Both spend their careers constructing logical arguments to accomplish tasks, and legalese is just another programming language. (Unfortunately, legalese makes COBOL look terse!)
Another woman, Rekha, said she had travelled for days to be blessed by Steve. She added: "My sister-in-law came here and she got pregnant immediately."
He lives among 80 eunuchs -- castrated men -- at the temple. But some have their doubts that he is equipped to be a goddess. A eunuch called Sudha said: "He is a fake. I checked and he still has a penis."
...they [Chrysler] just weren't as tempting a political target as Toyota is.
Nah, Toyota isn't a tempting target for political reasons; Toyota is a tempting target because -- unlike Chrysler -- it had a decent reputation for quality to begin with!
The monthly cost of the property tax on it is equal to 80-90% of the monthly cost of the mortgage!
There are three possibilities here:
Your mortgage is tiny relative to the sale price of the property, either because you're getting an incredible deal or chose to pay a huge down payment.
Your property's assessed value is too high.
The millage rate in your city or county is too high.
In the first case, quit complaining 'cause there's no problem! In the second case, quit complaining because you can fix it by appealing the value with the tax commissioner. In the third case -- I don't believe it could be the third case; the existing residents would never allow their elected officials to raise taxes that high.
That ignores that the couple has literally devalued the homes around it by doing this, it's fiscally as bad as tagging (graffiti wise) everyone within a three house radius with a pair of breasts under the living room window.
Who says? If I were buying a house in southern California, I'd prefer one where the neighbors were smart and responsible enough to have xeriscaped yards!
Oh, and for the Taliban preventing women wearing jeans: They prevent it because they do like to see it, and that is a temptation to men.
No, temptation is why the Taliban makes women cover their faces. IIRC, the reason for not allowing jeans (or any kind of pants, for that matter) has something to do with menstrual fluids.
If the music was created by a sentient being, we could ask it (leaving aside issues of communication problems) to convey why it chose to compose what it did. For example, in the case of John Cage's 4'33", that question of "why" is the only difference between the "musical" work and nothing at all!
My argument is similar to the argument for modern art. For example, a computer(/robot) could trivially create this... but if one did, would it still be considered (by some, at least) worthy of display in a museum? The intent is the entirety of the creation!
The question here is, can music generated ("composed?") by a mere algorithm even be thought-provoking or emotional? Arguably, those things require intent -- something which only a sentient being (i.e., a human composer) can have.
"Promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts" was never meant to be a "sales pitch;" it was genuinely the intent of the law. In fact, James Madison only barely convinced Thomas Jefferson to write it into the Constitution in the first place, using the argument that too few creative works would be created otherwise (we know this from the letters they wrote to each other discussing the subject). I'm sure that if either of them knew how that clause would be interpreted today, they would never have even considered writing it.
In fact, had the Founding Fathers been alive today, they'd probably be part of the free culture movement themselves -- note how Ben Franklin chose not to patent any of his inventions, for example.
I don't mind so much if Sony charges me to use their servers (as long as it's not too expensive), as they are paying to maintain them.
But why should we have to use Sony's servers in the first place? Other games (especially ones on the PC) allow users to create their own server and host games themselves, and that works perfectly fine!
You're not being "scammed", the entertainment industry just needs to make some profit to be viable.
So what? The viability of the entertainment industry is unimportant compared to the rights of customers! If the entertainment industry cannot make a profit within the bounds of Fair Use and the Uniform Commmercial Code, then it deserves to die!
That sort of future would be so completely alien compared to how human society works up to this point that it's useless to speculate about it. For example, what makes you think such a society would even have a mayor? Maybe when everybody's wants and needs are transparent, politics becomes obsolete.
A fact which is entirely irrelevant to the issue of used game sales, because used games are (by definition!) not pirated.
Game companies want to find a way to make a profit in the used market.
So what? That doesn't make it okay for them to destroy game owners' property rights!
Publishers complain about people stealing potential sales through copyright infringement. Well, them stealing the owner's potential sale of the used game is just as bad!
And cars already have subscription models but it is for alternative services like On-Star.
On-Star is the single reason that prevents me from buying a vehicle from GM (whose products I otherwise like).
Completely different market. With a computer game, the software is the product...
