These are obsessed people, my friends. Nobody is doing this to avoid paying $8 at the box office. The people who download this will probably be first in line...
Will this have any impact on ticket sales? Obviously not!
Here's a post from someone who admits he won't see AOTC in the theaters, now having seen it on the internet. Obviously, it will have an effect on ticket sales. (How much is debateable, but it's clearly a non-zero amount.)
What's to stop someone from buying up billboard space in downtown Charleston, SC and putting up ads that read "Sen. Hollings thinks YOU are a criminal"...
If it's within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general election, the new Campaign Finance Reform law stops you.
(Sorry for the hijack--actually I think a "GeekPAC" would be a good idea--but this hit on one of my pet peeves. The good news is that First Amendment challenges to the law are already being mounted.)
Even "protected" media like film still require some sort of parental guidance.
That's a common misconception. Enforcement of MPAA ratings is, in most instances, a voluntary measure by movie theaters. In some regions laws have been passed enforcing MPAA ratings by law, but every time they've been challenged, such laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. Some areas still have such laws in force, but only because no one has challenged them.
I see no reason to say "damn the parents, kids know better" when it comes to violence, sex, murder, war, and other situations glorified by games.
No one is suggesting that parents shouldn't control what video games their kids play. But I find it funny that you put it that way, because to me, it seems that the government is saying, "damn the parents, the government knows better." With laws such as this one, even if I decided that such-and-such a video game is suitable for my 16-year-old child to play, the government says she can't.
I'll play my violent games but don't be such holier-than-thou dicks as to suggest parents shouldn't be allowed to decide if their children should or shouldn't play games that depict graphic murder
The school does not have a case using copyright infringement for commercial gain.
Then it's a good thing for them that they're not suing based on copyright infringement.
As someone who has studied copyright law and the internet
I find that very hard to believe. Any who has studied copyright law for more than half an hour should have picked up the difference between copyright and trademark, something you apparently have failed to understand.
I believe that Science, as a discipline, actually originated with the Scientific Method.
Sounds fine to me. Trouble with your hypothesis is, controlled experiments aren't required for the scientific method. See here. Note particularly the part where it says, "Test those predictions by experiments or further observations" [emphasis mine]
Observations and Inferences are what Aristotle did and he was later found to be wrong on just about every count with regard to the natural world.
The reason that what Aristotle did was unscientific, is that once he made his inferences, he didn't make any subsequent observations to test them. He just made his inferences and accepted them as true, without any further investigation to see if they were really true. He didn't do anything further to test his inferences--neither performing experiments, nor making further observations.
If you refuse or are unable to test your ideas with the Scientific Method, it's not science, in my book.
I agree with that statement 100%. I simply don't agree with the assertion that the scientific method requires controlled experiments.
A simple scenario: an astrophysicist comes up with a hypothesis of stellar evolution which predicts, among other things, that the sun will go supernova in 2003. When the sun does NOT go supernova in 2003, he either modifies or discards his hypothesis, now knowing that his original hypothesis is incorrect.
By what bizarre definition of "science" is this NOT science??
Why is it so important to you that a field of inquiry be identified as a Science?
You're the one who first raised the issue, in regard to evolution. Why is it so important to you?
Of course, you are actually in the mainstream here with your definitions and I'm out tilting at windmills as long as most Universities have Political Science and other similar departments.
I actually agree with you that Political Science is not a science. In fact, I tend to agree with the assertion that any field that has "science" in its name is not a science.
I don't know why you would think that I was limiting experiments to the laboratory.
Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part--I didn't mean to suggest that you thought experiments had to be done in a certain room called a "laboratory" inside a certain type of building; but rather, that you thought that experiments had to be done in a manner in which conditions could be controlled.
I agree with what you are saying here.
No, you don't, judging by your subsequent comments.
Yes, Astrophysics is not Scientific, as far as I know - by my definitions, because we lack the ability to perform controlled experiments. It may be based on good Science in so far as we can perform Physics experiments, but Stellar interiors and the like are just observation and inferences.
