Not true. Companies buy lobbyists and legislators. It is to the benefit of the prison industry to lobby for more criminal laws and longer sentences for all crimes. Don't think for a second they won't use a portion of their profits to pay lobbyists (and legislators) to get such laws passed. Doing so creates more demand for their product and they therefore make more money.
The problem is that it is clearly against public policy for private entities to own and operate prisons. This is one of the very, very few functions that should be left up entirely to the government.
That being said, I'm not surprised that it's Disney who made the official proposal. I give it 10 years before DRM violation arrests are second behind drug possession arrests. Buy prison stock now.
Ok, well note that they're not educating these kids on patent laws, tax laws, murder laws (manslaughter vs first degree murder, for example), etc. Only copyright infringement. How innarestin....
I agree, but you'd have to get rid of all religion (and thus all religious people) in order to have such a world. Religion and the grandeur of the universe are incompatible.
No, actually the "vaccine" destroys (permanently--for the rest of your life) the mu receptors in your brain. It's not a lifetime-lasting opiate antagonist. It's a mu agonist with saporin or some other receptor-destroying chemical bound to it. It attaches to the mu receptors in your brain, like any other opiate agonist, and destroys them. Endorphins will no longer work, and you will never feel pleasure again for the rest of your life. A true crime against humanity. One day, the drug warriors will hopefully be put on trail for such crimes and executed accordingly. Justice will be done. In the meantime, they are planning on destroying the lives of innocent children to "protect the children" from euphoria. And if europe is doing it, you can be assured that America will enthusiastically join the bandwagon.
Ever watch one of those take home defensive driving videos? They ask you questions like "what color shirt was blahblah wearing?" to encourage you to actually watch it. Prior art up the wazoo.
initially, yes. that's what they said about drug criminalization too. i firmly believe that one day not too far away people will be arrested at airports for transporting MP3's across state lines. Illegal music, etc. only in america.
I give it two to three years, max. it's inevitable. nothing anyone, including slashdot and the eff, can do about it. get ready for a new class of TV criminals.
"what are you in prison for?"
"I recorded a TV show illegally."
Poor China, they have not yet learned the power of saying all oppressive government action is being done to "protect children." I realize they don't like to follow in the stead of America, but they are looking really bad by not doing so here. For example:
From the article:
The official Xinhua News Agency said the campaign was aimed at cleaning up "pornographic, obscene and fraudulent" phone messages that have "infiltrated short messaging content."
Sounds evil and Orwellian right? Now read this:
The official Xinhua News Agency said the campaign was aimed at protecting children from "pornographic, obscene and fraudulent" phone messages that have "infiltrated short messaging content."
Wow that sounds nice! What type of person, other than an evil child-molesting pedophile, could possibly be against that? Nobody, not in the US and not in China. I hope Beijing reads this message and takes my advice, as I would hate to see any oppressive government look worse than it has to. Yes, indeed. A totalitarian regime can get away with damn near anything by saying its merely protecting the children from it.
If not, why bother? The only vehicles in Vegas I'm interested in getting in are ones leaving that hellhole as soon as freakin' possible. Yes, I hate that city.
That being said, I was just there (for the 4th time in 5 years... yeah I know) a month ago and the new monorail looked like it would sure beat walking down the strip in the 110 degree heat.
It was the one other movie (and a long title at that... which i'm too lazy to type out) he mentioned in the post I was directly replying to. Come on, give me a break.
There are plenty of attractive females in Hollywood, in Califnornia, in America, and on this planet. To be a first-rate actress requires more than sex appeal; it requires acting talent (which has nothing to do with sex appeal... e.g. Cathy Bates is a fantastic actress). I realize we've arrived at a point in our culture where "hot" is equated with smart, talented, kind, forgiving, passionate, loving, and worthwhile... but physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. Yes, Ms. Dunst is attractive and I'd certainly have intercourse with her given the chance... but that alone doesn't mean she should be cast in A-list, high-budget movies. There are plenty of other extremely attractive (many moreso than her) actresses with much more talent in this world. So no, sex appeal does not make up for lack of talent. Yes she's pleasing to look at... and if she can't act she would be better off being a model and having still pictures taken of her.
