"If there are aspects [of our business model] that are not allowed, it would encourage us to require a change in the legal framework."
Wow. Can you imagine what the head of Microsoft Autralia is thinking right now? His boss just said Microsoft would "REQUIRE" Australia to change it's laws. How do you think the Australian Government and citizens feel about Microsoft telling it what it requires.
Yeah, I see the stock price, and I'm glad that I'm not an owner. If I had owned some Time/Warner I would be irate. I'm not an AOL customer either.
But they added another MILLION subscribers in the last 9 months. And they project $850 MILLION dollars in positive cash flow in 2003. They have a broadband problem, and it will probably cut into their margins. But they can solve that problem and may retain and continue to add to their customer base. That is a long ways from "You've got bankruptcy!"
Can you appeal a summary judgement? That would seem foolish, since the point of summary judgement is to keep from wasting the court's effort on hopeless cases.
Lance Bass might be able to bestow "cool" upon NASA as far as young teenagers are concerned, but Congressmen and their constituents are a slightly harder to impress.
You misread my post. Those ARE legal already. And the RIAA didn't have an answer for congress when they were asked what they needed the new law for. At least they didn't have an answer that would be acceptable.
I'd like to present a challange to you all: Please name any TV shows that became GOOD movies. I can't think of any.
Here are the TV-to-MOVIE examples that I can think of: The Avengers X-files The Saint Scooby-Doo The Brady Bunch Lost In Space (although I did like seeing Heather Graham in latex, it still sucked)
That doesn't give me much hope. I guess X-files wasn't horrible, but it wasn't better than a good episode, and it wasn't worth $7.
This bill is written in such a very diabolically clever way. It sounds so reasonable and safe, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Berman points to all the safeguards and asks how a reasonable person could possibly be against such a harmless little self-help measure. But there are so many exceptions and limits that those safeguards have no teeth. The most telling thing to me is that the RIAA wouldn't say what they would do if this law was passed that they cannot already do legally. The two examples of actions they would take, (1. seeding P2P with fake files and 2. finding shared files and intiating multiple slow-throughput connections to the host so it accepts no other users) are already legal.
"I don't particularly see why this would be beneficial,unless...the chipset/firmware for USB On-the-go is cheaper to produce/license than Firewire is."
The article says it isn't even cheaper than Firewire, so I'm not seeing any advantages."
My point is that since MGS was groundbreaking for it's cinematic and immersive storytelling, and since it wasn't the first "sneaker", saying "it's like MGS, but without all the story crap" is silly.
Like Madden football, but without John Madden commentary. Like Tomb Raider, but without boobs. Like Gran Turismo, but without the car modifications.
"essentially it's the Tom Clancy take on the stealth genre. It plays a little like Metal Gear Solid, but aims to be more realistic and less arcade-like. There is also less of an emphasis on interruptive story, and the gameplay is extremely compelling."
So its not really anything like MGS is it? They are just invoking MGS's name because it sold boat loads and they're hoping to borrow some hype.
If you already use "hard" contact lenses(aka Rigid Gas Permeable) then ignore this post. I bring this up because "contacts" for many people means "soft contacts." In fact, recently when I was cleaning my hard contacts here at work someone said "I didn't know they still made those." If you have only used the allegedly comfortable soft contacts, you should know more about the other contacts. Disclaimer: IANAO (I Am Not An Optometrist)
Soft Contacts are a very fine mesh that holds your tears into a properly shaped lens. So if you don't blink enough, or have dry eyes, they don't work very well. So they are very poor for watching a movie or staring at a computer screen. They are great for sports or other active pursuits, because you blink more during those, and the larger soft contacts stay put on the front of your eye better than hard contacts. Soft contacts are also safer if you happen to take a poke in the eye. So they are great for basketball, bad for coding.
Hard contacts form a much smoother front lens, so they pretty much always give better vision than either glasses or soft contacts. I get better than 20/15 from my hard contacts while just managing 20/20 from glasses or soft contacts. Hard contacts are not so dependant on moisture so they are just fine for staring at a computer screen, which is what I do for 8-14 hours a day. Hard contacts also tend to hold your eye in shape and prevent your vision from getting worse. Hard contacts are also the cheapest choice, because they last much longer than soft contacts. The drawback of hard lenses is that your eyelid can catch the edge of the lens, especially if your eyes are dry or if you are doing something active, and flip the contact out of your eye or de-center it. And by de-center I mean push it off your iris and onto the white of your eye, which is rather uncomfortable. Which brings up the main reason few people wear hard contact lenses: comfort. They take some getting used to. Some people give up after a day or two because their eyes hurt. But if you don't give up, your eye de-sensitizes. At first, if your contact de-centers, it makes you want to claw your eyes out, but after a time, one feels no pain, and can just push the contact back into place with their finger, without the aid of a mirror.
