MS has the source code for all the titles. You are asserting that it's impossible for MS to recompile a PPC game into x86, given "ownership" of the source code.
From TFA: "Microsoft will do the heavy lifting and make sure the game's properly playable on the new hardware."
That makes it sound like MS will port it, or it will be emulated, but that the game maker/publisher won't need to do anything, but something will need to be done.
By pirating music, you let the company know that you enjoy their music and are too cheap to pay for it.
They don't know I pirate any more than they know I made recordings of the radio in the '70s. They'll lie up statistics regardless of whether I do or don't.
I can't think of the last time I have been in a restaurant where there wasn't music playing.
The Taco Bell I used to go to had no music, but every other fast food restaurant I can think of plays something. Maybe a few non-sit downs don't, like a pizza joint without tables.
Though a few are wising up. They play from sources that don't require a re-license.
But an actual sit-down restaurant? The only ones without music are way outside my price range. The super-expensive restaurants usually don't have music (except live, piano or violin). But the Denny's/Chili's'etc all have music blasting too loud to hear a conversation.
He paid for the music (to a DJ). The DJ paid for the music (presumably with the right to play in a public performance, as he's a DJ). So BMI is insisting that the restaurant owner *also* pay BMI for music played that the restaurant owner believed in good faith, he had already paid a fee for a public performance. How many times should he pay a "public performance fee" for the same music?
The limit would likely be the rate of cooling. When you have no conduction or convection to cool with, you are left with waiting for the heat to radiate away, and that's slower than one may think, though radiating heat is more efficient at higher temperatures, it'll also be harder to reach higher temperatures in "cold" space.
I don't think there ever will be 'one world government' that people will listen to or care about.
There already is, and people care more than you assert they do, and if you didn't care, you wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. The UN, G8 and so many others.
Government is a system of oppression via violence.
So is non-government. At least with government, there are rules around the oppression.
So you are saying that a learner/restricted driver's license is a "real" driver's license, and the restrictions have no effect on the validity, use, and responsibilities of the driver's license.
"Passport" exclusively means a full passport, unless otherwise stated. That's how the US government treats it, as I've posted plenty of links previously to. But no, your "nuh uh" trumps all world governments, and you've found nothing that contradicts me, other than your opinion.
OK, though that wouldn't have changed the discussion. UK passports would be instantly invalid for Scots, as per the fear-mongering from the English. So it wouldn't have invalidated my statement.
Name one place that you can have a full passport without stated restriction in/on it, for a non-citizen. As far as I know, there is none, and reality proves you wrong. Sure, you can think up what-ifs that can't be proven wrong. Dinosaurs had pangaea passports, and were residents, but not citizens.
Passports prove citizenship except for the passports that are for non-citizens, and people in other countries who hold a passport and are not citizens of that country
Such passports are "travel documents" and marked to show that they are limited, thus not full passports.
So obviously the concept of a passport logically speaking does not imply citizenship whereas a regular US passport might imply citizenship to the United States.
If the US passport proves US citizenship, and is *always* taken as such by the US government, I've proven my point. I've yet to see a non-citizen passport that doesn't clearly indicate such. If you can't prove the existance of them, then you are complaining, but not arguing.
Prove me wrong. If I'm wrong, it should be easy.
But nobody can prove me wrong. Either that makes those arguing with me idiots, or wrong.
Yes, a passport could, in theory, prove residency without citizenship, but in practice, doesn't. It's illegal for a country to deliberately take an action they know would make someone stateless, so the passport a person should have should always be from the country of citizenship.
In theory, I understand it is not a strict requirement. Though, in US law, it is. And I know of no exceptions.
And nobody can provide any exceptions. Except the lying Beck_Neard who stated the exceptions for some US territories. But I quoted the US government outlining that a passport proves citizenship, and that the "exception" gets a limited passport that isn't a full passport, and is stamped as such.
So come on, prove me wrong. Or waste my time with more distractions and irrelevancies.
By international law, simply holding a passport is no proof of citizenship.
Then quote that law. I quoted the US Customs and Immigration, and they differ from your opinion. So post something other than your unsubstantiated opinion.
The US goverment makes it quite clear you are an ignorant liar. There exist non-citizen passports. They are separate documents and aren't full passports. Anyone talking about "passports" isn't talking about refugee travel papers, non-citizen passports, or other non-passport travel documents.
You've heard of some exception that affects a few people, and think that makes you smart. But not being able to understand the general application of them, or the meanings of the rules around them.
As I've said, and you've never proven otherwise, a "full" passport (not a limited non-citizen passport, or other edge exceptions), is proof of citizenship.
