A court would probably find that Gates couldn't show damages. (There is a classic contract law "hypothetical" along these lines: If you pay someone to build on your land a house so ugly you couldn't sell it, but instead they build you a nice, resellable-at-high-value house that you don't want, what are your damages? The consensus, I think, is that you're out of luck.)
Technically, you COULD sign yourself into slavery.
Actually, I believe at least a couple courts have held that you can't. The author is correct, however, that there's nothing in the Constitution that expressly states that the right not to be enslaved is "nonwaivable" (i.e., you can't sell it or otherwise give it away), as opposed to the many other Constitutional rights which are generally agreed to be waivable.
He always said that there is nothing you can sign that can forfeit your constitutional rights...
I don't know about "forfeit": the ordinary expression is that one "waives" one's rights.
Some constitutional rights are clearly waivable. For example, if you want to sign an endorsement contract with Nike, Nike will likely require that you not publicly criticize their products and not endorse competing products, and such an agreement would be perfectly legal notwithstanding your First Amendment right to do those things. Similarly but more seriously, if you confess to a crime (either outside of police custody or after being advised of your Miranda rights), you waive your constitutional right to remain silent.
Other constitutional rights are nonwaivable. You can't, for instance, waive your right not to be enslaved or your right not to be drawn and quartered.
To be a great film actor requires something different from simply being a topnotch actor by Yale Drama standards. I wouldn't walk across the street to see Bruce Willis as Hamlet or Willy Loman or Uncle Vanya, but he's surely on his way to being a great film actor. I'd class Jean Reno, John Travolta,(1) Stellan Skaarsgard, Chow Yun-Fat, Samuel L. Jackson and Tom Cruise (yes, Tom Cruise) as great film actors even though I have no clue how they'd do on stage.
But as for raw acting chops, I'd throw William Hurt or Laurence Fishburne in a steel cage with your Welshman any day.(2)
(Notes:)
(1) I saw a little bit of Travolta in Urban Cowboy again the other day while channel-flipping. He is incredibly amazing with the right material.
(2) Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Alec Baldwin and Kevin Kline are all quite good but I've seen them in too much poor material to be wholly confident. Baldwin vs. Hopkins in The Edge is worth seeing for those interested in this kind of face-off.
Main Entry: oneiric
Pronunciation: O-'nI-rik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek oneiros dream; akin to Armenian anurj dream
Date: 1859
: of or relating to dreams : DREAMY
- oneirically/-ri-k(&-)lE/ adverb
no central despotic villian, no hiding princess, no ragtag bunch of outlaws...
(Really? Jade Fox, the Zhang Ziyi character, Dark Cloud et al. don't qualify?)
I don't mean to belabor this point. Obviously the filmmakers did not sit down at a table and say to each other, "What is the most obscure way we can rip off Star Wars?" or otherwise think explicitly about SW in any other way.
Nor do I believe there is anything particularly original to SW about the plot elements and themes this film shares with SW. (See the other poster's reference to Joseph Campbell.)
I was simply trying to give a rough impression of the film (which would among other things convey that this film aims higher than, e.g., Armor of God 2, in the same way that SW aimed higher than some Amazon Women On The Moon-type 1950s sci-fi film. Don't get me wrong, I love Jackie Chan to death, but this film has different aspirations).
I referred to them as the creative team because it seems not improbable that Lee as director and co-producer and Schamus as co-screenwriter and co-executive producer might have had some influence on the way the movie turned out.
How does the movie bear any similarity whatsoever to Star Wars?
Really? Your response makes clear that you yourself recognize CTHD does bear certain similarities to SW.
Just because it includes a desert and a wise master doesn't necessarily make it derivative, you know.
I don't think CTHD is derivative, at least not in a bad way. I just meant to point out that it uses a lot of the same plot elements and themes as SW. (There's no question that Ang Lee and Jim Schamus, the creative team behind CTHD, have both seen SW.) SW itself recycles plot elements and themes from The Wizard Of Oz. Nihil novum sub sole.
The more I think about it, O Brother, Where Are Thou? is the real sequel to The Blues Brothers, except that it's about old-time country music rather than rhythm and blues. If you think about the film that way rather than as the next effort by the people who brought you Miller's Crossing and Fargo, your expectations will be suitably adjusted -- not upward or downward, but sideways -- and you should have a good time.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is, in a nutshell, Star Wars remade as a Chinese martial arts fantasy. It is strange and beautiful and everyone should go see it. (In the unusual event that there are parents reading this, the film is rated PG-13 but is completely appropriate for any child old enough to read subtitles.)
One film JK did not remark on is You Can Count On Me, which tells the story of a single mother in upstate New York and her relationship with her drifter brother. This sounds like a "chick flick," to be sure, but is so well told that it serves to demonstrate the emptiness of the "family values porn" (Entertainment Weekly's description of The Family Man) which Hollywood churns out. For those who are afraid of abject sentimentality, I would note that the title would be more accurate if it were phrased as a question.
