Good point. Murder is different from Theft. In my opinion, copyright infringement is also a seperate entity, although related more closely to theft than murder is.
I think the RIAA wants the theft moniker to be attached so it becomes a "basic crime". There are quite a few that look at the ten commandments as a base line for law. By attaching the word theft to the infringement of copyright, it seems worse to many people.
Until the RIAA releases their version of the Bible and the first commandment would be Thou shalt not infringement upon copyright, they'll want to at least associate the infrignment with one of those commandments that exists.
If my understanding is correct, it wasn't technology that they were opposed to. It was the hubris of being able to afford the newfangled tech that led to envy and so on that they were against.
When buttons first came out, they were a symbol of status. They were more expensive than a simple cloth loop, so instead of attempting to outdo each other, they decided that it would be better to just stick with the simpler concept. That way, no pride or envy.
There seemingly Luddite tendencies don't have to do with religious convictions. They just want to be humble and not aspire to greatness through gadjets
With slot machines you at least have a chance to recoup losses, or even win. This just sounds like a ploy to sucker people out of money for something which provides nothing in return.
Maybe they'll start marketing it as a practice girlfriend.
You mean like in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Where you can drive up to certain female characters and they'll get into your car. You start losing money, and when you park in the bushes the car rocks and you get health.
Someone reads the tea leaves and realizes where the Republc is headed. So, as part of an emergency move freeze certain key senators (Jar-Jar among them), they a discovered and revived.
Then someone realizes that it was Jar-Jar Binks that recommended that Palpatine be given dictatorial powers (paving the way from senator to emperor) the New Republic puts Jar--JAr on trial for treason or war crimes or somesuch.
There's the other side of that coin. Lucas was younger then, too. A 30-something has more in common with younsters, teens and adults (4-30ish)than does a 60-something.
Now he's aged too much to connect with younsters, teens and young adults (18-28)
whole original trilogy mirrored our cultural experience not only fresh in history but rife with parallels to the Cold War and the Evil Empire
the prequels lack a significant connection to our cultural history
Using the WWII metaphor, the Episodes I, II, & III might mirror the slow errosion of democracy into an empire. That seems to be a common consensus about the US
Why do you think the Dept of Treasury is reissuing all the large denomiation bills. To combat the effect of Time Travellers with replicators ruining the economy.
or
It was a Kilngon ship, correct? Why would a Kilngon ship have information on long outdated Earth currency?
A more likely reason for the confusion is that Russian has several sounds which English does not.
I think you meant English has several sounds not present in Russian, based upon the example given.
Russian has no consonants to depict the sounds presented by the English letters "j", "qu", "x" and "w". English does in fact have the "zh" sounds. It's just not represented by a single letter. Pronounce "vision".
Russian can approximate all three of these letter using their own alphabet. x = ks (ax = aks) j = dzh (jeans = dzheens) qu = koo + vowel (queer = kooeer) w = oo + vowel (whale = ooayl)
Why exactly must it be a man and a woman rather than 2 men. Both men and women are people capable of joining whatever contract they desire, even marriage (and marriage is a contract, nothing more, nothing less).
Let me preface my comment by saying these are just my personal opinions, and I apologize in advance for any umbrage taken.
It is my opinion that a sizable percantage of the American population (not quoting exact figures) has deeply held religious principles of various flavors. The majority of these beliefs also have a rigid defintion of what marriage is, in addition to specifications as to which sexual activites the deity(ies) of choice frown upon. It is with this religious belief that the religious knee-jerk react to what they percieve as sullying their perception of what marriage is.
So, when you say that marriage is a contract nothing more, nothing less, there are those out there that feel quite differently about the matter.
Another side of this argument is that homosexuals need to be granted the exact same rights as heterosexuals. Hence, the demand that they be allowed to use the term "marriage" to describe their union. They don't imprint the spiritual aspect onto the word "marriage", so for whatever reason don't acknowledge that there are those would would take offense.
This situation is irreconcilable as one side says that "marriage" is "sacred" and is defined as "between one man and one woman". Whereas the other side sees "marriage" as free from the monopoly of any one religion or series of beliefs, so they should be entitled to use that word. Which angers the first side because of the sanctity of the word.