Its true that I can't see past the end of the bed when I wake up in the morning, and I have to clean my contacts every night, but I don't think that it is cumbersome. I might get eye surgery/replacement in 15 or 20 years when they can guarantee me 20/15 vision without loss of night vision, but for now I'll stick with hard lenses most of the time, and soft lenses for sports. I think it is that loss of night vision part that scares me the most.
It is LIKE the mantis, in that the female eats the male after mating (for 3-5 days.) But I wouldn't say its RELATED. From the article that you linked to:"The Mantophasmatodea's relation to other insects is uncertain. Klass and his colleagues suspect that they are closest to the stick insects and a small group called the Grylloblattodea, found on mountaintops in North America and Asia. Grylloblattodea was the last new order discovered, in 1914." Its a whole new order of bug, so it isn't very related to anything really. Kind of like cats and dogs, right?
This article on CNN gives good voice to the "anti" side of things. In fact, the "anti" quotes were much better. I would never have expected that, when you consider who owns CNN. Hillary Rosen sounded quite false. "I can't foresee any scenario where it would be in our interest to go into anybody's computer and delete a file," but you want a law written so that you could get away with that? Does she think Americans will believe any corporations now that say "Trust us"?
I think that the sentence is only missing a conjunction:
"On the company's web site, ZipZap tools allow users to play with three different gear ratios and to adjust the "horsepower" and top speed through a "performance" booster kit"
The booster kits include other engines, which do have different horsepowers. I don't imagine that the lower HP 10,000 RPM engine is very popular though.
If I buy one, I'm going straight to the model shop to buy some paints for a flame job. Slapping a pre-made Fast and Furious body onto the same chassis that everyone uses isn't my idea of "custom." I should probably practice on some Hot Wheels first though, they are much cheaper.
"So they pick linking to a web site the time to obey fed law."
I respect your viewpoint, but I don't think it is fair to attribute this action to "CA." This action was taken by University Centers Director Gary Ratcliff. He may have consulted the opinion of lawers or other University administrators, or not. But ultimately, one guy wrote this letter.
This applies directly to agument made by several other posters here that the computers belong to the university and therefore the university gets to make the rules. The computers don't belong to Gary Ratcliff. Applying any rules or laws inequitabley is a violation of human rights, and a violation of equal protection.
I don't knot FARC from Adam, and IANAL, but "These were sites that were trying to generate sympathy" is not the same as "currency or other financial securities, financial
services, lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or
identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons,
lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other
physical assets, except medicine or religious materials."
I don't understand his objection to the RBL. It has checks and balances. It is democratic. Use of the RBL is volentary. It doesn't involve expensive court actions or investigations paid for by taxpayers. It takes no direct action. But if you don't play nice, then others may choose not to play with you. If you don't self-police, others stop listening. Its quite a stretch to say that "restricts the freedom of email" and that it has not "done anything except make e-mailing more difficult." The RBL sure hasn't made my emailing more difficult or restricted my freedom.
I think good laws would add to the effectiveness of the RBL, don't get me wrong. But to hear the spammers tell it, the RBL has made their cost of business much higher, so I wouldn't say it is a detriment.
90% of these posts should be marked redundant, and that is being generous. If your post falls into one of these categories, spare us and move on to the next topic.
I hate to defend the studios, but the difference is that Hollywood has paid the authors or their estates for the rights to make a derivative works. The directors don't want anyone, commercial or private, to edit their works without paying for the privilege. I hate that idea, but they might have a pretty good case for it.
So are you saying Star Trek is NOT idealistic? What then would you say is idealistic? I'm curious because you must be the first person I have heard say that Star Trek is realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
"If there are aspects [of our business model] that are not allowed, it would encourage us to require a change in the legal framework."
Wow. Can you imagine what the head of Microsoft Autralia is thinking right now? His boss just said Microsoft would "REQUIRE" Australia to change it's laws. How do you think the Australian Government and citizens feel about Microsoft telling it what it requires.