I've never been stopped at French customs for any reason. At least the time, there isn't even anyone there, even at high-profile places like Charles de Gaulle International in Paris or the airport in Nice.
That a jurist understands the technology does not mean that he/she will be more sympathetic to what might be termed the "average Slashdot reader's position" ("ASRP"). The companies that lobbied for the DMCA certainly understand the techonology, and they are anti-ASRP.
More particularly, I'm not aware that there are any errors in Kaplan's opinion which arise from a misunderstanding of the technology at issue. (I don't count errors that are irrelevant to the point at issue, statements that constitute errors only if tendentiously read, or statements that constitute errors because the statement is not true in a insignificantly small number of instances.) If I'm wrong, correct me.
Though you must admit that they do crowd out the ever-popular series of:CueCat stories.
(Next week on Slashdot: Tune in to learn how to hack your:CueCat to keep it from violating your privacy by backing over it with your pickup. Also, whether voting for Nader in 2004 is a good idea.)
This is an urban legend. The indefinite article with a noun indicating profession, nationality, etc. means the word is being used figuratively or to indicate a characteristic quality. (Example: "Er ist Politiker" == "He's a politician"; "Er ist ein Politiker" == roughly, "He's such a politician".) See also Snopes.
Um, because the popular vote in the various states determines the compositon of the Electoral College. The largely hypothetical objection that the winner of a plurality in the nationwide popular vote could fail to have a majority in the Electoral College is no reason not to vote to determine who your state's electors will be.
Where do people get the idea that a vote for Nader isn't in many instances some kind of strategic vote?
To elaborate:
I doubt very much that all the voters who support Nader prefer him to every last one of the 100+ million other Americans eligible for the presidency, any of whom they are free in most states to write in. Are they voting for him even though he's not their completely ideal candidate because he's their favorite among those candidates who will make a countable showing? Shock! Horror! Strategic voting! Don't let the children see!
Abortion is probably most people's central motivation when they talk this way about the SCt, but there are a lot of other issues which are tremendously important. In particular, an enormous amount of federal regulation is premised on Congress' power to regulate "interstate commerce." If the SCt took a narrower view of what constitutes "interstate commerce" than the present body of SCt case law does, it would have an enormous effect on the power of the federal government to regulate (which is good or bad depending on how you feel about that). The SCt continues to make decisions which will shape the future (if any) of affirmative action programs (again, which is GOBDOHYFAT). In short, it's not just about abortion.
And the NCSA facility at Illinois where Mosiac was put together was not built and paid for by the federal government under a bill that Gore sponsored. In fact, the university itself was able to pay for it when it realized that it could double its revenues from deposit bottles by driving them to Michigan in a stolen postal vehicle. Or maybe that was a Seinfeld episode. In any event, the point is that Gore's a big liar.
Slashdot Mirror
A court would probably find that Gates couldn't show damages. (There is a classic contract law "hypothetical" along these lines: If you pay someone to build on your land a house so ugly you couldn't sell it, but instead they build you a nice, resellable-at-high-value house that you don't want, what are your damages? The consensus, I think, is that you're out of luck.)
Actually, I believe at least a couple courts have held that you can't. The author is correct, however, that there's nothing in the Constitution that expressly states that the right not to be enslaved is "nonwaivable" (i.e., you can't sell it or otherwise give it away), as opposed to the many other Constitutional rights which are generally agreed to be waivable.
I don't know about "forfeit": the ordinary expression is that one "waives" one's rights.
Some constitutional rights are clearly waivable. For example, if you want to sign an endorsement contract with Nike, Nike will likely require that you not publicly criticize their products and not endorse competing products, and such an agreement would be perfectly legal notwithstanding your First Amendment right to do those things. Similarly but more seriously, if you confess to a crime (either outside of police custody or after being advised of your Miranda rights), you waive your constitutional right to remain silent.
Other constitutional rights are nonwaivable. You can't, for instance, waive your right not to be enslaved or your right not to be drawn and quartered.
But as for raw acting chops, I'd throw William Hurt or Laurence Fishburne in a steel cage with your Welshman any day.(2)
(Notes:)
(1) I saw a little bit of Travolta in Urban Cowboy again the other day while channel-flipping. He is incredibly amazing with the right material.
(2) Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Alec Baldwin and Kevin Kline are all quite good but I've seen them in too much poor material to be wholly confident. Baldwin vs. Hopkins in The Edge is worth seeing for those interested in this kind of face-off.
Main Entry: oneiric /-ri-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Pronunciation: O-'nI-rik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek oneiros dream; akin to Armenian anurj dream
Date: 1859
: of or relating to dreams : DREAMY
- oneirically
(Really? Jade Fox, the Zhang Ziyi character, Dark Cloud et al. don't qualify?)
