The level of sheer stupidity it takes to come up with a statement proclaiming the death of computer science must be on the orders of magnitude calculable only by next generation processors. Until the hardware and the software is designing and building itself, we'll still need humans who know how to work with the tools and practices available to them, and who are capable of pushing those limits. Enrollment is going down? So what? In my experience, a bunch of the people in my CS department were A) in it for the money, or B) in it because they thought that they were good at using a " 'puter " because they could get to the task manager and had been on IRC once. Good riddance to them.
Also, telling their customers to sod off would be another way of telling them to download the brute force Vista key generator, and they have to know that. They also must know that any legal action against customers who did turn to piracy after being told that they would not be issued legitimate keys would prove futile: MS doesn't have a very user-friendly reputation as it is, and I can't think of a judge that would accept that the product key was stolen before it was sold, and that MS has no responsibility to their customers.
It'll only be a matter of time before the watermarking scheme is figured out, after which time they will have enabled the masses to deploy their own spidering software, effectively making piracy easier. I, for one, can't wait for big companies to sign up for something like this. Online piracy will always find a way.
Knowing that all the seeds to the crops I don't know how to grow will be "On a remote island. Near the North pole," and probably under water when the need arises. It's gonna suck not having Google to help me figure out how to get to them, and then how to plant them.
Look at it from they're point of view; the entire intelligent and thinking world recognizes these parents as careless at best, cluelessly inept at worst. If they can get a judge to award them money for their stupidity, it means that, legally, they aren't stupid. The thing is that kids have always got themselves into bad situations and been abused by perverts, it's just that we talk about it a little bit more publicly now. Back in the day, parents would be too embarrassed to let the world know just how badly they had screwed up to do anything (which IMHO is bad, because they would often not even report the matter to the cops) like filing suite in court.
I fantasize about kidnapping people like this and tattooing a scarlet letter "L" onto their foreheads.
Why they can't do both. I personally went to a lib arts school, but a lot of the work I do is technical, and I got plenty of hands on experience while doing it. On the flip side, I worked in an engineering school's theatre for a while, and those kids seemed to be able to apply their various technical fields to what we were doing on, above, below, or behind the stage. Saying that students can't handle learning to be both artisans and artists is a gross underestimation of their capabilities.
Isn't it true that you are free to write your own music? Isn't it true that we all share that freedom? Isn't it also true that you are free to perform, record, and sell this music for whatever you wish?
Copyright is good. There, I said it. Copyright encourages innovation by ensuring that those who innovate have the ability to profit from their innovations. The reason it expires is to encourage innovation, not just among the rest of society, but among the original artist. I stand by my statement that in a representative democracy, it is up to the people to elect legislators that will repeal the recent copyright "reforms," but almost no one actually cares about it.
No, you're right. The free market isn't really free, but then again it never has been, and I think it would be a bad thing if it was. I'm a strong advocate of balance in these matters, but as what most people around here would deem an "artist" (though I don't prefer the term), I stand by what I said. Guilds, unions, and cartels can all be very good things for artists. They can be very good things for society, and in the course of looking out for their own interests, they're of course going to ask for more than they're entitled to. It's called "negotiating." If we don't like the control they have, we need to get some officials elected who will be better negotiators.
I'm a little bit older now, and I've been reading this same litany again and again for years. Things are getting worse because people are whining about it instead of doing something intelligent to change it.
For the record, I'm in favor of shorter copyright terms.
Rigging malfunctions have a highly lethal potential. When you have a half ton of lighting and sound gear suspended in the air above you on stage, you might like to know that the person who hung it there knows what they're doing. I know you're making a joke, and yes it is funny, but when stage hands screw up, people can die. That's why ETCP offers certification in both rigging and electrics.
onsider other, non-critical, guild like watch-makers or painters, once also strictly controlled... At worst, the control on their work would be along "fit for purpose"-regulations, but I don't think anyone has ever died from a stopped watch or a house painted in the wrong color.
I would venture the guess that more than one person in history has died as a result of a faulty time piece, but the fact is that it doesn't matter. If it's not critical, why not make your own watch? I'll venture the answer that, if you don't care about quality/craftsmanship you'll just lay out $5 at the local big box for something cheap and functional. Likewise with paint. But that's only half the issue. The only reason that you get cheap watches and cheap paints is because of industrialization and slave labor. Chances are the shoes on your feet were made in a sweat shop in a developing economy. The phrase "cobblers guild" would elicit some laughter in the states, but the suggestion would probably get you fired/roughed up in the right place.