Yeah, I see the stock price, and I'm glad that I'm not an owner. If I had owned some Time/Warner I would be irate. I'm not an AOL customer either.
But they added another MILLION subscribers in the last 9 months. And they project $850 MILLION dollars in positive cash flow in 2003. They have a broadband problem, and it will probably cut into their margins. But they can solve that problem and may retain and continue to add to their customer base. That is a long ways from "You've got bankruptcy!"
Can you appeal a summary judgement? That would seem foolish, since the point of summary judgement is to keep from wasting the court's effort on hopeless cases.
Lance Bass might be able to bestow "cool" upon NASA as far as young teenagers are concerned, but Congressmen and their constituents are a slightly harder to impress.
Ahhh, those are some good ones. Thank you for making me feel a lot better about the idea of a Simpson's feature.
You misread my post. Those ARE legal already. And the RIAA didn't have an answer for congress when they were asked what they needed the new law for. At least they didn't have an answer that would be acceptable.
I'd like to present a challange to you all: Please name any TV shows that became GOOD movies. I can't think of any.
Here are the TV-to-MOVIE examples that I can think of:
The Avengers
X-files
The Saint
Scooby-Doo
The Brady Bunch
Lost In Space (although I did like seeing Heather Graham in latex, it still sucked)
That doesn't give me much hope. I guess X-files wasn't horrible, but it wasn't better than a good episode, and it wasn't worth $7.
Wait, i got one, the first Wayne's World.
This bill is written in such a very diabolically clever way. It sounds so reasonable and safe, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Berman points to all the safeguards and asks how a reasonable person could possibly be against such a harmless little self-help measure. But there are so many exceptions and limits that those safeguards have no teeth. The most telling thing to me is that the RIAA wouldn't say what they would do if this law was passed that they cannot already do legally. The two examples of actions they would take, (1. seeding P2P with fake files and 2. finding shared files and intiating multiple slow-throughput connections to the host so it accepts no other users) are already legal.
"I don't particularly see why this would be beneficial,unless...the chipset/firmware for USB On-the-go is cheaper to produce/license than Firewire is."
The article says it isn't even cheaper than Firewire, so I'm not seeing any advantages."
My point is that since MGS was groundbreaking for it's cinematic and immersive storytelling, and since it wasn't the first "sneaker", saying "it's like MGS, but without all the story crap" is silly.
Like Madden football, but without John Madden commentary.
Like Tomb Raider, but without boobs.
Like Gran Turismo, but without the car modifications.
"essentially it's the Tom Clancy take on the stealth genre. It plays a little like Metal Gear Solid, but aims to be more realistic and less arcade-like. There is also less of an emphasis on interruptive story, and the gameplay is extremely compelling."
So its not really anything like MGS is it? They are just invoking MGS's name because it sold boat loads and they're hoping to borrow some hype.
In the context of that post, the mixed-metaphor of "nitpicking a dead horse" is really funny. I'll assume that was intentional.
If you already use "hard" contact lenses(aka Rigid Gas Permeable) then ignore this post. I bring this up because "contacts" for many people means "soft contacts." In fact, recently when I was cleaning my hard contacts here at work someone said "I didn't know they still made those." If you have only used the allegedly comfortable soft contacts, you should know more about the other contacts. Disclaimer: IANAO (I Am Not An Optometrist)
Soft Contacts are a very fine mesh that holds your tears into a properly shaped lens. So if you don't blink enough, or have dry eyes, they don't work very well. So they are very poor for watching a movie or staring at a computer screen. They are great for sports or other active pursuits, because you blink more during those, and the larger soft contacts stay put on the front of your eye better than hard contacts. Soft contacts are also safer if you happen to take a poke in the eye. So they are great for basketball, bad for coding.
Hard contacts form a much smoother front lens, so they pretty much always give better vision than either glasses or soft contacts. I get better than 20/15 from my hard contacts while just managing 20/20 from glasses or soft contacts. Hard contacts are not so dependant on moisture so they are just fine for staring at a computer screen, which is what I do for 8-14 hours a day. Hard contacts also tend to hold your eye in shape and prevent your vision from getting worse. Hard contacts are also the cheapest choice, because they last much longer than soft contacts. The drawback of hard lenses is that your eyelid can catch the edge of the lens, especially if your eyes are dry or if you are doing something active, and flip the contact out of your eye or de-center it. And by de-center I mean push it off your iris and onto the white of your eye, which is rather uncomfortable. Which brings up the main reason few people wear hard contact lenses: comfort. They take some getting used to. Some people give up after a day or two because their eyes hurt. But if you don't give up, your eye de-sensitizes. At first, if your contact de-centers, it makes you want to claw your eyes out, but after a time, one feels no pain, and can just push the contact back into place with their finger, without the aid of a mirror.
