I haven't bought a CD in almost 10 years. I don't download MP3s. I do have MP3s, but they're all from my CD collection. I listen to the radio, but change the station the moment a commercial comes on. I see maybe 3-4 movies per year. I buy DVDs from the second-hand store (used on Amazon, pawn-shops, etc.). I'm about as close to a boycott as anyone's ever gonna see, not that it'll make a difference.
Since you brought it up, yes, let's argue 'til we're blue in the face that every download does not equal sale. It doesn't, no ifs, and or buts. It's not even close.
I'm in no way saying that what she did was right, legally or morally. I am, however, saying that $9250 per song is freaking ridiculous.
Maybe a little perspective? You get a smaller fine for a DUI/DWI, which is a much larger bane on society than "stealing music." O-
It doesn't matter how you try to justify it, $9250 for 24 songs is blatantly idiotic and these jurists should be ashamed of themselves.
That said, I sincerely doubt the RIAA will ever see a penny of it. You know she's going to file Bankruptcy (Ch 7, IIRC, the one where you don't have a re-payment plan, because no way is she going to pay TWO-HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS back in 20 years, let alone the ~5 a Ch 13 is for.).
I've always believed, naively perhaps, that juries usually got it right. How freaking brain-dead do these people have to be? $220K for 24 songs? That's $9250 per song! That's substantially more than what the RIAA was claiming they lost on each instance (unless I mis-remembered?).
For music.
This jury of 12 idiots decided to ruin someone's life for 24 songs. Great going, guys.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the costs of the product have been recouped. It's about supply and demand, or more importantly, demand. An older song (and let's be honest, we're talking about popular stuff, not 20-year old junk) that's been popular this whole time is worth more than a brand new song from a brand new band that no one has ever heard of and is never played on the radio. That is a risky investment and the way to get people to try it is slash the costs. No one wants to feel betrayed for shelling out $20 for a CD full of junk, but no one will care when they lose 25 cents a whack for cruddy songs. The older songs, the popular ones, could be and probably should be priced higher, to whatever point the market will bear. It has nothing to do with excessive profits and what some loon with no numbers to look at things is appropriate. It's about what the market will bear.
You've made some interesting points, and generally speaking I'd agree with you about new legislations, system transparency, et al. Then it dawns on me: Why exactly does this for profit corporation think that they have any right to 1) track my financial transactions*, 2) sell that information to anyone and everyone, 3) make no effort at accuracy and actively fight against the people they're tracking and 4) charge me to view the records they're keeping on me without my permission?
*A few transactions are actually a matter of public record, like real estate. Note, however, that how something is financed is a private affair and is generally not publicly available (unless it's something like a city building a ball park).
As to what the lack of information on my credit worthiness would do to the credit-lending industry... I would submit that that industry is the cause of a rather large problem in the U.S., much the way a crack dealer regularly supplying a drug addict is a problem.
On a side note, this industry is entirely jacked up. Sure, rich people "deserve" to have nice low rates on their loans. That said, artificially increasing the rate on people with a lower score makes it that much more likely that someone who already has a hard time re-paying the loan will default. Obviously if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be buying it. I refer you to the crack analogy above.
The Japanese Supreme Court already decided the issue, and that was several years ago. In a nutshell, Big West owns the schematics for all mecha and the character art. Tatsunoko owns the anime itself and distribution rights, including merchandising and other licensing. Harmony Gold's license is from Tatsunoko, and further includes world-wide (except for Japan) distribution rights. Simply put, HG can do as they please.
They'll probably stick with the USA-Robotech flavor of the story, if for no reason other than it's easily a 9-movie stint: 3 movies per arc. That's sad, in a way, since many fans are indifferent to the third arc, and many more actively dislike the second arc. Basically, only the first arc, Macross, needs a movie (and it really needs to be a trilogy).
Don't know who all the characters ought to be played by, but my vote is for Nathan Fillion and Gina Torres as Roy and Claudia.
