Biggest issue I see with going to the theater is sharing a space with drooling geeks. That place is going to stink of B.O. like crazy!
This may be funny to some people, but it can lead to a very real, and tragic, experience. When the Fellowship of the Ring opened up, I saw it at midnight in the Loews on Boston Common. There were definitely people that took it way too seriously, but everyone seemed like they were having fun, so whatever. They let us into the theater proper about a half hour before the show. Everyone was cheering and people were in a jolly mood. "Rob" came out to tell us that he was very happy we all came to his theater and that he is very excited that we are excited and says "if there is anything I can do, let me know." Everyone clapped and Rob left. There was no air conditioning in the theater, which is not really a problem in December, but it was noticeable that the air wsn't "fresh." After about 15 minutes of hundreds of (MIT) people in the theater, we start to notice the odor. Clearly not everyone notices. Most in fact have no clue. They continue laughing at the "ents" in the audience and checking out their promo Lord of the Rings cards. But we did see some people looking around and wrinkling their nose. Five more minutes go by and more people are making faces. I decide its time to do something about this. I leave the theater and find Rob. "Hey Rob, real glad you guys are doing his. Everyone is pretty excited. One thing: it's uh... kinda warm in there... and uhh... well, some of these people haven't showered in a few days... could you.. uh... turn on the AC or something." Rob laughs and says "sure." 5 minutes before the movie starts, the AC kicks in. 5 more minutes and the smell has (virtually) disappated and everyone enjoyed the movie.
Let this be a lesson. Please, if you are reading slashdot, do your part on movie-night. Take a shower. It will be appreciated.
I hope you find what you are looking for elsewhere. I left MacSlash about a year ago (different username) after frustration with acaben (the admin there) basically endorsing piracy. The worst part about leaving was that after putting so much time into commenting where appropriate, giving hints, etc, when I left all people said was "don't let the door hit you on the way out" or "good riddance." It was basically a big F U to someone that was a part of the community and helped make Macslash what it was.
We've never crossed paths, and I don't know how you may have contributed to/., but as a member of the community, well, sorry to see you go. Take care.
Yes, you absolutely can if it pertains to a market where the term is arbitrary or fanciful. Apple can TM Tiger for operating systems, but not for pet stores. If they could, every pet store that sold/advertised "Tigers" would be an infringer. Courts will not allow you to effectively remove a term from the English language that a competitor must use to describe their goods. That is why trademarks are market specific.
Bringing up another post, this is exactly why Apple can trademark "Apple" for computers because "Apple" when talking about computers (at least when they used and registered it) did not mean anything. It was an arbitrary or fanciful mark. They could not trademark "Apple" if they were using it as a mark for fruit stands.
Keep the dorks BEHIND the camera. The effects are great for fan fic. The acting is worse than a high school production. I too am a nerd, but damn, the acting is HORRID. Please, dear MIT students, just make the characters CG. They'll be more endearing.
I understand. If it had happened once or twice, I would just chalk it up to me being grumpy. But I played team slayer the other night and one of my "teammates" at the start of the match said "watch this: I'm going to commit suicide" and he jumped into a hole and died. He repeated this two more times. Then he said "watch, I'm going to stand here the rest of the round and not do anything," which he did effectively leaving us with 3 players. My two other teammates, disgusted with this after about 3 minutes into the round, gave up and left. So it was me vs. 4 in team slayer. I'm annoyed my two teammates left, but I am baffled that someone would join a team slayer game and intentionally screw over his team.
I could stand longer matchmaking times, double even, if I could avoid playing with assholes.
Dear Division responsible for X-Box Live, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would implement a "foes" list. This past week I have encountered more and more players I never EVER want to play with again. Could you add a foes list (similar to the "friends" list) so that when matchmaking comes, I'm not paired with people I think ruin the experience? As these players continue to ruin the online experience, more and more people will add them to their foes list. As time goes by, the spoliers' matchmaking will be harder and hearder to satisfy, and the rest of us can actually enjoy the games we play. I think it is an effective way to segment those that choose to ruin the online experience from those that enjoy it. There will likely be abuses here and there, but overall I think people want to play games against people that aren't dicks. Adding a foes list to XBL is one way to ensure that your subscribers' experience isn't ruined. Thank you for your time.
ok... so why would the student lie that you had a file that you didn't? He knows it will be used in trial. He knows that we will be shown as a perjuror. I doubt any of these moles would lie that a file named X, regardless if it was really a music file or 2 minutes of silence, existed when it didn't. The smart lawyer wouldn't start off by saying "was he sharing this music?" He would ask:
"Did he have a a file named that on his computer?"