A similar situation exists with polygamy. Why should marriage be limited to between one man and one woman. People should be allowed to marry as many people of whatever race, color, gender, sexual orientation, height, eye color, prediposition for Asthma, or whatever.
I say the only feasible option (and it wouldn't please everybody) would be to remove the concept of "marriage" from the realm of secular law, and in its place build a new definition of a legally binding contract between any number of people of any number of diversities, in order to support each other emotionally and financially and be liable for any breach of that contract.
You might get by with differentiating between holy matrimony and civil matrimony.
You want to get married, fine go to your type of clergy and get married. You want to be involved in a legal arrangement in order to share insurance plans, then get to the couthouse and file the appropriate paperwork in triplicate.
You CAN do one without the other, but a religious wedding would have nothing to do with legal rights, you would be married but not bound by contract.
Not to infer that you're a troll. Maybe someday science will discover that the various trolls on sites such as slashdot are in fact trolls on a genetic level.
Then sites could, as part of the registration require a genetic scan to complete. Then people would start getting messages like
"We're sorry, but our system has detected the presence of the NPHG* sequence. Access is denied."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm certain this has been posted on slashdot at some time in the past, but it's worth reading. (At least in my opinion)
It is an article written by someone in tech support.
You either have to subscribe or watch an ad. Sorry.
There are those that either forget to check Post Anonymously or out of some measure of honor or apathy, refuse to do so.
The word amusing also shares a root with music and muse.
Was this coincidence or intentional?
Knock, Knock.
Who's There?
Microsoft.
Microsoft who?
Microsoft sucks.
Someone has finally pierced the tinfoil hat barrier, and is now able to project massive hallucinations to the entire global population of geeks!
Better change to solid aluminum hats, or lead foil.
Good point. Murder is different from Theft. In my opinion, copyright infringement is also a seperate entity, although related more closely to theft than murder is.
I think the RIAA wants the theft moniker to be attached so it becomes a "basic crime". There are quite a few that look at the ten commandments as a base line for law. By attaching the word theft to the infringement of copyright, it seems worse to many people.
Until the RIAA releases their version of the Bible and the first commandment would be Thou shalt not infringement upon copyright, they'll want to at least associate the infrignment with one of those commandments that exists.
Hitler was a vegetarian
That's why you don't vote for vegetarians.
So you're the slashdotter that mods the funny stuff troll or offtopic?
If my understanding is correct, it wasn't technology that they were opposed to. It was the hubris of being able to afford the newfangled tech that led to envy and so on that they were against.
When buttons first came out, they were a symbol of status. They were more expensive than a simple cloth loop, so instead of attempting to outdo each other, they decided that it would be better to just stick with the simpler concept. That way, no pride or envy.
There seemingly Luddite tendencies don't have to do with religious convictions. They just want to be humble and not aspire to greatness through gadjets
How many Menonites does it take to screw in a light bulb?
It does not matter for they will surely burn in Hell.
The 30F = 16.666C figure represents the degree of change. 30F = -1.111C represents the conversion of a specific temperature.
its a idiots slot machine
With slot machines you at least have a chance to recoup losses, or even win. This just sounds like a ploy to sucker people out of money for something which provides nothing in return.
Maybe they'll start marketing it as a practice girlfriend.
You mean like in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Where you can drive up to certain female characters and they'll get into your car. You start losing money, and when you park in the bushes the car rocks and you get health.
Someone reads the tea leaves and realizes where the Republc is headed. So, as part of an emergency move freeze certain key senators (Jar-Jar among them), they a discovered and revived.
Then someone realizes that it was Jar-Jar Binks that recommended that Palpatine be given dictatorial powers (paving the way from senator to emperor) the New Republic puts Jar--JAr on trial for treason or war crimes or somesuch.
There's the other side of that coin. Lucas was younger then, too. A 30-something has more in common with younsters, teens and adults (4-30ish)than does a 60-something.
