While I'm happy with a 57" TV (I saved up for five years to get it, so don't assume I'm a rich pretentious prick, because I'm a poor pretentious prick), how big is big enough for you? Some people have theater-size (albeit small theater) projection systems in their homes, is that what you want?
Consider that in a theater you're a good distance from the screen. Not so in your living room, so a smaller screen is more appropriate there.
Hardware decoders are important if you want digital audio output, unless you happen to have a sound card that supports outputting the AC3 stream of a DVD.
I got a Hollywood Plus card many years ago so I could hook it to a digital receiver and get 5.1 sound rather than Dolby ProLogic.
What's funny is that in the CNN article mentioned in this Slashdot story, Lexmark's argument for that license is so that the cartridges are recycled rather than thrown out to end up in landfills.
I wonder if they really don't realise how their statements directly contradict reality.
I'd have to say Spider-Man. If you're wanting to see Episode 2 in theaters, see it in a month or so when the big crowds have died down, it'll still be there. Spider-Man is worth seeing soon, though try to get a showing without a lot of kids. I hate noisy kids in theaters.
Todd Pelow (who deserves death for his actions) is claiming that spamming is something other than what it really is to avoid blame that he rightfully deserves. This should come as no surprise as it is well-established that spammers are liars (as well as thieves).
...because the Monsterhut spammers are still alive. I don't mean connected, I mean that the people behind the outfit haven't been executed. The spam problems will not stop until it is legal to kill confirmed spammers.
Smelling? It reeks of scandal. I'm willing to bet that this "Magistrate" is on the take of the plaintiffs of the suit. Only someone truly corrupt could issue a ruling of such lunacy. Either that or Magistrate Eick deserves a horrible, painful death for being so criminally stupid.
Yeah, but isn't it only 4:3? I refuse to buy a DVD that isn't widescreen unless the original composition wasn't widescreen (and Transformers: The Movie was 1.85:1 originally)
Hosted right here in Louisville KY. Owner is a really religious right-wing conservative who is a prominent member of the largest local church, Southeast Christian (aka, Six Flags over Jesus).
The only way to do that is to refuse to accept the registered letter. In that case, it's assumed that you've automatically agreed to whatever terms are stated in the letter.
Trust me, refusing to accept a communications is not a valid defense against a legal demand.
While there are laws regarding pornography, there are no laws regarding R-rated movies. Theaters restrict minors from viewing R-rated movies without a parent or guardian present voluntarily, not under threat of legal action.
Don't forget, it will fail all because of music piracy. Just like how CD sales fell because of music piracy (in the same year that the economy went into deep recession and the same year that the popular music trading network Napster effectively shut down).
...unless it gives 24-hour time. Or if it also displays the date. Or if someone keep screwing with it and all.
In any case, I wonder what his motivation is for this proposed bill. Is Disney interested in protecting their own digital privacy? Perhaps he's planning on expanding the bill to include much of the implications of the CBPTDA or whatever it was called...perhaps Disney thinks that such a law could warrant "mandated privacy devices" that would have the same effect.
After his last proposal, I cannot trust Hollings no matter what he offers.
So if the FBI finds out you have met somebody they're investigating for a crime, you want them to have the right to search your house, without asking a judge for permission, just because you might possibly conceivably possess some evidence they could use against that person?
If I'm not mistaken, you can grant permission to authorities to search your home or property without a warrant. Often police will use a person's ignorance by asking if their car may be searched knowing that the vict^H^H^H^Hindividual is probably unaware that they do have a legal right to say "no" and that saying "yes" gives the officer legal authority.
I'd not heard the part about the feds not being able to watch a comprimised system even with the permission of the system owner, and I'd like to see some case where a 31337 h4xx0r used that as a successful line of defense.
...but it probably wouldn't go over well and might be difficult to implement.
Instead of GPS trackers, the cars could be rigged to explode when the ignition was started. Of course in this case you need failsafes to make sure that nothing else will set off the bomb. You also need to worry about collateral damage and it'll get expensive after awhile...
...then again, it is government spending. And it will insure a low repeat offender count.
