The world isn't really suffering. A small percentage of the world grates against it, but it seems to me to be personal.
Of course, I'm not an idealist, so I know not what crazy cravings lurk within your heart.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
That's fairly disingenuous. Everything that can be digitally copied can be purchased with basically less effort than making the copy through Amazon and other shops. And if people aren't "rampant consumers" then there's really no point in giving them more media for consumption in any case.
I'm not really trying to argue the point, because even though I defend copyright laws I don't really agree with them wholeheartedly. It's more an advocate's position here in the den of iniquity, as it were. It just makes me boil a little bit to see these attempts to make a justification that doesn't involve the greed of acquisition, when clearly that's the only motivation at work.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 2
If the copy isn't to avoid cost, then why not just tell the friend about the movie, and explain where it can be purchased?
That's just a sad thing to push on other people, though. Obviously you're not that comfortable with sex ("his, umm, unit") but that's not a good reason to evangelize your way to others.
Then make people pay penalties for being over the average weight, and the entire system finds its optimum lean efficiency.
Making people pay penalties for being over the average weight will result in eventual mass starvation on a long enough timeline. Otherwise, I'm with you.
I don't get it, why care? Does everyone have to have a favorable view of games to keep them going now? I'd say critical mass has been achieved. There will always be people who get pissed because the kids are having too much fun. Time and tide make them as irrelevant as they deserve to be.
You may be right, I don't deny, but that's a hell of a lot to read out of
>>You could not be more wrong. Perhaps you're not aware of the sacrifices Americans made to defeat Hitler and the popularity of both the war president (Roosevelt) and the war itself.
I don't know what kind of revisionist history books you're gnawing on there Ratzo but they sure ain't the truth. unless perhaps you're replying from an alter account to make this look like a conversation?
Is it your contention that Roosevelt was an unpopular president, or is it your contention that America made no sacrifices in the European theatre? Please clarify, as neither of the contentions makes sense and I'd just like to know which way your stupidity leans.
I am writing in reference to the proposed changes to permit requirements for photography on public property. The proposed rules, as I understand them, would require a permit for "activity involving a tripod and a crew of 5 or more people at one site for 10 minutes or more" (the 10 minutes include the time to set up the tripod) or or the same activity among two people at a single site for more than 30 minutes. The permit process also requires the photographer to carry 1 million dollars in liability insurance.
I understand that it is important for the city to draw a line between amateur and professional photographers. I have often heard of cheap professionals calling themselves amateurs solely because they use a low-end SLR camera. However this rule does not do enough to make that separation and fails to protect a much-loved American city. Allow me to suggest some effective enhancements.
About once or twice a month, empower the police to conduct thorough searches of anyone who looks to be taking pictures, or preparing to do so. Necessary permits should be found on anyone who carries a camera beyond a drug store disposable. Justice should be carried out swiftly in situations where the necessary papers are not found. A modicum of brutality would suffice in reducing recidivism rates.
Only when New York is free of people carrying unlicensed cameras can its upstanding citizens be free from the threat of terrorist attacks.
Just remember, you aren't taking money from the bank. In the US, you're taking it from the FDIC, which means you're taking it from taxpayers in general. Probably doesn't make much of a difference to you, I can see by the little freakknob that you and I likely have fundamentally different outlooks on what it means to be a human being.
Yes, we get it. You'd like an egalitarian redistribution of other people's stuff. That's fine and dandy and not something most of us will ever agree to do.
Nothing like a self-selecting sample to stake out a validity claim. Of course, as an opponent of the scientific disciplines, you might not understand how that doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about the 360? Are you so worried about your opinion's validity you need to make up my arguments to shoot me down?
No, you just want everything to line up with your opinion so that you don't feel stupid for having it. It's a common human condition.
You'll get what you want when the PS3 stops being such a shitty deal, if ever. Until then, yes, you have a stupid opinion. Sorry.
The world isn't really suffering. A small percentage of the world grates against it, but it seems to me to be personal.
Of course, I'm not an idealist, so I know not what crazy cravings lurk within your heart.