Now he's aged too much to connect with younsters, teens and young adults (18-28)
whole original trilogy mirrored our cultural experience not only fresh in history but rife with parallels to the Cold War and the Evil Empire
the prequels lack a significant connection to our cultural history
Using the WWII metaphor, the Episodes I, II, & III might mirror the slow errosion of democracy into an empire. That seems to be a common consensus about the US
Sorry about that. I stand corrected, then. He must have blurred the two distinct vowel syllables into a diphthong.
If you say ooh-aah quickly, it sort of sounds like wah.
Sorry. I meant the sound is not represented as an individual character, to the best of my knowledge.
Why do you think the Dept of Treasury is reissuing all the large denomiation bills. To combat the effect of Time Travellers with replicators ruining the economy.
or
It was a Kilngon ship, correct? Why would a Kilngon ship have information on long outdated Earth currency?
A more likely reason for the confusion is that Russian has several sounds which English does not.
I think you meant English has several sounds not present in Russian, based upon the example given.
Russian has no consonants to depict the sounds presented by the English letters "j", "qu", "x" and "w". English does in fact have the "zh" sounds. It's just not represented by a single letter. Pronounce "vision".
Russian can approximate all three of these letter using their own alphabet.
x = ks (ax = aks)
j = dzh (jeans = dzheens)
qu = koo + vowel (queer = kooeer)
w = oo + vowel (whale = ooayl)
know about the "Mosco" - "Moscow" thing,
You think that one's hard, try the capital of Burkina Faso. Ouagadougou.
I thought it was pronounced Ow-ah-gah-dow-gow, but someone from the country said it was Wah-guh-Doo-Goo.
Wouldn't that be
1. Recieve message from future self.
2. ???
3. Profit!
4. Send message to past self.
Why exactly must it be a man and a woman rather than 2 men. Both men and women are people capable of joining whatever contract they desire, even marriage (and marriage is a contract, nothing more, nothing less).
Let me preface my comment by saying these are just my personal opinions, and I apologize in advance for any umbrage taken.
It is my opinion that a sizable percantage of the American population (not quoting exact figures) has deeply held religious principles of various flavors. The majority of these beliefs also have a rigid defintion of what marriage is, in addition to specifications as to which sexual activites the deity(ies) of choice frown upon. It is with this religious belief that the religious knee-jerk react to what they percieve as sullying their perception of what marriage is.
So, when you say that marriage is a contract nothing more, nothing less, there are those out there that feel quite differently about the matter.
Another side of this argument is that homosexuals need to be granted the exact same rights as heterosexuals. Hence, the demand that they be allowed to use the term "marriage" to describe their union. They don't imprint the spiritual aspect onto the word "marriage", so for whatever reason don't acknowledge that there are those would would take offense.
This situation is irreconcilable as one side says that "marriage" is "sacred" and is defined as "between one man and one woman". Whereas the other side sees "marriage" as free from the monopoly of any one religion or series of beliefs, so they should be entitled to use that word. Which angers the first side because of the sanctity of the word.
A similar situation exists with polygamy. Why should marriage be limited to between one man and one woman. People should be allowed to marry as many people of whatever race, color, gender, sexual orientation, height, eye color, prediposition for Asthma, or whatever.
I say the only feasible option (and it wouldn't please everybody) would be to remove the concept of "marriage" from the realm of secular law, and in its place build a new definition of a legally binding contract between any number of people of any number of diversities, in order to support each other emotionally and financially and be liable for any breach of that contract.
You might get by with differentiating between holy matrimony and civil matrimony.
You want to get married, fine go to your type of clergy and get married. You want to be involved in a legal arrangement in order to share insurance plans, then get to the couthouse and file the appropriate paperwork in triplicate.
You CAN do one without the other, but a religious wedding would have nothing to do with legal rights, you would be married but not bound by contract.
Sorry for the lenghty comment.
It might be a low-level species-wide genetic trait, that triggers in times of excessively high population, as a means of population control.
Arguably, I couldn't help myself
Not to infer that you're a troll.
Maybe someday science will discover that the various trolls on sites such as slashdot are in fact trolls on a genetic level.
Then sites could, as part of the registration require a genetic scan to complete. Then people would start getting messages like
"We're sorry, but our system has detected the presence of the NPHG* sequence. Access is denied."
*Natalie Portman/Hot Grits