If you could prove otherwise, you would, rather than lying to assert without proof, a stance that's been proven wrong with multiple cites of US policy on this matter.
You might want to convince the governments of the world that they are all wrong and you are right.
There are many people right now who, for instance, are US nationals but not citizens. They have US passports but do not have the rights of a citizen i.e. they can't vote, participate in elections, etc.
Yeah, they are called felons. They are citizens, just not humans anymore.
But what is a passport? It's proof of citizenship. Giving robots passports would convey upon them rights and responsibilities.
Now, requiring import duties and restrictions on munitions doesn't have any "human" implications, and was used against lots of military tech previously.
That's why a dedicated computer for a Citrix proxy of an internet browser is silly. If the browser is broken, fix it, don't put a know bad program on a computer, then lock down that computer, and have people remotely access the presumed compromised computer.
Reversing this concept, there might be offices that need to have no machines on the Internet, but workers can use App-V, RDP, or Citrix to access a terminal server so they can browse the web on a virtual desktop that cannot access the physical internal machines.
Why not just run "Internet" on a program on the local machine that can't access anything on the local machine? Sure, in your way, they'd be more secure because nobody would write a generic virus for a customer Citrix over Appletalk application that connects to a terminal server that gets the Internet.
Nope. Nobody like beer. They just get used to it, and associate good feelings with it. I don't know anyone that liked their first cup of coffee or their first cigarette, but I know plenty addicted to them. Beer sucks. You have to drink it multiple times to drink it without making a silly face (aside from the Bud Light varieties that are so flavorless that they are less offensive).
Which fact was wrong? Bush Jr openly blamed Saddam for making his father lose a second term. His handlers were happy with the personal vendetta because it made Haliburton and others billions of dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
If the break room can be heard by the customers, at what dB level do they owe increased royalties?
MS has the source code for all the titles. You are asserting that it's impossible for MS to recompile a PPC game into x86, given "ownership" of the source code.
From TFA: "Microsoft will do the heavy lifting and make sure the game's properly playable on the new hardware."
That makes it sound like MS will port it, or it will be emulated, but that the game maker/publisher won't need to do anything, but something will need to be done.
By pirating music, you let the company know that you enjoy their music and are too cheap to pay for it.
They don't know I pirate any more than they know I made recordings of the radio in the '70s. They'll lie up statistics regardless of whether I do or don't.
I can't think of the last time I have been in a restaurant where there wasn't music playing.
The Taco Bell I used to go to had no music, but every other fast food restaurant I can think of plays something. Maybe a few non-sit downs don't, like a pizza joint without tables.
Though a few are wising up. They play from sources that don't require a re-license.
But an actual sit-down restaurant? The only ones without music are way outside my price range. The super-expensive restaurants usually don't have music (except live, piano or violin). But the Denny's/Chili's'etc all have music blasting too loud to hear a conversation.
He paid for the music (to a DJ). The DJ paid for the music (presumably with the right to play in a public performance, as he's a DJ). So BMI is insisting that the restaurant owner *also* pay BMI for music played that the restaurant owner believed in good faith, he had already paid a fee for a public performance. How many times should he pay a "public performance fee" for the same music?
So, if an employee brings in a radio and plays it alone in the break room, the owner should end up sued for copyright violation.
If not, then you agree there are times when music in a business isn't subject to extra licensing.
The limit would likely be the rate of cooling. When you have no conduction or convection to cool with, you are left with waiting for the heat to radiate away, and that's slower than one may think, though radiating heat is more efficient at higher temperatures, it'll also be harder to reach higher temperatures in "cold" space.
http://www.envirogadget.com/al...
I don't think there ever will be 'one world government' that people will listen to or care about.
There already is, and people care more than you assert they do, and if you didn't care, you wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. The UN, G8 and so many others.
Government is a system of oppression via violence.
So is non-government. At least with government, there are rules around the oppression.
So you are saying that a learner/restricted driver's license is a "real" driver's license, and the restrictions have no effect on the validity, use, and responsibilities of the driver's license.
"Passport" exclusively means a full passport, unless otherwise stated. That's how the US government treats it, as I've posted plenty of links previously to. But no, your "nuh uh" trumps all world governments, and you've found nothing that contradicts me, other than your opinion.
OK, though that wouldn't have changed the discussion. UK passports would be instantly invalid for Scots, as per the fear-mongering from the English. So it wouldn't have invalidated my statement.