Calling it a law does not change the fact that it's a license; it's just a license masquerading under color of law. What makes it particularly nasty is that now people are expected to 1) know that it's a law and 2) understand it.
The problem is the huge number of laws on the books. Yes, there's the old "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but the practical matter is that any judge will recognize that yes, it is an excuse. So he'll cut you a little slack and say that you only need to be versed in the laws pertaining to your activities.
How jacked up is that? First, it requires my first act in any endeavor to be wondering about whether or not this is something that's covered by a law (and this is a free society?). If I have a decent grasp on reading comprehension I might be able to go to firstgov.gov and figure it out. The more responsible thing to do (if I want to cover my rear) would be to hire a lawyer that specializes in whatever endeavor this is. All because I want to "buy" a CD.
Bullshit.
I would cite this if I remembered where it came from, but someone else has talked about odd situation that we, as consumers, find ourselves in. It's been standard operating procedure for decades for a radio to come with some sort of recording device built in. That used to be a tape deck, but nowadays one can easily and cheaply find a CD/DVD player that comes with a CD-R/W &/or DVD-R/W. And let's not forget VHS players (which the MPAA quickly branded as copyright infringing devices, and they were handsomely rewarded/reimbursed for that). You'd be hard-pressed to find a PC today without a burner. Just about every non-iPod MP3 player out there comes with a recorder. You can browse and download content on your cell phone. Hardware manufacturers and service providers (eg, Motorola, Apple, AT&T, etc) advertise that you can do all this stuff. And there's a ton of software that lets you do it, and it's frequently available for free.
If the situation is set up to encourage people "violate copyright", then how the hell 1) is it violating anything and 2) are people supposed to know that they're doing something wrong. Oh, that's right, check with your lawyer first.
And BTW, yes, the original car analogy is invalid. Some of you guys want to say that you, as a seller, can put restrictions on the purchaser can do. No, you cannot; not if you want it to be considered a sale. What you keep describing, yet refusing to call it, is a license.
Yes, in truth there are many times when the purchaser is restricted to what they can do. Not being able to run that new Ford as a taxi is one. Not renting out each room in your 5 bedroom house to a different family is another. These are restrictions placed by the government, not by a company.
In short (ha!), if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck, then guess what? Yup, we're having duck for dinner.
Sorry, but your car analogy (on Slashdot?! Who'd'a thunk it...) is completely wrong. If you *sell* me your car, I can do as I damn well please with it and there's not a damn thing you can say or do about it. If you *license* me the car, then you have control. And when your licensing terms suck, I'll go elsewhere.
Thanks for confusing the issue, though (and somehow getting moderated insightful...sigh).
This is part of what's crap with the current system. I walk into a store, find a CD I like, give the clerk money, and take it home. This, by definition, is a sale. That CD is mine to do what I want with. At no point in time during this transaction was it brought to my attention that I was actually agreeing to a license. Since you brought up cars...Imagine what would happen if I "bought" a brand new Ford and Ford then told me that I couldn't give rides to my family, friends, co-workers, etc. because I didn't have a multi-passenger license. Of course, they'd quickly offer me the "opportunity" to upgrade my license (for a fee) to allow this, as well as charging any person who wants a ride in my car a license as well. Don't like the car analogy? What if it were a house and the builder put these limitations on it? What a brain-dead system, all because "artists" think they're special (read: Better than everyone else).
But let's say it is actually a license. That makes it a freaking contract. That means that everything, all privileges, limitations and responsibilities, needs to be written down. Then all parties have to show what they're giving up in order to get something. Then all parties have to show they understand the terms. Then all parties have to sign it. And it needs to be kept on record. I need a copy and the manufacturer/producer (eg, Sony BMG, Universal, etc.) needs to keep a copy. That way, when I lose the physical medium of the work that I licensed, they can quickly provide me with a new copy for almost free (material cost and S&H).
