Of course he bought the game and has full rights to it, don't be an idiot. The ONLY thing he can't do is make copies and give them away.
The problem is that companies like Sony want it both ways: they want you to think you have a license (which you don't, look up what "first sale" means) AND have to pay full price if you need a replacement.
Mike has taken a Condi quote and given it the polar opposite meaning from what she actually said.
You do realize this is exactly the kind of meaningless nitpicking the parent poster was talking about? And besides, he did not give it the "polar opposite" meaning. That she says "It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11" doesn't prove that Moore misquoted her, but that she was contradicting herself.
Now, Moore fans, consider this. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of video of Condi Rice talking about Iraq. If Condi had ever actually said that there was a tie between Iraq and 9/11 then Moore would have used it. Um, he did, see above. And besides, Condi wasn't the only one making these claims that there was a "tie" between Saddam and 9/11; Rumsfeld has, and Cheney is still doing it.
It'd be nice if political theory were actually taught in public schools, as opposed to the watered-down liberal crap you obviously learned.
"Liberal crap?" Is that, as another poster said, merely a catch-all phrase for any kind of government you don't like? The problem with that is that it is almost always conservatives who never met a police power they did not like, and the conservatives on the Supreme Court who rubber stamp police proceedures no matter who invasive they are.
And why would they, when one of the largest political organizations does it on their own? The NRA has vastly more money than the ACLU does...wtf would you waste money duplicating efforts rather than taking up cases that no one else will?
No, the republicans did NOT do the same thing under Clinton. All of the Clinton nominations were brought before a Senate vote, and some were blocked because they didn't have enough votes to be confirmed. This is how it supposed to work.
Bullshit, you ignorant cretin. When Clinton was president and Orrin Hatch was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dozens of nominees were held up by blue slip vetoes, by which a nomination wouldn't make it out of committee unless both of the candidates home state senators approved him. In fact, a Clinton appointee has the record of waiting the longest for a hearing, 4 years, because the Republican senator from her state did not return his slip.
Of course, now that a Republican is in the White House, Republicans don't want that policy anymore. They whine and carry on about constitutionality and obstructionist politics, nevermind that they blocked 10 times as many Clinton appointees using the same means.
his is absolute horseshit. If users (and IT personnel) at these governments and places of business were responsible enough to do their jobs and ensure that computers were adequately patched, this problem never would have occured.
Your horseshit. Why should software be the only consumer or business product where the customer is totally at fault for the products flaws? To cut to the chase, if you are running a server, yes you are resonsible for staying on top of things. But there is no excuse for a modern desktop operating system not to be secure out of the box. After enough RedHat boxes got hacked into because wuftpd ("proudly providing remote root since 1994") was installed by default, linux distro makers learned not to leave services running all over the place. That Microsoft hasn't learned this lesson, stopped sharing drives by default, and have a firewall turned on out of the box is inexcusable. This outbreak is Microsoft's fault, not consumers.
I see alot of Slashdotters blaming Microsoft for this problem -- saying that running Linux or xBSD would solve this problem. Bullshit, fanboys. I am a Linux/Free software advocate and that argument is absolute bullshit.
No, its not bullshit. There are four reasons why Microsoft has so many problems with worms and viruses:
sloppy coding
poor privledge seperation
too many services and ports open by default
thoughtless integration and auto-execution (i.e. legion of Outlook exploits)
Now, while Linux, BSD and OS X may also suffer from sloppy coding, none of the other issues apply to them. So it wouldn't matter if Apple or Linux had 100% marketshare, they wouldn't have but a tiny percentage of the problems that Microsoft does with Windows.
See if you can trade it for a new one, or get a retro-active discount on the one you bought. You might be shot down on the first try, but a few calls wont hurt anything if you get 100+ bucks back.
Actually, under the electoral college system your single vote is more likely to sway the election in the event of a close vote than it would be in a direct majority count, and is therefore, theoretically, _more_ important.
Only "in theory" and only if you're in a state that divies votes proportionally, rather than via winnter-take-all. I live in a Red State so my vote for Kerry wont count. And "supposedly" votes in small states count more than votes in large states - but then how do you explain that each presidential candidate will stop in California at least 20 times, but in small states you're lucky to get a vice presidential candidate for a single visit.
was intended specifically to guard against the excesses of democracy which we are now experiencing.
What the heck does inaccurate voting have to do with "excessive democracy"? If you want a real example of that, just look at Venezuela, where they only need a 20% vote to have a presidential recall election.