Name one place that you can have a full passport without stated restriction in/on it, for a non-citizen. As far as I know, there is none, and reality proves you wrong. Sure, you can think up what-ifs that can't be proven wrong. Dinosaurs had pangaea passports, and were residents, but not citizens.
Passports prove citizenship except for the passports that are for non-citizens, and people in other countries who hold a passport and are not citizens of that country
Such passports are "travel documents" and marked to show that they are limited, thus not full passports.
So obviously the concept of a passport logically speaking does not imply citizenship whereas a regular US passport might imply citizenship to the United States.
If the US passport proves US citizenship, and is *always* taken as such by the US government, I've proven my point. I've yet to see a non-citizen passport that doesn't clearly indicate such. If you can't prove the existance of them, then you are complaining, but not arguing.
Prove me wrong. If I'm wrong, it should be easy.
But nobody can prove me wrong. Either that makes those arguing with me idiots, or wrong.
Yes, a passport could, in theory, prove residency without citizenship, but in practice, doesn't. It's illegal for a country to deliberately take an action they know would make someone stateless, so the passport a person should have should always be from the country of citizenship.
In theory, I understand it is not a strict requirement. Though, in US law, it is. And I know of no exceptions.
And nobody can provide any exceptions. Except the lying Beck_Neard who stated the exceptions for some US territories. But I quoted the US government outlining that a passport proves citizenship, and that the "exception" gets a limited passport that isn't a full passport, and is stamped as such.
So come on, prove me wrong. Or waste my time with more distractions and irrelevancies.
This is a US site. US Passports prove citizenship.
What are you on about regarding the irrelevant rant you are off on? Link or it doesn't exist. You've not given a link. I have.
By international law, simply holding a passport is no proof of citizenship.
Then quote that law. I quoted the US Customs and Immigration, and they differ from your opinion. So post something other than your unsubstantiated opinion.
Quit asserting I'm wrong, and prove it.
http://travel.state.gov/conten...
The US goverment makes it quite clear you are an ignorant liar. There exist non-citizen passports. They are separate documents and aren't full passports. Anyone talking about "passports" isn't talking about refugee travel papers, non-citizen passports, or other non-passport travel documents.
You've heard of some exception that affects a few people, and think that makes you smart. But not being able to understand the general application of them, or the meanings of the rules around them.
As I've said, and you've never proven otherwise, a "full" passport (not a limited non-citizen passport, or other edge exceptions), is proof of citizenship.
If you could prove otherwise, you would, rather than lying to assert without proof, a stance that's been proven wrong with multiple cites of US policy on this matter.
Nope, a US passport is proof of US citizenship, according to US Customer and Immigration.
It most certainly is not. A passport is proof of nationality, not citizenship - two very different legal concepts.
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citize... "Your U.S. passport is your best proof of U.S. citizenship."
You might want to convince the governments of the world that they are all wrong and you are right.
There are many people right now who, for instance, are US nationals but not citizens. They have US passports but do not have the rights of a citizen i.e. they can't vote, participate in elections, etc.
Yeah, they are called felons. They are citizens, just not humans anymore.
But what is a passport? It's proof of citizenship. Giving robots passports would convey upon them rights and responsibilities.
Now, requiring import duties and restrictions on munitions doesn't have any "human" implications, and was used against lots of military tech previously.
That's why a dedicated computer for a Citrix proxy of an internet browser is silly. If the browser is broken, fix it, don't put a know bad program on a computer, then lock down that computer, and have people remotely access the presumed compromised computer.
Reversing this concept, there might be offices that need to have no machines on the Internet, but workers can use App-V, RDP, or Citrix to access a terminal server so they can browse the web on a virtual desktop that cannot access the physical internal machines.
Why not just run "Internet" on a program on the local machine that can't access anything on the local machine? Sure, in your way, they'd be more secure because nobody would write a generic virus for a customer Citrix over Appletalk application that connects to a terminal server that gets the Internet.
Everyone has their own reality. Every study I've seen on it show that when facts and beliefs collide, beliefs win.
Perhaps you should stop assuming a rationality.
Proof of what?
You are the only crazy person here. Just because Bush asserts it is the truth doesn't make it so.
Nope. Nobody like beer. They just get used to it, and associate good feelings with it. I don't know anyone that liked their first cup of coffee or their first cigarette, but I know plenty addicted to them. Beer sucks. You have to drink it multiple times to drink it without making a silly face (aside from the Bud Light varieties that are so flavorless that they are less offensive).
Which fact was wrong? Bush Jr openly blamed Saddam for making his father lose a second term. His handlers were happy with the personal vendetta because it made Haliburton and others billions of dollars.