No, I disagree. The constitution does not give us our rights. We, as humans, have natural rights endowed from wherever it is that we came from. The listing of specific rights in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution does not limit our natural rights to what is listed. Remember, the Bill of Rights was added because some states were not willing to sign on without explicit enumeration of some of those natural rights. Originally, Madison didn't believe the Bill of Rights necessary. Thus, the question really isn't "does the constitution grant us these rights?", but "is this a right that already existed, but has not yet been enumerated?"
Its kind of a given that the price will drop. I'm just saying that even if Sony was planning on doing it next week (which I don't think they are), it would be silly of him to say so now.
Why would they start trumpeting a price drop now? When one comes (whenever that may be), there won't be much if any of a warning. Even if they were going to do it next week, they won't tell anyone until it happens. The last thing Sony needs is ill will from the people who were still loyal enough to have already bought a PS3.
No, I think in 4 years we'll see announcements by Nintendo for Wii2 or whatever. I don't think that MS and Sony will have the ability to push out another update in 4 years. Nintendo has that breathing room for hardware upgrades.
Exactly, saying a new out of the box OEM runs Vista like ass is just as much FUD as what MS puts out. I'd also imagine that one could make a fresh install of Vista that ran at least as well as XP does, without all the extra crap that OEMs like to add. This is also why the first thing I did with my new dell was to wipe the HD and install XP from scratch.
yeah, but they want to track everybody man. EVERYBODY. They're not your big brother or MY big brother. They're OUR big brother, man.
Yeah, I can't pull off ultra-paranoid very well. What all these conspiracy theorists never consider, is that if they wanted to track you, they could do it now.
Well, as your link states, Harrison was boned. While copyright allows for independent creation, access + substantial similarity == infringement. Intention to copy has nothing to do with it.
"The question, therefore, is whether defendant took from plaintiff's works so much of what is pleasing to the ears of lay listeners, who comprise the audience for whom such popular music is composed, that defendant wrongfully appropriated something which belongs to the plaintiff." 905 F.2d 731 at 734
Thus, if the intended audience's "untutored judgment" (328 F.3d 848 at 856) would confuse the two, the works are substantially similar.
I thought the legislature was there to enact the will of the people, not to pass good law. One could argue that in reality they do neither. Hell, who's definition of "good sensible law" are we going with? For any decision, there's going to be someone that says the opposite is what should have been done.
Without having RTFA, I agree that the minority was probably right here, and that the majority is arguably the one legislating from the bench. I just don't like giving blanket authorization to the Judiciary to re-interpret and/or create law.
Again, without being intimately familiar with this situation, who's to say that the legislature's intent was not to prevent the creation of pornography involving minors, regardless of the creator's age?
Yes, but why should that be allowed? The purpose of the courts is to be finders of fact for the cases that go before them, not to take the place of the legislature.
If that's the case, why doesn't the statute say that? Why should the courts be allowed to make up and read things into statutes that weren't put there by the legislature?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I disagree. The constitution does not give us our rights. We, as humans, have natural rights endowed from wherever it is that we came from. The listing of specific rights in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution does not limit our natural rights to what is listed. Remember, the Bill of Rights was added because some states were not willing to sign on without explicit enumeration of some of those natural rights. Originally, Madison didn't believe the Bill of Rights necessary. Thus, the question really isn't "does the constitution grant us these rights?", but "is this a right that already existed, but has not yet been enumerated?"
That would be the joke, yes.
That the US doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity in the world. They just have most of it.
Yeah, I thought of that as I hit submit :)
PS2 was backwards compatible before the Wii or 360
True, they don't seem to be worried about everybody else either.
Because number 10 was sooo awesome. I will admit I haven't seen it, but with all the ill-will I've heard about it, I don't want to.
Its kind of a given that the price will drop. I'm just saying that even if Sony was planning on doing it next week (which I don't think they are), it would be silly of him to say so now.
Why would they start trumpeting a price drop now? When one comes (whenever that may be), there won't be much if any of a warning. Even if they were going to do it next week, they won't tell anyone until it happens. The last thing Sony needs is ill will from the people who were still loyal enough to have already bought a PS3.
FYI, you'd have to play those gamecube games with a Gamecube controller. There's no option to use any of the Wii's controllers on the gamecube
No, I think in 4 years we'll see announcements by Nintendo for Wii2 or whatever. I don't think that MS and Sony will have the ability to push out another update in 4 years. Nintendo has that breathing room for hardware upgrades.
Exactly, saying a new out of the box OEM runs Vista like ass is just as much FUD as what MS puts out. I'd also imagine that one could make a fresh install of Vista that ran at least as well as XP does, without all the extra crap that OEMs like to add. This is also why the first thing I did with my new dell was to wipe the HD and install XP from scratch.
I'd imagine that a new OEM would have a bunch of extra crap put on it.
yeah, but they want to track everybody man. EVERYBODY. They're not your big brother or MY big brother. They're OUR big brother, man.
Yeah, I can't pull off ultra-paranoid very well. What all these conspiracy theorists never consider, is that if they wanted to track you, they could do it now.
Well, as your link states, Harrison was boned. While copyright allows for independent creation, access + substantial similarity == infringement. Intention to copy has nothing to do with it.
"The question, therefore, is whether defendant took from plaintiff's works so much of what is pleasing to the ears of lay listeners, who comprise the audience for whom such popular music is composed, that defendant wrongfully appropriated something which belongs to the plaintiff." 905 F.2d 731 at 734
Thus, if the intended audience's "untutored judgment" (328 F.3d 848 at 856) would confuse the two, the works are substantially similar.
What if they find the facts wrong? The judiciary gave itself the power of review.
I thought the legislature was there to enact the will of the people, not to pass good law. One could argue that in reality they do neither. Hell, who's definition of "good sensible law" are we going with? For any decision, there's going to be someone that says the opposite is what should have been done.
Without having RTFA, I agree that the minority was probably right here, and that the majority is arguably the one legislating from the bench. I just don't like giving blanket authorization to the Judiciary to re-interpret and/or create law.
Again, without being intimately familiar with this situation, who's to say that the legislature's intent was not to prevent the creation of pornography involving minors, regardless of the creator's age?
Yes, but why should that be allowed? The purpose of the courts is to be finders of fact for the cases that go before them, not to take the place of the legislature.
When did abstract possibilities becomes illegal?
September 11, 2001
If that's the case, why doesn't the statute say that? Why should the courts be allowed to make up and read things into statutes that weren't put there by the legislature?
Why bother when most won't RTFA?
well yeah. If they say that group X is what the product is attempting to attract, and you've been attracted, what does that say about you?
I'd imagine that because the largest group of fans of the game are not young girls, they object to being called young girls.
Heh, when I played goldeneye, I didn't look at my own screen unless I needed to aim. I do the same thing on split screen Halo matches.