UltraSparc... 64-bit desktop computing, new? Oh and that's an alpha, which until compaq bought Digital was beating the crap out of their precious Macs, and the low end were cheaper compared to high-end Macs
Your're forgetting SGI and old AS/400's.:) But none of these were ever sold as personal compuers.
Someday it would be nice to have a strong third party in this country, just so people can discover that it doesn't do one iota to reduce the amount of corruption in politics (see the investigations of Sharon in Israel) or how you have to spend all your time making a "coalition" government that can fall apart at the drop of a hat (again, see Israel).
If the Democratic party does implode it will be their own fault for ignoring middle America and chasing after the looney left.
Huh huh. Democrates generally pander to women, minorities, and lower middle-to-poor working class people. Gee, thats like 90% of the population. Compare that to Republicans, who pander to the richest 1% of Americans.
A gentleman's duty aside (and I quite agree with you, there), it is ALSO the duty of an upstanding moral citizen to NOT LIE when he was UNDER OATH.
Its also the bedrock of our legal system THAT YOU ONLY INVESTIGATE WITH PROBABLE CAUSE. You also aren't supposed to GO ON FISHING EXPEDITIONS when you have no evidence that someone is guilty of anything BUT YOU REALLY REALLY WANT TO CONVICT HIM of something.
Since neither "innocent until proven guilty" nor "probable cause" applied to Clinton, I don't see any reason why he should have to tell the truth for a question about a non-criminal matter dealing with his private life. Hmm, maybe thats why the judge ruled that the entire matter was irrelevant, and thus could not constitute perjury.
That isn't the stand of our legal system, either in theory or practice. The irony is that President Clinton ran afoul of sexual harassment law and precedent which strips away privacy.
Huh, too bad that the judge ruled that whatever happened with Lewinsky was irrelevant to the case at hand, and thus could not constitute impeachment. As for privacy, doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" apply? Oh wait, we're talking about Bill Clinton, where he was assumed to be guilty, so they went on fishing expeditions until they "found" something.
The special counsel acted within the law, found violations of the law, and prosecuted people. There are people that would not accept any judgment against President Clinton no matter what the evidence. As a practical matter President Clinton has a cult of personality.
If he were really so dirty, and they had found so many violations, then how come the worst thing they could come up with was asking him enough (irrelevant) questions about his personal life until he lied, then trying to impeach him for pergury?
The people who went to jail are there because they broke the law, such as for fraud, or other crimes. "Friendship with a Clinton" was not, and is not, a crime under US law. Nobody is in jail for that. Follow the link and you can see that for yourself.
No its not a crime. However, some of those were in jail for contempt of court, and as other people have pointed out, if you are president of the United States, you have A LOT of associates. I'll take the list of Clinton associates that belong in jail against those of either Bush or Reagan any day.
Unfortunately their behavior pales beside the level of vitriol and hate directed at the current president by a far larger number of people.
Uh, right. $500 billion deficit, throwing people in jail with no lawyer and no trial, hundereds of American soldiers lost in a bogus war...none of that vitrol is justified? As opposed to Republicans who hate Clinton just because he got a blow job and didn't immediatly tell everyone? I think we need a better sense of proportion here.
But he tarnished his own legacy by a lack of discipline, poor judgment, and an administration that at times showed lamentable judgment in policy making and behavior.
All of the above is the product of a witch hunt. Well thats what witch hunts are meant to do, destroy the targeted person. Take anyone you care to name, and spend a hundred million dollars or so trashing their reputation and making endless investigations, and see if they don't show "a lack of discipline" and "poor judgement".
Oh, blow it out your ass. Lets put you under oath and start asking extremely personal questions of you that deal with your personal life but aren't remotely criminal. Then, after you tell a lie to one of those irrelevant questions, we'll prosecute you for purgery.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course he bought the game and has full rights to it, don't be an idiot. The ONLY thing he can't do is make copies and give them away.
The problem is that companies like Sony want it both ways: they want you to think you have a license (which you don't, look up what "first sale" means) AND have to pay full price if you need a replacement.
1. There is no elevated trains in downtown/midtown Manhattan
This is a movie, not the real world.
2. Shots are frequently switching between a background of midtown, brooklyn, queens, and the village.
This is a movie, not the real world.
3. There is no D'Agostinos on St. Marks 4. etc, etc, etc
This is a movie, not the real world. Repeat till it sinks in. They could have the WTC towers still standing, if they wanted to.
Physics does not allow Spidey to do what he did in that scene.
Whatever. He was thrown up and forward, so no physics problems there.
pointing out the fact that it was actually Richard Clarke (the _terrorism_ guy) and the flight ban had been lifted
Guess who Clarke worked for at the time?