"Yes"
"Did you download it?"
"No, sir. "
"So you don't know if they had it or not?"
"I know that a file named that existed on his computer at that time. I do not know if the file was really X, only that it was named X."
That's enough for the initial suit proceedings (e.g., discovery to see what you did have on there) at least. If you didn't even have a file named that, well they're not going to make it up. You can't raise the bar to force them to download the song (and thus commit copyright infringement if it is the song) to determine if it's Britney or silence.
Ah, the text file itself may not be admissible, but then you bring in the administrator who explains how the log files are generated. Then you ask for document producton on the school's log files. Then you compare them, etc, etc. It all "stands up in court," it's just a matter if a jury will agree there is infringement or not. The way the statement was made, it sounded like an assertion that the evidence itself is inadmissible and thus useless. I posit that even though the log file is hearsay, it will lead to admissible evidence.
AND, unless you can prove that someone derived their work from yours, you have no damages. Copyright has an originality requirement, not a novelty requirement. You and I can each have a copyright on the same thing provided we each came up with it independently.
"Did you have files on your computer named "Britney Spears Greatest Hits?"
"Yes, but they weren't really Britney's Greatest Hits. They were fake."
"Sir, please just answer the question: did you have a file on your computer named Britney's Greatest Hits?"
"Yes"
"Thank you, no further questions."
They don't need to slander you. All they need to say is that you had this file named X on your machine. The mole is accurately stating you had a file named X on your machine. As long as he doesn't say it was in fact the song that the RIAA believes it is, then there is no slander because it you having a file named that on your machine is a true statement.
Their purview is the protection of the Copyrights they hold
uh-huh....
Universities and ARPA are the sole authority on the manner of use, so long as no laws are borken.
uh huh.... see #1... was this a rhetorical question? Because enforcing their legal rights, i.e., preventing copyright infringement, which is "breaking the law", is exactly what gives them the right to determine what the I2 is being used for.
I mean, the television network broadcasts something to my home. I miss it. I obtain a copy of it so I can watch it. Really, what's the difference between downloading a TV show and recording one to watch later for your own personaly use?
A) people download shows that they don't get, i.e., say Enterprise is on UPN and you only get basic basic cable with no UPN. Did you already "pay" for it? B) It is about control. Simply put, the **AA, as a copyright holder, retains the exclusive right to determine how its works are copied and distributed. That's what a copyright is. It may seem no different to you, but the big picture is that someone is making decisions for the **AA, which infringes their copyright.
Then, when I find out who finked on me, I sue their ass for my court costs in the first case.
For...? Illegally accessing your system set up to monitor illegal access? For illegally using your system exactly the way you set it up? What exactly would be your cause of action here? I'm guessing trespass to property, but if you leave the door open, I don't see how you'd succeed on that claim
Slashdot Mirror
-truth
If you are a Sasquatch. The S-Controller is much much better to the average non-yeti-sized human.
-truth
Seriously, it's not like google uses it for gmail or anything... oh wait.
-truth
Theater manager-type guy. Can't really remember his name since it was like 3 years ago.
-truth
-truth
PS, I wish I could take credit for this, but I can't. Saw it here on /. somewhere.
-truth
This may be funny to some people, but it can lead to a very real, and tragic, experience. When the Fellowship of the Ring opened up, I saw it at midnight in the Loews on Boston Common. There were definitely people that took it way too seriously, but everyone seemed like they were having fun, so whatever. They let us into the theater proper about a half hour before the show. Everyone was cheering and people were in a jolly mood. "Rob" came out to tell us that he was very happy we all came to his theater and that he is very excited that we are excited and says "if there is anything I can do, let me know." Everyone clapped and Rob left. There was no air conditioning in the theater, which is not really a problem in December, but it was noticeable that the air wsn't "fresh." After about 15 minutes of hundreds of (MIT) people in the theater, we start to notice the odor. Clearly not everyone notices. Most in fact have no clue. They continue laughing at the "ents" in the audience and checking out their promo Lord of the Rings cards. But we did see some people looking around and wrinkling their nose. Five more minutes go by and more people are making faces. I decide its time to do something about this. I leave the theater and find Rob. "Hey Rob, real glad you guys are doing his. Everyone is pretty excited. One thing: it's uh... kinda warm in there... and uhh... well, some of these people haven't showered in a few days... could you.. uh... turn on the AC or something." Rob laughs and says "sure." 5 minutes before the movie starts, the AC kicks in. 5 more minutes and the smell has (virtually) disappated and everyone enjoyed the movie.
