People seem to miss the one of the main advantages of a professional reviewer. To me the real value of a good professional reviewer is they have a consistent measure, the ability to see many more movies than I do, and practice at disseminating their opinions. By following the same reviewers I am able to learn their style, their likes and dislikes, and their ability to provide a synopsis of the film. I never see a movie because it is a critics pick, I frequently see a movie because of a critics description which I then can use in my gauge of whether or not I would like that movie.
Not true, the corporations that run the casinos in NV and NJ would love the exact opposite; to allow for gambling websites to be operated legally in the US.
I'm not sure you are saying what you think. According to your statement "everything not specifically prohibited is permitted..." your next assumption "...the voting public, specifically trusts and allows the government to do something.....they are forbidden from doing it" is completely wrong. If I am to believe your first statement to be factual then unless we specifically prohibit them from doing it they can do whatever they please with the information. These are two conflicting statements.
Slashdot Mirror
People seem to miss the one of the main advantages of a professional reviewer. To me the real value of a good professional reviewer is they have a consistent measure, the ability to see many more movies than I do, and practice at disseminating their opinions. By following the same reviewers I am able to learn their style, their likes and dislikes, and their ability to provide a synopsis of the film. I never see a movie because it is a critics pick, I frequently see a movie because of a critics description which I then can use in my gauge of whether or not I would like that movie.
Because I prefer to use my computer for multiple other tasks rather than waste resources with movies or television running on it.
Not true, the corporations that run the casinos in NV and NJ would love the exact opposite; to allow for gambling websites to be operated legally in the US.
Wait a minute I didn't spend all that time grinding my level up to General to play drill sergeant to her private.....
I'm not sure you are saying what you think. According to your statement "everything not specifically prohibited is permitted..." your next assumption "...the voting public, specifically trusts and allows the government to do something.....they are forbidden from doing it" is completely wrong. If I am to believe your first statement to be factual then unless we specifically prohibit them from doing it they can do whatever they please with the information. These are two conflicting statements.