Jedi never promises any powers without training. What would you call someone who believes that there is an all encompassing force, and that with training it can be harnessed?
Well, I guess. I was really talking about people who claim to be of the Jedi religion. This minister didn't claim to be a Jedi Knight. Simply a Jedi. so he believes in the force. Or at least pretends that he does.
I have to wonder why anyone considers the 2050 figure the most optimistic. It only took about 15 years from the first small scale nuclear reactor to the first commercial nuclear power plant.
There could be a breakthrough at any time which will lead to power plants being developed within a few years. Or it may not be possible at all, and never happen.
I've always held the view that the main aim of Greenpeace is to preserve the existence of Greenpeace. But I guess that's the way many large organisations eventually go.
As for lawsuits - you really do not need money to sue, you just need to prove to your lawyer that you will win a lot of money.
It's not about suing. It's about negotiating in the first place. The contract may be unfair, but it's legal enough that no lawyer will take a chance on overturning it.
I see your point, but I think there's a difference.
The point is that record companies are in an unfair bargaining position. They can offer a take it or leave it contract. Be screwed, or wallow in obscurity. It's not a good choice. And it's not like the musucians can afford top notch legal representation to negotiate decent contracts. The result is a contract that is very one sided.
Peter Jackson and New Line were both well represented and presumably the contract represented an agreement that both parties were equally happy with.
New Line have committed the $100 million extra they received on rebuilding half of Bhagdad, and they feel it's uncharitable of Peter Jackson to want them to stop their altruistic plans.
Indeed. If it turns out that most of the sales of guns and knives go to people intent on using them for illegal purposes, then I expect the manufacturer to be held liable.
This is why we have a complex system of courts and an adversarial system.
It's based on the reasonable man test. Does it seem reasonable to assume that their intentions were based on making money from legal file sharing? The prosecutuion then presents evidence. Previous services that did pretty much the same were used pretty much exclusively for illegal file sharing. They made no effort to prevent such activities, and they profit from encouraging such activities. The defendant then attempts to demonstrate that these claims are without merit and/or demonstrates that the primary purpose of their service is legal file sharing.
The court speculates based on the evidence presented and what they know about human nature.
I don't think the court was wrong. I think this is a different problem. As a granted monopoly, the cities should have insisted several requirements were met, including allowing other services to lease bandwidth.
The intention was to allow people to record telvision programmes and watch them later. The supreme court decided this was legal, and it is genuinely how most people use them.
If I sell a gun to someone and he shoots someone with it, then it's possible I should have been a little more careful about who I sell to.
If it turns out that several of my customers are biuying guns solely for the purpose of committing crime, I really ought to pay more attention to the sort of people who are buying from me.
If 90% of my customers buy guns only to commit a crime, then I'd be quite surprised if I didn't get into some sort of trouble over it. It would seem quite likely that I was deliberately selling guns to criminals.
If your actions have obvious consequences, and you do nothing about it, then you are at least partially liable. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't help.
It's not about declarations. It's about intentions. If you act in a way actively against sharing copyright material, you should be okay. It's hard to believe that anyone would be so naive as to expect people to only use something like Grokster for legitimate purposes.
Of course, the FreeCiv develpers didn't have to spend time devloping basic rules, or balancing the game. They had a slight leg up there by copying wholesale from Civ2.
It's disgusting that people think games like this are suitable for children.
But since hardly anyone actually does think the game is suitable for children, and where possible, children are banned from buying it, I'm getting a bit bored with the "fior the children" argument.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fare he did say "Jedi Knight" which I believe would be widely understood applies to one have "force" powers.
:) This has now been nabbed as my sig.
You're quite right. I should have been clearer.
Man, I can't believe I just typed all that shit--did I really hit the "Submit" button--crap.
Jedi never promises any powers without training. What would you call someone who believes that there is an all encompassing force, and that with training it can be harnessed?
All Jedi knights are known to have these abilities. However, not all of those who claim to be of the Jedi religion have these abilities.
I guess the other poster did say "Jedi Knights". I should have been clearer about the difference.
Well, I guess. I was really talking about people who claim to be of the Jedi religion. This minister didn't claim to be a Jedi Knight. Simply a Jedi. so he believes in the force. Or at least pretends that he does.
