You're exactly right. Morality aside (i.e., I'm not condoning piracy), download is not stealing, because you are not taking anything away from someone.
It is a crime. But it's a different crime. I wish people would think of it that way... especially those nitwit companies who complain they were cheated out of 400 quadrillion dollars of revenue because someone downloaded a movie.
I've read Article 3 numerous times and don't see anything even remotely supporting that statement.
It's part of the "checks and balances" the 3 branches are meant to have on each other. Of course, this implies that after confirmation, the executive or legislative branch can check the power of the Court, but since they have never done it, it seems they are either happy with the situation or lack the will to exercise their own powers. I find either possibility unacceptable.
The fact of the matter is that the Court is increasingly issuing rulings based on anything BUT the Constitution, citing things like morality, changing times, foreign law, or "emanations of penumbras" (translation: "I'm trying to rationalize the fact that I pulled this out of my ass"), and have all but stated that the original intentions of the Founders who wrote this magnificent document, and in many cases the clear, plain English words contained therein simply don't matter in this so-called politically, socially and scientifically enlightened age.
If the Court would get back to what's actually WRITTEN down in the Constitution, combined with a clear understanding of the intent of the language and a sharp dose of common sense, and stop making things up just to suit their political or moral prejudices or to suit the new pressure group du jour, we would all be a lot better off. Of course, it will never happen, because then the other two brances would be forced to acknowledge that 4/5 of what the Federal Government does uses powers never granted by the Constitution, and that through increasingly (small 'l') liberal and tangential interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the very idea of the Federal government being restricted to only those powers specifically enumerated has become irrelevant.
In other words, they threw the Constitution under the bus decades ago to serve the interests of big business, post-morality "morals", extremist pressure groups, a sense of universal entitlement and their own hyper-inflated sense of self-importance.
Once upon a time, a bunch of really smart guys got together to form a new country based on the idea of supreme and inalienable individual rights. They drew upon and expanded traditions that had developed largely in Europe and had existed in various forms since the days of the Romans and the ancient Greeks.
In their wisdom, they decided it best to surrender a small amount of these rights (but not life, liberty ot the pursuit of happiness) to a small, explicitly and narrowly defined Federal government, whose primary purpose was to help the united, but largely autonomous, states to engage in fair commerce, defend themselves against foreign aggressors, and to make sure that the rights of the individual states, and more importantly the people are preserved... and very little else.
It's ironic in the 21st century to even consider that there was a faction of the Constitutional Convention that felt the Bill of Rights was completely superfluous, as it spelled out the obvious, and that the Federal government as defined by the Constitution could never possibly usurp those God-given rights spelled out therein. Nowadays, the average American will not only recognize those rights, but a substantial portion of them think those rights go to far. If you look over the Bill of Rights today, the only right spelled out therein that I think we can all agree has not been watered down, whittled away or completely tossed out is the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house. And I wouldn't hold me breath if, God forbid, there is ever military conflict on American soil.
In the Federalist Papers, you will see the great lengths the various Founders go to explain the huge advantage the unity will provide in terms of global economics and security, but they also believed that such a union would only be just if it were voluntary. As we know, this was changed radically less than 100 years later, as was the very (small 'c') constitution of the Federal gov
half of the effect of HPL comes from his use of the language, so seeing his stories in movie format may be a lost cause.
Since they are stories, I would think all of the effect would have to be from his use of language.;-)
Seriously though, you're exactly right. I doubt there are many filmmakers (certainly no major one) with the restraint to make a good Lovecraft adaptation. You could do a good HPL adaptation with no CG, etc, at all, if you were a really good filmmaker, and focussed on the characters (good acting is a must), atmosphere, proper pacing, etc. (I was going to say "no special effects", but that term covers things that are often a lot more mundane than giant squid-head monsters gobbling people while dodging laser beams and missiles that explode with that stupid flaming ring effect everyone uses, like maybe fog or something like that).
