I love your qualifier of "quite reasonably" when talking about how well Slashdot adheres to HTML 3.2. Since we can't check at the W3C's Validator due to the fact that Slashdot doesn't want us to check, we'll have to use something else like Validome.
And what do you know, it fails even 3.2 validation.
Heck, even the majority of Slashdotters might not care either.
I love it when someone makes a comment like that in their submission. As if the question that is on their mind is "of course" what everyone else is thinking.
No kidding. I'm surprised at the battery life of the PSP because I have a Sony portable CD player that has an AM/FM tuner PLUS it plays MP3's that I've burned to CD and I've honestly changed the batteries on it twice since I've purchased it over a year ago. It uses two AAA (I think, it might be AA) batteries. When I was reading the manual and they said to expect 60 or so hours of play time when playing MP3's off CD, I didn't believe it, but now I do. It's amazing.
I bought my wife Ticket To Ride for Christmas. She loves it. I love it. Not to sound cliche, but it's extremely easy to learn, but difficult to master.:-)
Ive always said corporations are just like mini communist nations, non-elected leader with its circle of generals and its spies
Wow, you're right. They are so smiliar. Heck, they are pretty much the same thing. Oh yeah, except they can't execute you. Oh, and they pay you for all the work you do for them. And you can leave the company whenever you want, while many communist nations will severly punish those trying to escape. Yeah, other than that, they are totally the same!!!1one.
All I can say is
on
Ask mc chris
·
· Score: 5, Funny
The Constitution gives the Congress the explicit right to govern copyright and intellectual property issues in Section 8, clause 8. So I was wondering where one thinks they get a right to a perfect digital copy of someone else's copyrighted work when the Congress has done no such thing. In fact, they've said quite the opposite.
Trust me, I entirely agree with your main point, but I don't think that we have rights over other people's property.
Man that must be nice ehh? To loose in one court and be able to say: 'Nah, I don't like that outcome, let's try another one...'
Huh? I'm guessing you are refering to the comment made about Congress passing a law mandating the flag. Note that the court is not saying the government itself doesn't have the authority, just that FCC crossed the authority given to it by Congress and the President through previous laws. If the court eventually finds that the FCC did not have the power to mandate the flag, it doesn't mean Congress can't go back and change the law to give it the authority. It's not as if the courts have the ultimate say as to what the law should be, the people do through elected representatives. Of course, this power is somewhat limited by the Constitution, but even that can be changed by the people.
I completely agree. I miss being able to turn off JavaScript just for certain sites like I used to. I've switched to FireFox, but there are a few features from IE that are misssed.
In all fairness, I shouldn't say "certain sites". I actually would disable JavaScript for restricted zones and then add the sites to that zone to accomplish the same thing.
Well, don't forgot the cost of your computer. And the cost of the electricity you use while playing the game. And, do you drink more Mountain Dew while playing? Add that in too.
Seriously, your comment has to be one of the stupidest I've seen in a long while. Not everything is about Windows and Microsoft.
And BTW: you can play the game on Mac OS X also, so you don't have to have WinXP.
Is that really the attitude you have? That people who don't want to spent a whole bunch of time getting something to work, when they can simply pay a few extra dollars to save some time?
I hate to break it to you, but for some of us, our time is more valuable than money.
I'm not talking about my perspective, I'm talking about the perspective of the person who is doing the passing/signing. Why do you think the oath is even a requirement in the constition? Everyone who takes the oath should be looking out for the Constition, not just thinking "Well, I think this is unconstitional, but I'll ignore my oath and hope that it gets by the SC."
As for the other examples: yes. I think if a Congressman admits to believing a law they are voting for is unconsitional, there should be some sort of recorse for removing them from office.
I think where the confusion is lying here is that I'm talking about people who admit to voting for something unconstitional. This has actually happened before. Why would an elected official who has taken a sworn oath of office to protect the Constition, ignore it and then talk about it with others?
Obviously, I'm against removing Congressman and President who sign or vote for something that is later ruled unconstitional. We all have our differences of opinion when it comes to what the Constitions says. However, I'm talking about the case where someone is knowingly going against their own interpretation. It just seems like they are completely ignoring the oath that they took, don't you think?
And as for Supreme Court justices, your parallel doesn't make any sense in the context of what I'm saying.
It is true that the judiciary has the final say on the constitionality of laws. Does this mean that the President, who swears to protect and uphold the Constition, needs to give no thought to it? Does it mean they should knowingly sign something that they believe to be unconstitional?
A President resorting to an 8th grade level civics lesson as a defense wouldn't cut it for me.
That we should impeach Presidents when they admit to knowingly signing unconstitional bills? Isn't their first and foremost duty to uphold and defend the Constition of America?
Slashdot Mirror
I love your qualifier of "quite reasonably" when talking about how well Slashdot adheres to HTML 3.2. Since we can't check at the W3C's Validator due to the fact that Slashdot doesn't want us to check, we'll have to use something else like Validome.
And what do you know, it fails even 3.2 validation.
