A Pennsylvania student won a case that involved a suspension for his private blog that critiqued his principal's dress habits, speech and other matters. "Ultimately the principal attempted to punish him, the kid ended up challenging the suspension,"
Do you know if anything was done about the principal? He's clearly not fit to be in charge of anything, especially not kids.
Why the fuck is slashdot giving these scumsucking leeches who illegally profit off the hard work of others recognition?
We can't just ignore the MPAA. We'd like to, but we can't.
Oh wait, I parsed "illegally" as "imorally". You meant the bootleggers? They're making statements about quality and promising a better re-release of their illegal wares. That's hilarious! They're so professional : )
The WiiiiIIIIiiiiiiiIIiiiiii is in a space where people from all walks want one and can propably afford it.
The PS3 and 360 are in a space where people with $5k TVs want them and can afford them.
Re:Downplaying the importance of the law
on
Everyone Hates UMD
·
· Score: 1
Including the capability to put its user and its manufacturer in jail in just about every market but Canada? Or would you want to discuss the capabilities of, say, LSD-25 or heroin without discussing their prohibition?
1- Posting from within the New Land Of The Free (well, until Harper and his minions are done handing the country over to the White House that is).
2- Sure, why not? The capabilities of LSD can be discussed independantly of the legal constructs that have been made to contain it.
The law is arbitrary, it's made up rules done more or less honestly by people for the alternating interests of the public or of a small group of influencial people (against the interest of the general populace). It does not count when discussing the technical merit of a subject. It counts when discussing availability of a subject, but it does not affect the subject itself, only the context of it's use.
There are currently video iPods playing legitimatly aquired content. The technology and the law are there, now all there is todo is to make the boards of the major content distributors let go of their dreams of total content controll, and we'll be golden.
Back to my point: I don't want to carry small discs in a case along with the supposedly portable player they need, I want to use existing technology to carry my entire content library IN the player. So i will not give them money for a player that needs a bunch of small discs to be lgged around with it. This isn't sci-fi, this is a real possibility, and the only thing stopping it from happening is the unwillingness of the sellers to accomodate their client's best interest (and theirs, since the client is always right). They could take my money, but don't wanna.
Just because your analogy "sounds right" doesn't make make it a valid thesis. The fact is that computers are not biological organisms and "viruses" don't work the same way.
Analogy: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance.
Explain how, by expressing a ressemblance between things otherwise unlike, he invalidates his analogy.
Not to mention it completely ignores the economic factors which created the "monoculture".
And also explain how these economic factors invalidate the analogy. Do use examples of agroeconomic factors pertaining to crop monocultures while doing so (I expect the word "locust" to make an appearance in this explanation).
Which major studio feature films are available for iPod download? Space-shifting doesn't work in most major developed markets, almost all of which have something resembling the DMCA.
I'm not talking about what those bastiches will allow us to do with the technology, I'm talking about the technology's capabilities. The ones you could get through illegal means, or legal downloads of non-hollywood releases.
A self-contained device to hold AND display the video is far more attractive to me than having instead a player and a carry-case for the media.
Humans have some really unique aspects about us as a species. We have advanced language. We have art. We have complex emotions and psychology.
None of those are unique to humans.
despite the fact that there are TONS more ants on the earth than humans, and the number of generations of ants in all of history, they never evolved to have art or culture.
How exactly do you know that ants don't make artistic scent patterns deep in their tunnels?
No, there *was* debris outside but it's hard to see what you want to ignore in order to further an agenda.
1- Of course there's debris, there was an explosion: That scaters debris. There was, however, no PLANE debris to account for an entire airliner. You can find many pictures of the same lonely piece, but no engines, no luggage...
First the felons. Then the suspected felons. Then the suspects of misdemeanors. Then people who are found in violation of traffic laws. Then it becomes a requisite to have a driver's liscense, or to fly... as a safety measure... it's to protect you from mislabelled blood samples in case you are screened in a road block. It's for your own good, really. You don't have anything to hide, do you?
Then it's every baby born, everyone coming in the country, everyone who wants to collect a government cheque. Everyone.
It's the reciepy for frog soup: If you put it in boiling water, it'll just jump out. You put the frog in cold water, and slowly raise the temperature.
debris clearly visible. Some are dupes of each other, but scroll through, there was a lot of debris scattered about.
Debris.
