The article states (at least the one concerning the MTP footage) that it's expensive to fight off a copyright lawsuit, and there are no real hard rules that you'll be alright if you follow for when you do not have permission to use copyrighted footage. So, even though they may be perfectly within their rights, it's just not worth the risk finacially. Still, the grand parent was complaining about how everything was being construed to mean that Bush and Kerry were the ones surpressing the respective media.
Yes, but you fail to explain how it's GWB who is using Copyright law to censor when NBC is denying the footage. I honestly don't think the submiter got past the first couple sentences of the article before he rushed off to do the write up.
Where wind sails have Bernoulli to work off of to go against the wind, solar sails have Newton. What the gp is saying is you start off in orbit around a star. If you want to get away from that star, you angle your sail +45 degrees, which reflects the light back along your orbit. Thanks to conservation of momentum you gain tangental velocity which propells you in a spiral outwards as you slowly break the sun's gravitational pull. If you want to go towards that star, you angle your sail -45 degrees, reflecting the light forward along your orbit. You lose tangental velocity and the sun's gravitational pull reels you in. You're right, completely different principles are at work, but you get a similar result.
Show me a gamer with a CRT and I'll show you someone who definately isn't on the same circuit as the server at a small LAN party. You can't win if you trip a breaker.
No. A key element in capitalism is the free-market. Government regulation, such as mandating DRM in all devices, is counter to that element. The word you are looking for is "corporatism," the other side to socialism's coin.
id's always been that way. They make absolutely wonderful engines, but they have no concept about how to use them. Wait until Lucas Arts gets ahold of it and then you'll have your kick ass game worthy of the $20 million graphics engine.
Try this and this. It's natural that you're going to find most of the stuff coming from 1999, as that's when it was introduced into the US's battlefield arsenal, now it's old news (notice how the 2003 news stories report on it like it was first used the day before the story). And for the record: I said residential areas, not that we're using them exclusively or that they make up a majority of the ordinance dropped.
It should be noted that those 2000 pound bombs dropped in residential areas are normally 2000 pounds of concrete. It's all kinetic energy, not explosive ordinance, designed to keep collateral damage down. Your IEDs, on the other hand, are designed to inflict as much collateral damage as possible, which is why Americans gawk in horror at them.
As long as you accept that "Game" is a perfect synonym of "Sport", then you can call them athletes. Now to wait for the day when "Chutes and Ladders" becomes an Olympic event.
No, any American with half a brain will be voting for the person they think will be best for the country. And they won't just be doing it this fall, they'll be doing it every election.
Declaring third-party votes "protest" votes is almost self-defeating. It has the conotation of being temporary. One group is always going to protesting something each election. That's okay though, as next election that group will come back to the fold while another group takes their place. Votes have to be much deeper than just protests against the current parties in power for them to have real impact.
Ahem, ONE MORE TIME, only this time, I'll emphasize something you skipped over:
WARNING - Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures and video tapes (Title 17 United States Code Sections 501 and 506)
Your statement assumes that electronic stores (which often are also selling the very DVD they are playing) are not obtaining permission to use certain movies for those purposes.
So academic licenses are bad because they restrict normal use?
Look, it says right on the DVD case:
WARNING - Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures and video tapes (Title 17 United States Code Sections 501 and 506)
Seeing as how the terms are up front before you buy the disc, I don't see the problem. Much better than the "hit you with the EULA after you've spent $50 on our game" approach of software vendors
Although there is good evidence to suggest that humans evolved as (or were evolving towards) bipedal beings while still in the forest. Take a look at Ardipithecus ramidus
If Ford sold its car at a loss and was making its money on selling parts, perhaps. But then again, cars have always been a stupid analogy to use with computers.
But that's an "and", not an "or." Come on, the judge knows he's dealing with computer savy people here so he must know the function of that logical operator, right? Right? Damn...
First, the only "right" refered to in the First Amendment is the right to peacably assemble. So yes, that is not an excercise of any First Amendment right. Second, all Whoopi had to offer Slim Fast was her image. It was an image only Whoopi Goldberg had created, only she was responsible for, and an image which many people found offensive. Slim Fast decided it did not want to be associated with that image, hence, it excerised its freedom of speech by not allowing that image to be showcased on its dime. Such is the problem when you make your living on the public stage; you're only as good as the number of people you bring out.