That's what science is!! Observation and inferences!! Having controlled conditions is better, when it's possible, because it allows us to be more certain about our inferences, but it's not necessary for science.
Here's an example of what science is: we have two hypotheses, A and B, both of which are consistent with all of our observations so far. Then, we observe something which is inconsistent with hypothesis A; we therefore reject hypothesis A, and tentatively accept hypothesis B.
That's all science is, at its core. Controlled experiments are helpful, in that in many fields of science we can arrange experiments so that the results must logically be inconsistent with one of our two hypotheses, which means we'll be able to reject one of our two hypotheses in a relatively short time. If we're working in a field where we can't do controlled experiments, such as astrophysics, we may be waiting tens or hundreds or thousands of years before we make an observation which is inconsistent with one of our two hypotheses. That just makes it more difficult to make discoveries in those fields; it doesn't make the field something other than science.
Evolution cannot be tested by science, either. To my mind, Evolution is not a Scientific Theory in that you cannot devise an experiment where the results would disprove the tenants of Evolutionary Science. Experiments that can disprove a theory are, to me, the foundation and tradition of the Scientific Method.
I agree with you, except I think that your definition of "experiment" is too narrow.
You seem to be thinking that an "experiment" is something set up in a laboratory, with controlled conditions, etc. A more appropriate definition, I think, is simply making predictions about what will happen, and seeing if your predictions are correct.
When it's possible to set up an experiment in a lab, that's preferable, because you can control many of the confounding factors which might otherwise alter the results of the experiment. But it's not an absolute requirement.
Or would you argue that astrophysics is not a science, since we lack the capability to manipulate stars, and all of astrophysics is based on observation?
There's a saying in chess: "The threat is stronger than the execution." It applies here as well.
Yes, if the company were shut down, it would be very bad both for the company and the employees. But the threat of shutting the company down could prevent things like what this company did in the first place.
And to everyone who whines, "Oh, they're too long, I don't have the time, wah wah wah" -- if you're reading slashdot, just how valuable can your time be?
My dad used an HP67 for years and years and years. He must have bought it pretty close to when they first came out (1976), and he used it well into the 90's before it finally gave up the ghost. It had a magnetic card reader on which you could save programs.
And yes, it had at least one game I remember!! A simple lunar lander game, where the display alternately shows your height above the lunar surface and your velocity, and you have to make fuel burns at the appropriate time and of the correct duration in order to set the lander down gently on the moon's surface.
If you're really the libertarian, open source, _fair_use_ folks you claim to be
That's some nice baiting, but I suspect that you know as well as I do that 90% of/.ers claiming to be libertarian are no such thing. Sure, they think government should keep their hands off private matters--until they see someone engaging in an activity they don't like and can't stop on their own, and then they want government regulation up the wazoo.
if you are maxed out at 50 you should have it for $3 off [the $5 base]
Sounds good to me. As CmdrTaco notes, over half of all posters would need to pay this much per month to view/. ad-free, so this represents, let's say, a $36 per year savings to such users.
Millions of net users also have Microsoft products and don't have a problem with them. I think it's safe to say that there are significant differences between the average/. reader and the average net user.
(It makes little difference to me personally--as long as/. stays away from pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-afters, etc., I'll just view the ads.)
In addition, 46% of Americans do not yet have access to the internet.
No, 46% of Americans do not use the internet. The report is about usage, not access.
1. Making internet access available to those in the remaining 46% who cannot afford but wish to have access.
I'd wager that a large portion of the 46% do have access to the internet, if they want it--many public libraries now offer free internet access for their patrons. For those who don't currently have access even at their local public libraries, the public library is an ideal place to get them access.
Perhaps a large campaign to recycle used computers and 56k modems and then donate them along with free monthly access to poor people would be a good start.
Donating them to public libraries which currently don't offer internet access would probably be a more efficient use.