"Art," in the nebulous sense of the word is an evanescent thing. In the case of the walls of your living room, you're content to paint them yourself because you are capable of producing a sufficient quality of work. If you felt the same way about music, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You would play and sing your own songs and be content with that. If you wanted something better, you would have a favorite local band. If you want something even better, you need someone who can devote themselves full time to music, and that means being able to manage the business of music. I'm guessing that, unless you live in a major metropolitan area, not to many people can swing that.
Look at this from the point of view of the recording company. You are about to invest a bunch of money in a band on the premise that you will get returns from their music. Remember that a recording contract puts a band in debt up front. They need to repay that debt before they can make any profit, and the label of course wants them to make a profit; it's an indicator that they'll make more profit in the future. Again I say if you buy CDs you're part of the problem.
Now for the whole copyright issue. Either you respect the fact that artists should be able to profit from their art, or you don't. This isn't a grey area. If you think they should, and you think their art is worth the price, you'll pay it. If you don't, then you won't. If you don't pay and yet partake, that's stealing. Again, look at it from the label's point of view: you are stealing from them and the artists they represent, and they would be remiss if they didn't put their shoulder to the wheel in stopping you.
Do you feel that it's wrong for the *AA to pretend to be a police officer? Good, so does just about every municipality in the country. If you catch them, you should contact the police immediately and have them arrested for impersonating a police officer. The entire premise of a professional police force is so that claims of theft (all kinds) can be investigated and prosecuted objectively. If I catch you selling my stuff off the back of a truck, I'm going to call the cops. The *AA has that same right.
Do you feel that the *AA is going too far? Good, then you need to get in touch with the people who write the laws. The *AA is sticking up for its interests in a perfectly legal and legitimate way, and the average Joe needs to do the same if he is feeling slighted. Oppressive and unfair laws get written because sit on their ass complaining on message boards instead of doing anything about it.
Some guilds are obsolete. That shouldn't surprise you, and nor is it relevant to the matter at hand. As technology and society changes, something that requires a skilled craftsman today requires unskilled labor tomorrow. Whether or not someone still needs certification to perform a trade is a function of just how far society is going to regulate, because that's where the muscle of the guild
This is probably going to get moded down, but I feel the urge to play devils advocate here. The *AAs have pissed me off as much as the next guy, but there have always been guilds and trade unions that try to protect craftsman from being exploited. These are generally a good thing; without them people work 80 hours a week for pennies a day, and children lose their fingers to factory machines. Part of protecting the tradesmen means protecting the trade itself, and the system by which a person becomes a tradesmen. Aren't you glad that you have a guild that certifies whether or not someone is actually competent to practice medicine before you go under the knife? Don't you feel a little bit more comfortable hiring an electrical contractor who has been certified by other "master" electricians as being capable of installing wiring that won't burn your house down?
Speaking as someone who works in the entertainment industry, entertainment is a product like anything else. It is a business like any other, and a business whose workings few people ("artists" inclusive) really understand. Any sales outfit will tell you that you need to sell at a 15% margin just to cover your costs, anything beyond that is your actual profit. Yet this is something that few artists really grasp, and it's why most of them are labeled as "starving." The *AAs handle the business side of things because that's what they're good at. All you programmers out there, raise your hands up if you think you're any different. Everyone who isn't an independent contractor and works for someone else, put your hands down.
We as artists, programmers, carpenters, what have you need the guild associations. We as a society need them to protect ourselves and our artisans from exploitation. Something that you need to understand is that the guilds are run by "masters," people who presumably know more about the trade because they've been doing it longer. People who, in other words, are set in their ways. Innovation flies in the face of what they recognize as common sense, so of course they're opposed to it. Now quit whining. Are you capable of making better music? Are you capable of being a better programmer? Are you capable of making better movies? Nothing in the world is stopping you from quitting your job and trusting yourself to the free market, and in an era where anyone can burn a CD the costs of doing business are cheap.