That being said, I agree that she gave a very good performance in ESotSM, and I don't think she was horrible in the first Spider Man... I've never considered her a horrible actress (like, say, Samantha Mathis). I will see SM2 tomorrow and frankly I'll be surprised if she gives such a horrible performance that it makes me wish someone else had been cast.
Even if Bradbury thought that, he'd be wrong, so it wouldn't matter. Titles of copyrighted works are no more protected than titles of public domain works. That's because titles can't be copyrighted.
And when it does that, it must be "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8)
Massive consumer acceptance (reflected in large sales numbers) has never stopped them from complaining about piracy before. No matter how great their sales are, according to their logic sales would have been even greater had all piracy been prevented. Thus piracy is theft, thus they have lost money.
Ok, how will seeing pretend torture hurt your children? Do you (hopefully) let your children watch the news, where they can see pictures of real torture (by Americans no less)? Or do you shelter your children from reality under the guise of protecting them from things you don't like to see?
You "can't let" your children watch live sports on TV anymore because they might see a titty? What is it, exactly, that the vision of the titty might do to your children?
I'm so sick of hearing censorship justified on the basis of "protecting the children." So come on, please inform me... how is it that a naked tit (or a vagina or a penis or the f-word, etc.) is going to cause real harm to a child who sees/hears it?
Or do you just not want your kids to possibly ask you a question that you are too embarrassed to answer? At the end of the day I think that's what it always comes down to. Dumb parents, not kids actually getting hurt.
I agree 100%. Innovation my ass. Next will be combining a LED-waving-messaging phone with a camera and an mp3 player. Oooooh.... wowwww.... I gotta have thaaaaaaaat. How fucking clever.
Please. I mean, this is like saying the Reebok Pump was "analog technology capable of generating an infinite number of support positions."
GIMMICK. Nothing more. But get a famous basketball player to endorse it, charge $200 for it, and it'll fly off the shelves.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. Companies buy lobbyists and legislators. It is to the benefit of the prison industry to lobby for more criminal laws and longer sentences for all crimes. Don't think for a second they won't use a portion of their profits to pay lobbyists (and legislators) to get such laws passed. Doing so creates more demand for their product and they therefore make more money.
The problem is that it is clearly against public policy for private entities to own and operate prisons. This is one of the very, very few functions that should be left up entirely to the government.
yes, thank you, I did not intend for my post to be "funny" at all. And 10 years is plenty.
That being said, I'm not surprised that it's Disney who made the official proposal. I give it 10 years before DRM violation arrests are second behind drug possession arrests. Buy prison stock now.
Ok, well note that they're not educating these kids on patent laws, tax laws, murder laws (manslaughter vs first degree murder, for example), etc. Only copyright infringement. How innarestin....
I agree, but you'd have to get rid of all religion (and thus all religious people) in order to have such a world. Religion and the grandeur of the universe are incompatible.
The intent to commit a crime is different from the reason one intends to commit a crime.
No, actually the "vaccine" destroys (permanently--for the rest of your life) the mu receptors in your brain. It's not a lifetime-lasting opiate antagonist. It's a mu agonist with saporin or some other receptor-destroying chemical bound to it. It attaches to the mu receptors in your brain, like any other opiate agonist, and destroys them. Endorphins will no longer work, and you will never feel pleasure again for the rest of your life. A true crime against humanity. One day, the drug warriors will hopefully be put on trail for such crimes and executed accordingly. Justice will be done. In the meantime, they are planning on destroying the lives of innocent children to "protect the children" from euphoria. And if europe is doing it, you can be assured that America will enthusiastically join the bandwagon.
Ever watch one of those take home defensive driving videos? They ask you questions like "what color shirt was blahblah wearing?" to encourage you to actually watch it. Prior art up the wazoo.
Yes it does, and I recall that someone tried to sue the RIAA under RICO a while back, but I never heard the outcome.
initially, yes. that's what they said about drug criminalization too. i firmly believe that one day not too far away people will be arrested at airports for transporting MP3's across state lines. Illegal music, etc. only in america.
I give it two to three years, max. it's inevitable. nothing anyone, including slashdot and the eff, can do about it. get ready for a new class of TV criminals.
"what are you in prison for?"
"I recorded a TV show illegally."
just a matter of time.