These numbers are meaningless without a time frame. Do I have a 1/5300 chance of being killed in a car accident each day? Each year? Over my entire life?
If you want to call us "silly" "immature" and "asinine" for exercising our right to begin an email with "begin", then you'd have to find accusations ten times worse and levy them against Microsoft for all the dirty tricks they've foisted over the years.
Granted.
Oh, and it's nice to see someone admit that doing this sort of thing is sinking to Microsoft's level.
Slashdot Mirror
This post provides a counterexample.
Here's a post from someone who admits he won't see AOTC in the theaters, now having seen it on the internet. Obviously, it will have an effect on ticket sales. (How much is debateable, but it's clearly a non-zero amount.)
That's a bet I'd take.
If it's within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general election, the new Campaign Finance Reform law stops you.
(Sorry for the hijack--actually I think a "GeekPAC" would be a good idea--but this hit on one of my pet peeves. The good news is that First Amendment challenges to the law are already being mounted.)
That's a common misconception. Enforcement of MPAA ratings is, in most instances, a voluntary measure by movie theaters. In some regions laws have been passed enforcing MPAA ratings by law, but every time they've been challenged, such laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. Some areas still have such laws in force, but only because no one has challenged them.
I see no reason to say "damn the parents, kids know better" when it comes to violence, sex, murder, war, and other situations glorified by games.
No one is suggesting that parents shouldn't control what video games their kids play. But I find it funny that you put it that way, because to me, it seems that the government is saying, "damn the parents, the government knows better." With laws such as this one, even if I decided that such-and-such a video game is suitable for my 16-year-old child to play, the government says she can't.
I'll play my violent games but don't be such holier-than-thou dicks as to suggest parents shouldn't be allowed to decide if their children should or shouldn't play games that depict graphic murder
The law in question suggests exactly that.
Then it's a good thing for them that they're not suing based on copyright infringement.
As someone who has studied copyright law and the internet
I find that very hard to believe. Any who has studied copyright law for more than half an hour should have picked up the difference between copyright and trademark, something you apparently have failed to understand.
Sounds fine to me. Trouble with your hypothesis is, controlled experiments aren't required for the scientific method. See here. Note particularly the part where it says, "Test those predictions by experiments or further observations" [emphasis mine]
Observations and Inferences are what Aristotle did and he was later found to be wrong on just about every count with regard to the natural world.
The reason that what Aristotle did was unscientific, is that once he made his inferences, he didn't make any subsequent observations to test them. He just made his inferences and accepted them as true, without any further investigation to see if they were really true. He didn't do anything further to test his inferences--neither performing experiments, nor making further observations.
If you refuse or are unable to test your ideas with the Scientific Method, it's not science, in my book.
I agree with that statement 100%. I simply don't agree with the assertion that the scientific method requires controlled experiments.
A simple scenario: an astrophysicist comes up with a hypothesis of stellar evolution which predicts, among other things, that the sun will go supernova in 2003. When the sun does NOT go supernova in 2003, he either modifies or discards his hypothesis, now knowing that his original hypothesis is incorrect.
By what bizarre definition of "science" is this NOT science??
Why is it so important to you that a field of inquiry be identified as a Science?
You're the one who first raised the issue, in regard to evolution. Why is it so important to you?
Of course, you are actually in the mainstream here with your definitions and I'm out tilting at windmills as long as most Universities have Political Science and other similar departments.
I actually agree with you that Political Science is not a science. In fact, I tend to agree with the assertion that any field that has "science" in its name is not a science.
Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part--I didn't mean to suggest that you thought experiments had to be done in a certain room called a "laboratory" inside a certain type of building; but rather, that you thought that experiments had to be done in a manner in which conditions could be controlled.
I agree with what you are saying here.
No, you don't, judging by your subsequent comments.
Yes, Astrophysics is not Scientific, as far as I know - by my definitions, because we lack the ability to perform controlled experiments. It may be based on good Science in so far as we can perform Physics experiments, but Stellar interiors and the like are just observation and inferences.