It doesn't matter; software still is a product. And products are governed by the Doctrine of First Sale. If a manufacturer's business model is incompatible with that, then the business model is wrong!
The problem is that Sony has no business deciding what is or is not "allowed" in the first place! People have a right to use their own personal property; Sony does not and should not have the authority to interfere!
I guess this is up to the company to set up rules for usage of their products.
Except it's not up to the company -- the fact that they're trying to invent that right by stripping away the property rights of the buyer is the ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Both spend their careers constructing logical arguments to accomplish tasks, and legalese is just another programming language. (Unfortunately, legalese makes COBOL look terse!)
Hmm...
That idea struck me as pretty awesome, actually...!
(Of course, I wouldn't use new chips; I'd use obsolete free ones.)
Nah, Toyota isn't a tempting target for political reasons; Toyota is a tempting target because -- unlike Chrysler -- it had a decent reputation for quality to begin with!
Conservatives, not conservationists. It reflects the attitude of maintaining the status-quo.
I'd say it depends on how hard it is to find homes without HOAs in that area.
There are three possibilities here:
In the first case, quit complaining 'cause there's no problem! In the second case, quit complaining because you can fix it by appealing the value with the tax commissioner. In the third case -- I don't believe it could be the third case; the existing residents would never allow their elected officials to raise taxes that high.
Who says? If I were buying a house in southern California, I'd prefer one where the neighbors were smart and responsible enough to have xeriscaped yards!
No, temptation is why the Taliban makes women cover their faces. IIRC, the reason for not allowing jeans (or any kind of pants, for that matter) has something to do with menstrual fluids.
Yes
If the music was created by a sentient being, we could ask it (leaving aside issues of communication problems) to convey why it chose to compose what it did. For example, in the case of John Cage's 4'33", that question of "why" is the only difference between the "musical" work and nothing at all!
My argument is similar to the argument for modern art. For example, a computer(/robot) could trivially create this... but if one did, would it still be considered (by some, at least) worthy of display in a museum? The intent is the entirety of the creation!
The question here is, can music generated ("composed?") by a mere algorithm even be thought-provoking or emotional? Arguably, those things require intent -- something which only a sentient being (i.e., a human composer) can have.
Oh yeah, and how Franklin also invented the public library, for that matter!
"Promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts" was never meant to be a "sales pitch;" it was genuinely the intent of the law. In fact, James Madison only barely convinced Thomas Jefferson to write it into the Constitution in the first place, using the argument that too few creative works would be created otherwise (we know this from the letters they wrote to each other discussing the subject). I'm sure that if either of them knew how that clause would be interpreted today, they would never have even considered writing it.
In fact, had the Founding Fathers been alive today, they'd probably be part of the free culture movement themselves -- note how Ben Franklin chose not to patent any of his inventions, for example.
But the GP "learned" in school that it grants them. This is the entirety of the problem.
You know that's just a quote from The Matrix, right?
But why should we have to use Sony's servers in the first place? Other games (especially ones on the PC) allow users to create their own server and host games themselves, and that works perfectly fine!
Your metaphor is backwards unless you mean to say that Google is wolf-like and Microsoft is sheep-like.
So what? The viability of the entertainment industry is unimportant compared to the rights of customers! If the entertainment industry cannot make a profit within the bounds of Fair Use and the Uniform Commmercial Code, then it deserves to die!
That sort of future would be so completely alien compared to how human society works up to this point that it's useless to speculate about it. For example, what makes you think such a society would even have a mayor? Maybe when everybody's wants and needs are transparent, politics becomes obsolete.
A fact which is entirely irrelevant to the issue of used game sales, because used games are (by definition!) not pirated.
So what? That doesn't make it okay for them to destroy game owners' property rights!
Publishers complain about people stealing potential sales through copyright infringement. Well, them stealing the owner's potential sale of the used game is just as bad!
On-Star is the single reason that prevents me from buying a vehicle from GM (whose products I otherwise like).
It doesn't matter; software still is a product. And products are governed by the Doctrine of First Sale. If a manufacturer's business model is incompatible with that, then the business model is wrong!
The problem is that Sony has no business deciding what is or is not "allowed" in the first place! People have a right to use their own personal property; Sony does not and should not have the authority to interfere!
Except it's not up to the company -- the fact that they're trying to invent that right by stripping away the property rights of the buyer is the ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!!