Its true that I can't see past the end of the bed when I wake up in the morning, and I have to clean my contacts every night, but I don't think that it is cumbersome. I might get eye surgery/replacement in 15 or 20 years when they can guarantee me 20/15 vision without loss of night vision, but for now I'll stick with hard lenses most of the time, and soft lenses for sports. I think it is that loss of night vision part that scares me the most.
It is LIKE the mantis, in that the female eats the male after mating (for 3-5 days.) But I wouldn't say its RELATED. From the article that you linked to:"The Mantophasmatodea's relation to other insects is uncertain. Klass and his colleagues suspect that they are closest to the stick insects and a small group called the Grylloblattodea, found on mountaintops in North America and Asia. Grylloblattodea was the last new order discovered, in 1914."
Its a whole new order of bug, so it isn't very related to anything really. Kind of like cats and dogs, right?
And the most disgusting part is that not a dime of that fee on media goes to the artists. But the RIAA says they are all about protecting the artists.
This article on CNN gives good voice to the "anti" side of things. In fact, the "anti" quotes were much better. I would never have expected that, when you consider who owns CNN. Hillary Rosen sounded quite false. "I can't foresee any scenario where it would be in our interest to go into anybody's computer and delete a file," but you want a law written so that you could get away with that? Does she think Americans will believe any corporations now that say "Trust us"?
I think that the sentence is only missing a conjunction:
"On the company's web site, ZipZap tools allow users to play with three different gear ratios and to adjust the "horsepower" and top speed through a "performance" booster kit"
The booster kits include other engines, which do have different horsepowers. I don't imagine that the lower HP 10,000 RPM engine is very popular though.
If I buy one, I'm going straight to the model shop to buy some paints for a flame job. Slapping a pre-made Fast and Furious body onto the same chassis that everyone uses isn't my idea of "custom." I should probably practice on some Hot Wheels first though, they are much cheaper.
"So they pick linking to a web site the time to obey fed law."
I respect your viewpoint, but I don't think it is fair to attribute this action to "CA." This action was taken by University Centers Director Gary Ratcliff. He may have consulted the opinion of lawers or other University administrators, or not. But ultimately, one guy wrote this letter.
This applies directly to agument made by several other posters here that the computers belong to the university and therefore the university gets to make the rules. The computers don't belong to Gary Ratcliff. Applying any rules or laws inequitabley is a violation of human rights, and a violation of equal protection.
I don't knot FARC from Adam, and IANAL, but "These were sites that were trying to generate sympathy" is not the same as "currency or other financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials."
I don't understand his objection to the RBL. It has checks and balances. It is democratic. Use of the RBL is volentary. It doesn't involve expensive court actions or investigations paid for by taxpayers. It takes no direct action. But if you don't play nice, then others may choose not to play with you. If you don't self-police, others stop listening. Its quite a stretch to say that "restricts the freedom of email" and that it has not "done anything except make e-mailing more difficult." The RBL sure hasn't made my emailing more difficult or restricted my freedom.
I think good laws would add to the effectiveness of the RBL, don't get me wrong. But to hear the spammers tell it, the RBL has made their cost of business much higher, so I wouldn't say it is a detriment.
Poster F: Now you're redundant.
Poster E: No I'm not, you are, stupid-head.
Poster F: No you are, doodoo-face.
Poster G: You're both stupid. Bite me.
Now it is even more pointless.
Poster A: Consoles are better because...
Poster B: PC's are better because...
Poster C: I like both. It depends on...
Poster D: The author is an idiot because...
90% of these posts should be marked redundant, and that is being generous. If your post falls into one of these categories, spare us and move on to the next topic.
You only think you don't work for the Illuminati. ;-)
I hate to defend the studios, but the difference is that Hollywood has paid the authors or their estates for the rights to make a derivative works. The directors don't want anyone, commercial or private, to edit their works without paying for the privilege. I hate that idea, but they might have a pretty good case for it.
I'm so glad you are here to tell me what my opinions are. Thanks.
So are you saying Star Trek is NOT idealistic? What then would you say is idealistic? I'm curious because you must be the first person I have heard say that Star Trek is realistic.