Maybe its just me, but I don't get why there is always one guy who feels the need to ask questions like this, or alternatively state that he hates a particular obscure thing. Its not like anyone is trying to shove Futurama down someone's throat. It is like going to a Star Trek convention and standing around saying, "You know, I really don't understand the appeal of this show!" There are a ton of shows on TV that are not Futurama - why not go watch one of them instead of commenting here to the effect that you don't like Futurama?
Hell, there are a ton of other Slashdot articles you could be commenting on. Perhaps you could have found one that interested you. But no, you had to click on the Futurama article just so you could post a comment musing about the lack of appeal Futurama has for you.
It kind of reminds me of people who love Windows and hate the Macintosh. OK, your favorite computer platform has 90+ percent of the market, so why go seek out places online where Mac people congregate and try to rain on their parade? They have less than 5% of the market. Leave them alone. Hell, I've seen people go onto Atari ST forums and say ridiculous things to the effect that the Atari ST is long dead and ST enthusiasts should just move on and get a Windows PC. Was that you?
When you see a kid playing with a balloon, do you have an uncontrollable urge to go and stick a pin in it?
There are a lot of things that do not appeal to everyone. Sane people ignore them. Personally I have no interest in Chritianity. That doesn't mean I show up to church every Sunday and say, "You know, I just don't understand the appeal...could you explain it to me?" It would be gouche and idiotic to do so.
That clarifies this. I think the best, most easy to follow law would be: If it is an open WiFi network - not secured at all, then it is for use by anyone in the vicinity and may be used by anyone. If the network has been secured then you have to ask permission.
They don't ask those questions. You obviously have never been involved in jury selection. They ask if you know the parties involved. Your post is stupid and misleading.
What a minute, your article clearly says that the girl says it wasn't consensual. 10 years isn't an unfair sentance for rape.
You need to learn how to read (and write apparently). The article describes two girls - one who may have been raped and one who engaged in consentual sex. The person who went to jail - i.e. the guy the GPP was talking about - only had consentual sex with one of the girls (who did not want to press charges.)
The thing that seems unjust about this to me is that the law clearly was not intended to apply in this case. Furthermore, the girl should have received the same punishment since the boy was also a minor. If he is being charged with sex with a minor, she ought to also be charged.
And that's why we can't serve on jury duty. Lawyers don't want reasoned, conscientious jurors. They want gullible, biased jurors.
BULLSHIT!!! In my experience, the questioning involved in jury selection has nothing do with with who is reasoned or conscientious. The lawyers did not dismiss people from the jury pool for having an education. I have heard the old chestnut that if you have a college degree in a technical subject, you will be dismissed from serving. Wrong! In the cases I am familiar with, they simply ask if you know any of the parties involved.
Hell, In my case, I prepared for jury duty by reading the information on the ACLU's website and I was quite prepared to admit that I had done so. I wasn't asked. I was only asked if I knew the parties involved and I was picked for the jury. I know lots of other people with similar experinces. I have never heard anyone actually tell me that they personally were disqualified from being on a jury because they had a college degree. It is an urban legend - not true.
What you are basically arguing is that the first amendment is meaningless in the context of an individual state restricting free speech. If that were the case, then there would be all sorts of things the states could do: outlaw abortion, enforce segregation, etc. since the Bill of Rights would not apply to them.
I agree. That's why I have to look at the consequences of having a procedure vs. not having the procedure. The consequences of not having some procedures is possible death. The consequences of not having laser eye surgery is that my eyes continue to work just fine with contact lenses or glasses. The consequences of having the surgery is possible permanent loss of my vision. Therefore, I will not be having the surgery.
What makes you think it isn't nationwide policy? What if they try to do something to screw me, and I say something to the effect that I don't like what they are doing, so they have me arrested?
I agree that it is idiocy. However, I won't set foot in a Best Buy. They are too eager to take things to the next level and have people arrested. So, no, I will buy nothing there.
This is the classic argument, "I have not been/will not be injured by X, but since there are idiots in the world who will be injured by X, we must ban X."
First, No you can't buy a new release at Wal-Mart for $5. Wal-Mart pays the movie studio $5. They sell it to you for $25 or more.