I won't go so far as to say that copyright needs to be abolished, but these companies need to be reminded that it's a privilege, not a right, that they're granted. And as for duration, it needs to be shortened, not lengthened. (Financial and technical) Limitations from 200+ years ago justified 14-year terms. But in this nice modern world of ours where everyone has a computer with a word processor, an internet connection and access to Print On Demand technology, it's easier and easier for the artists to make their money back and then some, meaning the duration of government protection via fiat monopoly ought to be decreased.
Requiring a paid license would be a pretty interesting trick, considering that http://www.copyright.gov/register/tx-games.html specifically forbids game mechanics from copyright protection. Here's the text:
Games
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The name or title given to the game and the methods for playing it are not protected by copyright.
Some parts of a game may be subject to copyright if they contain a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, you may be able to register the text describing the rules of the game or the graphic art appearing on the gameboard or container.
Form TX can be used to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, Form VA should be used.
It most certainly is not. You're saying that the contract is complete when the order is placed. Bullshit. I'm not paying for any fuck-ups the restaurant makes, and I defy them (and you) to try to force the issue. What are they going to do? Hold me captive? Pull my wallet out of my pants? Good luck with that, and good luck finding a judge that would side with it.
This reminds me of a time I went to IHOP. I ordered a T-bone steak (medium rare) and eggs over-easy with hash browns. The steak was charred on the edges and raw (I don't mean a little under-cooked, I mean raw, not cooked at all) in the middle. The eggs weren't cooked. The hash browns were frozen in the middle. The waitress actually claimed that there was nothing wrong with my order and that this was the way it should be.
Do you think I paid for that swill? Do you think I was under any obligation to what-so-ever?
Regarding Ebay and this particular instance, screw the final bidder. How many times has the high-bidder reneged on the terms? I've never done that shill-bidding crap myself, but I've repeatedly had fuck-tards use a Buy It Now option, ending my entry early and then have them not follow through (many times when there are similar high-priced items on the market at the same time). And you know what? Ebay doesn't re-list the item and still bills you for the "sale."
So fuck'em.
If no money changes hands, it's not a deal. And even if it is, the seller, especially of a very expensive item like this, ALWAYS has the option of changing their mind. It's that simple.
I'm wondering if there's a corollary in real estate law. Even when the offers are made and accepted, what actually happens at the signing doesn't always follow. The buyer can walk away (and usually forfeits the earnest money). I assume the seller can do the same, but don't know.
I'm sure we could find tens of thousands of families that would rather have seen three airlines explode in mid-air rather than impact the WTC and Pentagon.
How about getting rid of the non-sense checks at the airport. Then allow the hand guns and ask, "Are you carrying one?" If yes (and seriously, you're still going through the metal detector, they're not going to uninstall it), check to make sure they're using light ammo.
I *read* that Brazil (?) started allowing passengers to carry loaded guns aboard aircraft and even went so far as to amend the passenger pre-flight bried to discuss appropriate safety and where to shoot, should it become necessary. This was shortly after 9/11. In truth, I didn't bother to check to see if it was legit. It was pretty amusing, though.
This obvious solution is have the pre-law students pay the increased tuition. There are more of them than any other discipline (at least, in the US), right? And more are enrolling every year. Their tuition is clearly too low.
Did your armchair civics course also explain to you that nothing in the Constitution is absolute or that everything is based on a standard of reasonableness? I think this law fucking sucks, just pointing this out. And why is there not the same outrage when it's a 2nd Amendment issue? You know, the one that empowers the people and allows them to protect and defend the 1st Amendment.
Fuck I really fucking hate my fucking government sometimes. Fuckers.
It has to do with how far you can take the cart from the store, since people who live close enough to walk have been known to take the carts home with them and keep them. Then there's the case of the assholes last night: They ran the cart as fast as they could and released it...out into traffic.
"Basically, it allowed large developers to lower their land acquisition costs. If you want too much for your little slice of heaven, the guys with guns will come and take it away. An erosion of one of the most basic rights in Western civilization."
