Gone is AloneInTheDark_87A81B2717B.zip, say hello to AloneInTheDark_87A81B2717C.zip
And they don't provide any means for copyright holders to prevent this.
Rapidshare may be legally right, morally they are very wrong.
So you'd like Atari to be able to veto any filename that contained those words? Then Microsoft would veto anything that contained, say "Windows", Word", "Bob".....
I've never heard of Atari's "Alone in the dark", what if I used that as the title of a video I made? It'd be deleted;. I'd be sued, or at least hassled and have to deal with some asshole lawyer threatening me?
Anyway, what you'd get is just uploaders using random filenames and encrypted files -- in fact, many do that now. Meanwhile, people trying to transfer their own files would find them blocked or deleted if the name happened to be too similar to any one of millions of copyrighted works. Any system you can imagine that allows files to be transferred can be used to violate copyright. Unless you're going to mandate everyone send unencrypted files and allow them to be inspected by interested parties there is no way to prevent it. I could encode a video game as text and post it on Slashdot in 500 posts spread over a week.
Go to your friend's Bluray Player and click "zoom" on the picture. It brings-up details in the movie you can't see on DVD
Yeah, but if you watch the movie at normal size, as I tend to do, it not such a big deal. Sometimes you do want to slomo and zoom for a gratuitous nipple slip, say, but otherwise I'll just wait till my old player dies before upgrading.
Not to say that I can't tell the difference; just that it's a small factor in my enjoyment of a movie.
No it doesn't. TFA says "An Apple authorized Service Provider called System Graph is suing a customer..." Perhaps it was corrected, something that Slashdot rarely bothers to do.
I'm glad we see eye-to-eye. As a result, I hope you will support my petition for "no refusal" castration checkpoints, so that we may rid the world of rapists.P
Yes, it's a slippery slope. One day they're asking you to breath into a breathalyzer, the next they'll be cutting your balls off.
if the economy prospers during their term in office, their wealth earns them a profit.
Thus giving politicians even more incentive to not give a fuck about what happens to the country after they leave office. You'd end up with the same short sighted policies that have large corporations hollowing themselves out to make the quarterly profits.
A leader would have to be truly selfless to invest his money in say a large hydroelectric scheme that will not start to earn money for 15 years. And he has a massive disincentive to spend on health care, education, police, military that consume much of the budget....
How about a leader who decides to go to war to annexe a neighbouring country's resources to give himself a payday?
Basically, you have reinvented monarchy, where the king's treasury WAS the national treasury. But kings were in it for life, and had their heirs to think of. This system removes even those checks and combines the worst aspects of that with the worst aspects of our system. After 10 years you'd have a worse economy that Zimbabwe.
I live in Ohio and if the police tried this, it would be a blood bath because people over here will defend themselves and their rights with deadly forceP
Protect their right to drunk drive. How noble. Good thing you're talking out your ass, I doubt eventhe rednecks you eulogise would be so idiotic.
Obama should win against Palin. But what if he gets Swiftboated? Or actually is a Muslim? His Kenyan birth certificate is discovered? His Oval Office blowjobs publicised? Or if he gets a fatal head injury playing basketball? The world would be looking back on GWB as "The Good Old Days". It's not worth the risk.
Obama has two more years to get his shit together. I'm pretty sure he can do it, but having a normal Republican as fallback won't be the end of the world.
Unwarrantedly condescending response to my question. Your reply was "fact?", not "In fact?", which changes the meaning.
I apologised. You've made me regret that now. I don't see any real distinction in meaning, in both cases you assert something is true, which I dispute.
I really wasn't trying to misquote you. Your post is still there, my "selective quote" is just to point at what I'm responding to.
What matters is children seeing scientists, seeing them in a good light, and seeing them presented in a way that inspires a sense of wonder.
Here we differ. We see scientists only in subordinate roles. That isn't "inspirational". It's almost tokenism. It doesn't put scientists in a BAD light, but if that's the most inspirational depiction of science you can suggest, it's pretty sad.
it was that violence and killing creates problems, and when faced with that, one must fight back.
Fine. But the fightback was lead by the soldier, not the scientists. The message of the film had nothing to do with science.
The science does not have to be accurate. The scientists do not need to be the stars, nor do they need to be the ones that save the day
Well, I don't think that's enough.
"I want to be the sidekick that hands the weapon to the heroic warrior" doesn't inspire me. No one is REQUIRED to make movies that have messages that I approve of, I'm happy just to be entertained, but I find it annoying when claims are made that some basically silly movie has some deep significance or purpose.