There's such a thing as a statistical sample. I know enough people who put "Jedi" on their census form to make a reasonable speculation.
Only if they want a Jedi to build a lightsaber.
You have to realise that the British don't take anything too seriously, especially politics and religion.
In the US, I suspect a politician making light of religion in this way would upset a lot of people in The Bible Belt.
Well, okay... But first you have to challenge any christian to turn water into wine without any special apparatus.
Most "Jedi" are simply making a statement that belief in the force is no more rational than belief in any other religion.
I have to wonder why anyone considers the 2050 figure the most optimistic. It only took about 15 years from the first small scale nuclear reactor to the first commercial nuclear power plant.
There could be a breakthrough at any time which will lead to power plants being developed within a few years. Or it may not be possible at all, and never happen.
I've always held the view that the main aim of Greenpeace is to preserve the existence of Greenpeace. But I guess that's the way many large organisations eventually go.
As for lawsuits - you really do not need money to sue, you just need to prove to your lawyer that you will win a lot of money.
It's not about suing. It's about negotiating in the first place. The contract may be unfair, but it's legal enough that no lawyer will take a chance on overturning it.
I see your point, but I think there's a difference.
The point is that record companies are in an unfair bargaining position. They can offer a take it or leave it contract. Be screwed, or wallow in obscurity. It's not a good choice. And it's not like the musucians can afford top notch legal representation to negotiate decent contracts. The result is a contract that is very one sided.
Peter Jackson and New Line were both well represented and presumably the contract represented an agreement that both parties were equally happy with.
New Line have committed the $100 million extra they received on rebuilding half of Bhagdad, and they feel it's uncharitable of Peter Jackson to want them to stop their altruistic plans.
Indeed. If it turns out that most of the sales of guns and knives go to people intent on using them for illegal purposes, then I expect the manufacturer to be held liable.
This is why we have a complex system of courts and an adversarial system.
It's based on the reasonable man test. Does it seem reasonable to assume that their intentions were based on making money from legal file sharing? The prosecutuion then presents evidence. Previous services that did pretty much the same were used pretty much exclusively for illegal file sharing. They made no effort to prevent such activities, and they profit from encouraging such activities. The defendant then attempts to demonstrate that these claims are without merit and/or demonstrates that the primary purpose of their service is legal file sharing.
The court speculates based on the evidence presented and what they know about human nature.
Erm... Wouldn't federal law require an explicit law barring cities from making such requirements?
Which jurusdictions? Certainly not the US. The supreme court were quite clear on that.
I don't think the court was wrong. I think this is a different problem. As a granted monopoly, the cities should have insisted several requirements were met, including allowing other services to lease bandwidth.
The intention was to allow people to record telvision programmes and watch them later. The supreme court decided this was legal, and it is genuinely how most people use them.
If I sell a gun to someone and he shoots someone with it, then it's possible I should have been a little more careful about who I sell to.
If it turns out that several of my customers are biuying guns solely for the purpose of committing crime, I really ought to pay more attention to the sort of people who are buying from me.
If 90% of my customers buy guns only to commit a crime, then I'd be quite surprised if I didn't get into some sort of trouble over it. It would seem quite likely that I was deliberately selling guns to criminals.
If your actions have obvious consequences, and you do nothing about it, then you are at least partially liable. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't help.
It's not about declarations. It's about intentions. If you act in a way actively against sharing copyright material, you should be okay. It's hard to believe that anyone would be so naive as to expect people to only use something like Grokster for legitimate purposes.
Of course, the FreeCiv develpers didn't have to spend time devloping basic rules, or balancing the game. They had a slight leg up there by copying wholesale from Civ2.
It's disgusting that people think games like this are suitable for children.
But since hardly anyone actually does think the game is suitable for children, and where possible, children are banned from buying it, I'm getting a bit bored with the "fior the children" argument.
No, and the device I'm typing this on is not a person employed to perform calculations. I still call it a computer.
I've never paid money for pirated software. Most pirates swap or give stuff away.
People who have no problem with this often still consider it wrong to make money from piracy.