Second, the killer reason for movie downloads is a wide library. iTMS is convienient and has a pretty wide selection. If they also had a wide selection of movies, then this could prove popular.
It will also require very large disk drives. So, I guess we need to buy stock in seagate or something.
There are dangerous people, thieves, murderers and rapists who drive on the roads. It's still no good reason why Ford or GM should produce a car made by idiots.
But they have been doing exactly that since the 70s!
Buy CDs (or LPs). Buy non-DRM MP3s. Buy from iTMS and play it on your computer. Buy from iTMS and burn to CD and play anywhere. Buy from another vendor. Don't buy music at all.. etc.
How much money would we make if we sold 10 copies of Grand Theft Auto to every person on earth? How much money did we actually make? The difference between the two figures is how much we lost due to piracy.
Nintendo got into it with Universal over the name "Donkey Kong"
That one was hillarious! It had so many twists and turns! First, Universal goes after Coleco because they had the rights to the home game version. So, Coleco pays Universal off, cancels shipping what would have been a huge game for them - probably would have saved the ColecoVision. And Atari, who had been kicking themselves for NOT getting the home game rights, swoops in and licenses those from Nintendo.
Meanwhile, General Mills is cowtowed into canceling a Donkey Kong breakfast cereal.
And then, wait for it... Nintendo is able to prove that Universal itself had - several years prior - already beaten a case against them by MGM when they made a re-make of King Kong by proving that King Kong was in the public domain the whole time!!
Thus, you not want to be Coleco in this case, because now you look like a total punk-ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe its just me, but I don't get why there is always one guy who feels the need to ask questions like this, or alternatively state that he hates a particular obscure thing. Its not like anyone is trying to shove Futurama down someone's throat. It is like going to a Star Trek convention and standing around saying, "You know, I really don't understand the appeal of this show!" There are a ton of shows on TV that are not Futurama - why not go watch one of them instead of commenting here to the effect that you don't like Futurama?
Hell, there are a ton of other Slashdot articles you could be commenting on. Perhaps you could have found one that interested you. But no, you had to click on the Futurama article just so you could post a comment musing about the lack of appeal Futurama has for you.
It kind of reminds me of people who love Windows and hate the Macintosh. OK, your favorite computer platform has 90+ percent of the market, so why go seek out places online where Mac people congregate and try to rain on their parade? They have less than 5% of the market. Leave them alone. Hell, I've seen people go onto Atari ST forums and say ridiculous things to the effect that the Atari ST is long dead and ST enthusiasts should just move on and get a Windows PC. Was that you?
When you see a kid playing with a balloon, do you have an uncontrollable urge to go and stick a pin in it?
There are a lot of things that do not appeal to everyone. Sane people ignore them. Personally I have no interest in Chritianity. That doesn't mean I show up to church every Sunday and say, "You know, I just don't understand the appeal...could you explain it to me?" It would be gouche and idiotic to do so.
"Not trolling"? Bite my shiny metal ass!
That clarifies this. I think the best, most easy to follow law would be: If it is an open WiFi network - not secured at all, then it is for use by anyone in the vicinity and may be used by anyone. If the network has been secured then you have to ask permission.
They don't ask those questions. You obviously have never been involved in jury selection. They ask if you know the parties involved. Your post is stupid and misleading.
What a minute, your article clearly says that the girl says it wasn't consensual. 10 years isn't an unfair sentance for rape.
You need to learn how to read (and write apparently). The article describes two girls - one who may have been raped and one who engaged in consentual sex. The person who went to jail - i.e. the guy the GPP was talking about - only had consentual sex with one of the girls (who did not want to press charges.)
The thing that seems unjust about this to me is that the law clearly was not intended to apply in this case. Furthermore, the girl should have received the same punishment since the boy was also a minor. If he is being charged with sex with a minor, she ought to also be charged.
And that's why we can't serve on jury duty. Lawyers don't want reasoned, conscientious jurors. They want gullible, biased jurors.
BULLSHIT!!! In my experience, the questioning involved in jury selection has nothing do with with who is reasoned or conscientious. The lawyers did not dismiss people from the jury pool for having an education. I have heard the old chestnut that if you have a college degree in a technical subject, you will be dismissed from serving. Wrong! In the cases I am familiar with, they simply ask if you know any of the parties involved.