Can we get the parent modded up? It's ridiculous for any employee of Slashdot to be criticizing anyone for their lack of support for web standards.
No.
Um, he wasn't talking about game developers. RTFR.
Clicky.
Heck, even the majority of Slashdotters might not care either.
I love it when someone makes a comment like that in their submission. As if the question that is on their mind is "of course" what everyone else is thinking.
No kidding. I'm surprised at the battery life of the PSP because I have a Sony portable CD player that has an AM/FM tuner PLUS it plays MP3's that I've burned to CD and I've honestly changed the batteries on it twice since I've purchased it over a year ago. It uses two AAA (I think, it might be AA) batteries. When I was reading the manual and they said to expect 60 or so hours of play time when playing MP3's off CD, I didn't believe it, but now I do. It's amazing.
I bought my wife Ticket To Ride for Christmas. She loves it. I love it. Not to sound cliche, but it's extremely easy to learn, but difficult to master. :-)
Yeah, cause "blackballed" == execution. Thanks for proving my point.
Wow, you're right. They are so smiliar. Heck, they are pretty much the same thing. Oh yeah, except they can't execute you. Oh, and they pay you for all the work you do for them. And you can leave the company whenever you want, while many communist nations will severly punish those trying to escape. Yeah, other than that, they are totally the same!!!1one.
Word.
You have no absolute right to have a copy of anyone else's copyrighted work. See my other response.
The Constitution gives the Congress the explicit right to govern copyright and intellectual property issues in Section 8, clause 8. So I was wondering where one thinks they get a right to a perfect digital copy of someone else's copyrighted work when the Congress has done no such thing. In fact, they've said quite the opposite.
Trust me, I entirely agree with your main point, but I don't think that we have rights over other people's property.
Then promptly ignore me. :-)
Simple, point a video camera at your television and record the sections you need for your right to fair use.
Oh, you wanted a complete, perfect digital copy of the broadcast? Um, where do you get that right?
Huh? I'm guessing you are refering to the comment made about Congress passing a law mandating the flag. Note that the court is not saying the government itself doesn't have the authority, just that FCC crossed the authority given to it by Congress and the President through previous laws. If the court eventually finds that the FCC did not have the power to mandate the flag, it doesn't mean Congress can't go back and change the law to give it the authority. It's not as if the courts have the ultimate say as to what the law should be, the people do through elected representatives. Of course, this power is somewhat limited by the Constitution, but even that can be changed by the people.
I completely agree. I miss being able to turn off JavaScript just for certain sites like I used to. I've switched to FireFox, but there are a few features from IE that are misssed.
In all fairness, I shouldn't say "certain sites". I actually would disable JavaScript for restricted zones and then add the sites to that zone to accomplish the same thing.
Well, don't forgot the cost of your computer. And the cost of the electricity you use while playing the game. And, do you drink more Mountain Dew while playing? Add that in too.
Seriously, your comment has to be one of the stupidest I've seen in a long while. Not everything is about Windows and Microsoft.
And BTW: you can play the game on Mac OS X also, so you don't have to have WinXP.
Is that really the attitude you have? That people who don't want to spent a whole bunch of time getting something to work, when they can simply pay a few extra dollars to save some time?
I hate to break it to you, but for some of us, our time is more valuable than money.
Your post is total bull. From the Longhorn Developer Center Home:
"Avalon" is built on top of DirectX, which enables it to unleash the full power of the graphics hardware present in modern computers, and is engineered to exploit advances in hardware moving forward.
That actually sounds very similiar to the little yellow camera stick on the GameCube controller. That thing that's never used :-)
I'm not talking about my perspective, I'm talking about the perspective of the person who is doing the passing/signing. Why do you think the oath is even a requirement in the constition? Everyone who takes the oath should be looking out for the Constition, not just thinking "Well, I think this is unconstitional, but I'll ignore my oath and hope that it gets by the SC."
Who said anything about arresting anyone?
As for the other examples: yes. I think if a Congressman admits to believing a law they are voting for is unconsitional, there should be some sort of recorse for removing them from office.
I think where the confusion is lying here is that I'm talking about people who admit to voting for something unconstitional. This has actually happened before. Why would an elected official who has taken a sworn oath of office to protect the Constition, ignore it and then talk about it with others?
Obviously, I'm against removing Congressman and President who sign or vote for something that is later ruled unconstitional. We all have our differences of opinion when it comes to what the Constitions says. However, I'm talking about the case where someone is knowingly going against their own interpretation. It just seems like they are completely ignoring the oath that they took, don't you think?
And as for Supreme Court justices, your parallel doesn't make any sense in the context of what I'm saying.
It is true that the judiciary has the final say on the constitionality of laws. Does this mean that the President, who swears to protect and uphold the Constition, needs to give no thought to it? Does it mean they should knowingly sign something that they believe to be unconstitional?
A President resorting to an 8th grade level civics lesson as a defense wouldn't cut it for me.
That we should impeach Presidents when they admit to knowingly signing unconstitional bills? Isn't their first and foremost duty to uphold and defend the Constition of America?