I'm pretty sure that selling pictures of copyrighted visual art is still at least moderately illegal, though. Wasn't the start of the problem that the city was charging for photos of the copyrighted thing, and thus making a profit? Seems kind of silly of SBC not to include copy rights to the structure with their gift, though.
I'm pretty sure you can't be sued or confined for taking a photo of the thing. You can be sued or confined for taking a photo of the thing, and then selling it. Isn't that what the original post said?
The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is that the Republicans grub their own money, gained through business, while the Democrats attempt to grub my money, gained by seizing it through force of law. As this becomes less true and the Republicans begin to reach for my pocketbook in a decidedly Democrat-like fashion, my tendency to vote for anything that's not a third party shoots down dramatically.
Heck, you can't even get a Nobel prize in the physical sciences without being a liberal
Since the nobel is granted based on "benefit to humanity", an idea itself heavily tied to political bias and agenda-pushing, this is more true than you will ever know.
They agree that the globe is warming. "Global Warming" has come to mean something completely different, a sort of demipolitical construct that's part fact, and obscured by several truckloads of BS and poorly made assumptions.
Just because we come from "nature" doesn't make everything we do "natural" or "right".
What exactly does make something natural, if stemming from natural processes and forces doesn't? Is it chemical composition? So I would be acting naturally and rightly if I went and burned down a forest so long as I used a pair of sticks to light the fire? Is it behaving according to natural law? Guess we have an obligation to exterminate all competitors for natural resources and consume until everything is gone, then.
Buy a turkey and try to keep it as a pet. You will learn why the Dodo would have precisely jack economic benefit in that department were it not rare to the point of extinction.
And we know that it was their best interests because the oh-so-enlightened political book author tells us so. Who cares what the voters actually wanted? If they aren't recieving the arbitrary set of benefits that the enlightnened "author of a book" sets out, they're definitely voting against their own interests.
In closing, good job reading a book that confirms your own opinions and taking it as gospel just because you like the way it sounds.
Just pointing out, for those in the audience too dumb to figure it out on their own, that the voting difference in most red and blue states was within several percent. And that Kerry was such a horrible candidate that even several confirmed Democrat loyalists I know couldn't bring themselves to vote for him, even give an alternative that hasn't entirely mastered the local language.
I'd also like to append a request that Democrat loyalist quit bitching about the propaganda machine and balance of power: this stuff happens. If there weren't power shifts, then parties wouldn't have bothered to form at all. And you guys had a propaganda machine that perpetuated some pretty ridiculous crap without a whimper from the other side for a long time. Basically, you had your time, and your party isn't even any different than the Republican one in actual effect, so who cares? Besides you, you don't count.
Glad someone else noticed, I thought I was going insane there when I read the article documents and saw nothing of the sort reported by the original post.
Well, given that Paris was probably the most famous trojan, and stole the most beautiful woman in the world from her husband, I could probably outline a few theories.
I applaud your awesome troll. You should catch like 4 different slashdot cults with varying lacks of a sense of humor. I sorrow for your Karma, though.
Is that we know that our government is too rooted in business with the rest of the world to use them. Ever. We bitch a lot on/. about the american government being in the pocket of large economic factions, but you have to admit it keeps the rest of the world hella safe. When our government suddenly starts making independently moral descisions (something which is usually limited to theocracies and empowered monarchies) then I'll lead the push to disable our nukes myself, eh.
Haven't Washington and N. Vietnam been about as hostile as humanly possible since, oh, I dunno, we spent half a decade shooting at each other back in the day?
Given the obvious hyperbole/facetious nature of the grandparent, I think all you've successfully pointed out is that you have no sense of humor. That said, the characterization of all Frenchmen as "doing a lot of things right and having a wealth of experience to draw on" is itself a stereotype, which I assume is what you meant by "racist". Thanks for pointing out the blackness of the kettle, Mr. Pot.
In such a situation, the kid is specifically seeking the material on the game, knowing that it offends his parents. Given that this is the case, what is the benefit of restricting the kid from the game at all? I mean, I can see taking the game away from the kid for disobeying you, but if the kid is thinking "hey, GTA has graphic violence, I wanna play a game with graphic violence", I don't really see what innocence you're protecting by restricting the game.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that selling pictures of copyrighted visual art is still at least moderately illegal, though. Wasn't the start of the problem that the city was charging for photos of the copyrighted thing, and thus making a profit? Seems kind of silly of SBC not to include copy rights to the structure with their gift, though.
I'm pretty sure you can't be sued or confined for taking a photo of the thing. You can be sued or confined for taking a photo of the thing, and then selling it. Isn't that what the original post said?