"I could've lost thousands of dollars in the purchase."
Maybe that would've been the tipping point to keep you from making an ill-advised purchase, one that apparently you've been regretting ever since even though you "saved" some $3500. Early adoption is for people who can afford it. Credit is for rich people and only screws the commoners.
Feel free to explain. Both of my parents read, write and speak ancient Hebrew. (Job requirement for my father, my mother just loves languages) I personally don't speak any of it, but I'll get help from them if you'll pass on whatever you need to.
You're either completely full of shit or you have a knack for acquiring the most obscure hardware around. Don't get me wrong, I hate Windows, but I don't have the guts to try Linux because frankly, I don't get software (I can't do much other than install a Windows app and surf). But for as computer illiterate as I am, I can build a box. And I have never, ever had the problems you're describing.
No, he pretty much hit the nail on the head. Islam is about having a moral imperative to justify everything you do. Democracy is a process that does not guarantee a righteous outcome. If you're not righteous, you must be evil. If the process allows evil to prevail, it's evil itself. You can't compromise with evil because that makes you evil.
Would you mind answering that question without being insulting (not you, Skreems, in particular, just the other 99.9% of/.)? Seriously guys, there are plenty of people who are open-minded enough to listen to the arguments you make. When they (we) raise questions, you need to answer them instead of being insulting. If I choose to take the Bible on faith, that's my prerogative, since religion is based on faith (iow, does not require proof). A scientific explanation, otoh, is not afforded that same luxury. It sucks and its unfair (to the short-sighted), but thems the breaks.
And so you know, no, I will not argue "but every missing link discovered creates two more." I would, however, like an answer to the question you alluded to: If a part has no useful purpose in the current generation, why is it passed on?
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't bought a CD in almost 10 years. I don't download MP3s. I do have MP3s, but they're all from my CD collection. I listen to the radio, but change the station the moment a commercial comes on. I see maybe 3-4 movies per year. I buy DVDs from the second-hand store (used on Amazon, pawn-shops, etc.). I'm about as close to a boycott as anyone's ever gonna see, not that it'll make a difference.
Since you brought it up, yes, let's argue 'til we're blue in the face that every download does not equal sale. It doesn't, no ifs, and or buts. It's not even close.
I'm in no way saying that what she did was right, legally or morally. I am, however, saying that $9250 per song is freaking ridiculous.
Maybe a little perspective? You get a smaller fine for a DUI/DWI, which is a much larger bane on society than "stealing music." O-
It doesn't matter how you try to justify it, $9250 for 24 songs is blatantly idiotic and these jurists should be ashamed of themselves.
That said, I sincerely doubt the RIAA will ever see a penny of it. You know she's going to file Bankruptcy (Ch 7, IIRC, the one where you don't have a re-payment plan, because no way is she going to pay TWO-HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS back in 20 years, let alone the ~5 a Ch 13 is for.).
I've always believed, naively perhaps, that juries usually got it right. How freaking brain-dead do these people have to be? $220K for 24 songs? That's $9250 per song! That's substantially more than what the RIAA was claiming they lost on each instance (unless I mis-remembered?).
For music.
This jury of 12 idiots decided to ruin someone's life for 24 songs. Great going, guys.
No. No. No. No. NO!
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the costs of the product have been recouped. It's about supply and demand, or more importantly, demand. An older song (and let's be honest, we're talking about popular stuff, not 20-year old junk) that's been popular this whole time is worth more than a brand new song from a brand new band that no one has ever heard of and is never played on the radio. That is a risky investment and the way to get people to try it is slash the costs. No one wants to feel betrayed for shelling out $20 for a CD full of junk, but no one will care when they lose 25 cents a whack for cruddy songs. The older songs, the popular ones, could be and probably should be priced higher, to whatever point the market will bear. It has nothing to do with excessive profits and what some loon with no numbers to look at things is appropriate. It's about what the market will bear.