*All* OEM's and major manufacturers ship with the same damn layout. Just because its not to your liking does NOT mean that it's "broken".
Of course, once you take out the
1) hair splitting
2) pointless nitpicking
3) ad-hominems
they don't have jack squat to say.
Mike has taken a Condi quote and given it the polar opposite meaning from what she actually said.
You do realize this is exactly the kind of meaningless nitpicking the parent poster was talking about? And besides, he did not give it the "polar opposite" meaning. That she says "It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11" doesn't prove that Moore misquoted her, but that she was contradicting herself.
Now, Moore fans, consider this. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of video of Condi Rice talking about Iraq. If Condi had ever actually said that there was a tie between Iraq and 9/11 then Moore would have used it.
Um, he did, see above. And besides, Condi wasn't the only one making these claims that there was a "tie" between Saddam and 9/11; Rumsfeld has, and Cheney is still doing it.
Heh. I'm not Mike.
Whoop de frikkin do. Its "one of those sites run by right-wing clowns with plenty of vitriol and hate" ABOUT Moore. Dumbass.
They call me... Tater Salad. ...and this is my son, Tater Tot, who's covered with moles...
It'd be nice if political theory were actually taught in public schools, as opposed to the watered-down liberal crap you obviously learned.
"Liberal crap?" Is that, as another poster said, merely a catch-all phrase for any kind of government you don't like? The problem with that is that it is almost always conservatives who never met a police power they did not like, and the conservatives on the Supreme Court who rubber stamp police proceedures no matter who invasive they are.
Dumbass.
And why would they, when one of the largest political organizations does it on their own? The NRA has vastly more money than the ACLU does...wtf would you waste money duplicating efforts rather than taking up cases that no one else will?
If you'd use your fucking brains at the ballot box, maybe you'd have a little bit less to bitch about.
Yeah, since voting for Nader or the Libertarian candidate will do SO MUCH to change things for the next 4 year.
idiot.
No, the republicans did NOT do the same thing under Clinton. All of the Clinton nominations were brought before a Senate vote, and some were blocked because they didn't have enough votes to be confirmed. This is how it supposed to work.
Bullshit, you ignorant cretin. When Clinton was president and Orrin Hatch was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dozens of nominees were held up by blue slip vetoes, by which a nomination wouldn't make it out of committee unless both of the candidates home state senators approved him. In fact, a Clinton appointee has the record of waiting the longest for a hearing, 4 years, because the Republican senator from her state did not return his slip.
Of course, now that a Republican is in the White House, Republicans don't want that policy anymore. They whine and carry on about constitutionality and obstructionist politics, nevermind that they blocked 10 times as many Clinton appointees using the same means.
GOP=POH: Party of Hypocrites.
his is absolute horseshit. If users (and IT personnel) at these governments and places of business were responsible enough to do their jobs and ensure that computers were adequately patched, this problem never would have occured.
Your horseshit. Why should software be the only consumer or business product where the customer is totally at fault for the products flaws? To cut to the chase, if you are running a server, yes you are resonsible for staying on top of things. But there is no excuse for a modern desktop operating system not to be secure out of the box. After enough RedHat boxes got hacked into because wuftpd ("proudly providing remote root since 1994") was installed by default, linux distro makers learned not to leave services running all over the place. That Microsoft hasn't learned this lesson, stopped sharing drives by default, and have a firewall turned on out of the box is inexcusable. This outbreak is Microsoft's fault, not consumers.
I see alot of Slashdotters blaming Microsoft for this problem -- saying that running Linux or xBSD would solve this problem. Bullshit, fanboys. I am a Linux/Free software advocate and that argument is absolute bullshit.
No, its not bullshit. There are four reasons why Microsoft has so many problems with worms and viruses:
- sloppy coding
- poor privledge seperation
- too many services and ports open by default
- thoughtless integration and auto-execution (i.e. legion of Outlook exploits)
Now, while Linux, BSD and OS X may also suffer from sloppy coding, none of the other issues apply to them. So it wouldn't matter if Apple or Linux had 100% marketshare, they wouldn't have but a tiny percentage of the problems that Microsoft does with Windows.See if you can trade it for a new one, or get a retro-active discount on the one you bought. You might be shot down on the first try, but a few calls wont hurt anything if you get 100+ bucks back.
Actually, under the electoral college system your single vote is more likely to sway the election in the event of a close vote than it would be in a direct majority count, and is therefore, theoretically, _more_ important.
