Yes it is. So why don't you grow a pair and tell your government that you are not their bitch and you won't stand by while your rights are systematically stripped from you. You seem to be willing to sell your freedom for the appearance of security. Americans have died for their ideals, you disgrace yourself and your country by cowering in fear and giving up the principles they fought for, because you're afraid of terrorists.
Wow, he tried to list himself as co-defendent and co-counsel on the amicus brief. I can't think of any rational reason to list yourself as either when you're neither. It makes me suspect he was trying to create evidence that he could later use to show that he had been personally sued by the video game industry, and then complain about how they hound him relentlessly for his pursuit of American Justice. Of course, the co-counsel part is obviously there to pad his resume.
Re:Observation on Competitors
on
Pro PHP Security
·
· Score: 2, Funny
All I know about Ruby on Rails is that every other week I can't view the Penny Arcade comic. It's not exactly a stellar endorsement for Rails or the development company that did the site. I mean sure it looks nice, but half the time I go there I get an error message and no comics.
"In fact, even under the best case scenario for the Xbox 360 we predict the system will finish third in Japan while being the number one system worldwide."
I found that amusing, even if Sony totally screws up and comes in last place in the world, they'll still beat Microsoft in Japan.
Moreover, why do people play D&D? To assume one of a set of fairly cliched roles, or to crawl through a maze slaying monsters and working as a team to accomplish a goal? I suggest that the length of the rulebook dedicated to combat encodes an answer.
Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with what the players do with the game, then the size of the books. Some people play to demolish the dungeon. Some play to act out a their cliched roles. Some just play to goof around with friends for a few hours.
It's kind of like how some people play an video game to discover all the little hidden features, some play to beat the game, and some just play to have fun.
Which actually means according to tort law that they bought a copy and not a license to a copy. Why? The doctrine of offer and acceptance means that we have entered into a explicit contract to sell me the materials I believe to be in the package you are selling me, providing, of course, that those expectations are reasonable. I must be informed of limitations ahead of time, otherwise I haven't agreed to them, and to change the agreement after the fact requires 1) additional consent from me and 2) reasonable compensation. Essentially you can't change the contractual agreement between us without providing benefits to both parties. Almost every shrinkwrap licence I've ever seen has simply removed rights from the person involved. There are a few places where they can probably get away with that, MMORPG games, for example can reasonably apply an terms of service for access to their private run servers. Because you have a seperate contractual relationship for access to the server in addition to the relation for the purchase of the software.
Lastly, be very careful when claiming that something or other set a precence that allows shrinkwrap licences to be actionable. There may have been extenuating circumstances, or the judge may simply have ruled incorrectly. No reasonable person wants to try to enforce shrinkwrap licences because they know there more to lose by losing the case than there usually is to gain by winning. Shrinkwrap licences are an excellent stick to threaten the ignorant with.
Actually I think the point which many people are missing is: You should be checking your sources. There's a chance that anything you read/hear is wrong. If it's important make sure you back it up with independent corroberation.
Yeah, he's using the same crazy absolutism as the mathematician and the engineer:
A group of scientists decided to conduct an experiment. They brought a mathematician and an engineer and sat each of them down in a chair at the far end of a room, at the other end they placed a buffet of delicious food. Every 5 minutes the mathematician and the engineer were allowed to move their chairs half of the remaining distance to the buffet. After the 3rd move the mathematician became enraged and stormed out of the room, yelling "I know what you're doing, since you're cutting the distance by half each time, we'll never actually reach the buffet!" The engineer watched the mathematician leave and kept moving his chair closer and closer. Eventually, one of the scientists went over to ask the engineer why he didn't leave when the mathematician revealed their cruel trickery. The engineer answered "I may never actually get right up to the buffet, but in a couple more moves I'll be close enough for all intents and purposes".
The point? It is possible to get "close enough" to impossible ideals.
The rational answer is simple, that life begins when the lifeform is capable of sustaining brain activity and ends when it stops being capable of sustaining brain activity.
The problem is many people have been conditioned to believe "heartbeat" means alive. They don't realize that it's not the lack of heartbeat that determines life or death, it's the damage to the brain caused by a lack of blood, caused by the lack of a heartbeat that determines life or death. They think "heartbeat" means alive when "heartbeat" is just one of the conditions necessary to sustain life.