Is there some kind of Director's Guild rule that every large explosion has to use that dumb ring effect. I mean, it was cool the first time I saw it (Star Trek 6 maybe?), but starting exactly with the second time I saw it, it was just old. I cringed when Lucas used it in the the New-and- Improved-Greedo-Shoots-First Edition of "A New Hope". I mean, I expected something imaginative and cool from the guy who wrote the book on space combat special effects (well, OK, technically that was Dykstra or however you spell it, but it was Lucas' vision).
Of course, no movie is complete without a "Matrix". They should remake "Citizen Kane" and "Battleship Potemkin" with flaming rings and bullet-time. Now that would rock!
I never said or implied it was. We Christians derive much of our belief and practices from Judaism. As we Christians see it, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Of course, I appreciate that Jewish people won't see it this way, but nonetheless we owe our heritage to Judaism, and it was good to see the last Pope acknowledge that we Christians haven't treated the Jews too well at times, especially in the Middle Ages.
Nah, Duke Nukem Forever isn't slated to ship until we have flying cars.
The reason it is mandated by the government is that VHF and UHF TV broadcasting chews up a huge hunk of spectrum that could be put to way more efficient, productive and lucrative use. It's like opening a huge new pipe for wireless technology. The switchover makes sense from a "public good" point of view because there will be all kinds of new services and products that utilize the newly freed spectrum. Of course, a large number of people, but not you nor I, will get rich.
They aren't, but we should give at least a little consideration to the idea that it would be nice to let them keep what they already have.
That said, if a digital receiver with analog output for the equivalent of VHF and UHF broadcasting is reasonably cheap, say $50-$100, I don't think it's a horrible problem. You simply need a little black box connected to your DuMont so you can watch Hee-Haw reruns after 2007 or whenever the switch gets thrown.
Personally, I'm betting this switch-over will be so complicated and expensive that analog TV will last until we have IPv6 in place on most or all of the Internet.
That was the point I was hoping the PP would recognize.
That said, criticism must be done with care. St. Paul admonishes us to criticize people in private and not make a public spectacle out it or ourselves, and only if the issue is not addressed to elevate it to a broader and broader forum as needed.
Then of course, how you criticize is equally important. To wit, getting on TV and tearing up a picture of the Pope is just being a childish ass. However, writing a detailed argument, backed up with facts and logic that are not wilfully untruthful, of your disagreements with him or his policies or the Church is honorable, even if you're wrong.
He criticized them when they were wrong, true. But he didn't criticize the texts, and in fact, everything He said and did was a fulfillment of the texts. While we are taught to be like Christ, we do not have the authority of Christ as priest, prophet and the Son of God, and therefore He had the right to do things we do not.
This does rule out criticizing leaders, but it must be done with great care, because when Jesus disagrees with rulers, we know He is right, but when we disagree, there's a good chance we are wrong.
Finally, I think the criticism of "Jedi" as a religion is that ultimately it is based on a movie. Admittedly, a cool movie (or series of movies, minus the ones that stunk, obviously), but the philosophy in this milieu is hopelessly simplistic at best and vacuous and meaningless at worst. It's hardly something worth enough to base your life, unless, perhaps, you don't have one. That said, there's nothing that rules out Jedi as a religion, after all it's just a watered-down kind of pantheism or natur worship, but I think what will make a real difference is the actions of those who claim to be Jedi. I'd rather see a "Jedi" who is honest, upstanding and helps the weak, rather than a greedy, corrupt and deceitful Christian (or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever the Subgenius people call themselves...).
Of course, if they could levitate spaceships and shoot lightning out of their fingers, that would be wicked cool!
If you can't see the obvious comparison, you simply aren't trying very hard. You can make a joke about a politician without it being an attack you know. Maybe it was a lame joke, but it wasn't a rant, which is how you responded. You are exactly what's wrong with politics, not because you are against Bush, just because your commentary is idiotic.
Of course, knowing your type, if I'd make a joke about the President, you'd probably be singing my praises.
Because he failed to fire off this attack at Google with the passion and ferociousness ROAR!!!... I suggest he get back on track with some hardcore dancing and screaming...
So, in other words, he needs to lead Microsoft like Howard Dean leads the Democrats?