You've made some interesting points, and generally speaking I'd agree with you about new legislations, system transparency, et al. Then it dawns on me: Why exactly does this for profit corporation think that they have any right to 1) track my financial transactions*, 2) sell that information to anyone and everyone, 3) make no effort at accuracy and actively fight against the people they're tracking and 4) charge me to view the records they're keeping on me without my permission?
*A few transactions are actually a matter of public record, like real estate. Note, however, that how something is financed is a private affair and is generally not publicly available (unless it's something like a city building a ball park).
As to what the lack of information on my credit worthiness would do to the credit-lending industry... I would submit that that industry is the cause of a rather large problem in the U.S., much the way a crack dealer regularly supplying a drug addict is a problem.
On a side note, this industry is entirely jacked up. Sure, rich people "deserve" to have nice low rates on their loans. That said, artificially increasing the rate on people with a lower score makes it that much more likely that someone who already has a hard time re-paying the loan will default. Obviously if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be buying it. I refer you to the crack analogy above.
Two immensely talented and popular artists that hate the labels? Yeah, Trent and Prince ought to get together and give the giant finger to the labels.
The Japanese Supreme Court already decided the issue, and that was several years ago. In a nutshell, Big West owns the schematics for all mecha and the character art. Tatsunoko owns the anime itself and distribution rights, including merchandising and other licensing. Harmony Gold's license is from Tatsunoko, and further includes world-wide (except for Japan) distribution rights. Simply put, HG can do as they please.
They'll probably stick with the USA-Robotech flavor of the story, if for no reason other than it's easily a 9-movie stint: 3 movies per arc. That's sad, in a way, since many fans are indifferent to the third arc, and many more actively dislike the second arc. Basically, only the first arc, Macross, needs a movie (and it really needs to be a trilogy).
Don't know who all the characters ought to be played by, but my vote is for Nathan Fillion and Gina Torres as Roy and Claudia.
...sitting on the EV9 Alpha, finish it and release it?
Calling it a law does not change the fact that it's a license; it's just a license masquerading under color of law. What makes it particularly nasty is that now people are expected to 1) know that it's a law and 2) understand it.
The problem is the huge number of laws on the books. Yes, there's the old "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but the practical matter is that any judge will recognize that yes, it is an excuse. So he'll cut you a little slack and say that you only need to be versed in the laws pertaining to your activities.
How jacked up is that? First, it requires my first act in any endeavor to be wondering about whether or not this is something that's covered by a law (and this is a free society?). If I have a decent grasp on reading comprehension I might be able to go to firstgov.gov and figure it out. The more responsible thing to do (if I want to cover my rear) would be to hire a lawyer that specializes in whatever endeavor this is. All because I want to "buy" a CD.
Bullshit.
I would cite this if I remembered where it came from, but someone else has talked about odd situation that we, as consumers, find ourselves in. It's been standard operating procedure for decades for a radio to come with some sort of recording device built in. That used to be a tape deck, but nowadays one can easily and cheaply find a CD/DVD player that comes with a CD-R/W &/or DVD-R/W. And let's not forget VHS players (which the MPAA quickly branded as copyright infringing devices, and they were handsomely rewarded/reimbursed for that). You'd be hard-pressed to find a PC today without a burner. Just about every non-iPod MP3 player out there comes with a recorder. You can browse and download content on your cell phone. Hardware manufacturers and service providers (eg, Motorola, Apple, AT&T, etc) advertise that you can do all this stuff. And there's a ton of software that lets you do it, and it's frequently available for free.
If the situation is set up to encourage people "violate copyright", then how the hell 1) is it violating anything and 2) are people supposed to know that they're doing something wrong. Oh, that's right, check with your lawyer first.
And BTW, yes, the original car analogy is invalid. Some of you guys want to say that you, as a seller, can put restrictions on the purchaser can do. No, you cannot; not if you want it to be considered a sale. What you keep describing, yet refusing to call it, is a license.