Poor China, they have not yet learned the power of saying all oppressive government action is being done to "protect children." I realize they don't like to follow in the stead of America, but they are looking really bad by not doing so here. For example:
From the article:
The official Xinhua News Agency said the campaign was aimed at cleaning up "pornographic, obscene and fraudulent" phone messages that have "infiltrated short messaging content."
Sounds evil and Orwellian right? Now read this:
The official Xinhua News Agency said the campaign was aimed at protecting children from "pornographic, obscene and fraudulent" phone messages that have "infiltrated short messaging content."
Wow that sounds nice! What type of person, other than an evil child-molesting pedophile, could possibly be against that? Nobody, not in the US and not in China. I hope Beijing reads this message and takes my advice, as I would hate to see any oppressive government look worse than it has to. Yes, indeed. A totalitarian regime can get away with damn near anything by saying its merely protecting the children from it.
If not, why bother? The only vehicles in Vegas I'm interested in getting in are ones leaving that hellhole as soon as freakin' possible. Yes, I hate that city.
That being said, I was just there (for the 4th time in 5 years... yeah I know) a month ago and the new monorail looked like it would sure beat walking down the strip in the 110 degree heat.
It was the one other movie (and a long title at that... which i'm too lazy to type out) he mentioned in the post I was directly replying to. Come on, give me a break.
I heard he uses his web to tie her up and spider-rape her.
There are plenty of attractive females in Hollywood, in Califnornia, in America, and on this planet. To be a first-rate actress requires more than sex appeal; it requires acting talent (which has nothing to do with sex appeal... e.g. Cathy Bates is a fantastic actress). I realize we've arrived at a point in our culture where "hot" is equated with smart, talented, kind, forgiving, passionate, loving, and worthwhile... but physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. Yes, Ms. Dunst is attractive and I'd certainly have intercourse with her given the chance... but that alone doesn't mean she should be cast in A-list, high-budget movies. There are plenty of other extremely attractive (many moreso than her) actresses with much more talent in this world. So no, sex appeal does not make up for lack of talent. Yes she's pleasing to look at... and if she can't act she would be better off being a model and having still pictures taken of her.
That being said, I agree that she gave a very good performance in ESotSM, and I don't think she was horrible in the first Spider Man... I've never considered her a horrible actress (like, say, Samantha Mathis). I will see SM2 tomorrow and frankly I'll be surprised if she gives such a horrible performance that it makes me wish someone else had been cast.
Even if Bradbury thought that, he'd be wrong, so it wouldn't matter. Titles of copyrighted works are no more protected than titles of public domain works. That's because titles can't be copyrighted.
And when it does that, it must be "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8)
Surely you know that every time you "induce" someone into copying a CD or movie, God kills an innocent child. Sorta like masturbating and kittens.
Massive consumer acceptance (reflected in large sales numbers) has never stopped them from complaining about piracy before. No matter how great their sales are, according to their logic sales would have been even greater had all piracy been prevented. Thus piracy is theft, thus they have lost money.
Ok, how will seeing pretend torture hurt your children? Do you (hopefully) let your children watch the news, where they can see pictures of real torture (by Americans no less)? Or do you shelter your children from reality under the guise of protecting them from things you don't like to see?
You "can't let" your children watch live sports on TV anymore because they might see a titty? What is it, exactly, that the vision of the titty might do to your children?
I'm so sick of hearing censorship justified on the basis of "protecting the children." So come on, please inform me... how is it that a naked tit (or a vagina or a penis or the f-word, etc.) is going to cause real harm to a child who sees/hears it?
Or do you just not want your kids to possibly ask you a question that you are too embarrassed to answer? At the end of the day I think that's what it always comes down to. Dumb parents, not kids actually getting hurt.
I agree 100%. Innovation my ass. Next will be combining a LED-waving-messaging phone with a camera and an mp3 player. Oooooh.... wowwww.... I gotta have thaaaaaaaat. How fucking clever.
Doing so, even if they are your own, is of course a DMCA violation.
Please. I mean, this is like saying the Reebok Pump was "analog technology capable of generating an infinite number of support positions." GIMMICK. Nothing more. But get a famous basketball player to endorse it, charge $200 for it, and it'll fly off the shelves.