Actually, the police in many sections of the US are not allowed the same weapons as civilians. Remember I said police had to go to a GUN STORE to get the firepower to end the standoff. The incident has since caused some departments to issue automatic weapons to their officers. I do agree with you; what weapons the police have, civilians should be permitted to have (For instance, tasers are illegal in some states for civilian use, which doesn't make much sense to me). However, civilians are allowed some powerful stuff that I believe the police should also have access to.
Would that reaction be coming from the government, or from the population? In a free society, the other side is always allowed to express itself in opposition. A recent example would be Whoopi Goldberg being dropped by Slim Fast. In a nice irony, Whoopi is outraged that a group excercised their First Amendment freedoms to get her fired because she was excersing her First Amendment freedoms to get a certain President fired. The moral; freedom of speech cuts both ways.
There you go with the straw man again. Where did I say the civilian population should not be armed, or that it should not be allowed the same firearms as the police?
Now yes, it was the progression of weapons technology, just as the invention of the fully automatic assualt rifle or the high-powered sniper rifle or the night scope is the progression of weapons technology.
I do not wish to live in a society with armed soldiers either, but unfortunately reality doesn't bend so easily to my wishes and situations do arrise where large ammounts of force are rquired. I would rather a well equiped, well trained, and well organized force meets that threat rather than placing the general population at risk.
There was a time when ordinary police weapons were simply polished sticks. Then sticks were replaced by muzzle loaders to match the criminals. Then muzzle loaders became ineffective and were replaced by reolvers and cartridge rifles. Then black powder became obsolete and was replace with smokeless powder. Since all these weapons were made ineffective, resulting in heavily armed police for their time, does that not mean that we are already in a state of perpetual civil war? Yes, I believe it was a straw man after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Re-word: "withheld interviews from companies BECAUSE they allowed anyone to use their footage of him."
OK, so when has Bush withheld interviews from companies that allowed anyone to use their footage of him, or threatened to do so?
The article states (at least the one concerning the MTP footage) that it's expensive to fight off a copyright lawsuit, and there are no real hard rules that you'll be alright if you follow for when you do not have permission to use copyrighted footage. So, even though they may be perfectly within their rights, it's just not worth the risk finacially. Still, the grand parent was complaining about how everything was being construed to mean that Bush and Kerry were the ones surpressing the respective media.
Yes, but you fail to explain how it's GWB who is using Copyright law to censor when NBC is denying the footage. I honestly don't think the submiter got past the first couple sentences of the article before he rushed off to do the write up.
It may be a lot sooner than you think
Where wind sails have Bernoulli to work off of to go against the wind, solar sails have Newton. What the gp is saying is you start off in orbit around a star. If you want to get away from that star, you angle your sail +45 degrees, which reflects the light back along your orbit. Thanks to conservation of momentum you gain tangental velocity which propells you in a spiral outwards as you slowly break the sun's gravitational pull. If you want to go towards that star, you angle your sail -45 degrees, reflecting the light forward along your orbit. You lose tangental velocity and the sun's gravitational pull reels you in. You're right, completely different principles are at work, but you get a similar result.
Show me a gamer with a CRT and I'll show you someone who definately isn't on the same circuit as the server at a small LAN party. You can't win if you trip a breaker.
No. A key element in capitalism is the free-market. Government regulation, such as mandating DRM in all devices, is counter to that element. The word you are looking for is "corporatism," the other side to socialism's coin.
Summary: When it comes to Religion, the Devil is in the details.
id's always been that way. They make absolutely wonderful engines, but they have no concept about how to use them. Wait until Lucas Arts gets ahold of it and then you'll have your kick ass game worthy of the $20 million graphics engine.
Try this and this. It's natural that you're going to find most of the stuff coming from 1999, as that's when it was introduced into the US's battlefield arsenal, now it's old news (notice how the 2003 news stories report on it like it was first used the day before the story). And for the record: I said residential areas, not that we're using them exclusively or that they make up a majority of the ordinance dropped.
