Not quite. Australia did indeed have to tighten their own laws regarding copyright infringement and distribution when signing up for the FTA with the US - as per the agreement. However, the DMCA and other US laws don't apply to Australia, or any other country besides the USA.
TFA says that the chapel is in Scotland. Geography lesson: Scotland != USA. The DMCA does not apply to the free world i.e. non-US countries such as Scotland.
...then maybe she was doing a great job anyways? I am not justifying lying, but if she were to lose her job, it should've happened years ago. If she hadn't resigned, would she have been fired after all this time?
You should be able to on-sell the song (or more accurately, the license). Just like software, you sell the media, keys, etc, and remove it from your systems. What's the difference between this, and a person buying a song on someone else's behalf because that someone doesn't own a credit card?
Exactly. The internet is a crapload of computers and computer devices all networked together. Internet != WWW. Internet != Usenet. Internet != USA. Sorry, couldn't resist that last one.:-)
I am reminded of the episode where they busted the myth from old cartoons where blocking the barrel of a gun with a finger supposedly causes the gun to backfire injuring the gun owner and splitting the barrel. However the barrel of the gun used was not as flimsy as guns of yesteryear. Especially of those relics depicted in the old cartoons.
So why aren't people upset that most of the so-called "HD" displays out there are only 1366x768?
A 720p display is an HD display. It's not a 1080p display but it's still an HD display.
If you bought a screen with 1366x768 resolution, you got a screen with a 1:1 correspondence between the pixels that you paid for and the advertised resolution i.e. you got exactly what you paid for, that is a screen with 1366x768 resolution. I mean, the resolution of 1366x768 is clearly advertised.
Now just because your 1366x768 screen doesn't have a 1:1 correspondence between the pixels on an HD-DVD (which is a different story completely - because I assume that you think that a screen that suports any HD resolution has to support all HD resolutions), what does it matter? These screens are not being advertised as so. True 1080p screens are available and cost considerably more.
Anyone spending large amount of cash to buy an LCD should really do their homework first. I recently bought an 1080i screen, because I couldn't justify spending the extra cash on a 1080p at that time. The resolutions on all screens were clearly labeled.
Now you'd have a point if you argued that a 720p/1080i screen should have less pixels to allow a 1:1 correspondence between the pixels on 1280x720. This is something that is not explained in many cases.
So why aren't people upset that most of the so-called "HD" displays out there are only 1366x768? THAT'S HALF THE PIXELS MISSING!
...because 720p is still considered to be a HDTV resolution. Are you aware that a number of Australian networks broadcast a 576p signal as their High-definition DVB-T signal?
And if your faith does not match the faith of the government in this case, you are a criminal. Criminalizing christianity is not a Conservative thing to do; and so far that's the only convincing argument that would appeal to a CRAP MP that I've come up with. Please help me do better, because I will write a letter to my also CRAP MP.
I know what you mean. All I can say is that you might wish to email/write to as many MPs as you can. My country the government has a website listing the MPs and their contact details. Maybe yours does also? Contact even those who are against the bill, because they need to be assured that they are supported in their stance. All the best. Oh yeah, and thanks for replying BTW. You seemed to have thought about this alot. From personal experience questions/objections regarding a book are best answered by asking the author of the book directly. The Bible is no exception.:-)
As already pointed out, men were also subject to capital punishment under Old Testament Jewish law. To say that The Bible promotes violence against women (implying only women) is false.
If you're going to follow Moseic law, you'd better follow all of it.
Mind telling that to all of the anti-gay protesters? I love how Christians conveniently forget this idea when it's advantageous for their a priori beliefs, but it's the first argument out of their mouths when the absurdity of the Old Testament is brought to the forefront.
To educate AC, perhaps you'd be surprised to know that this is mentioned specifically in the New Testament also. Nowhere in the NT is death-by-stoning or destruction by any other means commanded for homosexuals (this will be an excerise left to God, not the reader, on judgement day). However, it is extremely clear throughout the Bible that the practise of homosexuality is something that God hates i.e. hates the sin, not the sinner. But if you are not interested in pleasing God, then you wouldn't be reading the Bible (in most cases perhaps), let alone caring what it says about Him or His plans for your life.
But whether or not what says in the bible are the current rules is not being analized here. The point is that the part cited does promote violence against women.
Not really a valid point. If you take this verse in context of the entire Book of Leviticus (which is mostly a book of Jewish laws), you'll see not just punishments for women, but specifically for men too. Women are not being singled out in the law, except in a few very specific circumstances. The punishment of stoning was also given specifically to men in numerous other circumstances too. Equal-opportunity, so to speak.:-)
Most of our modern sensibilities came from the Enlightenment, which was a rebellion against the church.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the things in the OT were actually lenient for their time. Should we then continue to hold the Bible up as a paragon of moral guidance? Of course not! Times have changed. We can't go around saying we get our morals from a book that says you should shave the head of a woman who goes to church without a head covering. (1 Cor 11:5-6)
Ummm.... so the old testament law (specifically the 10 commandments) which most modern laws are based on has been discarded entirely? I guess "Thou shall not murder", "Thou shal not steal", etc, has been done away with and is completely irrelevant nowdays? Well, if you look at what's been going on in Iraq, I guess you'd actually have a point there.