Yes, in truth there are many times when the purchaser is restricted to what they can do. Not being able to run that new Ford as a taxi is one. Not renting out each room in your 5 bedroom house to a different family is another. These are restrictions placed by the government, not by a company.
In short (ha!), if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck, then guess what? Yup, we're having duck for dinner.
Sorry, but your car analogy (on Slashdot?! Who'd'a thunk it...) is completely wrong. If you *sell* me your car, I can do as I damn well please with it and there's not a damn thing you can say or do about it. If you *license* me the car, then you have control. And when your licensing terms suck, I'll go elsewhere.
Thanks for confusing the issue, though (and somehow getting moderated insightful...sigh).
This is part of what's crap with the current system. I walk into a store, find a CD I like, give the clerk money, and take it home. This, by definition, is a sale. That CD is mine to do what I want with. At no point in time during this transaction was it brought to my attention that I was actually agreeing to a license. Since you brought up cars...Imagine what would happen if I "bought" a brand new Ford and Ford then told me that I couldn't give rides to my family, friends, co-workers, etc. because I didn't have a multi-passenger license. Of course, they'd quickly offer me the "opportunity" to upgrade my license (for a fee) to allow this, as well as charging any person who wants a ride in my car a license as well. Don't like the car analogy? What if it were a house and the builder put these limitations on it? What a brain-dead system, all because "artists" think they're special (read: Better than everyone else).
But let's say it is actually a license. That makes it a freaking contract. That means that everything, all privileges, limitations and responsibilities, needs to be written down. Then all parties have to show what they're giving up in order to get something. Then all parties have to show they understand the terms. Then all parties have to sign it. And it needs to be kept on record. I need a copy and the manufacturer/producer (eg, Sony BMG, Universal, etc.) needs to keep a copy. That way, when I lose the physical medium of the work that I licensed, they can quickly provide me with a new copy for almost free (material cost and S&H).
I won't go so far as to say that copyright needs to be abolished, but these companies need to be reminded that it's a privilege, not a right, that they're granted. And as for duration, it needs to be shortened, not lengthened. (Financial and technical) Limitations from 200+ years ago justified 14-year terms. But in this nice modern world of ours where everyone has a computer with a word processor, an internet connection and access to Print On Demand technology, it's easier and easier for the artists to make their money back and then some, meaning the duration of government protection via fiat monopoly ought to be decreased.
Requiring a paid license would be a pretty interesting trick, considering that http://www.copyright.gov/register/tx-games.html specifically forbids game mechanics from copyright protection. Here's the text:
Games
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The name or title given to the game and the methods for playing it are not protected by copyright.
Some parts of a game may be subject to copyright if they contain a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, you may be able to register the text describing the rules of the game or the graphic art appearing on the gameboard or container.
Form TX can be used to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, Form VA should be used.
It most certainly is not. You're saying that the contract is complete when the order is placed. Bullshit. I'm not paying for any fuck-ups the restaurant makes, and I defy them (and you) to try to force the issue. What are they going to do? Hold me captive? Pull my wallet out of my pants? Good luck with that, and good luck finding a judge that would side with it.
This reminds me of a time I went to IHOP. I ordered a T-bone steak (medium rare) and eggs over-easy with hash browns. The steak was charred on the edges and raw (I don't mean a little under-cooked, I mean raw, not cooked at all) in the middle. The eggs weren't cooked. The hash browns were frozen in the middle. The waitress actually claimed that there was nothing wrong with my order and that this was the way it should be.
Do you think I paid for that swill? Do you think I was under any obligation to what-so-ever?
Regarding Ebay and this particular instance, screw the final bidder. How many times has the high-bidder reneged on the terms? I've never done that shill-bidding crap myself, but I've repeatedly had fuck-tards use a Buy It Now option, ending my entry early and then have them not follow through (many times when there are similar high-priced items on the market at the same time). And you know what? Ebay doesn't re-list the item and still bills you for the "sale."
