And, by that point, it'd be too late anyway. No matter how many guns you've got, the US military has more, not to mention the training and tactics to deploy them effectively. The best you'd be able to hope for is a Iraq style guerrilla insurgency, but even that wouldn't work, since the troops you're fighting against would be from a similar cultural background as you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading about a similar situation about 230 or so years ago that was fairly successful.
You can re-release that same work under a different license (provided you own the copyright on it, of course), but the copies you had previously released under CC remain under CC. So the point is moot.
Not quite. As stated in the article, under US copyright law the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that infringement did not take place. Proving that you legally obtained an image where no financial records likely exist would be quite the challenge for most people to overcome:
The next critical piece to this that's important to understand is that, in court cases involving copyright infringement, the burden of proof is on defendants: they have to show where they got the image and provide evidence of it. If a claim of infringement is made, the onus is entirely on the defense to establish innocence, not the photographer to prove guilt. (After all, a photographer can't possibly know where someone got his image.) And, as virtually all savvy photographers know, most people who get free images (whether CC or not) almost assuredly have no recollection where they got them, nor is there a paper trail for providing this. It is only when a company pays for an image can they go back to accounting records and pull up receipts and provide proof.
Now, I wonder to which country that could be referring? Hint: It's in North America, and is neither Canada nor Mexico.
Althought I obviously wasn't referring to the US, the point still stands. If other nations dislike the government we democratically elected, they are free to choose not to associate with us as a response. But turning back to my original point, to imply that any elected government must be granted impunity is absurd.
1) There is no country named Palestine. 2) It's amazing that people think that just because a government is democratically elected that it must be given a free pass by the rest of the world to do as it pleases.
The palestinians elected a brutal terrorist organization to power, which has the destruction of Israel written into it's charter. They were certainly free to do so, it was their right as a society to elect whomever they wish to govern them. HOWEVER, there are consequences to every action, and in this case a consequence of electing murderers to power is that other nations will then refuse to associate with them until they renounce their violent methods.
In short, WoW GM's are in no position of authority and/or capable and/or have the right to judge your life style.
That's what people seem to be mising though, they in fact are in a position to judge, so long as you are in "their" world.
The GM's job is to ensure the smooth operation of the server by handling player based issues and problems. Subscribging to their service is a choice and a privelege, not a right, and in doing so, you must abide by their rules.
Unless the GM's decision was contrary to Blizzard's desires for their world, then the issue is closed. Whether you agree with the decision or not, it is theirs to make.
This has nothing to do with political correctness. Blizzard is a business and as such has a responsibility to maximize profits for its shareholders, not play PC police.
If disallowing that sort of group placates more people than it displeases and helps keep a steady stream of revenue coming in, then that's the choice they need to make.
Not necessarily. Alcohol is a poison, yet almost nobody has a fatal reaction to it. When taken in moderate quantities its effects are noticable, but fairly harmless.
Just because a poison only kills one out of a billion people doesn't make it any less of one.
Of course, not too many people are interested in competative swimming events, especially in the U.S.A. That must be why my public high school (circa 1992, in the suburbs of Kansas City) spent a few hundred thousand dollars to build an olympic sized swimming pool and for the school's swim team.
A public high school in Kansas building a pool is hardly indicative of a national trend favoring swimming.
My mistake then. I've only seen Shrek once, and it was quite a while ago. Its likely that I just wasn't remembering all the visual details. I guess that just drives the point home that a number of people were trying to make, that criticism about a generally well liked movie is still perfectly valid.
Depending on the situation, a person (or the family of a recently deceased person who gave the ok) isn't obligated to donate any of their organs. Its not specified whether or not this family would have donated the liver to anybody at all had they not seen this man's website and his request for help. Its entirely possible that they saw it and it moved them in a way which caused them to make the decision to give him a donation, whereas nothing would have been donated to anybody without seeing his request.
While most donors have the sentiment that when they die they just want their organs to be put to good use to save somebody else's life, if they, or their family (assuming they have been given power in this area by the doner) know somebody specific that they wish to receive the organs, then that should be their right. Whether its considered "polite" or not, it shouldn't be up to the government to tell a family that they can't donate an organ to a specic person if it is their wish.
In this specific case I'd tend to agree with the claim that it was a troll, but not for the same reason.
What caught my eye was the comment that the animation looked like a beta version of A Toy Story, and unless he was viewing a test-copy of the rendering for the movie, that statement is simply untrue and an obvious clue to the intent of the poster.