I think that there's a slight difference between your situation and the "up for interpretation" as defined by law.
In your situation there was a rule that was set and "zero tolerance" (aka zero intelligence) rules were applied to specific conditions that were met. Now, those conditions are idiotic (and in the last case likely not even properly being enforce), but they do exist. What's happened is a failure to intepret the circumstances. In the first case, the school is ignoring the circumstances of the knife posession. In the second case the school is applying a stated policy far too broadly and in the third case...well, apparently the school officials deserve to be killed. However, in each case it is a matter of a specific rule for a specific action.
In the case of "Virtual child pr0n", it's a matter of "interpretation" as to whether or not something violates the law based on its appearance. As such, there's no specific definition of what is prohibited, it's just a matter of the police or a judge "interpreting" an image as being in violation of the law. In other words, what is defined as being illegal isn't necessarily clear in the wording of the law. In the cases you mentioned the interpretation was in the circumstances of the action, not the action itself (well, again, except in the lats case where the administrators are clearly brain damaged) while in the case being discussed it's a matter of interpretation as to whether not the criminal action has even taken place.
I thought that it was more effective to request to be placed on the "Do Not Call" list. If you simply request to be removed, your number is taken off but can be added again later since they don't have any record of it existing. If you explicitly ask to be placed on "Do Not Call", they must keep a record of your number for X years and they must not call to it in that time.
There's also bob@petswarehouse.com and I already fired off an e-mail. I stated that I will never buy from his sleazy company and that I will inform others to avoid it as well. Bet I'll be named as a defendant next for the "loss of revenue" that I'm causing by not buying from such a slimeball.
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm happy with a 57" TV (I saved up for five years to get it, so don't assume I'm a rich pretentious prick, because I'm a poor pretentious prick), how big is big enough for you? Some people have theater-size (albeit small theater) projection systems in their homes, is that what you want?
Consider that in a theater you're a good distance from the screen. Not so in your living room, so a smaller screen is more appropriate there.
Hardware decoders are important if you want digital audio output, unless you happen to have a sound card that supports outputting the AC3 stream of a DVD.
I got a Hollywood Plus card many years ago so I could hook it to a digital receiver and get 5.1 sound rather than Dolby ProLogic.
What's funny is that in the CNN article mentioned in this Slashdot story, Lexmark's argument for that license is so that the cartridges are recycled rather than thrown out to end up in landfills.
I wonder if they really don't realise how their statements directly contradict reality.
I'd have to say Spider-Man. If you're wanting to see Episode 2 in theaters, see it in a month or so when the big crowds have died down, it'll still be there. Spider-Man is worth seeing soon, though try to get a showing without a lot of kids. I hate noisy kids in theaters.
Todd Pelow (who deserves death for his actions) is claiming that spamming is something other than what it really is to avoid blame that he rightfully deserves. This should come as no surprise as it is well-established that spammers are liars (as well as thieves).
...because the Monsterhut spammers are still alive. I don't mean connected, I mean that the people behind the outfit haven't been executed. The spam problems will not stop until it is legal to kill confirmed spammers.
Not to mention checking to see if they've been making any unsual money transfers to US Federal Magistrates.
I can't think of any other explanation for this idiocy.
Smelling? It reeks of scandal. I'm willing to bet that this "Magistrate" is on the take of the plaintiffs of the suit. Only someone truly corrupt could issue a ruling of such lunacy. Either that or Magistrate Eick deserves a horrible, painful death for being so criminally stupid.
Sound vaguely similar to Red Dwarf's Better Than Life game (from the book, not the TV series)
Government mind-control implants, here we come :)
Better get your tinfoil hats ready. This time it's not just the nuts wearing them,
Yeah, but isn't it only 4:3? I refuse to buy a DVD that isn't widescreen unless the original composition wasn't widescreen (and Transformers: The Movie was 1.85:1 originally)
???
Where can I obtain this special edition DVD and in what Region is it?
Hosted right here in Louisville KY. Owner is a really religious right-wing conservative who is a prominent member of the largest local church, Southeast Christian (aka, Six Flags over Jesus).