I can't seem to get the fish to figure out what language this story is in.
Marketspeak. No one can translate it, it's a write only language.
The Babelfish can't understand it because no one can keep one alive long enough around marketing people to translate their brainwaves. They just shrivel up like one of those little peppers you find in your Kung-Pao Chicken only yellow.
Re:Is it just me, or couldn't posts about Dev thin
on
Eclipse 3.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Eclipse is an open platform for tool integration built by an open community of tool providers. Operating under an open source paradigm, with a common public license that provides royalty free source code and world wide redistribution rights, the eclipse platform provides tool developers with ultimate flexibility and control over their software technology.
Eclipse has formed an independent open eco-system around royalty-free technology and a universal platform for tools integration...
{sarcasm} So I have to ask again, what is this thing? {/sarcasm}
Yeesh. When did "market-speak" change from clear communication to make a point concisely to buzzword-laden morass that communicates nothing? Wait, don't answer that.
I mean really, do marketing people even have souls? What's wrong with saying it's an "open-source, cross-platform development tool that allows for easy integration with other tools. Eclipse is designed to be very flexible abd robust.". Doesn't that say the same thing without such preteniousness as using "eco-system" to describe software or where every sentence contains half a dozen 3- and 4-word compound nouns?
Heh, eco-system. Makes me think there are frogs and pond scum in the software.
Slashdot Mirror
The logic is:
They are the government. You have money. They want it.
Everything else is just rationalization.
To be honest, I was thinking only of recent times (last 40 years). I know about FDR, and I'm sure there were others prior to that.
Thanks for the correction.
Data is not personal property... it's intellectual property. That's a much different thing.
But if you're going to be pedantic about it, then, yes, downloading is stealing.
Hey, I don't want someone copying my load... :-)
You're exactly right. Morality aside (i.e., I'm not condoning piracy), download is not stealing, because you are not taking anything away from someone.
It is a crime. But it's a different crime. I wish people would think of it that way... especially those nitwit companies who complain they were cheated out of 400 quadrillion dollars of revenue because someone downloaded a movie.
Is that some kind of proposition? I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.
I've read Article 3 numerous times and don't see anything even remotely supporting that statement.
It's part of the "checks and balances" the 3 branches are meant to have on each other. Of course, this implies that after confirmation, the executive or legislative branch can check the power of the Court, but since they have never done it, it seems they are either happy with the situation or lack the will to exercise their own powers. I find either possibility unacceptable.
The fact of the matter is that the Court is increasingly issuing rulings based on anything BUT the Constitution, citing things like morality, changing times, foreign law, or "emanations of penumbras" (translation: "I'm trying to rationalize the fact that I pulled this out of my ass"), and have all but stated that the original intentions of the Founders who wrote this magnificent document, and in many cases the clear, plain English words contained therein simply don't matter in this so-called politically, socially and scientifically enlightened age.
If the Court would get back to what's actually WRITTEN down in the Constitution, combined with a clear understanding of the intent of the language and a sharp dose of common sense, and stop making things up just to suit their political or moral prejudices or to suit the new pressure group du jour, we would all be a lot better off. Of course, it will never happen, because then the other two brances would be forced to acknowledge that 4/5 of what the Federal Government does uses powers never granted by the Constitution, and that through increasingly (small 'l') liberal and tangential interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the very idea of the Federal government being restricted to only those powers specifically enumerated has become irrelevant.
In other words, they threw the Constitution under the bus decades ago to serve the interests of big business, post-morality "morals", extremist pressure groups, a sense of universal entitlement and their own hyper-inflated sense of self-importance.
Once upon a time, a bunch of really smart guys got together to form a new country based on the idea of supreme and inalienable individual rights. They drew upon and expanded traditions that had developed largely in Europe and had existed in various forms since the days of the Romans and the ancient Greeks.
In their wisdom, they decided it best to surrender a small amount of these rights (but not life, liberty ot the pursuit of happiness) to a small, explicitly and narrowly defined Federal government, whose primary purpose was to help the united, but largely autonomous, states to engage in fair commerce, defend themselves against foreign aggressors, and to make sure that the rights of the individual states, and more importantly the people are preserved... and very little else.