I always see the same, easy-to-carry, lonely piece of fuselage, from many angles, but the rest of the debris looks like it came from the construction site that was where the explosion took place.
If you look at the earliest pictures of the site, you can clearly see a half destroyed truck and some big spoils of something, a broken fence... All good sources of debris. Especially the half destroyed truck.
Yes, and two wing-shaped slots as well! Because as everyone knows from watching Bugs Bunny, when an object goes through a wall, it cuts out a perfect outline of itself in the wall. In other words, everyone posting this crap learned their physics from Bugs Bunny.
Wow you need a giant steaming cup of STFU!
We all saw the footage, from multiple angle, of a plane hitting a building ON THAT SAME DAY.
Yes, it DOES make a neat plane-shaped hole. In a building covered in soft material. The pentagon is a tougher beast, the plane would go all the way through, but it would make a plane-shaped dent. And leave debris outside (a jet enjine was photographed laying on the ground in new york that day, but no such debris was at the pentagon).
bits of fuselage were photographed on the lawn of the Pentagon
three other hijacked planes were seen crashing into other places
several eyewitnesses reported seeing a plane
Come up with an alternative explanation if you wish - but you have to make it fit with the above facts.
>
A plane took off and was shot down by the airforce when it failed to respond to radio signals, as per the order given by a general, and later (too late) rescinded. As the statement from official channels explained: He did not have the authority to give that order, The United States would never shoot down a plane full of its own citizens.
Bits of fuselage were moved from storage inside the building to the lawn after the events described in 1) in order to coverup that a patriotic aiforce pilot shot down a civilian plane, under direct orders to do so, in order to prevent another sucessfull strike.
I don't think anyone saw the pensylvania crash... but two other planes were seen flying into buildings (both crashes were filmed, and the second hit had millions of newyorkers looking directly at it), and the crashsite of the third is indeed known. But you omited a fact in your post: The first reports from the department of defense were of a car bomb, and later a truck bomb, after planes were seen crashing into landmarks on every broadcast channel in the world.
Plant a few people who will categorically say they saw a plane fly into the building in the crowd. In shock after seeing planes crash into buildings on TV and seeing the explosion or the smoke over the pentagon, a lot of people will convince themselves they saw a plane too.
Just because there is no hole where the engines should be does not mean a plane didn't hit the building. The building is like a fortrace and could withstand most of the impact of the aluminum plane.
there's a big difference between a conspiracy between religious extremists to hijack planes and crash them into the buildings of their enemy and a conspiracy of a government to arrange for an attack on its own people
That difference being that the latter has the former to use as scapegoats.
Consider the fact that we're talking about a government that has made its own people ingest plutonium to see what would happen to them before you say they'd never do anything bad. A governement that has sent many, many of their own to die in wars of questionable intent. A government that has predictably gained a LOT of power as result of this attack.
possible scenerios for releasing the tape: 1) They release it immediately after the attack. People claim that there is no way they could release the tape that quick so it must have been fabricated beforehand.
What is this? The forties?
This is the age of the live coverage of high-speed chases! I don't see anyone claiming that the footage on the news must be fake since they couldn't get it from the site to the studio in less than a day. Stop making shit up.
Not being dead? The plane is gone, the people in it were killed. The conspiracy is about how and where the plane was destroyed. i.e. that the order that was given on 9/11 to shoot down any non-responsive airliners was followed before it was rescinded.
it's logical to assume that if planes were used in place A, why bother to not use planes in place B.
That is not even remotly logical.
Not that I really believe Bush planned it, (is he smart enough?)
More like the CIA, or whoever else in the "Intelligence community" that, as a result of 9/11, were granted absolute power. Just watch Bush defend the invasion of Iraq after he admitted that there are no WMDs to be found: He simply says that his actions were right because he did what the intelligence community told him to do.
AND PEOPLE ACCEPT THAT!
God, that drives me nut. Who elected these people? Who's watching the watchers?
These mac intel Beige Box (tm) are going to blow the PC world's mind - you've never seen the sort of bold looks and design as the new Apple Beige Box (tm).
I know you're being comical, but the beige box was an Apple innovation way back when the Apple II (IIRC) came out. Before that it was imitation wood panels (I wonder if any early case modders had shag carpeting on their funky boxes...).
The "intelligence community": The people who decide what is secret and what isn't.
you can either give the 'good guys' the 'right' to watch everything, or just leave that ability for the 'bad guys' who will do with it anything they want.