But then there's "Thou shall not commit adultary", "...lie", "...covert", etc, which I'd say are actually excellent rules to live by. If you really "love your neighbour", you won't want to do these things against them. Many of society's problems could be solved by following these rules. Just look at the amount of teenage pregnancies, abortions, abuse, single-parent families, violent crime, thefts, etc, and their effect on society, the family, the taxpayer, the children.
Hey, if you are going to quote, please do it in context. If you actually bothered to read a couple of verses down you'd see the following final remark:
"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." -1 Corinthians 11:16
but I'm pretty sure there's explicit violence against women within it's sacred pages
Just because The Bible has historical records of the crap stuff that some evil people did, doesn't mean that the Word of God endorses said behaviour. If I am mistaken, please enlighten me and show me exactly where explicit violence targeting women (i.e. beating, raping, torture, etc) is promoted in The Bible. The New Testament is actually more relevant for today's living, so even better if you can show such a quote from the NT.
Why doesn't your billing page work on other browsers? What IE-only technology exists on your page? Can browers pretend to be IE and access the page ok?
....was just released yesterday. Plays nicely on my Philips DVD/Divx player.
So far, no problems backing it up with DVD Shrink or Smart Ripper 2.41. Maybe the New Zealand release doesn't have said DRM?
Man, these are kinda defective anyways. I am in the market for a nice DVD/HDD recorder with HDMI, but will not consider a Sony. One of my family members has a 2 month old Sony HDMI recorder, and man it is slow! Slow to turn on, start/finish recording, load/eject a disk, switch between DVD and HDD, etc. Slow at everything! The menus are so slow that wrong items are often selected due to the lag. Egad! The only cool thing is that is controls the DV camera nicely with its one touch DV record (rewinds DV tape, records movie, rewinds tape again).
I am unsure what is a good alternative brand with decent HDMI upscaling that won't kill my budget.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. Australia did indeed have to tighten their own laws regarding copyright infringement and distribution when signing up for the FTA with the US - as per the agreement. However, the DMCA and other US laws don't apply to Australia, or any other country besides the USA.
...then maybe she was doing a great job anyways? I am not justifying lying, but if she were to lose her job, it should've happened years ago. If she hadn't resigned, would she have been fired after all this time?
You should be able to on-sell the song (or more accurately, the license). Just like software, you sell the media, keys, etc, and remove it from your systems. What's the difference between this, and a person buying a song on someone else's behalf because that someone doesn't own a credit card?
Exactly. The internet is a crapload of computers and computer devices all networked together. Internet != WWW. Internet != Usenet. Internet != USA. Sorry, couldn't resist that last one. :-)
Thanks for that guys. :-)
I am reminded of the episode where they busted the myth from old cartoons where blocking the barrel of a gun with a finger supposedly causes the gun to backfire injuring the gun owner and splitting the barrel. However the barrel of the gun used was not as flimsy as guns of yesteryear. Especially of those relics depicted in the old cartoons.
A very well articulated and informed post. I wish that I had mod points.
If you bought a screen with 1366x768 resolution, you got a screen with a 1:1 correspondence between the pixels that you paid for and the advertised resolution i.e. you got exactly what you paid for, that is a screen with 1366x768 resolution. I mean, the resolution of 1366x768 is clearly advertised.
Now just because your 1366x768 screen doesn't have a 1:1 correspondence between the pixels on an HD-DVD (which is a different story completely - because I assume that you think that a screen that suports any HD resolution has to support all HD resolutions), what does it matter? These screens are not being advertised as so. True 1080p screens are available and cost considerably more.
Anyone spending large amount of cash to buy an LCD should really do their homework first. I recently bought an 1080i screen, because I couldn't justify spending the extra cash on a 1080p at that time. The resolutions on all screens were clearly labeled.
Now you'd have a point if you argued that a 720p/1080i screen should have less pixels to allow a 1:1 correspondence between the pixels on 1280x720. This is something that is not explained in many cases.
Understoond. Well in that case, any historical records will be banned i.e. wikipedia pages, CNN news, etc.
The context of the sub-topic was the promotion of violence against women was is not?
As already pointed out, men were also subject to capital punishment under Old Testament Jewish law. To say that The Bible promotes violence against women (implying only women) is false.
But then there's "Thou shall not commit adultary", "...lie", "...covert", etc, which I'd say are actually excellent rules to live by. If you really "love your neighbour", you won't want to do these things against them. Many of society's problems could be solved by following these rules. Just look at the amount of teenage pregnancies, abortions, abuse, single-parent families, violent crime, thefts, etc, and their effect on society, the family, the taxpayer, the children.
...too much, oh much too much!
Why doesn't your billing page work on other browsers? What IE-only technology exists on your page? Can browers pretend to be IE and access the page ok?
....was just released yesterday. Plays nicely on my Philips DVD/Divx player. So far, no problems backing it up with DVD Shrink or Smart Ripper 2.41. Maybe the New Zealand release doesn't have said DRM?
Man, these are kinda defective anyways. I am in the market for a nice DVD/HDD recorder with HDMI, but will not consider a Sony. One of my family members has a 2 month old Sony HDMI recorder, and man it is slow! Slow to turn on, start/finish recording, load/eject a disk, switch between DVD and HDD, etc. Slow at everything! The menus are so slow that wrong items are often selected due to the lag. Egad! The only cool thing is that is controls the DV camera nicely with its one touch DV record (rewinds DV tape, records movie, rewinds tape again). I am unsure what is a good alternative brand with decent HDMI upscaling that won't kill my budget.