And before you start thinking that the federal government shouldn't be enforcing the wisdom of the guilds, just take a breath and consider your surgeon's credentials next time you find yourself in the ER. It's a fair point that music is a lot different than medicine, but this is America folks. If you don't want politicians to regulate art, tell them! Tell them, tell them, tell them, tell them, tell them! Stop being a whiny ignoramus and use the friggin political system your forefathers fought to give you. And you know what? If your elected officials don't do what you want, replace them. If you can't find anyone to do what you want, then run yourself!
The artistic, economic, and political power is in your hands. Start using it and quit your griping. You are free to boycott. I haven't bought anything from Amazon since they got their 1-Click patent, and I have done so with no regrets. If you don't like the *AA's business model, stop doing business with them. Nothing is making you buy that CD. You have played your part in making the system what it is.
I realize that this bill would *require* as much, however I don't see it happening. First of all, I defy the US Government, which is so inept that CIA computers can't talk to the FBI computers, to create an effective means of registering every single person who contributes to any web discussion board as a lobbyist. They don't have the technological or human resources logistics available to them. Maintaining the registration process would be a sufficient headache, but can you imagine the difficulties in enforcement?
As conservative as it is, I can't imagine the Supreme Court going along with anything like this, especially if it comes from an opposition party Congress, and even if they do I can't imagine Congress is going to provide adequate funding to any agency to make sure it happens. The US Government is a lot more ambitious than it is capable; were it not "9-11" would not now be in our lexicon, and 3000 less American troops would have died in Iraq.
No, no, no, you're missing the point entirely. He's not really being charged with passing the Playboy; although it is widely known that Playboy is a subversive magazine that has published such smut as Farenheit 451, the Playboy is just a symptom, and since the only thing we see are symptoms, that's what we punish. The crime that we're actually trying to get at is sex in general. The people who make these laws know what horrible, fucked up perverts they really are, and in trying to protect us from horrible,fucked upperverts operating at all levels of our society. The problem was that this boy was going through puberty, we can only punish him for the Playboy for now.
I mean seriously, those movies are awful. So awful, in fact, that the only way I can imagine anyone watching them is if you did give them away. Using the judges logic, the studio did significant damage to themselves way before this guy unleashed the big nasty bit torrent.
No, directors can only draw out the skills and talents of the actors they're given. Speaking as an occasional stage director, I can't make someone good who isn't, but I can help someone who can be good to be good. Granted the proportion of how much I can bring out in an actor is a function of my skill as a director, but not even the most brilliant director will be able to compensate for actors that lack intelligence and real skill. Keanu built his movie career on his looks; I actually think he did a decent job in such roles as "Theodore Logan" (In the Bill and Ted movies) and "Neo" (in the first Matrix movie) because he was playing these idiot savants that were basically out of there element. Any time he needs to play a role where he has to act, he fails miserably. Carrie Ann Moss is just kind of bony, which gives her a very distinctive and edgy kind of look, and I can see why she gets cast in some of the roles she gets cast in, but again, beyond the look and feel, she doesn't have a terrible abundance of acting ability. A good director could work with these two out of their respective ranges and not get very far, and their respective ranges are so limited that they're not terribly useful outside of these two dimensional character roles. OR, to be completely fair, they've never worked with directors that have pushed them in those directions.
Man, that was just supposed to be a flippant quip too, no intelligence involved. I need to get some more coffee now.
I think it gave Keanu Reeves and Carrie Ann Moss the impression they could act. That's some pretty dangerous technology: no one has the right to play God like that.
Freedom of speech is one of the core principles upon which this country is founded, and in this post 9-11/Internet/Pentagon Papers/McCarthyism/American Century era, a re-examination of those principles is perhaps exactly what this country needs. Let us examine such highfalutin ideals like freedom of speech, expression, religion, and the press that our founding fathers saw fit to make the foundation of jurisprudence in this country in light of enemies who really DO hate freedom. How much do we want to become like our enemies in order to be safe from them? Do we need to become like them at all? Is it possible to survive as a nation clinging to principles that are two centuries old? Is it possible for us to survive if we forsake them?
It's definitely time to have this conversation, because we have already given up so much in the name of making ourselves more secure. And while we're at it, let's have this conversation with the Republican party, which is purportedly in favor of tax cuts, smaller government involvement in daily lives, greater personal freedom, and greater personal responsibility. While we're asking the American people if we want to go so horribly wrong, let us ask the Republicans how they have gone so far astray from the core values of the Party of Lincoln.