The point I wanted to make was that without evidence like that, there's no real way to claim for sure that he was trying to be an ass, even if the movie is widely accepted as "good", perhaps relevant experiences in one's own life would lead them to strongly dislike it. Who knows.
Because Shrek is generally accepted as a funny, quality movie packed into a tight 90 minute package. If you don't like the movie, it's a matter of poor taste, not poor production.
That's not the point though. This particular post is asking for people's opinions, and poor taste or not, his opinion is just as valid as yours is. You can't ask for somebody's opinion and then mod them down for giving it simply because you don't agree with it.
I've received word that this is just one of the scenes to be included in the extended version of reloaded that we have to look forward to:
Neo: woah Trinity: what? stop saying that *the door is blown apart and Elrond walks in* Agent Smith: you wont escape this time Morpheus. Neo: woah Morpheus: bring it, bitch *Another 30 minute rave scene ensues where morpheus and smith have a dance off. In the end smith wins and stabs morpheus with his glow stick* Neo: woah Smith: Now neo, how would you like to die? Neo: I choose balloons for 400 Smith: that's not a choice Neo: My mistake, I shall take balloons for 600
So are you claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to advertise their products? If so, why not?
Not at all, what I was saying was that a radio station being paid to play a song (which is illegal) is not fundamentally different from a radio station being paid to play a song with "presented by" prefixing the music (which appears to be on the legal side of that line.
It seems somewhat rediculous to have one practice violate the law while the other is an accepted legal option. What bothered me particularly was this paragraph:
To be sure, Don't Tell Me is a bona fide hit, even without spins being bought and paid for. Radio stations must play a song many thousands of times for it to crack the Billboard top 10. Nonetheless, a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
If these paid "advertisements" are able to affect the album's position on the charts, then I feel that they should not be permitted, however if they have no adverse effect on anything else (album rankings, etc) then the major objection I have to this is removed.
All five major record corporations have at least dabbled in the sales programs, industry sources said, with some reportedly paying as much as $60,000 in advertising fees to promote a single song.
This seems to be just one more underhanded tactic being utilized by the record labels these days.
a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
When it comes down to it, the labels are still effectively following the old outlawed practice of "paying for play", trying to hide behind a technicality in current US law. Though, that's something they seem to be doing a lot of these days.
I found myself disagreeing with him often while reading the book, though every time I did I found his argument compelling.
This is something that we don't see enough of these days. Too often people get stuck in a "because I said so" kind of rut, making claims with little in the way of a solid agument to back them up.
IMO, one of the markings of a well written work is when somebody can say "I may not agree with it, but he made a good argument for his case". Its a sign that the author is generally interested in painting an accurate picture rather than simply throwing a biased view out there for the world to swallow.
After half an hour of repeatedly answering the question "Could Linus have written the Linux kernel by himself?" in the affirmative, I was getting a bit irritated.
Its always been interesting that when somebody (or a group of people) don't want to hear a certain answer, it often goes in one ear and out the other just in time for another "listener" to ask the same basic question phrased slightly differently in hopes of obtaining a reply closer to the desired view. It seems that many times the media in general has this practice almost molded into an art.
From past personal experience, if your significant other has a pre-existing interest in video games, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem to find a way to work this situation out. But for those involved with somebody who has no interest in games, you're probably fighting a losing battle and eventually one side is going to have to give.
I'm going to change my name to a copyrighted haiku. Then the two Italian newspapers won't be able to publish my name online without facing criminal charges themselves.;)
Why stop there, as long as you're having some fun with the laws of the land there's plenty of other ways to play. AFAIK, it would seem that in the US for example it would be fully possible to copyright a virus and add some sort of encryption to it. As soon as an anti-virus company reverse engineered it to release a fix you could hit them for DMCA violations.
So, they really DO care what you think of them if it means you could be switching to another provider...
I'd say its more a case of "they care about finding the cheapest way to keep you and prevent you from switching to another provider, with what you actually think of them being secondary"
ie: a company can sometimes get away with having horrible customer support as long as the service is outstanding. Likewise, they may be able to get away with "features" which would generally alienate its customers as long as it has something else up its sleeve that puts it ahead of its competators in terms of the overall value to the customer.
They could do it based on MAC address, different manufacturers have different allocations of MAC addresses.
Although many devices (Linksys cable/dsl routers for example) provide an option where you can manually set a mac address to replace the default manufacturer provided one. If this practice went into effect it probably wouldn't be too long before we saw a much more widespread use of this feature where people could change the address to something in the range of a "preferred product"
I'd have to agree with JustSomeGuy regarding DomainMonger. I've been using them as a registrar for roughly four or five years now and their service is excellent. In sharp contrast to NetSol I have not experienced a single problem with them and their support is top notch (I've almost always had a reply to an issue within a couple of hours).