Hell, In my case, I prepared for jury duty by reading the information on the ACLU's website and I was quite prepared to admit that I had done so. I wasn't asked. I was only asked if I knew the parties involved and I was picked for the jury. I know lots of other people with similar experinces. I have never heard anyone actually tell me that they personally were disqualified from being on a jury because they had a college degree. It is an urban legend - not true.
What you are basically arguing is that the first amendment is meaningless in the context of an individual state restricting free speech. If that were the case, then there would be all sorts of things the states could do: outlaw abortion, enforce segregation, etc. since the Bill of Rights would not apply to them.
Just curious, are there any surgical procedures that make you go "Oh boy! I've got to try that!"
I am interested in this one.
I agree. That's why I have to look at the consequences of having a procedure vs. not having the procedure. The consequences of not having some procedures is possible death. The consequences of not having laser eye surgery is that my eyes continue to work just fine with contact lenses or glasses. The consequences of having the surgery is possible permanent loss of my vision. Therefore, I will not be having the surgery.
You are thinking of Activision.
What makes you think it isn't nationwide policy? What if they try to do something to screw me, and I say something to the effect that I don't like what they are doing, so they have me arrested?
Better not to take the chance.
When your most loyal fanbase is confused regarding the products you sell, you have a very serious problem. Sega found this out the hard way.
I agree that it is idiocy. However, I won't set foot in a Best Buy. They are too eager to take things to the next level and have people arrested. So, no, I will buy nothing there.
The executives of the major entertainment conglomerates sit around a large table, cigars in hand...
Disney Rep: How can we get "Ice Diver" to see 50 First Dates?
Sony Pictures Rep: I have an idea! We'll invent a new high definition DVD format and release only 50 First Dates.
Disney Rep: Great idea! If that won't get him to see it, nothing will!
You are a maroon. The cashier handles MONEY which is totally filthy - and you are happy because she uses disinfectant after blowing her nose?
This is the classic argument, "I have not been/will not be injured by X, but since there are idiots in the world who will be injured by X, we must ban X."
First, No you can't buy a new release at Wal-Mart for $5. Wal-Mart pays the movie studio $5. They sell it to you for $25 or more.
Second, the killer reason for movie downloads is a wide library. iTMS is convienient and has a pretty wide selection. If they also had a wide selection of movies, then this could prove popular.
It will also require very large disk drives. So, I guess we need to buy stock in seagate or something.
Anyone who even sets a foot into best buy is taking a dangerous chance.
There are dangerous people, thieves, murderers and rapists who drive on the roads. It's still no good reason why Ford or GM should produce a car made by idiots.
But they have been doing exactly that since the 70s!
Don't you know that being forbidden from doing things you enjoy that harm no one is for your own good?
America is just as bad as the Taliban. How long until they outlaw musical instruments and owning pet birds?
Sometimes.
You have a lot of options:
Buy CDs (or LPs).
Buy non-DRM MP3s.
Buy from iTMS and play it on your computer.
Buy from iTMS and burn to CD and play anywhere.
Buy from another vendor.
Don't buy music at all..
etc.
They should hire the Dell interns.
They figure it this way:
How much money would we make if we sold 10 copies of Grand Theft Auto to every person on earth? How much money did we actually make? The difference between the two figures is how much we lost due to piracy.
I furthermore predict that Apple will win the case against Jason O'Grady on appeal.
Nintendo got into it with Universal over the name "Donkey Kong"
That one was hillarious! It had so many twists and turns! First, Universal goes after Coleco because they had the rights to the home game version. So, Coleco pays Universal off, cancels shipping what would have been a huge game for them - probably would have saved the ColecoVision. And Atari, who had been kicking themselves for NOT getting the home game rights, swoops in and licenses those from Nintendo.
Meanwhile, General Mills is cowtowed into canceling a Donkey Kong breakfast cereal.
And then, wait for it... Nintendo is able to prove that Universal itself had - several years prior - already beaten a case against them by MGM when they made a re-make of King Kong by proving that King Kong was in the public domain the whole time!!
Thus, you not want to be Coleco in this case, because now you look like a total punk-ass.