Only "in theory" and only if you're in a state that divies votes proportionally, rather than via winnter-take-all. I live in a Red State so my vote for Kerry wont count. And "supposedly" votes in small states count more than votes in large states - but then how do you explain that each presidential candidate will stop in California at least 20 times, but in small states you're lucky to get a vice presidential candidate for a single visit.
was intended specifically to guard against the excesses of democracy which we are now experiencing.
What the heck does inaccurate voting have to do with "excessive democracy"? If you want a real example of that, just look at Venezuela, where they only need a 20% vote to have a presidential recall election.
UltraSparc... 64-bit desktop computing, new? Oh and that's an alpha, which until compaq bought Digital was beating the crap out of their precious Macs, and the low end were cheaper compared to high-end Macs
:) But none of these were ever sold as personal compuers.
Your're forgetting SGI and old AS/400's.
For personal reasons, I never liked stealing the music via Napster/Kazaa/Whatever either.
That would be copyright infringment, not stealing.
thank you
Someday it would be nice to have a strong third party in this country, just so people can discover that it doesn't do one iota to reduce the amount of corruption in politics (see the investigations of Sharon in Israel) or how you have to spend all your time making a "coalition" government that can fall apart at the drop of a hat (again, see Israel).
If the Democratic party does implode it will be their own fault for ignoring middle America and chasing after the looney left.
Huh huh. Democrates generally pander to women, minorities, and lower middle-to-poor working class people. Gee, thats like 90% of the population. Compare that to Republicans, who pander to the richest 1% of Americans.
Who's out of touch again?
A gentleman's duty aside (and I quite agree with you, there), it is ALSO the duty of an upstanding moral citizen to NOT LIE when he was UNDER OATH.
Its also the bedrock of our legal system THAT YOU ONLY INVESTIGATE WITH PROBABLE CAUSE. You also aren't supposed to GO ON FISHING EXPEDITIONS when you have no evidence that someone is guilty of anything BUT YOU REALLY REALLY WANT TO CONVICT HIM of something.
Since neither "innocent until proven guilty" nor "probable cause" applied to Clinton, I don't see any reason why he should have to tell the truth for a question about a non-criminal matter dealing with his private life. Hmm, maybe thats why the judge ruled that the entire matter was irrelevant, and thus could not constitute perjury.
That isn't the stand of our legal system, either in theory or practice. The irony is that President Clinton ran afoul of sexual harassment law and precedent which strips away privacy.
Huh, too bad that the judge ruled that whatever happened with Lewinsky was irrelevant to the case at hand, and thus could not constitute impeachment. As for privacy, doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" apply? Oh wait, we're talking about Bill Clinton, where he was assumed to be guilty, so they went on fishing expeditions until they "found" something.
The special counsel acted within the law, found violations of the law, and prosecuted people. There are people that would not accept any judgment against President Clinton no matter what the evidence. As a practical matter President Clinton has a cult of personality.
If he were really so dirty, and they had found so many violations, then how come the worst thing they could come up with was asking him enough (irrelevant) questions about his personal life until he lied, then trying to impeach him for pergury?
The people who went to jail are there because they broke the law, such as for fraud, or other crimes. "Friendship with a Clinton" was not, and is not, a crime under US law. Nobody is in jail for that. Follow the link and you can see that for yourself.
No its not a crime. However, some of those were in jail for contempt of court, and as other people have pointed out, if you are president of the United States, you have A LOT of associates. I'll take the list of Clinton associates that belong in jail against those of either Bush or Reagan any day.
Unfortunately their behavior pales beside the level of vitriol and hate directed at the current president by a far larger number of people.
Uh, right. $500 billion deficit, throwing people in jail with no lawyer and no trial, hundereds of American soldiers lost in a bogus war...none of that vitrol is justified? As opposed to Republicans who hate Clinton just because he got a blow job and didn't immediatly tell everyone? I think we need a better sense of proportion here.
But he tarnished his own legacy by a lack of discipline, poor judgment, and an administration that at times showed lamentable judgment in policy making and behavior.
All of the above is the product of a witch hunt. Well thats what witch hunts are meant to do, destroy the targeted person. Take anyone you care to name, and spend a hundred million dollars or so trashing their reputation and making endless investigations, and see if they don't show "a lack of discipline" and "poor judgement".
Need we forget that he still LIED?
Oh, blow it out your ass. Lets put you under oath and start asking extremely personal questions of you that deal with your personal life but aren't remotely criminal. Then, after you tell a lie to one of those irrelevant questions, we'll prosecute you for purgery.