I've just seitched the last of my domains away from NetSol to DomainMonger and I have no plans to ever go back.
Slashdot Mirror
And, by that point, it'd be too late anyway. No matter how many guns you've got, the US military has more, not to mention the training and tactics to deploy them effectively. The best you'd be able to hope for is a Iraq style guerrilla insurgency, but even that wouldn't work, since the troops you're fighting against would be from a similar cultural background as you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading about a similar situation about 230 or so years ago that was fairly successful.Not quite. As stated in the article, under US copyright law the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that infringement did not take place. Proving that you legally obtained an image where no financial records likely exist would be quite the challenge for most people to overcome:
Now, I wonder to which country that could be referring? Hint: It's in North America, and is neither Canada nor Mexico.
Althought I obviously wasn't referring to the US, the point still stands. If other nations dislike the government we democratically elected, they are free to choose not to associate with us as a response. But turning back to my original point, to imply that any elected government must be granted impunity is absurd.
1) There is no country named Palestine.
2) It's amazing that people think that just because a government is democratically elected that it must be given a free pass by the rest of the world to do as it pleases.
The palestinians elected a brutal terrorist organization to power, which has the destruction of Israel written into it's charter. They were certainly free to do so, it was their right as a society to elect whomever they wish to govern them. HOWEVER, there are consequences to every action, and in this case a consequence of electing murderers to power is that other nations will then refuse to associate with them until they renounce their violent methods.
Unless the GM's decision was contrary to Blizzard's desires for their world, then the issue is closed. Whether you agree with the decision or not, it is theirs to make.
This has nothing to do with political correctness. Blizzard is a business and as such has a responsibility to maximize profits for its shareholders, not play PC police.
If disallowing that sort of group placates more people than it displeases and helps keep a steady stream of revenue coming in, then that's the choice they need to make.
Not necessarily. Alcohol is a poison, yet almost nobody has a fatal reaction to it. When taken in moderate quantities its effects are noticable, but fairly harmless.
Just because a poison only kills one out of a billion people doesn't make it any less of one.
Of course, not too many people are interested in competative swimming events, especially in the U.S.A. That must be why my public high school (circa 1992, in the suburbs of Kansas City) spent a few hundred thousand dollars to build an olympic sized swimming pool and for the school's swim team.
A public high school in Kansas building a pool is hardly indicative of a national trend favoring swimming.
My mistake then. I've only seen Shrek once, and it was quite a while ago. Its likely that I just wasn't remembering all the visual details. I guess that just drives the point home that a number of people were trying to make, that criticism about a generally well liked movie is still perfectly valid.
Depending on the situation, a person (or the family of a recently deceased person who gave the ok) isn't obligated to donate any of their organs. Its not specified whether or not this family would have donated the liver to anybody at all had they not seen this man's website and his request for help. Its entirely possible that they saw it and it moved them in a way which caused them to make the decision to give him a donation, whereas nothing would have been donated to anybody without seeing his request.
While most donors have the sentiment that when they die they just want their organs to be put to good use to save somebody else's life, if they, or their family (assuming they have been given power in this area by the doner) know somebody specific that they wish to receive the organs, then that should be their right. Whether its considered "polite" or not, it shouldn't be up to the government to tell a family that they can't donate an organ to a specic person if it is their wish.
In this specific case I'd tend to agree with the claim that it was a troll, but not for the same reason.
What caught my eye was the comment that the animation looked like a beta version of A Toy Story, and unless he was viewing a test-copy of the rendering for the movie, that statement is simply untrue and an obvious clue to the intent of the poster.
The point I wanted to make was that without evidence like that, there's no real way to claim for sure that he was trying to be an ass, even if the movie is widely accepted as "good", perhaps relevant experiences in one's own life would lead them to strongly dislike it. Who knows.
Because Shrek is generally accepted as a funny, quality movie packed into a tight 90 minute package. If you don't like the movie, it's a matter of poor taste, not poor production.
That's not the point though. This particular post is asking for people's opinions, and poor taste or not, his opinion is just as valid as yours is. You can't ask for somebody's opinion and then mod them down for giving it simply because you don't agree with it.
I've received word that this is just one of the scenes to be included in the extended version of reloaded that we have to look forward to:
Neo: woah
Trinity: what? stop saying that
*the door is blown apart and Elrond walks in*
Agent Smith: you wont escape this time Morpheus.