Just a lil' trivia.
The only way to do that is to refuse to accept the registered letter. In that case, it's assumed that you've automatically agreed to whatever terms are stated in the letter.
Trust me, refusing to accept a communications is not a valid defense against a legal demand.
While there are laws regarding pornography, there are no laws regarding R-rated movies. Theaters restrict minors from viewing R-rated movies without a parent or guardian present voluntarily, not under threat of legal action.
Don't forget, it will fail all because of music piracy. Just like how CD sales fell because of music piracy (in the same year that the economy went into deep recession and the same year that the popular music trading network Napster effectively shut down).
...unless it gives 24-hour time. Or if it also displays the date. Or if someone keep screwing with it and all.
In any case, I wonder what his motivation is for this proposed bill. Is Disney interested in protecting their own digital privacy? Perhaps he's planning on expanding the bill to include much of the implications of the CBPTDA or whatever it was called...perhaps Disney thinks that such a law could warrant "mandated privacy devices" that would have the same effect.
After his last proposal, I cannot trust Hollings no matter what he offers.
So if the FBI finds out you have met somebody they're investigating for a crime, you want them to have the right to search your house, without asking a judge for permission, just because you might possibly conceivably possess some evidence they could use against that person?
If I'm not mistaken, you can grant permission to authorities to search your home or property without a warrant. Often police will use a person's ignorance by asking if their car may be searched knowing that the vict^H^H^H^Hindividual is probably unaware that they do have a legal right to say "no" and that saying "yes" gives the officer legal authority.
I'd not heard the part about the feds not being able to watch a comprimised system even with the permission of the system owner, and I'd like to see some case where a 31337 h4xx0r used that as a successful line of defense.
...but it probably wouldn't go over well and might be difficult to implement.
Instead of GPS trackers, the cars could be rigged to explode when the ignition was started. Of course in this case you need failsafes to make sure that nothing else will set off the bomb. You also need to worry about collateral damage and it'll get expensive after awhile...
...then again, it is government spending. And it will insure a low repeat offender count.
...it's for drinking, partying, having casual sex and possibly absusing some illegal substances.
It must be true, popular culture says so.
I think that there's a slight difference between your situation and the "up for interpretation" as defined by law.
In your situation there was a rule that was set and "zero tolerance" (aka zero intelligence) rules were applied to specific conditions that were met. Now, those conditions are idiotic (and in the last case likely not even properly being enforce), but they do exist. What's happened is a failure to intepret the circumstances. In the first case, the school is ignoring the circumstances of the knife posession. In the second case the school is applying a stated policy far too broadly and in the third case...well, apparently the school officials deserve to be killed. However, in each case it is a matter of a specific rule for a specific action.
In the case of "Virtual child pr0n", it's a matter of "interpretation" as to whether or not something violates the law based on its appearance. As such, there's no specific definition of what is prohibited, it's just a matter of the police or a judge "interpreting" an image as being in violation of the law. In other words, what is defined as being illegal isn't necessarily clear in the wording of the law. In the cases you mentioned the interpretation was in the circumstances of the action, not the action itself (well, again, except in the lats case where the administrators are clearly brain damaged) while in the case being discussed it's a matter of interpretation as to whether not the criminal action has even taken place.
Why did you allow the search? IIRC you are under no legal obligation to submit to a search in that situation.
I thought that it was a religious-themed site to promote Christianity through Legos, then I read "Treatment of slaves" and "Women in the Church"
Funny stuff.
I thought that it was more effective to request to be placed on the "Do Not Call" list. If you simply request to be removed, your number is taken off but can be added again later since they don't have any record of it existing. If you explicitly ask to be placed on "Do Not Call", they must keep a record of your number for X years and they must not call to it in that time.
There's also bob@petswarehouse.com and I already fired off an e-mail. I stated that I will never buy from his sleazy company and that I will inform others to avoid it as well. Bet I'll be named as a defendant next for the "loss of revenue" that I'm causing by not buying from such a slimeball.