So? They can't force them to do anything. And they need the guests to sign a waver after the taping to be able to air it without getting sued. Knowone gets aired who doesn't want to.
Jon Stewart was making a joke he said that. I doubt the Daily Show is ever going to have a shortage of guests. Jon Stewart treats the guests with respect, he doesn't make them uncomfortable by joking them, he's allways in good taste. And when he's not trying to be funny he is an incredibly smart person capable of asking some really insightful questions.
Oh god, lighten up. It's comedy! They're not discrediting any of the professional opinions, I've seen the trailers, they make it plainly obvious who's the comedian and who's not, it's all in good fun. It's definitly a little underhanded but you can't do this kind of comedy with prior consent. As long as it's presented fairly as comedy there's nothing worse about this show then there is about any other candid show. The fact that it's making fun of an expert instead of a commom passersby is irrelevent.
Re:My experiences with Gmail invitations
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 1
I'd much apreciate an invite if you could throw one my way:)
Whether a performer gets royalities for a work he produced is entirely dependant on the contract he signed. If your contract says you are doing work for hire then you get zero royalties, only your salary. Computer Programmers are employee's of their company, their work is produced "within the scope of his or her employment", so the company owns the copyrights to that work.
If a computer programmer signed a contract that expressly stated that his employment is not a work for hire agreement then he would be entitled to royalties just the same as musicians are.
No Shcrodingers Paradox is about the dificulties in transitioning from micro systems to macrosystems and about how quantum physics fails to completely define the rules. The thing about an observation causing a change in the system is used in setting up the paradox, but it's not the focus of that particular thought experiment.
For christ's sake, people, get over it, leave your neighbours alone, and get on with living your life in your own little community and you'll be happier for it.
Because the audio industry alone can't mandate a standard. It has to have support from the public as well. At the moment the public just wouldn't go for something they couldn't pop into their computer.
Most of those sites probably just have petite 18 year olds on them. I really doubt a kid porn pay site could survive. There are gov't people who's entire job is to find these sites and shut them down. Real kid porn could never be on a http site let alone advertise.
I'm sure there is money in it. But the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think money is the motivation. Going after the people who view the images isn't going to stop the images from being created. Hell, even if they do stop taking pictures those people certainly aren't going to stop molesting kids. This tactic doesn't solve the problem, it just hides the problem.
I just think the punishment outweighs the crime. If someone makes the stuff then throw the book at them, but the one that just looks at it doesn't need jail time, he needs therapy. And making someone live the rest of their life as a sex offender just for downloading a picture is only going to worsen whatever shit was wrong with him in the first place.
Yes... cause in an argument about the diffrence between making the stuff and sharing the stuff an analogy about you making a film is definitly an effective argument...
That's the point! It's the living people being affected that should be illigal. Some sicko getting a pic off kazaa doesn't in any way affect the person that's actually committing the harm.
Child porn doesn't operate with the same pay-site mentality that you're talking about. It's illigal, it's underground. People aren't molesting kids to make money from it, people are molesting kids cause they want to molest kids.
I would say 2, there were never executions or senate hearings on "unpatriotic terrorist" people. Not to say there isn't any hysteria in that area, but I don't think it's on a level that can be fairly compared to McCarthey or Salem.
QBasic is great to start with. When you get tired you can move up to VBasic. Then after a little while at VBasic introduce a real language like C++. That's how I got started.
I don't understand that. If you wrote the work and the paper fits the assignment for two diffrent classes then who cares. As long as both instructors recieve a paper that satisfies the assignment and is your own original work, what's the problem?
His claim, as I thought the article put it, is that he should have been caught earlyer. There's no mention of whether the school was actually allowing him to get away with cheating and frankly I have a really hard time believing that a school would do that. I think they just didn't catch him until now, and being caught now probably sparked a look back into past records. Boo hoo for him, he's fucked now.
The money is obviosly for attending the classes and not for grades. That's why if you audit a class (take the class but don't get graded) you still pay for the class. Yes, the degree has value, immense value. But you are paying for the chance to get a degree, you're not paying for the degree. That's one of the things that makes a degree valuable, you gotta earn it. I do think that if the university had known that he was cheating earlyer they should have said so, but there's no mention in the article about them having previous knowledge of his cheating and I have a hard time thinking they would allow a freshman or sophmore to get away with cheating when caught. Basically boo hoo, he got busted and now he's fucked.
That's exactly my point. When your talking about infinite value's your not talking strictly about numbers anymore because infinity is not a number. You can only talk about what the number approaches. You can't say that the percentage is zero because the percentage is never actually zero, it only approaches zero. So his statement that the percentage is some positive value is correct, it's an infinitely small positive value, but it's not zero.
Slashdot Mirror
So? They can't force them to do anything. And they need the guests to sign a waver after the taping to be able to air it without getting sued. Knowone gets aired who doesn't want to.