I've moved geographic regions to a location where I can still pick up my old NPR affiliate, but barely. There's this stretch of highway that I always seem to pick up Howard Stern on when driving into work in the morning though. I wondered why that was happening.
Lists of dotcom era flops. How many times will this issue come up in every major publication? It's kind of like "I love the (variable decade)" on VH1; the occaisional trip down memory lane is enjoyable, but it seems like we have another one of these every few months. Is there some sort of underlying psychological problem whereby we have to convince ourselves that these ideas were bad? It's kind of like we're all trying to convince ourselves that we're better off, despite the economic down turn, because we don't have as many silly ideas kicking around.
Freedom of speech is a guaranteed as one of the fundamental rights of the constitution of the United States, but international IP law is by definition a treaty, which becomes the binding law of the land as well. I would think that the constitutional protections should have precedent, especially since that is the guarantor of the status of treaties in the republic. This sounds like an excellent Supreme Court case in the making.
You are correct, I mispoke. Attila never made it to Rome, but his incursions in the early 450s contributed to softening up the Romans for the extended sack by the Vandals in 455. Mea culpa.
I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. The "second war?" Do you mean the second Punic war? You're way off if you do. Alaric the Visigoth was the first to sack Rome in 410 AD, which was long after the height of its territorial control under the Emperor Trajan (98-117 AD), and about 200 years after the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD), who is considered to be the last of the "good" emperors. Okay, Attila never reached Rome per se, I'll grant that, but his incursions around 450 AD made it possible for the Vandals to sack Rome again in 455.
Just to give you the historical context you seem to desperately lack, the second Punic War (staring Hannibal and his elephants; the elephants died along the way, but every one always remembers the elephants...) was waged between Rome and Carthage between somewhere around 220 and 200 BCE.
Attila the Hun didn't sack Rome because of his masterful literary skills. Nor did the Visigoths, the Ostrigoths, or any of the other barbrian hordes that had a hand in Rome's destruction. Mainly they used superior weaponry and military tactics, and I think we're pretty covered there.
Slashdot Mirror
The level of sheer stupidity it takes to come up with a statement proclaiming the death of computer science must be on the orders of magnitude calculable only by next generation processors. Until the hardware and the software is designing and building itself, we'll still need humans who know how to work with the tools and practices available to them, and who are capable of pushing those limits. Enrollment is going down? So what? In my experience, a bunch of the people in my CS department were A) in it for the money, or B) in it because they thought that they were good at using a " 'puter " because they could get to the task manager and had been on IRC once. Good riddance to them.
Also, telling their customers to sod off would be another way of telling them to download the brute force Vista key generator, and they have to know that. They also must know that any legal action against customers who did turn to piracy after being told that they would not be issued legitimate keys would prove futile: MS doesn't have a very user-friendly reputation as it is, and I can't think of a judge that would accept that the product key was stolen before it was sold, and that MS has no responsibility to their customers.
It'll probably rest there. I don't know anyone desperate enough to lie about having BS :)
It'll only be a matter of time before the watermarking scheme is figured out, after which time they will have enabled the masses to deploy their own spidering software, effectively making piracy easier. I, for one, can't wait for big companies to sign up for something like this. Online piracy will always find a way.
Knowing that all the seeds to the crops I don't know how to grow will be "On a remote island. Near the North pole," and probably under water when the need arises. It's gonna suck not having Google to help me figure out how to get to them, and then how to plant them.
Look at it from they're point of view; the entire intelligent and thinking world recognizes these parents as careless at best, cluelessly inept at worst. If they can get a judge to award them money for their stupidity, it means that, legally, they aren't stupid. The thing is that kids have always got themselves into bad situations and been abused by perverts, it's just that we talk about it a little bit more publicly now. Back in the day, parents would be too embarrassed to let the world know just how badly they had screwed up to do anything (which IMHO is bad, because they would often not even report the matter to the cops) like filing suite in court.
I fantasize about kidnapping people like this and tattooing a scarlet letter "L" onto their foreheads.
Why they can't do both. I personally went to a lib arts school, but a lot of the work I do is technical, and I got plenty of hands on experience while doing it. On the flip side, I worked in an engineering school's theatre for a while, and those kids seemed to be able to apply their various technical fields to what we were doing on, above, below, or behind the stage. Saying that students can't handle learning to be both artisans and artists is a gross underestimation of their capabilities.
redirect, your honor.
