Because TV isn't what it was when those rules were made. I have a better A/V setup at home than most theater-goers will experience down at the local mall 16-plex, and it didn't even cost that much.
It is patently unfair to hold Netflix and Amazon to standards set for the Hallmark Channel or Lifetime or whatever.
It's like arguing over $57 dollars for a fencing in the back yard to keep the kids safe when you make $44,000 / year and refusing to pay any of the utility bills, buy gas for the car or give the kids milk money for school until the demand for the fence is dropped.
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
Let me see if I've got this straight. Being a retard, it sometimes takes me a little longer than most of my peers to achieve a working understanding of such matters. You voted to elect the Joker to the office of President of the United States, but I'm the "retard."
satire makes fun of something else.Think Weird Al's "Eat it" or "I'm fat", which make fun of obesity, but do not make fun of Michael Jackson or those songs, except stylistically. He could have made fun of obesity with countless other songs, so the copyright on those songs do not limit his expressive rights. That's why satire does not fall under fair use.
Good point in theory but it seems like it might be a tough case to make. Let's say Jackson were to sue Weird Al over either Eat It or I'm Fat, using your reasoning here. How exactly do Jackson's attorneys show that Yankovic is making fun of obesity and not the songs themselves? All Yankovic's people have to say is "Nuh-uh, we're commenting on the intellectual vacuity of Beat It and Bad by associating even more vacuous lyrics with the same music."
As soon as they say something like that in court, it's not just a legal matter anymore, but a slippery subjective argument about critical theory. Once Yankovic's people start rambling on about Derrida and Barthes, the judge will (presumably) throw up his hands in surrender and ask Jackson's people to show damages. Which of course they won't be able to do, because regardless of whether Yankovic's work is satire or parody, it's not the least bit rivalrous.
A more clearcut situation might be the Downfall outtakes where new subtitles are used to poke fun at various completely unrelated topics and public figures. You can make fun of Xbox Live without putting words in Hitler's mouth, but assuming you wanted to make fun of Michael Jackson's lyrical skills, how do you do that effectively without incorporating the key elements of the music you're commenting on?
If so-called "liberal" politicians would stop trying to pull flagrantly-unconstitutional stunts like tying Second Amendment rights to the goddamned TSA No Fly List, of all things, then the NRA could return to its roots as a promoter of firearms education and safety.
But since the "liberals" evidently won't stop, the political activists on the other side can't stop either. You can't reasonably expect gun owners to stand by and allow ridiculous bullshit to occur like what we've just seen Congress attempt.
About a half-dozen people worldwide received the same news at their doctor, thanks to exposure to emissions from diesel vehicles and coal-fired power plants.
Ric Romero will not have more on this breaking story tonight at 11, though, because those cancer cases are boring. No scary glow-in-the-dark stuff, no chanting protesters, no sit-ins at administration buildings, no outraged editorials.
(Shrug) Economics describes reality, whether you like it or not. The principle in question is called the "Law of Supply and Demand." He who has the supply makes the demands... or something like that. It's been a while since I took that course myself.
In any event, trying to handwave reality away and replace it with what you mistakenly consider human values is not likely to get you out of whatever basement you're posting from.
I don't think "so what?" quite covers the possibility of treason by State Department employees.
Well, "so what?" seems to covers the reality of treason in the Oval Office, so I don't see why the State Department should be held to tighter standards.
Republican politicians are basically the intellectual counterparts of the dead-end Japanese soldiers from WWII, isolated in the jungle for 40 years and cut off from civilization. Eventually, someone will manage to convince them that the war's over, that the radio isn't broadcasting elaborate propaganda to fool them, and that they can stop taking potshots at tourists anytime now.
Your statement would mean something if guns weren't overwhelmingly used to kill people for reasons other than self-defense.
Correct. Even the most casual reading of twentieth-century history shows that the majority of gun violence has been perpetrated by military and police forces, most often against their own fellow citizens.
That fact by itself is sufficient to support an argument against granting any government a monopoly on the use of violence. None of the other arguments mentioned in the thread are really necessary.
The only thing "motivating" those three companies is the hope that they can get government money.
I don't know about that. They say that if you want to make a million dollars in the airline industry, you start with a billion. Space flight has got to be even harder when it comes to predictable, scalable profits.
If Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos just wanted to make another billion dollars, they'd have to be crazy to get involved in space flight. There are too many easier ways to do it. Clearly, they're after something besides just money.
The result was a wiped ipod, as apple does not want me to own my data.
For values of "apple" equal to "RIAA," yes.