That's fairly disingenuous. Everything that can be digitally copied can be purchased with basically less effort than making the copy through Amazon and other shops. And if people aren't "rampant consumers" then there's really no point in giving them more media for consumption in any case.
I'm not really trying to argue the point, because even though I defend copyright laws I don't really agree with them wholeheartedly. It's more an advocate's position here in the den of iniquity, as it were. It just makes me boil a little bit to see these attempts to make a justification that doesn't involve the greed of acquisition, when clearly that's the only motivation at work.
If the copy isn't to avoid cost, then why not just tell the friend about the movie, and explain where it can be purchased?
Well you've obviously got some overt aggressiveness in your post. Why do you think that is?
How can you see that as aggressive? Do capital letters trigger some primal fear in you?
That's just a sad thing to push on other people, though. Obviously you're not that comfortable with sex ("his, umm, unit") but that's not a good reason to evangelize your way to others.
There's a certain poetry to the fact that 90% of the people here have no idea what FUD really is.
You could put on a better talk station? I hope what you'd plan isn't as dry as your posts.
Gosh, you mean they'll have to be happy being fucking enormous for a little while before they figure out how to grow again? The end is nigh indeed.
Then make people pay penalties for being over the average weight, and the entire system finds its optimum lean efficiency.
Making people pay penalties for being over the average weight will result in eventual mass starvation on a long enough timeline. Otherwise, I'm with you.
I don't get it, why care? Does everyone have to have a favorable view of games to keep them going now? I'd say critical mass has been achieved. There will always be people who get pissed because the kids are having too much fun. Time and tide make them as irrelevant as they deserve to be.
I don't know what kind of revisionist history books you're gnawing on there Ratzo but they sure ain't the truth. unless perhaps you're replying from an alter account to make this look like a conversation?
If it sounds like FUD to you, then you don't really know what FUD means.
Is it your contention that Roosevelt was an unpopular president, or is it your contention that America made no sacrifices in the European theatre? Please clarify, as neither of the contentions makes sense and I'd just like to know which way your stupidity leans.
Ms. Oliver:
I am writing in reference to the proposed changes to permit requirements for photography on public property. The proposed rules, as I understand them, would require a permit for "activity involving a tripod and a crew of 5 or more people at one site for 10 minutes or more" (the 10 minutes include the time to set up the tripod) or or the same activity among two people at a single site for more than 30 minutes. The permit process also requires the photographer to carry 1 million dollars in liability insurance.
I understand that it is important for the city to draw a line between amateur and professional photographers. I have often heard of cheap professionals calling themselves amateurs solely because they use a low-end SLR camera. However this rule does not do enough to make that separation and fails to protect a much-loved American city. Allow me to suggest some effective enhancements.
About once or twice a month, empower the police to conduct thorough searches of anyone who looks to be taking pictures, or preparing to do so. Necessary permits should be found on anyone who carries a camera beyond a drug store disposable. Justice should be carried out swiftly in situations where the necessary papers are not found. A modicum of brutality would suffice in reducing recidivism rates.
Only when New York is free of people carrying unlicensed cameras can its upstanding citizens be free from the threat of terrorist attacks.
Thank You for Your Time,
__________________
The relationship is kinda like eToile's dad's stepbrother's kid is OS X.
The benefits
Near as I can tell, the downside is people who tend towards paranoia don't like it. Oh, and criminals.
You sorta miss the whole point of the topic, then, but it seems deliberately so.
Just remember, you aren't taking money from the bank. In the US, you're taking it from the FDIC, which means you're taking it from taxpayers in general. Probably doesn't make much of a difference to you, I can see by the little freakknob that you and I likely have fundamentally different outlooks on what it means to be a human being.
So we should get rid of the police entirely? Because that's the endpoint of the opposite direction.
Slippery slope arguments are thus shitty.
Yes, we get it. You'd like an egalitarian redistribution of other people's stuff. That's fine and dandy and not something most of us will ever agree to do.
Looks like the truth hurts. Definitely an unfair moderation here.
Nothing like a self-selecting sample to stake out a validity claim. Of course, as an opponent of the scientific disciplines, you might not understand how that doesn't work.
Oh yeah? You have a lot of conversations with Romans to know this?