Isn't it true that you are free to write your own music?
Isn't it true that we all share that freedom?
Isn't it also true that you are free to perform, record, and sell this music for whatever you wish?
Copyright is good. There, I said it. Copyright encourages innovation by ensuring that those who innovate have the ability to profit from their innovations. The reason it expires is to encourage innovation, not just among the rest of society, but among the original artist. I stand by my statement that in a representative democracy, it is up to the people to elect legislators that will repeal the recent copyright "reforms," but almost no one actually cares about it.
No, you're right. The free market isn't really free, but then again it never has been, and I think it would be a bad thing if it was. I'm a strong advocate of balance in these matters, but as what most people around here would deem an "artist" (though I don't prefer the term), I stand by what I said. Guilds, unions, and cartels can all be very good things for artists. They can be very good things for society, and in the course of looking out for their own interests, they're of course going to ask for more than they're entitled to. It's called "negotiating." If we don't like the control they have, we need to get some officials elected who will be better negotiators.
I'm a little bit older now, and I've been reading this same litany again and again for years. Things are getting worse because people are whining about it instead of doing something intelligent to change it.
For the record, I'm in favor of shorter copyright terms.
Your witness.
Rigging malfunctions have a highly lethal potential. When you have a half ton of lighting and sound gear suspended in the air above you on stage, you might like to know that the person who hung it there knows what they're doing. I know you're making a joke, and yes it is funny, but when stage hands screw up, people can die. That's why ETCP offers certification in both rigging and electrics.
onsider other, non-critical, guild like watch-makers or painters, once also strictly controlled ... At worst, the control on their work would be along "fit for purpose"-regulations, but I don't think anyone has ever died from a stopped watch or a house painted in the wrong color.
I would venture the guess that more than one person in history has died as a result of a faulty time piece, but the fact is that it doesn't matter. If it's not critical, why not make your own watch? I'll venture the answer that, if you don't care about quality/craftsmanship you'll just lay out $5 at the local big box for something cheap and functional. Likewise with paint. But that's only half the issue. The only reason that you get cheap watches and cheap paints is because of industrialization and slave labor. Chances are the shoes on your feet were made in a sweat shop in a developing economy. The phrase "cobblers guild" would elicit some laughter in the states, but the suggestion would probably get you fired/roughed up in the right place.
"Art," in the nebulous sense of the word is an evanescent thing. In the case of the walls of your living room, you're content to paint them yourself because you are capable of producing a sufficient quality of work. If you felt the same way about music, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You would play and sing your own songs and be content with that. If you wanted something better, you would have a favorite local band. If you want something even better, you need someone who can devote themselves full time to music, and that means being able to manage the business of music. I'm guessing that, unless you live in a major metropolitan area, not to many people can swing that.
Look at this from the point of view of the recording company. You are about to invest a bunch of money in a band on the premise that you will get returns from their music. Remember that a recording contract puts a band in debt up front. They need to repay that debt before they can make any profit, and the label of course wants them to make a profit; it's an indicator that they'll make more profit in the future. Again I say if you buy CDs you're part of the problem.
Now for the whole copyright issue. Either you respect the fact that artists should be able to profit from their art, or you don't. This isn't a grey area. If you think they should, and you think their art is worth the price, you'll pay it. If you don't, then you won't. If you don't pay and yet partake, that's stealing. Again, look at it from the label's point of view: you are stealing from them and the artists they represent, and they would be remiss if they didn't put their shoulder to the wheel in stopping you.
Do you feel that it's wrong for the *AA to pretend to be a police officer? Good, so does just about every municipality in the country. If you catch them, you should contact the police immediately and have them arrested for impersonating a police officer. The entire premise of a professional police force is so that claims of theft (all kinds) can be investigated and prosecuted objectively. If I catch you selling my stuff off the back of a truck, I'm going to call the cops. The *AA has that same right.
Do you feel that the *AA is going too far? Good, then you need to get in touch with the people who write the laws. The *AA is sticking up for its interests in a perfectly legal and legitimate way, and the average Joe needs to do the same if he is feeling slighted. Oppressive and unfair laws get written because sit on their ass complaining on message boards instead of doing anything about it.
