It's not exactly like that. There's a real difference between parroting an annoying catch phrase and taking a legal term with a percise legal meaning and using it incorrectly.
You're saying that people are going to spend $27k on this thing and then get movies individually from netflix until they fill it up rather than just buying the dvd's? Who are these people?
I recall things like Metallica's Black, Chili Pepper's Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Houses of the Holy, and I think of how much they were great albums. I scratch my head when I think of anything else I've bought that was recorded in the past ten years that was even close to that level of completeness.
Is it illegal where you live (and by "you" I mean "anyone reading this") to publish a newspaper with a classified ad section, if some (or even many) of those classified ads are for "massage" services that are thinly-veiled prostitution services? Assuming you live somewhere that prostitution is illegal, of course.
For US law on this, you should look at the cases of Braun vs Soldier of Fortune and Eimann vs Soldier of Fortune. In both cases SoF magazine ran an ad for a hired killer (as they apparently tend to do) and got sued for it. In the case where the ad was fairly explicit, they lost. In the case where it is better "veiled", they won. So explicitly advertising illegal things is or can be considered illegal in print in the US. As usual, the crowd here who claims that these sorts of things are being unfairly applied only to the internet are off base. If the ad for the prostitute is sufficiently "thinly veild" it will probably do fine in court, but I don't think it's clear cut and could go either way in an actual case.
We all know that Lucas is just going to fuck this one up too. Will we have more jar-jar? Yup.
So, I'm not a terribly big Star Wars fan, but I recently watched Return of the Jedi for the first time in a while and it made me wonder: Do all of these people who hate Jar-Jar really have no problem with the ewoks? Jar-Jar is certainly annoying, but were the ewoks that much better? (It also made me wonder: The location of the thing that generates the shield was really given to Han Solo et al. by the empire as a trap to lure them there where there would be storm troopers to capture them. But why would the empire be so stupid as to give them the real location of the shield generator? Why not give them some bogus location and have the stormtroopers waiting there? This plan was just asking for trouble).
The question is, since when were boxers really targeted at men? Think about it. It's not like theres some external anatomical feature that makes them not fit properly on women
There are "external anatomical features" that makes tight-fitting underwear unpleasant for men. Women do not have these features. Thus, men have a specific reason to want boxers instead, while women do not. Since all men have a reason to perfer boxers, while women have no particular reason to care, it makes sense that men would be the "traget audience".
Re:Did you have to be under 15 to vote?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 1
Before you say The Godfather is on the list, it's "cool" and "indicative of masculinity" to like The Godfather.
I think you have Godfather confused with Scarface. Godfather is just a great movie.
One need not be a "homophobe" to feel that marriage is an institution designed to provide for the having and rearing of children.
Sadly for you, most people see through this argument. If this were really the purpose of marriage, then those seeking to "protect" marriage would be trying to stop all people who are unable or unwilling from having and rearing children from getting married, rather than only those who happen to be of the same gender. Despite your claims, no one has forgotten that the "orthodoxy of 30 years ago" did not desire to stop an impotent man and post-menopausal woman from getting married if they weren't interested in adopting children. That was never what marriage was about or the way in which we decided who can get married.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a diction nitpick. His grammar and spelling were impeccable.
"The cat awaited the mouse with baited breath".
Blockbuster.
It's there:
http://slashdot.org/index.pl?section=developers
Try flipping the record over; you'll often find a second groove on the other side.
It's not exactly like that. There's a real difference between parroting an annoying catch phrase and taking a legal term with a percise legal meaning and using it incorrectly.
Whoah. I had no idea but just confirmed this. Whoah. I care a lot more about that than about popups.
Given your understanding of math, I can guess which 1/2 you would be in.
It is very unlikely that the janitors are google employees which is what they are presumably counting.
You have to remember that a typical slashdot editor is halfway to being an idiot savant.
In Korea, only old people use Usenet.
You're saying that people are going to spend $27k on this thing and then get movies individually from netflix until they fill it up rather than just buying the dvd's? Who are these people?
Congratulations! You're the target market for this $27k dvd player!
Congrats to Maria though. Like me, she succeeded it.
This would be more exciting if anyone at all cared about the grammys.
OK Computer.
Neither patience nor luck is listed as a system requirement, so the complaint about the packaging being misleading still stands.
No, I beat you to it.
Knowledge isn't the same as intelligence or wisdom.
For US law on this, you should look at the cases of Braun vs Soldier of Fortune and Eimann vs Soldier of Fortune. In both cases SoF magazine ran an ad for a hired killer (as they apparently tend to do) and got sued for it. In the case where the ad was fairly explicit, they lost. In the case where it is better "veiled", they won. So explicitly advertising illegal things is or can be considered illegal in print in the US. As usual, the crowd here who claims that these sorts of things are being unfairly applied only to the internet are off base. If the ad for the prostitute is sufficiently "thinly veild" it will probably do fine in court, but I don't think it's clear cut and could go either way in an actual case.
Well, those files are copyrighted.
So, I'm not a terribly big Star Wars fan, but I recently watched Return of the Jedi for the first time in a while and it made me wonder: Do all of these people who hate Jar-Jar really have no problem with the ewoks? Jar-Jar is certainly annoying, but were the ewoks that much better? (It also made me wonder: The location of the thing that generates the shield was really given to Han Solo et al. by the empire as a trap to lure them there where there would be storm troopers to capture them. But why would the empire be so stupid as to give them the real location of the shield generator? Why not give them some bogus location and have the stormtroopers waiting there? This plan was just asking for trouble).
But only by old people, right?
There are "external anatomical features" that makes tight-fitting underwear unpleasant for men. Women do not have these features. Thus, men have a specific reason to want boxers instead, while women do not. Since all men have a reason to perfer boxers, while women have no particular reason to care, it makes sense that men would be the "traget audience".
I think you have Godfather confused with Scarface. Godfather is just a great movie.
Sadly for you, most people see through this argument. If this were really the purpose of marriage, then those seeking to "protect" marriage would be trying to stop all people who are unable or unwilling from having and rearing children from getting married, rather than only those who happen to be of the same gender. Despite your claims, no one has forgotten that the "orthodoxy of 30 years ago" did not desire to stop an impotent man and post-menopausal woman from getting married if they weren't interested in adopting children. That was never what marriage was about or the way in which we decided who can get married.