Usually at some kind of event sponsored by the film's producers to give it some legitimacy and get some more publicity for the film; or by some columnist trying to attach his story to a popular movie's publicity. Slashdot invariably runs several inane stories like that with every big movie that comes by: Some warmed over old factoids about giant animals on islands when King Kong came out, for instance.
Goldblum would not have been seen, by a kid, as a scientist. He wasn't depicted that way. There was no lab, for example.
Goldblum played a mathematician. He analysed the situation and explained what was going on several times. Any kid over 5 would have known he was a scientist, even without the white coat.
As I said in the post adjacent to here, that you might find with very, very little effort, 'protagonist' is swappable with 'good guy' in the way that I used it with no loss of meaning.
No, you can't. With very little effort you could consult a dictionary and see that.
I'm further sorry that you're obsessed with trashing it
No, I was trashing your interpretation of it.
Please do me a favor and never speak to me again.
"Speak" to you? This is a forum. You spout off garbage, larded with abuse, you have to expect you will get aggressive responses.
You've made a fool of yourself and are trying to change the subject to obscure the dumb things you said that provoked these responses.
Well, if you can convince yourself that you didn't say what you did and that words mean what you imagine they do, good for you. You may have a future as Sarah Palin's speechwriter.
Hmm...so then your position is that advertising doesn't work....contrary to the data that shows it does work. Nope, no slasher movie could possibly influence someone.
Advertising works to get people to watch movies, adn it worksto do that.
How many millions of people see slasher movies every year?
How many real life slashers have their been?
It's quite possible that some sick individual could decide to emulate , say, Saw. But before there were slasher movies the real life killers found inspiration in, say, the Bible. When they want to find a reason, they'll find it in something. As Mugabe was looking for a stick to beat Tsvangirai. He would have found or manufactured something else if this story hadn't come along. He's murdered thousands, driven his country into poverty, to keep power.
For a while, a couple years ago, I would get 2-3 a week on that account, then google sprinkled some googledust on the servers and it's now practically non-existent.
Which makes it all the more infuriating the way that Google ignores the deluge of spam sent to Usenet via GoogleGroups accounts. Obviously they could prevent it, or at least not propagate it, using the same methods. Instead their neglect looks like a deliberate policy to make Usenet a garbage heap and drive people to their own forums.
Why should schools be able to stiff all the people who work to produce a song and release it? Because of "the children"? Really?
Because the schools (I assume) don't have any audiences, and they don't earn any income from the songs. To describe this sitation as "stiffing" the creators is pretty ludicrous, especially as it's been the situation forever, up till these assholes thought they could get away with it. And the songwriters should and I'm sure do get a cut from any songbooks used in the classes already.
If Wikileaks wants the credit when good things happen, then they also get the blame when bad stuff happens.
This case is like blaming slasher movies for creating murderers. Pretty much the same "bad stuff" would have happened regardless of the supposed inspiration. If Mugabe hadn't had this excuse to trash Tsvangirai he would have found, or manufactured another. The end result would be the same. And recall that Tsvangirai is in trouble because he was lying; taking the easy way out instead of explaining his actions to the people. Gandhi, for instance, would have told the people that sacrifice was necessary. And he won through in the end.
fact, the scientists are the heroes. Avatar strikes me as an excellent movie for promoting science to children.
fact???? "In fact", actually. Why the selective quoting?
Twitchy mouse button. Didn't seem important to fix, sorry if omitting a preposition offended you.
That's because you don't understand what's being claimed here. It's not that the movie is primarily about scientists doing science, and triumphing with nothing but science. It's a movie that has scientists in prominent roles, that portrays science as both good and with a sense of wonder. It doesn't matter that the main character is a mercenary, because children who see the movie will see scientists.
I thought the claim was it would encourage kids to become scientists. But as you just said, here they are supporting roles, subordinate to the muscle headed hero. It's like the cliched American high school hierarchy: the jocks are the heroes, they get the accolades. The geeks help them do their homework. You think kids to aspire to be flunkies?
I'm not sure what you have against eye-candy, but on the topic at hand, scientists were portrayed as major characters and in a good light. From the point of view of the promotion of science to children, it was done quite well.
It's absolutely no surprise that there are adults here that aren't inspired by Avatar. What is surprising is that they seem to think that children won't be.
The assertion was that it was a good movie to promote science to kids. While you can find some aspects to support that, it's quite odd to me to think that was anything but a very minor part of the story. The message of the film is that violence and killing solves problems, not science. The scientists march behind the warriors.