Some guilds are obsolete. That shouldn't surprise you, and nor is it relevant to the matter at hand. As technology and society changes, something that requires a skilled craftsman today requires unskilled labor tomorrow. Whether or not someone still needs certification to perform a trade is a function of just how far society is going to regulate, because that's where the muscle of the guild
This is probably going to get moded down, but I feel the urge to play devils advocate here. The *AAs have pissed me off as much as the next guy, but there have always been guilds and trade unions that try to protect craftsman from being exploited. These are generally a good thing; without them people work 80 hours a week for pennies a day, and children lose their fingers to factory machines. Part of protecting the tradesmen means protecting the trade itself, and the system by which a person becomes a tradesmen. Aren't you glad that you have a guild that certifies whether or not someone is actually competent to practice medicine before you go under the knife? Don't you feel a little bit more comfortable hiring an electrical contractor who has been certified by other "master" electricians as being capable of installing wiring that won't burn your house down?
Speaking as someone who works in the entertainment industry, entertainment is a product like anything else. It is a business like any other, and a business whose workings few people ("artists" inclusive) really understand. Any sales outfit will tell you that you need to sell at a 15% margin just to cover your costs, anything beyond that is your actual profit. Yet this is something that few artists really grasp, and it's why most of them are labeled as "starving." The *AAs handle the business side of things because that's what they're good at. All you programmers out there, raise your hands up if you think you're any different. Everyone who isn't an independent contractor and works for someone else, put your hands down.
We as artists, programmers, carpenters, what have you need the guild associations. We as a society need them to protect ourselves and our artisans from exploitation. Something that you need to understand is that the guilds are run by "masters," people who presumably know more about the trade because they've been doing it longer. People who, in other words, are set in their ways. Innovation flies in the face of what they recognize as common sense, so of course they're opposed to it. Now quit whining. Are you capable of making better music? Are you capable of being a better programmer? Are you capable of making better movies? Nothing in the world is stopping you from quitting your job and trusting yourself to the free market, and in an era where anyone can burn a CD the costs of doing business are cheap.
And before you start thinking that the federal government shouldn't be enforcing the wisdom of the guilds, just take a breath and consider your surgeon's credentials next time you find yourself in the ER. It's a fair point that music is a lot different than medicine, but this is America folks. If you don't want politicians to regulate art, tell them! Tell them, tell them, tell them, tell them, tell them! Stop being a whiny ignoramus and use the friggin political system your forefathers fought to give you. And you know what? If your elected officials don't do what you want, replace them. If you can't find anyone to do what you want, then run yourself!
The artistic, economic, and political power is in your hands. Start using it and quit your griping. You are free to boycott. I haven't bought anything from Amazon since they got their 1-Click patent, and I have done so with no regrets. If you don't like the *AA's business model, stop doing business with them. Nothing is making you buy that CD. You have played your part in making the system what it is.
I realize that this bill would *require* as much, however I don't see it happening. First of all, I defy the US Government, which is so inept that CIA computers can't talk to the FBI computers, to create an effective means of registering every single person who contributes to any web discussion board as a lobbyist. They don't have the technological or human resources logistics available to them. Maintaining the registration process would be a sufficient headache, but can you imagine the difficulties in enforcement?
As conservative as it is, I can't imagine the Supreme Court going along with anything like this, especially if it comes from an opposition party Congress, and even if they do I can't imagine Congress is going to provide adequate funding to any agency to make sure it happens. The US Government is a lot more ambitious than it is capable; were it not "9-11" would not now be in our lexicon, and 3000 less American troops would have died in Iraq.
No, no, no, you're missing the point entirely. He's not really being charged with passing the Playboy; although it is widely known that Playboy is a subversive magazine that has published such smut as Farenheit 451, the Playboy is just a symptom, and since the only thing we see are symptoms, that's what we punish. The crime that we're actually trying to get at is sex in general. The people who make these laws know what horrible, fucked up perverts they really are, and in trying to protect us from horrible, fucked up perverts operating at all levels of our society. The problem was that this boy was going through puberty, we can only punish him for the Playboy for now.
I mean seriously, those movies are awful. So awful, in fact, that the only way I can imagine anyone watching them is if you did give them away. Using the judges logic, the studio did significant damage to themselves way before this guy unleashed the big nasty bit torrent.
[Pause.]
"Nope, not quite dead yet..."
[Smack, smack, smack, smack....]
during the last scandal. It's CONGRESS that we need to protect the children FROM.