Let this be a lesson. Please, if you are reading slashdot, do your part on movie-night. Take a shower. It will be appreciated.
-truth
We've never crossed paths, and I don't know how you may have contributed to /., but as a member of the community, well, sorry to see you go. Take care.
-truth
Yeah, both of them think it's hysterical.
-truth
-truth
None, really. Just couldn't think of a merchant that would use the generic word tiger to describe his goods.
-truth
Yes, you absolutely can if it pertains to a market where the term is arbitrary or fanciful. Apple can TM Tiger for operating systems, but not for pet stores. If they could, every pet store that sold/advertised "Tigers" would be an infringer. Courts will not allow you to effectively remove a term from the English language that a competitor must use to describe their goods. That is why trademarks are market specific.
Bringing up another post, this is exactly why Apple can trademark "Apple" for computers because "Apple" when talking about computers (at least when they used and registered it) did not mean anything. It was an arbitrary or fanciful mark. They could not trademark "Apple" if they were using it as a mark for fruit stands.
-truth
-truth
-truth
I understand. If it had happened once or twice, I would just chalk it up to me being grumpy. But I played team slayer the other night and one of my "teammates" at the start of the match said "watch this: I'm going to commit suicide" and he jumped into a hole and died. He repeated this two more times. Then he said "watch, I'm going to stand here the rest of the round and not do anything," which he did effectively leaving us with 3 players. My two other teammates, disgusted with this after about 3 minutes into the round, gave up and left. So it was me vs. 4 in team slayer. I'm annoyed my two teammates left, but I am baffled that someone would join a team slayer game and intentionally screw over his team.
I could stand longer matchmaking times, double even, if I could avoid playing with assholes.
-truth
Dear Division responsible for X-Box Live,
I would sincerely appreciate it if you would implement a "foes" list. This past week I have encountered more and more players I never EVER want to play with again. Could you add a foes list (similar to the "friends" list) so that when matchmaking comes, I'm not paired with people I think ruin the experience? As these players continue to ruin the online experience, more and more people will add them to their foes list. As time goes by, the spoliers' matchmaking will be harder and hearder to satisfy, and the rest of us can actually enjoy the games we play. I think it is an effective way to segment those that choose to ruin the online experience from those that enjoy it. There will likely be abuses here and there, but overall I think people want to play games against people that aren't dicks. Adding a foes list to XBL is one way to ensure that your subscribers' experience isn't ruined. Thank you for your time.
-truth
"Did he have a a file named that on his computer?"
"Yes"
"Did you download it?"
"No, sir. "
"So you don't know if they had it or not?"
"I know that a file named that existed on his computer at that time. I do not know if the file was really X, only that it was named X."
That's enough for the initial suit proceedings (e.g., discovery to see what you did have on there) at least. If you didn't even have a file named that, well they're not going to make it up. You can't raise the bar to force them to download the song (and thus commit copyright infringement if it is the song) to determine if it's Britney or silence.
-truth
-truth
-truth
"Did you have files on your computer named "Britney Spears Greatest Hits?"
"Yes, but they weren't really Britney's Greatest Hits. They were fake."
"Sir, please just answer the question: did you have a file on your computer named Britney's Greatest Hits?"
"Yes"
"Thank you, no further questions."
They don't need to slander you. All they need to say is that you had this file named X on your machine. The mole is accurately stating you had a file named X on your machine. As long as he doesn't say it was in fact the song that the RIAA believes it is, then there is no slander because it you having a file named that on your machine is a true statement.
-truth
uh-huh....
Universities and ARPA are the sole authority on the manner of use, so long as no laws are borken.
uh huh.... see #1... was this a rhetorical question? Because enforcing their legal rights, i.e., preventing copyright infringement, which is "breaking the law", is exactly what gives them the right to determine what the I2 is being used for.
-truth
A) people download shows that they don't get, i.e., say Enterprise is on UPN and you only get basic basic cable with no UPN. Did you already "pay" for it? B) It is about control. Simply put, the **AA, as a copyright holder, retains the exclusive right to determine how its works are copied and distributed. That's what a copyright is. It may seem no different to you, but the big picture is that someone is making decisions for the **AA, which infringes their copyright.
-truth
For...? Illegally accessing your system set up to monitor illegal access? For illegally using your system exactly the way you set it up? What exactly would be your cause of action here? I'm guessing trespass to property, but if you leave the door open, I don't see how you'd succeed on that claim
-truth
I'll bite, how would this possibly "not stand up in a court of law?" Seriously, what legal basis do you have for making this assertion?
-truth