This, of course applies mostly to mammals and humans in particular.
Except a religious ceremony isn't needed to get married, many people have secular marriages conducted by a government employee. There's a further step that needs to be recognized, and that is that it is the "marriage ceremony" that is religious not the secularly authorized marriage itself. All you need to do is note that religions can't be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for any reason and you're done. Catholic ministers will often refuse to marry a couple that hasn't gone to marriage counseling first.
The only "danger" to religious institutions is that anti-discrimination laws might be used to force them to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. As long as no same sex couples are legally allowed to get married, then they can't be called discriminatory for refusing to perform the ceremony.
Where are lines faster -- the grocery store or the DMV?
In Canada, it depends on what time of day you go, but in my experience the lines are about equally long. There's rarely more than 1 person in line in front of me at either location.
Of course, your idea would lead to complete anarchy. You might be in favour of that, but if you dissolve the police, fire, and emergency services and you're going to get a Nation-wide case of New Orleans fever. Property rights will be, in effect, if not in word dissolved along with everything else. Those who have less will be quite willing to take what they don't have from those who have it.
Seriously, so far none of the consoles have shown me any reason to buy them. The PS3 is most likely to have the games I want to play. The 360 certainly doesn't have them, and the Wii might have 1, that I'd actually like to play.
Hmm, it looks like a PS3 will run you the same as the average american's beer budget for 5 months, or a 1 pack a day smokers budget for 5 months. If you drink and smoke, that's about 2.5 months of your vices for a PS3.
Slashdot Mirror
A great man once said "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
Yes it is. So why don't you grow a pair and tell your government that you are not their bitch and you won't stand by while your rights are systematically stripped from you. You seem to be willing to sell your freedom for the appearance of security. Americans have died for their ideals, you disgrace yourself and your country by cowering in fear and giving up the principles they fought for, because you're afraid of terrorists.
That's fair. Standards bodies don't encourage innovation, they document it and make it repeatable.
Wow, he tried to list himself as co-defendent and co-counsel on the amicus brief. I can't think of any rational reason to list yourself as either when you're neither. It makes me suspect he was trying to create evidence that he could later use to show that he had been personally sued by the video game industry, and then complain about how they hound him relentlessly for his pursuit of American Justice. Of course, the co-counsel part is obviously there to pad his resume.
All I know about Ruby on Rails is that every other week I can't view the Penny Arcade comic. It's not exactly a stellar endorsement for Rails or the development company that did the site. I mean sure it looks nice, but half the time I go there I get an error message and no comics.
"In fact, even under the best case scenario for the Xbox 360 we predict the system will finish third in Japan while being the number one system worldwide."
I found that amusing, even if Sony totally screws up and comes in last place in the world, they'll still beat Microsoft in Japan.
And look at the quality of today's politicans...
Extortion, they don't care how the lyric sites come up with the money, they're going to be ordered to pay or face a lawsuit.
Moreover, why do people play D&D? To assume one of a set of fairly cliched roles, or to crawl through a maze slaying monsters and working as a team to accomplish a goal? I suggest that the length of the rulebook dedicated to combat encodes an answer.
Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with what the players do with the game, then the size of the books. Some people play to demolish the dungeon. Some play to act out a their cliched roles. Some just play to goof around with friends for a few hours.
It's kind of like how some people play an video game to discover all the little hidden features, some play to beat the game, and some just play to have fun.
Which actually means according to tort law that they bought a copy and not a license to a copy. Why? The doctrine of offer and acceptance means that we have entered into a explicit contract to sell me the materials I believe to be in the package you are selling me, providing, of course, that those expectations are reasonable. I must be informed of limitations ahead of time, otherwise I haven't agreed to them, and to change the agreement after the fact requires 1) additional consent from me and 2) reasonable compensation. Essentially you can't change the contractual agreement between us without providing benefits to both parties. Almost every shrinkwrap licence I've ever seen has simply removed rights from the person involved. There are a few places where they can probably get away with that, MMORPG games, for example can reasonably apply an terms of service for access to their private run servers. Because you have a seperate contractual relationship for access to the server in addition to the relation for the purchase of the software.