No, directors can only draw out the skills and talents of the actors they're given. Speaking as an occasional stage director, I can't make someone good who isn't, but I can help someone who can be good to be good. Granted the proportion of how much I can bring out in an actor is a function of my skill as a director, but not even the most brilliant director will be able to compensate for actors that lack intelligence and real skill. Keanu built his movie career on his looks; I actually think he did a decent job in such roles as "Theodore Logan" (In the Bill and Ted movies) and "Neo" (in the first Matrix movie) because he was playing these idiot savants that were basically out of there element. Any time he needs to play a role where he has to act, he fails miserably. Carrie Ann Moss is just kind of bony, which gives her a very distinctive and edgy kind of look, and I can see why she gets cast in some of the roles she gets cast in, but again, beyond the look and feel, she doesn't have a terrible abundance of acting ability. A good director could work with these two out of their respective ranges and not get very far, and their respective ranges are so limited that they're not terribly useful outside of these two dimensional character roles. OR, to be completely fair, they've never worked with directors that have pushed them in those directions.
Man, that was just supposed to be a flippant quip too, no intelligence involved. I need to get some more coffee now.
I think it gave Keanu Reeves and Carrie Ann Moss the impression they could act. That's some pretty dangerous technology: no one has the right to play God like that.
Freedom of speech is one of the core principles upon which this country is founded, and in this post 9-11/Internet/Pentagon Papers/McCarthyism/American Century era, a re-examination of those principles is perhaps exactly what this country needs. Let us examine such highfalutin ideals like freedom of speech, expression, religion, and the press that our founding fathers saw fit to make the foundation of jurisprudence in this country in light of enemies who really DO hate freedom. How much do we want to become like our enemies in order to be safe from them? Do we need to become like them at all? Is it possible to survive as a nation clinging to principles that are two centuries old? Is it possible for us to survive if we forsake them?
It's definitely time to have this conversation, because we have already given up so much in the name of making ourselves more secure. And while we're at it, let's have this conversation with the Republican party, which is purportedly in favor of tax cuts, smaller government involvement in daily lives, greater personal freedom, and greater personal responsibility. While we're asking the American people if we want to go so horribly wrong, let us ask the Republicans how they have gone so far astray from the core values of the Party of Lincoln.
I've moved geographic regions to a location where I can still pick up my old NPR affiliate, but barely. There's this stretch of highway that I always seem to pick up Howard Stern on when driving into work in the morning though. I wondered why that was happening.
Lists of dotcom era flops. How many times will this issue come up in every major publication? It's kind of like "I love the (variable decade)" on VH1; the occaisional trip down memory lane is enjoyable, but it seems like we have another one of these every few months. Is there some sort of underlying psychological problem whereby we have to convince ourselves that these ideas were bad? It's kind of like we're all trying to convince ourselves that we're better off, despite the economic down turn, because we don't have as many silly ideas kicking around.
Freedom of speech is a guaranteed as one of the fundamental rights of the constitution of the United States, but international IP law is by definition a treaty, which becomes the binding law of the land as well. I would think that the constitutional protections should have precedent, especially since that is the guarantor of the status of treaties in the republic. This sounds like an excellent Supreme Court case in the making.
You are correct, I mispoke. Attila never made it to Rome, but his incursions in the early 450s contributed to softening up the Romans for the extended sack by the Vandals in 455. Mea culpa.
I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. The "second war?" Do you mean the second Punic war? You're way off if you do. Alaric the Visigoth was the first to sack Rome in 410 AD, which was long after the height of its territorial control under the Emperor Trajan (98-117 AD), and about 200 years after the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD), who is considered to be the last of the "good" emperors. Okay, Attila never reached Rome per se, I'll grant that, but his incursions around 450 AD made it possible for the Vandals to sack Rome again in 455.
Just to give you the historical context you seem to desperately lack, the second Punic War (staring Hannibal and his elephants; the elephants died along the way, but every one always remembers the elephants...) was waged between Rome and Carthage between somewhere around 220 and 200 BCE.
Attila the Hun didn't sack Rome because of his masterful literary skills. Nor did the Visigoths, the Ostrigoths, or any of the other barbrian hordes that had a hand in Rome's destruction. Mainly they used superior weaponry and military tactics, and I think we're pretty covered there.