It should be noted that those 2000 pound bombs dropped in residential areas are normally 2000 pounds of concrete. It's all kinetic energy, not explosive ordinance, designed to keep collateral damage down. Your IEDs, on the other hand, are designed to inflict as much collateral damage as possible, which is why Americans gawk in horror at them.
As long as you accept that "Game" is a perfect synonym of "Sport", then you can call them athletes. Now to wait for the day when "Chutes and Ladders" becomes an Olympic event.
No, any American with half a brain will be voting for the person they think will be best for the country. And they won't just be doing it this fall, they'll be doing it every election.
Declaring third-party votes "protest" votes is almost self-defeating. It has the conotation of being temporary. One group is always going to protesting something each election. That's okay though, as next election that group will come back to the fold while another group takes their place. Votes have to be much deeper than just protests against the current parties in power for them to have real impact.
Ahem, ONE MORE TIME, only this time, I'll emphasize something you skipped over:
Your statement assumes that electronic stores (which often are also selling the very DVD they are playing) are not obtaining permission to use certain movies for those purposes.So academic licenses are bad because they restrict normal use?
Look, it says right on the DVD case:
Seeing as how the terms are up front before you buy the disc, I don't see the problem. Much better than the "hit you with the EULA after you've spent $50 on our game" approach of software vendors
Although there is good evidence to suggest that humans evolved as (or were evolving towards) bipedal beings while still in the forest. Take a look at Ardipithecus ramidus
But the Democrats added funding for the taller pedestal and ladder in the budget. So, it's a group effort.
If Ford sold its car at a loss and was making its money on selling parts, perhaps. But then again, cars have always been a stupid analogy to use with computers.
But that's an "and", not an "or." Come on, the judge knows he's dealing with computer savy people here so he must know the function of that logical operator, right? Right? Damn...
First, the only "right" refered to in the First Amendment is the right to peacably assemble. So yes, that is not an excercise of any First Amendment right. Second, all Whoopi had to offer Slim Fast was her image. It was an image only Whoopi Goldberg had created, only she was responsible for, and an image which many people found offensive. Slim Fast decided it did not want to be associated with that image, hence, it excerised its freedom of speech by not allowing that image to be showcased on its dime. Such is the problem when you make your living on the public stage; you're only as good as the number of people you bring out.
Actually, the police in many sections of the US are not allowed the same weapons as civilians. Remember I said police had to go to a GUN STORE to get the firepower to end the standoff. The incident has since caused some departments to issue automatic weapons to their officers. I do agree with you; what weapons the police have, civilians should be permitted to have (For instance, tasers are illegal in some states for civilian use, which doesn't make much sense to me). However, civilians are allowed some powerful stuff that I believe the police should also have access to.
Would that reaction be coming from the government, or from the population? In a free society, the other side is always allowed to express itself in opposition. A recent example would be Whoopi Goldberg being dropped by Slim Fast. In a nice irony, Whoopi is outraged that a group excercised their First Amendment freedoms to get her fired because she was excersing her First Amendment freedoms to get a certain President fired. The moral; freedom of speech cuts both ways.
There you go with the straw man again. Where did I say the civilian population should not be armed, or that it should not be allowed the same firearms as the police?
Now yes, it was the progression of weapons technology, just as the invention of the fully automatic assualt rifle or the high-powered sniper rifle or the night scope is the progression of weapons technology.
I do not wish to live in a society with armed soldiers either, but unfortunately reality doesn't bend so easily to my wishes and situations do arrise where large ammounts of force are rquired. I would rather a well equiped, well trained, and well organized force meets that threat rather than placing the general population at risk.
There was a time when ordinary police weapons were simply polished sticks. Then sticks were replaced by muzzle loaders to match the criminals. Then muzzle loaders became ineffective and were replaced by reolvers and cartridge rifles. Then black powder became obsolete and was replace with smokeless powder. Since all these weapons were made ineffective, resulting in heavily armed police for their time, does that not mean that we are already in a state of perpetual civil war? Yes, I believe it was a straw man after all.