The "good guys"? But who the hell are "the good guys"?
Slashdot Mirror
A Pennsylvania student won a case that involved a suspension for his private blog that critiqued his principal's dress habits, speech and other matters.
"Ultimately the principal attempted to punish him, the kid ended up challenging the suspension,"
Do you know if anything was done about the principal?
He's clearly not fit to be in charge of anything, especially not kids.
Why the fuck is slashdot giving these scumsucking leeches who illegally profit off the hard work of others recognition?
We can't just ignore the MPAA. We'd like to, but we can't.
Oh wait, I parsed "illegally" as "imorally". You meant the bootleggers?
They're making statements about quality and promising a better re-release of their illegal wares. That's hilarious! They're so professional : )
Much like scorpions, lawyers will act according to their nature.
No, the Wii is not in a "different space"
Oh, it is:
The WiiiiIIIIiiiiiiiIIiiiiii is in a space where people from all walks want one and can propably afford it.
The PS3 and 360 are in a space where people with $5k TVs want them and can afford them.
Including the capability to put its user and its manufacturer in jail in just about every market but Canada? Or would you want to discuss the capabilities of, say, LSD-25 or heroin without discussing their prohibition?
1- Posting from within the New Land Of The Free (well, until Harper and his minions are done handing the country over to the White House that is).
2- Sure, why not? The capabilities of LSD can be discussed independantly of the legal constructs that have been made to contain it.
The law is arbitrary, it's made up rules done more or less honestly by people for the alternating interests of the public or of a small group of influencial people (against the interest of the general populace). It does not count when discussing the technical merit of a subject. It counts when discussing availability of a subject, but it does not affect the subject itself, only the context of it's use.
There are currently video iPods playing legitimatly aquired content. The technology and the law are there, now all there is todo is to make the boards of the major content distributors let go of their dreams of total content controll, and we'll be golden.
Back to my point: I don't want to carry small discs in a case along with the supposedly portable player they need, I want to use existing technology to carry my entire content library IN the player. So i will not give them money for a player that needs a bunch of small discs to be lgged around with it.
This isn't sci-fi, this is a real possibility, and the only thing stopping it from happening is the unwillingness of the sellers to accomodate their client's best interest (and theirs, since the client is always right). They could take my money, but don't wanna.
Explain how, by expressing a ressemblance between things otherwise unlike, he invalidates his analogy.
Not to mention it completely ignores the economic factors which created the "monoculture".
And also explain how these economic factors invalidate the analogy. Do use examples of agroeconomic factors pertaining to crop monocultures while doing so (I expect the word "locust" to make an appearance in this explanation).
honed by centuries of evolution.
:-P
Wow! A young-earth evolutionist!
Which major studio feature films are available for iPod download? Space-shifting doesn't work in most major developed markets, almost all of which have something resembling the DMCA.
I'm not talking about what those bastiches will allow us to do with the technology, I'm talking about the technology's capabilities. The ones you could get through illegal means, or legal downloads of non-hollywood releases.
A self-contained device to hold AND display the video is far more attractive to me than having instead a player and a carry-case for the media.
I'm sure major brands understand that potential customers do get pissed off by intrusive advertising.
...for now
Nope. My adBlock list can attest to that.
I'm glad I won't have to make it grow to include * from google though!
I would consider myself a geek. But the whole Star Trek thing is a bit over the top. Stargate...now that's a show.
Ye likes yer sci-fi dumbed down, I see.
But, since it is entertaining, I'll grant you that it is, indeed, a show.
In fact, I kinda think stargate is the anti star-trek: Every week they go to a different planet and they do the opposite of the Prime Directive.
It's about the convenience of a media device that size, not the format.
Side note, how many movies can you cram in an iPod's HD compared to the same pocket volume in UMDs + PSP?
To us it's about convenience.
To Sony it's about copy control.
If anyone read this far down the thrad and STILL doesn't know who Linus is, I think this link might help.
Humans have some really unique aspects about us as a species. We have advanced language. We have art. We have complex emotions and psychology.
None of those are unique to humans.
despite the fact that there are TONS more ants on the earth than humans, and the number of generations of ants in all of history, they never evolved to have art or culture.
How exactly do you know that ants don't make artistic scent patterns deep in their tunnels?
No, there *was* debris outside but it's hard to see what you want to ignore in order to further an agenda.
