Call me crazy but I'm guessing that a game that is said to "portray the brutality of street fighting while encompassing the action and story elements from the movie with intense visuals, untraditional moves, and bare-knuckle destruction" will NOT be anti-violence.
Didn't the movie (and book) do these things yet, as you said, are anti-violence? Didn't the movie have a focus on violence with the violence intending to be entertaining? Why can't a game feature violence while at the same time having an anti-violence message like any other form of art can?
Here's a pretty popular web based dictionary. I used it for a while but became dissatisfied with the interface. The dictionaries it uses are avaible and pretty much free to use as you wish. I wrote my own front end for the dictionaries in a weekend and I am very happy with how much more useful it is.
A treaty is simply an agreement between nations. It has no bearing on US law. If Congress wants to abide by a treaty it agrees to then it would have to pass laws that implement the provisions of the treaty. I don't know of any US laws that concern citizen's property rights in space. The treaty itself has no weight in a US court.
You are incorrect sir. The whole idea (if you read the founders stuff) is that the Government would not setup a religion above other religions. The phrase "under God" does not so thing.
How can you say that it does not?
don't forget the second part of that phrase
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
I never said I think the government should prevent anyone from uttering "under God". I said I don't think Congress and public schools should be actively endorsing the religious viewpoint.
No, its "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress adding the phrase "under God" the the pledge sounds likse establishment to me. Public schools playing the same pledge over the PA every morning also sounds like establishment to me.
Eldred vs. Ashcroft said it was OK to retroactivly extend copyright so I would think it would be OK to retoactivly remove copyright. Right? Sigh, one should hope...
The Dual Shock use those rocker style pads too except the middle of the pad is under the outer casing. The four directions aren't independent and feels like most other D-pads I've used.
Why? If I want to make a tool then I should be able to make it any way I want. The burden to ensure that nobody's potential profit is hurt should not be on me. Any noninfringing use should be good enough to make sure a tool or piece of software is legitamate.
So what if 95% of music being distributed on a network is being traded illegally. The creator of the software shold not have to find ways to lower that percentage before the program is deemed legal.
Because it could be used to circumvent copyright. Of couse anything could be used to circumvent copyright protection. That's only one of the reasons why the DMCA is a bad law and every time a case concerning it appears in court I hope it is the one that kills the DMCA.
"Who's Down With IPOP - Other People's Intellectual Property" with Tux saying "I'm Down I'm Down"
Naughty by Nature promptly treatened to sue SCO for unauthorized use of it copyrighted material. When asked what matereal exactly was copied, Naughty by Nature refused to say claiming if they disclosed they risked others also using it without their permission.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that 'C' or 'C-Bang'?
Shouldn't the gardeners blowing up while planting flowers be enough?
Call me crazy but I'm guessing that a game that is said to "portray the brutality of street fighting while encompassing the action and story elements from the movie with intense visuals, untraditional moves, and bare-knuckle destruction" will NOT be anti-violence.
Didn't the movie (and book) do these things yet, as you said, are anti-violence? Didn't the movie have a focus on violence with the violence intending to be entertaining? Why can't a game feature violence while at the same time having an anti-violence message like any other form of art can?
How do you know the game is pro-violence? Just because it features acts of violence?
Here's a pretty popular web based dictionary. I used it for a while but became dissatisfied with the interface. The dictionaries it uses are avaible and pretty much free to use as you wish. I wrote my own front end for the dictionaries in a weekend and I am very happy with how much more useful it is.
A treaty is simply an agreement between nations. It has no bearing on US law. If Congress wants to abide by a treaty it agrees to then it would have to pass laws that implement the provisions of the treaty. I don't know of any US laws that concern citizen's property rights in space. The treaty itself has no weight in a US court.
Last time I checked, US courts are supposed to use US and not international law in making their decisions.
You are incorrect sir. The whole idea (if you read the founders stuff) is that the Government would not setup a religion above other religions. The phrase "under God" does not so thing.
How can you say that it does not?
don't forget the second part of that phrase
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
I never said I think the government should prevent anyone from uttering "under God". I said I don't think Congress and public schools should be actively endorsing the religious viewpoint.
remember that it's freedom *of* religion
No, its "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress adding the phrase "under God" the the pledge sounds likse establishment to me. Public schools playing the same pledge over the PA every morning also sounds like establishment to me.
So what happens if there is a tie?
Three words:
Baby, bath water.
Eldred vs. Ashcroft said it was OK to retroactivly extend copyright so I would think it would be OK to retoactivly remove copyright. Right? Sigh, one should hope...
The Dual Shock use those rocker style pads too except the middle of the pad is under the outer casing. The four directions aren't independent and feels like most other D-pads I've used.
Then do the games come with EULAs? Do they say that they will irrevocably modify the hardware without asking permission?
Why shouldn't Take-Two be allowed to make scans of public property? Defacing it with your 'art' doesn't make it yours.
What timezone are you in? 23 hours a day someone could bash AOL.
Any one find it strange that it is as much of a game playing simulator as it is a game? It really feels like I'm playing Space Invaders!
You can fit a porn collection in 32 megs?
what's to stop me from buying one, ripping it apart and shoving the components into a real computer?
Perhaps they will forgo the standard plastic casing in favor of a giant gob of epoxy?
But what if that highway sign somehow appeared in your car as the oil light?
Both are wrong, obviously.
Why? If I want to make a tool then I should be able to make it any way I want. The burden to ensure that nobody's potential profit is hurt should not be on me. Any noninfringing use should be good enough to make sure a tool or piece of software is legitamate.
So what if 95% of music being distributed on a network is being traded illegally. The creator of the software shold not have to find ways to lower that percentage before the program is deemed legal.
Now I have to go find my Railroad Tycoon CD. Now thanks to you, my three-day weekend has just became drastically shorter.
Because it could be used to circumvent copyright. Of couse anything could be used to circumvent copyright protection. That's only one of the reasons why the DMCA is a bad law and every time a case concerning it appears in court I hope it is the one that kills the DMCA.
The DMCA. Circumventing a copyright protection system is illegal.
But isn't it like an ice cream company trademarking the word vanilla? Its a term that is commonly used in the telcommunications field, is it not?
"Who's Down With IPOP - Other People's Intellectual Property" with Tux saying "I'm Down I'm Down"
Naughty by Nature promptly treatened to sue SCO for unauthorized use of it copyrighted material. When asked what matereal exactly was copied, Naughty by Nature refused to say claiming if they disclosed they risked others also using it without their permission.