That's what science is!! Observation and inferences!! Having controlled conditions is better, when it's possible, because it allows us to be more certain about our inferences, but it's not necessary for science.
Here's an example of what science is: we have two hypotheses, A and B, both of which are consistent with all of our observations so far. Then, we observe something which is inconsistent with hypothesis A; we therefore reject hypothesis A, and tentatively accept hypothesis B.
That's all science is, at its core. Controlled experiments are helpful, in that in many fields of science we can arrange experiments so that the results must logically be inconsistent with one of our two hypotheses, which means we'll be able to reject one of our two hypotheses in a relatively short time. If we're working in a field where we can't do controlled experiments, such as astrophysics, we may be waiting tens or hundreds or thousands of years before we make an observation which is inconsistent with one of our two hypotheses. That just makes it more difficult to make discoveries in those fields; it doesn't make the field something other than science.
I agree with you, except I think that your definition of "experiment" is too narrow.
You seem to be thinking that an "experiment" is something set up in a laboratory, with controlled conditions, etc. A more appropriate definition, I think, is simply making predictions about what will happen, and seeing if your predictions are correct.
When it's possible to set up an experiment in a lab, that's preferable, because you can control many of the confounding factors which might otherwise alter the results of the experiment. But it's not an absolute requirement.
Or would you argue that astrophysics is not a science, since we lack the capability to manipulate stars, and all of astrophysics is based on observation?
Yes, if the company were shut down, it would be very bad both for the company and the employees. But the threat of shutting the company down could prevent things like what this company did in the first place.
The fact that the post was funny does not mean that it suddenly ceases to be interesting or informative or insightful.
This was true fifty or a hundred years ago, but virtually never occurs today.
Then your problem is with the law requiring you to use Passport, not with opt-in permissions appearing in the EULA per se. Don't change the subject.
So read the friggin' EULA!
And to everyone who whines, "Oh, they're too long, I don't have the time, wah wah wah" -- if you're reading slashdot, just how valuable can your time be?
And yes, it had at least one game I remember!! A simple lunar lander game, where the display alternately shows your height above the lunar surface and your velocity, and you have to make fuel burns at the appropriate time and of the correct duration in order to set the lander down gently on the moon's surface.
I think that makes 2001: A Space Odyssey the only science fiction movie ever.
That's some nice baiting, but I suspect that you know as well as I do that 90% of /.ers claiming to be libertarian are no such thing. Sure, they think government should keep their hands off private matters--until they see someone engaging in an activity they don't like and can't stop on their own, and then they want government regulation up the wazoo.
Sounds good to me. As CmdrTaco notes, over half of all posters would need to pay this much per month to view /. ad-free, so this represents, let's say, a $36 per year savings to such users.
I'll sell you my karma-capped account for $20.
Millions of net users also have Microsoft products and don't have a problem with them. I think it's safe to say that there are significant differences between the average /. reader and the average net user.
/. stays away from pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-afters, etc., I'll just view the ads.)
(It makes little difference to me personally--as long as
If you don't want people to shoot you in the chest, wear a bulletproof vest! It's your choice!
No, 46% of Americans do not use the internet. The report is about usage, not access.
1. Making internet access available to those in the remaining 46% who cannot afford but wish to have access.
I'd wager that a large portion of the 46% do have access to the internet, if they want it--many public libraries now offer free internet access for their patrons. For those who don't currently have access even at their local public libraries, the public library is an ideal place to get them access.
Perhaps a large campaign to recycle used computers and 56k modems and then donate them along with free monthly access to poor people would be a good start.
Donating them to public libraries which currently don't offer internet access would probably be a more efficient use.
These numbers are meaningless without a time frame. Do I have a 1/5300 chance of being killed in a car accident each day? Each year? Over my entire life?
Granted.
Oh, and it's nice to see someone admit that doing this sort of thing is sinking to Microsoft's level.
What's next, a reference to the Amazon Learning Perl book?