True it's hard to think of any films that show science in a realistic and positive light. Off the top of my head, only some real-life-based films, like Apollo 13 and
Gorillas in the Mist comes to mind (and I think the character Weaver played in that informed the one she had in Avatar). The Day After Tomorrow had some courageous scientists, who did what looked like real science (of course much of it was wildly unlikely).
the scientists in JP were depicted as buffoons by attempting to circumvent nature. Those in Avatar were depicted as empathetic to the natives.
Well, again, Goldblum was a scientist, and not a buffoon. An he was the only scientist in the movie who got more than a minute of screentime. The "scientists" in Avatar were certainly not the protagonists. Despite Sigourney Weaver being a star, her role in this film was secondary.
Anyway, why are you now talking about "empathetic" vs "buffoons" now? That has nothing to do with your original statement about who the protagonists were. Presumably you realise you were wrong and are just changing the subject. Sadly,your new subject is quite wrong too, the role of science in Jurassic Park is far more realistic. The characters of the scientists are much more credible in that. Avatar was just a cartoon, both visually and scriptwise. Though these days your average Marvel comic has a more nuanced story than that film.
fact, the scientists are the heroes. Avatar strikes me as an excellent movie for promoting science to children.
fact???? The soldier and the native warriors are the heroes. They save the day. They get the girls. It's a terrible movie to promote any science, except if you're inspired to go into CGI animation. It's nothing but eye-candy. The more I think about the story, the more queasy I get.
Jesus H Christ but you guys hate that movie. Why not simply say "I cannot have a discussion yet, I'm still far to busy hating that movie to have clear patterns of thought"?
Because whether anyone liked the film isn't the issue. You said "the protagonists are scientists". That's quite untrue.
you cannot tell the difference in the scientist roles of Avatar and Jurassic Park.
Well, in Jurassic Park Goldblum was a scientist and he WAS a main protagonist. Unlike Avatar, where the protagonist was a soldier. So that seems to contradict your point --
The point was that Avatar is more fantasy than SF. Despite the spaceships, it's pretty much right in the fantasy zone.
The protagonists in Avatar are all scientists. They go on to win the day.
Bullshit, the protagonists is a marine. He "wins the day" by leading a guerrilla war. The scientists are supporting characters. Science had nothing to do with the story.
Bollocks, completely unenforcible. I bet he's never had anyone pay any of these "agreed" fees, and never taken anyone to court to claim them. It's just a longwinded way to say "Piss off spammers".
You can sue as many Russian / Former Russians as you want. Will they ever be brought to AMERICAN justice? No. Russian Justice? Not as long as the keep passing suitcases of cash to Moscow.
Most of the spam I get is obviously for American products. Maybe they pay some Russians to send it, but he source is the USA.
In any case, when it comes to sending money to the said assholes, wherever they may be, it isn't in a suitcase, it has to go through American banks and credit card companies. Too bad they don't give a shit about stopping them ripping off the public, as long as they get their cut. But are perectly willing to block sites like Wikileaks for no reason at all, or file sharing sites on the nod from corporate America.
Has anyone ever thought of making a website where you watch nothing but advertisements with the knowledge that the money made for the website goes directly to feeding the poor?
Everyone seems to be missing the pedistal which is using the Apple logo without a license.
"Everyone" apparently including Apple. Which is odd. That's a trademark, much more solid that this "celebrity likeness" bullshit I (AMNAL) would have thought.
But maybe they thought they'd just take off the logo and sell the Jobs figure anyway, so they went for that first.
Slashdot Mirror
So you'd like Atari to be able to veto any filename that contained those words? Then Microsoft would veto anything that contained, say "Windows", Word", "Bob".....
I've never heard of Atari's "Alone in the dark", what if I used that as the title of a video I made? It'd be deleted;. I'd be sued, or at least hassled and have to deal with some asshole lawyer threatening me?
Anyway, what you'd get is just uploaders using random filenames and encrypted files -- in fact, many do that now. Meanwhile, people trying to transfer their own files would find them blocked or deleted if the name happened to be too similar to any one of millions of copyrighted works. Any system you can imagine that allows files to be transferred can be used to violate copyright. Unless you're going to mandate everyone send unencrypted files and allow them to be inspected by interested parties there is no way to prevent it. I could encode a video game as text and post it on Slashdot in 500 posts spread over a week.
Yeah, but if you watch the movie at normal size, as I tend to do, it not such a big deal. Sometimes you do want to slomo and zoom for a gratuitous nipple slip, say, but otherwise I'll just wait till my old player dies before upgrading.
Not to say that I can't tell the difference; just that it's a small factor in my enjoyment of a movie.
No it doesn't. TFA says "An Apple authorized Service Provider called System Graph is suing a customer..." Perhaps it was corrected, something that Slashdot rarely bothers to do.