Lastly, be very careful when claiming that something or other set a precence that allows shrinkwrap licences to be actionable. There may have been extenuating circumstances, or the judge may simply have ruled incorrectly. No reasonable person wants to try to enforce shrinkwrap licences because they know there more to lose by losing the case than there usually is to gain by winning. Shrinkwrap licences are an excellent stick to threaten the ignorant with.
According to the article, it took Wikipedia about 3 minutes to get the story right and it took Reuters 24 hours to fix their story.
Actually I think the point which many people are missing is: You should be checking your sources. There's a chance that anything you read/hear is wrong. If it's important make sure you back it up with independent corroberation.
Yeah, he's using the same crazy absolutism as the mathematician and the engineer:
A group of scientists decided to conduct an experiment. They brought a mathematician and an engineer and sat each of them down in a chair at the far end of a room, at the other end they placed a buffet of delicious food. Every 5 minutes the mathematician and the engineer were allowed to move their chairs half of the remaining distance to the buffet. After the 3rd move the mathematician became enraged and stormed out of the room, yelling "I know what you're doing, since you're cutting the distance by half each time, we'll never actually reach the buffet!" The engineer watched the mathematician leave and kept moving his chair closer and closer. Eventually, one of the scientists went over to ask the engineer why he didn't leave when the mathematician revealed their cruel trickery. The engineer answered "I may never actually get right up to the buffet, but in a couple more moves I'll be close enough for all intents and purposes".
The point? It is possible to get "close enough" to impossible ideals.
That would imply something significant has been released for the system.
The rational answer is simple, that life begins when the lifeform is capable of sustaining brain activity and ends when it stops being capable of sustaining brain activity.
The problem is many people have been conditioned to believe "heartbeat" means alive. They don't realize that it's not the lack of heartbeat that determines life or death, it's the damage to the brain caused by a lack of blood, caused by the lack of a heartbeat that determines life or death. They think "heartbeat" means alive when "heartbeat" is just one of the conditions necessary to sustain life.
This, of course applies mostly to mammals and humans in particular.
Except a religious ceremony isn't needed to get married, many people have secular marriages conducted by a government employee. There's a further step that needs to be recognized, and that is that it is the "marriage ceremony" that is religious not the secularly authorized marriage itself. All you need to do is note that religions can't be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for any reason and you're done. Catholic ministers will often refuse to marry a couple that hasn't gone to marriage counseling first.
The only "danger" to religious institutions is that anti-discrimination laws might be used to force them to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. As long as no same sex couples are legally allowed to get married, then they can't be called discriminatory for refusing to perform the ceremony.
Then you run into the reverse situation where I take his work, cut a 1-second bit of silence from the movie, and sell it as my own work.
Gah, I once ate at a Walmart (big mistake). There's no way I'd let those butchers perform surgery on me.
You do realize that PC hardware was "opened" due to the anti-trust case againt IBM, don't you?
Of course, the anti-trust investigation against IBM was likely also a determing factor in allowing Microsoft to retain ownership of DOS.
Please re-read the section of copyright on moral rights before you make a fool of yourself in public again.
Where are lines faster -- the grocery store or the DMV?
In Canada, it depends on what time of day you go, but in my experience the lines are about equally long. There's rarely more than 1 person in line in front of me at either location.
Why keep property rights specifically?
Of course, your idea would lead to complete anarchy. You might be in favour of that, but if you dissolve the police, fire, and emergency services and you're going to get a Nation-wide case of New Orleans fever. Property rights will be, in effect, if not in word dissolved along with everything else. Those who have less will be quite willing to take what they don't have from those who have it.
Unless, of course, you destroy the entire universe at the exact moment that you finish compiling every fact in it.
Best =/= Cheap Gimmick Console.
Seriously, so far none of the consoles have shown me any reason to buy them. The PS3 is most likely to have the games I want to play. The 360 certainly doesn't have them, and the Wii might have 1, that I'd actually like to play.
Hmm, it looks like a PS3 will run you the same as the average american's beer budget for 5 months, or a 1 pack a day smokers budget for 5 months. If you drink and smoke, that's about 2.5 months of your vices for a PS3.