1- Of course there's debris, there was an explosion: That scaters debris. There was, however, no PLANE debris to account for an entire airliner.
You can find many pictures of the same lonely piece, but no engines, no luggage...
2- What is my supposed agenda?
Ever notice how little sense that makes?
First the felons.
Then the suspected felons.
Then the suspects of misdemeanors.
Then people who are found in violation of traffic laws.
Then it becomes a requisite to have a driver's liscense, or to fly... as a safety measure... it's to protect you from mislabelled blood samples in case you are screened in a road block. It's for your own good, really. You don't have anything to hide, do you?
Then it's every baby born, everyone coming in the country, everyone who wants to collect a government cheque. Everyone.
It's the reciepy for frog soup: If you put it in boiling water, it'll just jump out. You put the frog in cold water, and slowly raise the temperature.
debris clearly visible. Some are dupes of each other, but scroll through, there was a lot of debris scattered about.
Debris.
I always see the same, easy-to-carry, lonely piece of fuselage, from many angles, but the rest of the debris looks like it came from the construction site that was where the explosion took place.
If you look at the earliest pictures of the site, you can clearly see a half destroyed truck and some big spoils of something, a broken fence... All good sources of debris.
Especially the half destroyed truck.
Yes, and two wing-shaped slots as well! Because as everyone knows from watching Bugs Bunny, when an object goes through a wall, it cuts out a perfect outline of itself in the wall.
In other words, everyone posting this crap learned their physics from Bugs Bunny.
Wow you need a giant steaming cup of STFU!
We all saw the footage, from multiple angle, of a plane hitting a building ON THAT SAME DAY.
Yes, it DOES make a neat plane-shaped hole.
In a building covered in soft material.
The pentagon is a tougher beast, the plane would go all the way through, but it would make a plane-shaped dent. And leave debris outside (a jet enjine was photographed laying on the ground in new york that day, but no such debris was at the pentagon).
Sure, it makes no sense to me, but that is still the argument.
Man, people will come up with the weirdest arguments sometimes.
Just because there is no hole where the engines should be does not mean a plane didn't hit the building. The building is like a fortrace and could withstand most of the impact of the aluminum plane.
And yet, no plane debris outside.
Funny thing, that.
there's a big difference between a conspiracy between religious extremists to hijack planes and crash them into the buildings of their enemy and a conspiracy of a government to arrange for an attack on its own people
That difference being that the latter has the former to use as scapegoats.
Consider the fact that we're talking about a government that has made its own people ingest plutonium to see what would happen to them before you say they'd never do anything bad. A governement that has sent many, many of their own to die in wars of questionable intent. A government that has predictably gained a LOT of power as result of this attack.
The former didn't gain much.
possible scenerios for releasing the tape:
1) They release it immediately after the attack. People claim that there is no way they could release the tape that quick so it must have been fabricated beforehand.
What is this? The forties?
This is the age of the live coverage of high-speed chases! I don't see anyone claiming that the footage on the news must be fake since they couldn't get it from the site to the studio in less than a day. Stop making shit up.
I just can't see all those people not being dead.
Not being dead? The plane is gone, the people in it were killed. The conspiracy is about how and where the plane was destroyed. i.e. that the order that was given on 9/11 to shoot down any non-responsive airliners was followed before it was rescinded.
it's logical to assume that if planes were used in place A, why bother to not use planes in place B.
That is not even remotly logical.
Not that I really believe Bush planned it, (is he smart enough?)
More like the CIA, or whoever else in the "Intelligence community" that, as a result of 9/11, were granted absolute power. Just watch Bush defend the invasion of Iraq after he admitted that there are no WMDs to be found: He simply says that his actions were right because he did what the intelligence community told him to do.
AND PEOPLE ACCEPT THAT!
God, that drives me nut. Who elected these people? Who's watching the watchers?
These mac intel Beige Box (tm) are going to blow the PC world's mind - you've never seen the sort of bold looks and design as the new Apple Beige Box (tm).
I know you're being comical, but the beige box was an Apple innovation way back when the Apple II (IIRC) came out. Before that it was imitation wood panels (I wonder if any early case modders had shag carpeting on their funky boxes...).
But who the hell are 'they'?
The "intelligence community": The people who decide what is secret and what isn't.
you can either give the 'good guys' the 'right' to watch everything, or just leave that ability for the 'bad guys' who will do with it anything they want.
The "good guys"? But who the hell are "the good guys"?