Jon Stewart was making a joke he said that. I doubt the Daily Show is ever going to have a shortage of guests. Jon Stewart treats the guests with respect, he doesn't make them uncomfortable by joking them, he's allways in good taste. And when he's not trying to be funny he is an incredibly smart person capable of asking some really insightful questions.
You're crazy, I love Tough Crowd. :)
Oh god, lighten up. It's comedy! They're not discrediting any of the professional opinions, I've seen the trailers, they make it plainly obvious who's the comedian and who's not, it's all in good fun. It's definitly a little underhanded but you can't do this kind of comedy with prior consent. As long as it's presented fairly as comedy there's nothing worse about this show then there is about any other candid show. The fact that it's making fun of an expert instead of a commom passersby is irrelevent.
dj_starx2000 at yahoo dot com
Whether a performer gets royalities for a work he produced is entirely dependant on the contract he signed. If your contract says you are doing work for hire then you get zero royalties, only your salary. Computer Programmers are employee's of their company, their work is produced "within the scope of his or her employment", so the company owns the copyrights to that work. If a computer programmer signed a contract that expressly stated that his employment is not a work for hire agreement then he would be entitled to royalties just the same as musicians are.
If you can allways tweak the theory to conform then it's a crap theory cause it's not falsifiable.
No Shcrodingers Paradox is about the dificulties in transitioning from micro systems to macrosystems and about how quantum physics fails to completely define the rules. The thing about an observation causing a change in the system is used in setting up the paradox, but it's not the focus of that particular thought experiment.
For christ's sake, people, get over it, leave your neighbours alone, and get on with living your life in your own little community and you'll be happier for it.
^ That's the fucking truth.
Some corporations will definitly be interested in it. Someone has to enforce it and ten to one odds the job's gonna be contracted out.
Diverse and accepting of those who are diffrent are two serperate things. We are one, but not the other.
Because the audio industry alone can't mandate a standard. It has to have support from the public as well. At the moment the public just wouldn't go for something they couldn't pop into their computer.
I'm sure there is money in it. But the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think money is the motivation. Going after the people who view the images isn't going to stop the images from being created. Hell, even if they do stop taking pictures those people certainly aren't going to stop molesting kids. This tactic doesn't solve the problem, it just hides the problem.
I just think the punishment outweighs the crime. If someone makes the stuff then throw the book at them, but the one that just looks at it doesn't need jail time, he needs therapy. And making someone live the rest of their life as a sex offender just for downloading a picture is only going to worsen whatever shit was wrong with him in the first place.
Yes... cause in an argument about the diffrence between making the stuff and sharing the stuff an analogy about you making a film is definitly an effective argument...
That's the point! It's the living people being affected that should be illigal. Some sicko getting a pic off kazaa doesn't in any way affect the person that's actually committing the harm.
Child porn doesn't operate with the same pay-site mentality that you're talking about. It's illigal, it's underground. People aren't molesting kids to make money from it, people are molesting kids cause they want to molest kids.
I would say 2, there were never executions or senate hearings on "unpatriotic terrorist" people. Not to say there isn't any hysteria in that area, but I don't think it's on a level that can be fairly compared to McCarthey or Salem.
QBasic is great to start with. When you get tired you can move up to VBasic. Then after a little while at VBasic introduce a real language like C++. That's how I got started.
I don't understand that. If you wrote the work and the paper fits the assignment for two diffrent classes then who cares. As long as both instructors recieve a paper that satisfies the assignment and is your own original work, what's the problem?
His claim, as I thought the article put it, is that he should have been caught earlyer. There's no mention of whether the school was actually allowing him to get away with cheating and frankly I have a really hard time believing that a school would do that. I think they just didn't catch him until now, and being caught now probably sparked a look back into past records. Boo hoo for him, he's fucked now.
The money is obviosly for attending the classes and not for grades. That's why if you audit a class (take the class but don't get graded) you still pay for the class. Yes, the degree has value, immense value. But you are paying for the chance to get a degree, you're not paying for the degree. That's one of the things that makes a degree valuable, you gotta earn it. I do think that if the university had known that he was cheating earlyer they should have said so, but there's no mention in the article about them having previous knowledge of his cheating and I have a hard time thinking they would allow a freshman or sophmore to get away with cheating when caught. Basically boo hoo, he got busted and now he's fucked.
If we what it was it wouldn't be unknown...
Well said, that's actually what I was trying to get at, but I'm not that great at explaining things.
That's exactly my point. When your talking about infinite value's your not talking strictly about numbers anymore because infinity is not a number. You can only talk about what the number approaches. You can't say that the percentage is zero because the percentage is never actually zero, it only approaches zero. So his statement that the percentage is some positive value is correct, it's an infinitely small positive value, but it's not zero.