him to court and sued his ass of. And they didn't.
I wonder where that misconception comes from.. that for something to be called a Documentary it must not have an opinion.
Yes they are documentaries, he documents things as they are, and sure he has an opinion - but he doesn't lie. If he did, someone would drag him into court and win a stack of money - and nobody ever has.
From what I've heard, most of the "canon" broken was never canon to begin with, and only implied in technical manuals, novels and so on.
Well you heard wrong.
Yeah, but most of the positive things you mention seemed to disappear.
was designed to apply to political speach. You have the right to speak out against the government. You do not have the "right" to public obsentity, profanity, any of the myriad of things "artists" claime are "speach."
Wrong. Free speech is also the right to say FUCK. I live in a free country where we don't have your shitty censorship. If someone wants to say fuck at 4 in the afternoon in a program they do that. And if someone doesn't like it - guess what - they don't watch that damn program.
Free speech is everything, not just the stuff you think is ok.
By your choice of words you failed to convince me.
I have noticed several potshots at him, and each time they were rebuffed by others in the scientific community.
The first season of TNG was particularly terrible.
Which is the usual crap people just spew. There were several excellent episodes. "The Big Goodbye" won a Peabody award
Enterprise has horrible music.
What you ment to write as, you don't like the music. Some do.
Rod Stewart has as much to do with Star Trek as Snoop Doggy Dogg.
Good thing he has nothing to do with Star Trek then.