It's ironic in the 21st century to even consider that there was a faction of the Constitutional Convention that felt the Bill of Rights was completely superfluous, as it spelled out the obvious, and that the Federal government as defined by the Constitution could never possibly usurp those God-given rights spelled out therein. Nowadays, the average American will not only recognize those rights, but a substantial portion of them think those rights go to far. If you look over the Bill of Rights today, the only right spelled out therein that I think we can all agree has not been watered down, whittled away or completely tossed out is the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house. And I wouldn't hold me breath if, God forbid, there is ever military conflict on American soil.
In the Federalist Papers, you will see the great lengths the various Founders go to explain the huge advantage the unity will provide in terms of global economics and security, but they also believed that such a union would only be just if it were voluntary. As we know, this was changed radically less than 100 years later, as was the very (small 'c') constitution of the Federal gov
half of the effect of HPL comes from his use of the language, so seeing his stories in movie format may be a lost cause.
;-)
Since they are stories, I would think all of the effect would have to be from his use of language.
Seriously though, you're exactly right. I doubt there are many filmmakers (certainly no major one) with the restraint to make a good Lovecraft adaptation. You could do a good HPL adaptation with no CG, etc, at all, if you were a really good filmmaker, and focussed on the characters (good acting is a must), atmosphere, proper pacing, etc. (I was going to say "no special effects", but that term covers things that are often a lot more mundane than giant squid-head monsters gobbling people while dodging laser beams and missiles that explode with that stupid flaming ring effect everyone uses, like maybe fog or something like that).
Is there some kind of Director's Guild rule that every large explosion has to use that dumb ring effect. I mean, it was cool the first time I saw it (Star Trek 6 maybe?), but starting exactly with the second time I saw it, it was just old. I cringed when Lucas used it in the the New-and- Improved-Greedo-Shoots-First Edition of "A New Hope". I mean, I expected something imaginative and cool from the guy who wrote the book on space combat special effects (well, OK, technically that was Dykstra or however you spell it, but it was Lucas' vision).
Of course, no movie is complete without a "Matrix". They should remake "Citizen Kane" and "Battleship Potemkin" with flaming rings and bullet-time. Now that would rock!
Have I ranted long enough?
If /. stopped posting idiocies, there would be like 3 people discussing the weather.
You know they often get more mileage out of a provocative article than an informative one.
Yes, it makes Starwars more honest.
Cute, Marie. Real cute.
Seems like you could hand them out and recoup the losses in savings after 4 months.
Thanks for the info.
I never said or implied it was. We Christians derive much of our belief and practices from Judaism. As we Christians see it, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Of course, I appreciate that Jewish people won't see it this way, but nonetheless we owe our heritage to Judaism, and it was good to see the last Pope acknowledge that we Christians haven't treated the Jews too well at times, especially in the Middle Ages.
Nah, Duke Nukem Forever isn't slated to ship until we have flying cars.
The reason it is mandated by the government is that VHF and UHF TV broadcasting chews up a huge hunk of spectrum that could be put to way more efficient, productive and lucrative use. It's like opening a huge new pipe for wireless technology. The switchover makes sense from a "public good" point of view because there will be all kinds of new services and products that utilize the newly freed spectrum. Of course, a large number of people, but not you nor I, will get rich.
Why are the poor entitled to everything?
They aren't, but we should give at least a little consideration to the idea that it would be nice to let them keep what they already have.
That said, if a digital receiver with analog output for the equivalent of VHF and UHF broadcasting is reasonably cheap, say $50-$100, I don't think it's a horrible problem. You simply need a little black box connected to your DuMont so you can watch Hee-Haw reruns after 2007 or whenever the switch gets thrown.
Personally, I'm betting this switch-over will be so complicated and expensive that analog TV will last until we have IPv6 in place on most or all of the Internet.
That was the point I was hoping the PP would recognize.