Against apple? I'm guessing same fuctionality, approximately -$1000000000.00 price. Assuming I have my companies straight.
Because following up a fairly rational argument with a mindless piece of partisan zombie-drivel is the best way to maintain credibility, kids!
The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is that the Republicans grub their own money, gained through business, while the Democrats attempt to grub my money, gained by seizing it through force of law. As this becomes less true and the Republicans begin to reach for my pocketbook in a decidedly Democrat-like fashion, my tendency to vote for anything that's not a third party shoots down dramatically.
Heck, you can't even get a Nobel prize in the physical sciences without being a liberal
Since the nobel is granted based on "benefit to humanity", an idea itself heavily tied to political bias and agenda-pushing, this is more true than you will ever know.
They agree that the globe is warming. "Global Warming" has come to mean something completely different, a sort of demipolitical construct that's part fact, and obscured by several truckloads of BS and poorly made assumptions.
Until recently, few of them were partisan in a direction with which you disagreed.
And how many realize the country isn't any more screwed up than it has been for the last two decades? None on Slashdot, it seems.
Just because we come from "nature" doesn't make everything we do "natural" or "right".
What exactly does make something natural, if stemming from natural processes and forces doesn't? Is it chemical composition? So I would be acting naturally and rightly if I went and burned down a forest so long as I used a pair of sticks to light the fire? Is it behaving according to natural law? Guess we have an obligation to exterminate all competitors for natural resources and consume until everything is gone, then.
Buy a turkey and try to keep it as a pet. You will learn why the Dodo would have precisely jack economic benefit in that department were it not rare to the point of extinction.
Data falsification is not limited to one set of politics. Just look at some of the things that are defined as separate species in California.
We don't have true democracy. We have a republic. We have a republic because tyrrany of numbers sucks.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Not quite. Bush would have to pass a law specifically ordering people to sniff 100$ of glue for your analogy to hold.
And we know that it was their best interests because the oh-so-enlightened political book author tells us so. Who cares what the voters actually wanted? If they aren't recieving the arbitrary set of benefits that the enlightnened "author of a book" sets out, they're definitely voting against their own interests.
In closing, good job reading a book that confirms your own opinions and taking it as gospel just because you like the way it sounds.
Just pointing out, for those in the audience too dumb to figure it out on their own, that the voting difference in most red and blue states was within several percent. And that Kerry was such a horrible candidate that even several confirmed Democrat loyalists I know couldn't bring themselves to vote for him, even give an alternative that hasn't entirely mastered the local language.
I'd also like to append a request that Democrat loyalist quit bitching about the propaganda machine and balance of power: this stuff happens. If there weren't power shifts, then parties wouldn't have bothered to form at all. And you guys had a propaganda machine that perpetuated some pretty ridiculous crap without a whimper from the other side for a long time. Basically, you had your time, and your party isn't even any different than the Republican one in actual effect, so who cares? Besides you, you don't count.
Nah, they'll just have a lot less hardwood and a lot more pine et al. Most evergreens grow plenty fast.
Glad someone else noticed, I thought I was going insane there when I read the article documents and saw nothing of the sort reported by the original post.
Well, given that Paris was probably the most famous trojan, and stole the most beautiful woman in the world from her husband, I could probably outline a few theories.
I applaud your awesome troll. You should catch like 4 different slashdot cults with varying lacks of a sense of humor. I sorrow for your Karma, though.
Is that we know that our government is too rooted in business with the rest of the world to use them. Ever. We bitch a lot on /. about the american government being in the pocket of large economic factions, but you have to admit it keeps the rest of the world hella safe. When our government suddenly starts making independently moral descisions (something which is usually limited to theocracies and empowered monarchies) then I'll lead the push to disable our nukes myself, eh.
Haven't Washington and N. Vietnam been about as hostile as humanly possible since, oh, I dunno, we spent half a decade shooting at each other back in the day?
Given the obvious hyperbole/facetious nature of the grandparent, I think all you've successfully pointed out is that you have no sense of humor. That said, the characterization of all Frenchmen as "doing a lot of things right and having a wealth of experience to draw on" is itself a stereotype, which I assume is what you meant by "racist". Thanks for pointing out the blackness of the kettle, Mr. Pot.
No, Moby Dick was just white. Ask anyone in America, that's pretty much a giant flashing "hate me" sign hanging above your head.
In such a situation, the kid is specifically seeking the material on the game, knowing that it offends his parents. Given that this is the case, what is the benefit of restricting the kid from the game at all? I mean, I can see taking the game away from the kid for disobeying you, but if the kid is thinking "hey, GTA has graphic violence, I wanna play a game with graphic violence", I don't really see what innocence you're protecting by restricting the game.