However, this is yet another case of Slashdot promoting some link-whoring blog that reports a story instead of the real source.The actual (English language) source is CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20026918-71.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 which has a rather more complete story and background.
I'm glad we see eye-to-eye. As a result, I hope you will support my petition for "no refusal" castration checkpoints, so that we may rid the world of rapists.P Yes, it's a slippery slope. One day they're asking you to breath into a breathalyzer, the next they'll be cutting your balls off.
Thus giving politicians even more incentive to not give a fuck about what happens to the country after they leave office. You'd end up with the same short sighted policies that have large corporations hollowing themselves out to make the quarterly profits.
A leader would have to be truly selfless to invest his money in say a large hydroelectric scheme that will not start to earn money for 15 years. And he has a massive disincentive to spend on health care, education, police, military that consume much of the budget.... How about a leader who decides to go to war to annexe a neighbouring country's resources to give himself a payday?
Basically, you have reinvented monarchy, where the king's treasury WAS the national treasury. But kings were in it for life, and had their heirs to think of. This system removes even those checks and combines the worst aspects of that with the worst aspects of our system. After 10 years you'd have a worse economy that Zimbabwe.
Cops are supposed to "Serve and Protect", corny as that sounds.
I live in Ohio and if the police tried this, it would be a blood bath because people over here will defend themselves and their rights with deadly forceP Protect their right to drunk drive. How noble. Good thing you're talking out your ass, I doubt eventhe rednecks you eulogise would be so idiotic.
Obama has two more years to get his shit together. I'm pretty sure he can do it, but having a normal Republican as fallback won't be the end of the world.
I apologised. You've made me regret that now. I don't see any real distinction in meaning, in both cases you assert something is true, which I dispute. I really wasn't trying to misquote you. Your post is still there, my "selective quote" is just to point at what I'm responding to.
What matters is children seeing scientists, seeing them in a good light, and seeing them presented in a way that inspires a sense of wonder.
Here we differ. We see scientists only in subordinate roles. That isn't "inspirational". It's almost tokenism. It doesn't put scientists in a BAD light, but if that's the most inspirational depiction of science you can suggest, it's pretty sad.
it was that violence and killing creates problems, and when faced with that, one must fight back.
Fine. But the fightback was lead by the soldier, not the scientists. The message of the film had nothing to do with science.
The science does not have to be accurate. The scientists do not need to be the stars, nor do they need to be the ones that save the day
Well, I don't think that's enough.
"I want to be the sidekick that hands the weapon to the heroic warrior" doesn't inspire me. No one is REQUIRED to make movies that have messages that I approve of, I'm happy just to be entertained, but I find it annoying when claims are made that some basically silly movie has some deep significance or purpose. Usually at some kind of event sponsored by the film's producers to give it some legitimacy and get some more publicity for the film; or by some columnist trying to attach his story to a popular movie's publicity. Slashdot invariably runs several inane stories like that with every big movie that comes by: Some warmed over old factoids about giant animals on islands when King Kong came out, for instance.
Goldblum played a mathematician. He analysed the situation and explained what was going on several times. Any kid over 5 would have known he was a scientist, even without the white coat.
As I said in the post adjacent to here, that you might find with very, very little effort, 'protagonist' is swappable with 'good guy' in the way that I used it with no loss of meaning.
No, you can't. With very little effort you could consult a dictionary and see that.
I'm further sorry that you're obsessed with trashing it No, I was trashing your interpretation of it.
Please do me a favor and never speak to me again.
"Speak" to you? This is a forum. You spout off garbage, larded with abuse, you have to expect you will get aggressive responses.
You've made a fool of yourself and are trying to change the subject to obscure the dumb things you said that provoked these responses.
Well, if you can convince yourself that you didn't say what you did and that words mean what you imagine they do, good for you. You may have a future as Sarah Palin's speechwriter.
Advertising works to get people to watch movies, adn it worksto do that.
How many millions of people see slasher movies every year?
How many real life slashers have their been?
It's quite possible that some sick individual could decide to emulate , say, Saw. But before there were slasher movies the real life killers found inspiration in, say, the Bible. When they want to find a reason, they'll find it in something. As Mugabe was looking for a stick to beat Tsvangirai. He would have found or manufactured something else if this story hadn't come along. He's murdered thousands, driven his country into poverty, to keep power.
Which makes it all the more infuriating the way that Google ignores the deluge of spam sent to Usenet via GoogleGroups accounts. Obviously they could prevent it, or at least not propagate it, using the same methods. Instead their neglect looks like a deliberate policy to make Usenet a garbage heap and drive people to their own forums.