Lession leaned.
If you responded to this event by boycotting Apple while giving even more money to RIAA member labels, then you're pretty much a dumbass, with zero awareness of the politics behind what happened to your missing music files.
The thing is, when you're arguing with creationists, you don't start rambling about specific obscure DNA markers that somebody found last week. It invites nitpicking of the sort seen in this thread, and your argument suffers the death of a thousand cuts. ("Yes, but couldn't God have put that endogenous intronic retrovirus there to test our faith? You can't prove he didn't!")
Earlier I said, paraphrasing, "Non-ionizing radiation doesn't turn into ionizing radiation." Was that correct? No, it was not, because you can use an optical frequency multiplier to demonstrate such an effect on the bench, or a microscope that uses wack-ass femtosecond lasers and shit to stimulate fluorophores in living tissue. Is it even remotely useful to hedge your words with all of these corner cases when trying to persuade people with a typical American high school science education that their iPhones aren't cooking their brains? I'd say that the answer to that question is also "No."
You'd want to ask an actual physicist for one for the specifics of how multiphoton fluorescence works; I only play one on TV. From what I gather in the Wikipedia article, it requires some pretty exotic conditions, as the probability of a quantum UV transition being stimulated by two coincident IR photons is extremely low even when you're trying to make it happen on purpose.
Optical frequency multiplication by itself is not that new or exotic, so if you're fishing for a yes/no answer, the answer is "Yes, under certain conditions you can observe non-ionizing photons stimulating the emission of ionizing ones." You can also manufacture gold with a particle accelerator -- does that vindicate alchemy?
Slashdot Mirror
They vote.
"It will probably be big and popular in another 20 years"
No, Oracle has pretty much fixed THAT problem, I'd say.
Because TV isn't what it was when those rules were made. I have a better A/V setup at home than most theater-goers will experience down at the local mall 16-plex, and it didn't even cost that much.
It is patently unfair to hold Netflix and Amazon to standards set for the Hallmark Channel or Lifetime or whatever.
In Kentucky? I suspect SUD (Slow Unplanned Disassembly) by meth addicts is how most of these scooters are meeting their ends.
That, and target practice.
Then there was that whole Great Flood thing, but never mind that. Mysterious ways, etc., etc.
It's like arguing over $57 dollars for a fencing in the back yard to keep the kids safe when you make $44,000 / year and refusing to pay any of the utility bills, buy gas for the car or give the kids milk money for school until the demand for the fence is dropped.
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
Let me see if I've got this straight. Being a retard, it sometimes takes me a little longer than most of my peers to achieve a working understanding of such matters. You voted to elect the Joker to the office of President of the United States, but I'm the "retard."
Is that basically the size of it?
satire makes fun of something else.Think Weird Al's "Eat it" or "I'm fat", which make fun of obesity, but do not make fun of Michael Jackson or those songs, except stylistically. He could have made fun of obesity with countless other songs, so the copyright on those songs do not limit his expressive rights. That's why satire does not fall under fair use.
Good point in theory but it seems like it might be a tough case to make. Let's say Jackson were to sue Weird Al over either Eat It or I'm Fat, using your reasoning here. How exactly do Jackson's attorneys show that Yankovic is making fun of obesity and not the songs themselves? All Yankovic's people have to say is "Nuh-uh, we're commenting on the intellectual vacuity of Beat It and Bad by associating even more vacuous lyrics with the same music."
As soon as they say something like that in court, it's not just a legal matter anymore, but a slippery subjective argument about critical theory. Once Yankovic's people start rambling on about Derrida and Barthes, the judge will (presumably) throw up his hands in surrender and ask Jackson's people to show damages. Which of course they won't be able to do, because regardless of whether Yankovic's work is satire or parody, it's not the least bit rivalrous.
A more clearcut situation might be the Downfall outtakes where new subtitles are used to poke fun at various completely unrelated topics and public figures. You can make fun of Xbox Live without putting words in Hitler's mouth, but assuming you wanted to make fun of Michael Jackson's lyrical skills, how do you do that effectively without incorporating the key elements of the music you're commenting on?
substandard candidates... voting for Jill Stein
Candidates don't get much more "substandard" than a medical doctor who thinks vaccines cause autism and that nuclear power plants are WMDs.
What this country needs is a vaccine against nuclear-grade stupidity.
Or a close equivalent thereof.
If so-called "liberal" politicians would stop trying to pull flagrantly-unconstitutional stunts like tying Second Amendment rights to the goddamned TSA No Fly List, of all things, then the NRA could return to its roots as a promoter of firearms education and safety.