So fuck'em.
If no money changes hands, it's not a deal. And even if it is, the seller, especially of a very expensive item like this, ALWAYS has the option of changing their mind. It's that simple.
I'm wondering if there's a corollary in real estate law. Even when the offers are made and accepted, what actually happens at the signing doesn't always follow. The buyer can walk away (and usually forfeits the earnest money). I assume the seller can do the same, but don't know.
Anyway, Ebay sucks.
No, but I hear the English are releasing one what goes to 11...
I'm sure we could find tens of thousands of families that would rather have seen three airlines explode in mid-air rather than impact the WTC and Pentagon.
How about getting rid of the non-sense checks at the airport. Then allow the hand guns and ask, "Are you carrying one?" If yes (and seriously, you're still going through the metal detector, they're not going to uninstall it), check to make sure they're using light ammo.
I *read* that Brazil (?) started allowing passengers to carry loaded guns aboard aircraft and even went so far as to amend the passenger pre-flight bried to discuss appropriate safety and where to shoot, should it become necessary. This was shortly after 9/11. In truth, I didn't bother to check to see if it was legit. It was pretty amusing, though.
I live in Vegas. Bringing an act like that is a good way to get buried in the desert.
This obvious solution is have the pre-law students pay the increased tuition. There are more of them than any other discipline (at least, in the US), right? And more are enrolling every year. Their tuition is clearly too low.
Did your armchair civics course also explain to you that nothing in the Constitution is absolute or that everything is based on a standard of reasonableness? I think this law fucking sucks, just pointing this out. And why is there not the same outrage when it's a 2nd Amendment issue? You know, the one that empowers the people and allows them to protect and defend the 1st Amendment.
Fuck I really fucking hate my fucking government sometimes. Fuckers.
It has to do with how far you can take the cart from the store, since people who live close enough to walk have been known to take the carts home with them and keep them. Then there's the case of the assholes last night: They ran the cart as fast as they could and released it...out into traffic.
"Basically, it allowed large developers to lower their land acquisition costs. If you want too much for your little slice of heaven, the guys with guns will come and take it away. An erosion of one of the most basic rights in Western civilization."
Erosion? More like strip-mined.
"I could've lost thousands of dollars in the purchase."
Maybe that would've been the tipping point to keep you from making an ill-advised purchase, one that apparently you've been regretting ever since even though you "saved" some $3500. Early adoption is for people who can afford it. Credit is for rich people and only screws the commoners.
Feel free to explain. Both of my parents read, write and speak ancient Hebrew. (Job requirement for my father, my mother just loves languages) I personally don't speak any of it, but I'll get help from them if you'll pass on whatever you need to.
Except that I have no idea what you just said.
You're either completely full of shit or you have a knack for acquiring the most obscure hardware around. Don't get me wrong, I hate Windows, but I don't have the guts to try Linux because frankly, I don't get software (I can't do much other than install a Windows app and surf). But for as computer illiterate as I am, I can build a box. And I have never, ever had the problems you're describing.
No, he pretty much hit the nail on the head. Islam is about having a moral imperative to justify everything you do. Democracy is a process that does not guarantee a righteous outcome. If you're not righteous, you must be evil. If the process allows evil to prevail, it's evil itself. You can't compromise with evil because that makes you evil.
Would you mind answering that question without being insulting (not you, Skreems, in particular, just the other 99.9% of /.)? Seriously guys, there are plenty of people who are open-minded enough to listen to the arguments you make. When they (we) raise questions, you need to answer them instead of being insulting. If I choose to take the Bible on faith, that's my prerogative, since religion is based on faith (iow, does not require proof). A scientific explanation, otoh, is not afforded that same luxury. It sucks and its unfair (to the short-sighted), but thems the breaks.
And so you know, no, I will not argue "but every missing link discovered creates two more." I would, however, like an answer to the question you alluded to: If a part has no useful purpose in the current generation, why is it passed on?