I don't mean to belabor this point. Obviously the filmmakers did not sit down at a table and say to each other, "What is the most obscure way we can rip off Star Wars?" or otherwise think explicitly about SW in any other way.
Nor do I believe there is anything particularly original to SW about the plot elements and themes this film shares with SW. (See the other poster's reference to Joseph Campbell.)
I was simply trying to give a rough impression of the film (which would among other things convey that this film aims higher than, e.g., Armor of God 2, in the same way that SW aimed higher than some Amazon Women On The Moon-type 1950s sci-fi film. Don't get me wrong, I love Jackie Chan to death, but this film has different aspirations).
I referred to them as the creative team because it seems not improbable that Lee as director and co-producer and Schamus as co-screenwriter and co-executive producer might have had some influence on the way the movie turned out.
Really? Your response makes clear that you yourself recognize CTHD does bear certain similarities to SW.
Just because it includes a desert and a wise master doesn't necessarily make it derivative, you know.
I don't think CTHD is derivative, at least not in a bad way. I just meant to point out that it uses a lot of the same plot elements and themes as SW. (There's no question that Ang Lee and Jim Schamus, the creative team behind CTHD, have both seen SW.) SW itself recycles plot elements and themes from The Wizard Of Oz. Nihil novum sub sole.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is, in a nutshell, Star Wars remade as a Chinese martial arts fantasy. It is strange and beautiful and everyone should go see it. (In the unusual event that there are parents reading this, the film is rated PG-13 but is completely appropriate for any child old enough to read subtitles.)
One film JK did not remark on is You Can Count On Me, which tells the story of a single mother in upstate New York and her relationship with her drifter brother. This sounds like a "chick flick," to be sure, but is so well told that it serves to demonstrate the emptiness of the "family values porn" (Entertainment Weekly's description of The Family Man) which Hollywood churns out. For those who are afraid of abject sentimentality, I would note that the title would be more accurate if it were phrased as a question.
I've never been stopped at French customs for any reason. At least the time, there isn't even anyone there, even at high-profile places like Charles de Gaulle International in Paris or the airport in Nice.
It's not the operating system that's holding the printers up. It's chemistry.
More particularly, I'm not aware that there are any errors in Kaplan's opinion which arise from a misunderstanding of the technology at issue. (I don't count errors that are irrelevant to the point at issue, statements that constitute errors only if tendentiously read, or statements that constitute errors because the statement is not true in a insignificantly small number of instances.) If I'm wrong, correct me.
(Next week on Slashdot: Tune in to learn how to hack your :CueCat to keep it from violating your privacy by backing over it with your pickup. Also, whether voting for Nader in 2004 is a good idea.)
This is an urban legend. The indefinite article with a noun indicating profession, nationality, etc. means the word is being used figuratively or to indicate a characteristic quality. (Example: "Er ist Politiker" == "He's a politician"; "Er ist ein Politiker" == roughly, "He's such a politician".) See also Snopes.
If only Madison had played some role in drafting America's constitution. I wonder what color the sky would be in that world.
Um, because the popular vote in the various states determines the compositon of the Electoral College. The largely hypothetical objection that the winner of a plurality in the nationwide popular vote could fail to have a majority in the Electoral College is no reason not to vote to determine who your state's electors will be.
Hey, leave us squaters alone to squate in peace.
To elaborate:
I doubt very much that all the voters who support Nader prefer him to every last one of the 100+ million other Americans eligible for the presidency, any of whom they are free in most states to write in. Are they voting for him even though he's not their completely ideal candidate because he's their favorite among those candidates who will make a countable showing? Shock! Horror! Strategic voting! Don't let the children see!
Oh, come on. Why pick on Neuticles(tm) when there are so many better reasons to be ashamed of American culture?
Alas, here is yet another poor soul who has never heard my moving rendition of "Flight Of The Bumblebee."
Abortion is probably most people's central motivation when they talk this way about the SCt, but there are a lot of other issues which are tremendously important. In particular, an enormous amount of federal regulation is premised on Congress' power to regulate "interstate commerce." If the SCt took a narrower view of what constitutes "interstate commerce" than the present body of SCt case law does, it would have an enormous effect on the power of the federal government to regulate (which is good or bad depending on how you feel about that). The SCt continues to make decisions which will shape the future (if any) of affirmative action programs (again, which is GOBDOHYFAT). In short, it's not just about abortion.
Me too. And then when I was sixteen, I saw a movie for the first time. Ah, memories.
And the NCSA facility at Illinois where Mosiac was put together was not built and paid for by the federal government under a bill that Gore sponsored. In fact, the university itself was able to pay for it when it realized that it could double its revenues from deposit bottles by driving them to Michigan in a stolen postal vehicle. Or maybe that was a Seinfeld episode. In any event, the point is that Gore's a big liar.
Does this sound filthy to anyone else?
Likewise, just because the cable company sends you 43 channels doesn't mean you can't sit there and stare at the set while it's turned off.