But since the "liberals" evidently won't stop, the political activists on the other side can't stop either. You can't reasonably expect gun owners to stand by and allow ridiculous bullshit to occur like what we've just seen Congress attempt.
That's reality. Your politicians are market forces, just like everything else.
About a half-dozen people worldwide received the same news at their doctor, thanks to exposure to emissions from diesel vehicles and coal-fired power plants.
Ric Romero will not have more on this breaking story tonight at 11, though, because those cancer cases are boring. No scary glow-in-the-dark stuff, no chanting protesters, no sit-ins at administration buildings, no outraged editorials.
Life goes on, except when it doesn't.
(Shrug) Economics describes reality, whether you like it or not. The principle in question is called the "Law of Supply and Demand." He who has the supply makes the demands... or something like that. It's been a while since I took that course myself.
In any event, trying to handwave reality away and replace it with what you mistakenly consider human values is not likely to get you out of whatever basement you're posting from.
You seriously need to take an economics course. You're making yourself sound like an idiot in this thread, even though you probably aren't one.
My understanding comes from Solzhenitsyn, Shirer, Ma Bo, and other chroniclers of governmental atrocities.
A government that isn't scared shitless of its people is more dangerous than anything else known to man, except perhaps a wayward asteroid.
I don't think "so what?" quite covers the possibility of treason by State Department employees.
Well, "so what?" seems to covers the reality of treason in the Oval Office, so I don't see why the State Department should be held to tighter standards.
Just another day in the (R-etarded) party.
Republican politicians are basically the intellectual counterparts of the dead-end Japanese soldiers from WWII, isolated in the jungle for 40 years and cut off from civilization. Eventually, someone will manage to convince them that the war's over, that the radio isn't broadcasting elaborate propaganda to fool them, and that they can stop taking potshots at tourists anytime now.
Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
Correct, and most of the people doing the killing are from the government or the armed forces. Take their guns first, then you can have mine.
Your statement would mean something if guns weren't overwhelmingly used to kill people for reasons other than self-defense.
Correct. Even the most casual reading of twentieth-century history shows that the majority of gun violence has been perpetrated by military and police forces, most often against their own fellow citizens.
That fact by itself is sufficient to support an argument against granting any government a monopoly on the use of violence. None of the other arguments mentioned in the thread are really necessary.
The "slippery slope" is only a fallacy in a logical context.
Are governments logical entities in your neck of the woods? If so, I want to move there.
The only thing "motivating" those three companies is the hope that they can get government money.
I don't know about that. They say that if you want to make a million dollars in the airline industry, you start with a billion. Space flight has got to be even harder when it comes to predictable, scalable profits.
If Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos just wanted to make another billion dollars, they'd have to be crazy to get involved in space flight. There are too many easier ways to do it. Clearly, they're after something besides just money.
The result was a wiped ipod, as apple does not want me to own my data. For values of "apple" equal to "RIAA," yes. Lession leaned. If you responded to this event by boycotting Apple while giving even more money to RIAA member labels, then you're pretty much a dumbass, with zero awareness of the politics behind what happened to your missing music files.
The thing is, when you're arguing with creationists, you don't start rambling about specific obscure DNA markers that somebody found last week. It invites nitpicking of the sort seen in this thread, and your argument suffers the death of a thousand cuts. ("Yes, but couldn't God have put that endogenous intronic retrovirus there to test our faith? You can't prove he didn't!")
Earlier I said, paraphrasing, "Non-ionizing radiation doesn't turn into ionizing radiation." Was that correct? No, it was not, because you can use an optical frequency multiplier to demonstrate such an effect on the bench, or a microscope that uses wack-ass femtosecond lasers and shit to stimulate fluorophores in living tissue. Is it even remotely useful to hedge your words with all of these corner cases when trying to persuade people with a typical American high school science education that their iPhones aren't cooking their brains? I'd say that the answer to that question is also "No."
Life's too short, radiation or no radiation.
You'd want to ask an actual physicist for one for the specifics of how multiphoton fluorescence works; I only play one on TV. From what I gather in the Wikipedia article, it requires some pretty exotic conditions, as the probability of a quantum UV transition being stimulated by two coincident IR photons is extremely low even when you're trying to make it happen on purpose.
Optical frequency multiplication by itself is not that new or exotic, so if you're fishing for a yes/no answer, the answer is "Yes, under certain conditions you can observe non-ionizing photons stimulating the emission of ionizing ones." You can also manufacture gold with a particle accelerator -- does that vindicate alchemy?