Because the schools (I assume) don't have any audiences, and they don't earn any income from the songs. To describe this sitation as "stiffing" the creators is pretty ludicrous, especially as it's been the situation forever, up till these assholes thought they could get away with it. And the songwriters should and I'm sure do get a cut from any songbooks used in the classes already.
This case is like blaming slasher movies for creating murderers. Pretty much the same "bad stuff" would have happened regardless of the supposed inspiration. If Mugabe hadn't had this excuse to trash Tsvangirai he would have found, or manufactured another. The end result would be the same. And recall that Tsvangirai is in trouble because he was lying; taking the easy way out instead of explaining his actions to the people. Gandhi, for instance, would have told the people that sacrifice was necessary. And he won through in the end.
fact???? "In fact", actually. Why the selective quoting?
Twitchy mouse button. Didn't seem important to fix, sorry if omitting a preposition offended you.
That's because you don't understand what's being claimed here. It's not that the movie is primarily about scientists doing science, and triumphing with nothing but science. It's a movie that has scientists in prominent roles, that portrays science as both good and with a sense of wonder. It doesn't matter that the main character is a mercenary, because children who see the movie will see scientists.
I thought the claim was it would encourage kids to become scientists. But as you just said, here they are supporting roles, subordinate to the muscle headed hero. It's like the cliched American high school hierarchy: the jocks are the heroes, they get the accolades. The geeks help them do their homework. You think kids to aspire to be flunkies?
I'm not sure what you have against eye-candy, but on the topic at hand, scientists were portrayed as major characters and in a good light. From the point of view of the promotion of science to children, it was done quite well.
It's absolutely no surprise that there are adults here that aren't inspired by Avatar. What is surprising is that they seem to think that children won't be.
The assertion was that it was a good movie to promote science to kids. While you can find some aspects to support that, it's quite odd to me to think that was anything but a very minor part of the story. The message of the film is that violence and killing solves problems, not science. The scientists march behind the warriors.
True it's hard to think of any films that show science in a realistic and positive light. Off the top of my head, only some real-life-based films, like Apollo 13 and Gorillas in the Mist comes to mind (and I think the character Weaver played in that informed the one she had in Avatar). The Day After Tomorrow had some courageous scientists, who did what looked like real science (of course much of it was wildly unlikely).
Well, again, Goldblum was a scientist, and not a buffoon. An he was the only scientist in the movie who got more than a minute of screentime. The "scientists" in Avatar were certainly not the protagonists. Despite Sigourney Weaver being a star, her role in this film was secondary.
Anyway, why are you now talking about "empathetic" vs "buffoons" now? That has nothing to do with your original statement about who the protagonists were. Presumably you realise you were wrong and are just changing the subject. Sadly,your new subject is quite wrong too, the role of science in Jurassic Park is far more realistic. The characters of the scientists are much more credible in that. Avatar was just a cartoon, both visually and scriptwise. Though these days your average Marvel comic has a more nuanced story than that film.
fact???? The soldier and the native warriors are the heroes. They save the day. They get the girls. It's a terrible movie to promote any science, except if you're inspired to go into CGI animation. It's nothing but eye-candy. The more I think about the story, the more queasy I get.
Because whether anyone liked the film isn't the issue. You said "the protagonists are scientists". That's quite untrue.
you cannot tell the difference in the scientist roles of Avatar and Jurassic Park.
Well, in Jurassic Park Goldblum was a scientist and he WAS a main protagonist. Unlike Avatar, where the protagonist was a soldier. So that seems to contradict your point --
The protagonists in Avatar are all scientists. They go on to win the day.
Bullshit, the protagonists is a marine. He "wins the day" by leading a guerrilla war. The scientists are supporting characters. Science had nothing to do with the story.
Bollocks, completely unenforcible. I bet he's never had anyone pay any of these "agreed" fees, and never taken anyone to court to claim them. It's just a longwinded way to say "Piss off spammers".
Most of the spam I get is obviously for American products. Maybe they pay some Russians to send it, but he source is the USA.
In any case, when it comes to sending money to the said assholes, wherever they may be, it isn't in a suitcase, it has to go through American banks and credit card companies. Too bad they don't give a shit about stopping them ripping off the public, as long as they get their cut. But are perectly willing to block sites like Wikileaks for no reason at all, or file sharing sites on the nod from corporate America.
http://www.freerice.com/index.php
"Everyone" apparently including Apple. Which is odd. That's a trademark, much more solid that this "celebrity likeness" bullshit I (AMNAL) would have thought.
But maybe they thought they'd just take off the logo and sell the Jobs figure anyway, so they went for that first.
How about waiting until a court and judge have determined that before you put them out of business?