That said, criticism must be done with care. St. Paul admonishes us to criticize people in private and not make a public spectacle out it or ourselves, and only if the issue is not addressed to elevate it to a broader and broader forum as needed.
Then of course, how you criticize is equally important. To wit, getting on TV and tearing up a picture of the Pope is just being a childish ass. However, writing a detailed argument, backed up with facts and logic that are not wilfully untruthful, of your disagreements with him or his policies or the Church is honorable, even if you're wrong.
"Star Wars" doesn't pretend to be anything other than a piece of fluff entertainment.
I think that makes a small bit of difference.
He criticized them when they were wrong, true. But he didn't criticize the texts, and in fact, everything He said and did was a fulfillment of the texts. While we are taught to be like Christ, we do not have the authority of Christ as priest, prophet and the Son of God, and therefore He had the right to do things we do not.
This does rule out criticizing leaders, but it must be done with great care, because when Jesus disagrees with rulers, we know He is right, but when we disagree, there's a good chance we are wrong.
Finally, I think the criticism of "Jedi" as a religion is that ultimately it is based on a movie. Admittedly, a cool movie (or series of movies, minus the ones that stunk, obviously), but the philosophy in this milieu is hopelessly simplistic at best and vacuous and meaningless at worst. It's hardly something worth enough to base your life, unless, perhaps, you don't have one. That said, there's nothing that rules out Jedi as a religion, after all it's just a watered-down kind of pantheism or natur worship, but I think what will make a real difference is the actions of those who claim to be Jedi. I'd rather see a "Jedi" who is honest, upstanding and helps the weak, rather than a greedy, corrupt and deceitful Christian (or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or whatever the Subgenius people call themselves...).
Of course, if they could levitate spaceships and shoot lightning out of their fingers, that would be wicked cool!
No one is perfect. The best you can do is try.
And since when is "openly criticizing leaders of your religion" a tenet of Christianity?
Really, why don't you worry about yourself instead of criticizing people, most of whom are trying to be good?
Dude: Raaaaaaaage duuuuummmmmppp!
/. for you but yourself.
No one is ruining anything on
Oh, but for the lack of points mod I.
Very, very funny.
Dude, take a rage dump.
If you can't see the obvious comparison, you simply aren't trying very hard. You can make a joke about a politician without it being an attack you know. Maybe it was a lame joke, but it wasn't a rant, which is how you responded. You are exactly what's wrong with politics, not because you are against Bush, just because your commentary is idiotic.
Of course, knowing your type, if I'd make a joke about the President, you'd probably be singing my praises.
Because he failed to fire off this attack at Google with the passion and ferociousness ROAR!!! ... I suggest he get back on track with some hardcore dancing and screaming...
So, in other words, he needs to lead Microsoft like Howard Dean leads the Democrats?
Reading this crap made me think of a new word, too: moronotony
I can't seem to get the fish to figure out what language this story is in.
Marketspeak. No one can translate it, it's a write only language.
The Babelfish can't understand it because no one can keep one alive long enough around marketing people to translate their brainwaves. They just shrivel up like one of those little peppers you find in your Kung-Pao Chicken only yellow.
Eclipse is an open platform for tool integration built by an open community of tool providers. Operating under an open source paradigm, with a common public license that provides royalty free source code and world wide redistribution rights, the eclipse platform provides tool developers with ultimate flexibility and control over their software technology.
Eclipse has formed an independent open eco-system around royalty-free technology and a universal platform for tools integration...
{sarcasm}
So I have to ask again, what is this thing?
{/sarcasm}
Yeesh. When did "market-speak" change from clear communication to make a point concisely to buzzword-laden morass that communicates nothing? Wait, don't answer that.
I mean really, do marketing people even have souls? What's wrong with saying it's an "open-source, cross-platform development tool that allows for easy integration with other tools. Eclipse is designed to be very flexible abd robust.". Doesn't that say the same thing without such preteniousness as using "eco-system" to describe software or where every sentence contains half a dozen 3- and 4-word compound nouns?
Heh, eco-system. Makes me think there are frogs and pond scum in the software.
Of course. But what Lovecraft-based movie was good?