Neo: woah
Morpheus: bring it, bitch
*Another 30 minute rave scene ensues where morpheus and smith have a dance off. In the end smith wins and stabs morpheus with his glow stick*
Neo: woah
Smith: Now neo, how would you like to die?
Neo: I choose balloons for 400
Smith: that's not a choice
Neo: My mistake, I shall take balloons for 600
So are you claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to advertise their products? If so, why not?
Not at all, what I was saying was that a radio station being paid to play a song (which is illegal) is not fundamentally different from a radio station being paid to play a song with "presented by" prefixing the music (which appears to be on the legal side of that line.
It seems somewhat rediculous to have one practice violate the law while the other is an accepted legal option. What bothered me particularly was this paragraph:
To be sure, Don't Tell Me is a bona fide hit, even without spins being bought and paid for. Radio stations must play a song many thousands of times for it to crack the Billboard top 10. Nonetheless, a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
If these paid "advertisements" are able to affect the album's position on the charts, then I feel that they should not be permitted, however if they have no adverse effect on anything else (album rankings, etc) then the major objection I have to this is removed.
All five major record corporations have at least dabbled in the sales programs, industry sources said, with some reportedly paying as much as $60,000 in advertising fees to promote a single song.
This seems to be just one more underhanded tactic being utilized by the record labels these days.
a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
When it comes down to it, the labels are still effectively following the old outlawed practice of "paying for play", trying to hide behind a technicality in current US law. Though, that's something they seem to be doing a lot of these days.
I found myself disagreeing with him often while reading the book, though every time I did I found his argument compelling.
This is something that we don't see enough of these days. Too often people get stuck in a "because I said so" kind of rut, making claims with little in the way of a solid agument to back them up.
IMO, one of the markings of a well written work is when somebody can say "I may not agree with it, but he made a good argument for his case". Its a sign that the author is generally interested in painting an accurate picture rather than simply throwing a biased view out there for the world to swallow.
After half an hour of repeatedly answering the question "Could Linus have written the Linux kernel by himself?" in the affirmative, I was getting a bit irritated.
Its always been interesting that when somebody (or a group of people) don't want to hear a certain answer, it often goes in one ear and out the other just in time for another "listener" to ask the same basic question phrased slightly differently in hopes of obtaining a reply closer to the desired view. It seems that many times the media in general has this practice almost molded into an art.
From past personal experience, if your significant other has a pre-existing interest in video games, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem to find a way to work this situation out. But for those involved with somebody who has no interest in games, you're probably fighting a losing battle and eventually one side is going to have to give.
I'm going to change my name to a copyrighted haiku. Then the two Italian newspapers won't be able to publish my name online without facing criminal charges themselves. ;)
Why stop there, as long as you're having some fun with the laws of the land there's plenty of other ways to play. AFAIK, it would seem that in the US for example it would be fully possible to copyright a virus and add some sort of encryption to it. As soon as an anti-virus company reverse engineered it to release a fix you could hit them for DMCA violations.
So, they really DO care what you think of them if it means you could be switching to another provider...
I'd say its more a case of "they care about finding the cheapest way to keep you and prevent you from switching to another provider, with what you actually think of them being secondary"
ie: a company can sometimes get away with having horrible customer support as long as the service is outstanding. Likewise, they may be able to get away with "features" which would generally alienate its customers as long as it has something else up its sleeve that puts it ahead of its competators in terms of the overall value to the customer.
*shrug*
They could do it based on MAC address, different manufacturers have different allocations of MAC addresses.
Although many devices (Linksys cable/dsl routers for example) provide an option where you can manually set a mac address to replace the default manufacturer provided one. If this practice went into effect it probably wouldn't be too long before we saw a much more widespread use of this feature where people could change the address to something in the range of a "preferred product"
Picking a color in roulette is actually a 48% chance
My bad. That should be 49%
Picking a color in roulette is actually a 48% chance. You're forgetting 0 and 00.
2 Green
49 Red
49 Black
I'd have to agree with JustSomeGuy regarding DomainMonger. I've been using them as a registrar for roughly four or five years now and their service is excellent. In sharp contrast to NetSol I have not experienced a single problem with them and their support is top notch (I've almost always had a reply to an issue within a couple of hours).
I've just seitched the last of my domains away from NetSol to DomainMonger and I have no plans to ever go back.
It is showing DLP at the Spectrum. I was there last night for the 12:01 showing and there is a full list of showtimes for the digital projection.