Except that Wal-Mart, and very likely most other stores wouldn't carry the game. Although this becomes more and more moot as the means of distribution switches away from the physical and more and more over the internet (ala Steam and the Wii's back catalogue).
What would you call a slightly larger (yet still small in proportion to the population) body that attempts to legislate against someone making a very personal medical decision. I think most would call that tyranny.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -Ninth Ammendment to the Constitution
Just because the founding fathers didn't list medical privacy as a right, doesn't mean that it isn't a fundamental right in our society. For the government to intrude into medicine when neither party wishes it is clearly overstepping any reasonable bounds.
While I agree with you that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act was a heinious piece of legislation that is sickening to anyone but the copyright holders, you are factually mistaken in some points. The Bono Act didn't put expired copyrights back into effect, though it was retroactive back as far as it could go (January 1, 1923). It also will only hold those works till 2019.
None of this justifies the extension, and quite honestly I wouldn't mind a huge contraction of the number of years. Quite honestly, though, the way this country is going, it'll take more than just voting out some politicians to change things.
If buying a DVD means that you only own the disk, but not the content on it, does that mean that when you buy a book, you own the paper it's printed on, but not the ink the words are printed in?
Re:Non-U.S.'ers not safe either
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
A derivative work would have to be an artistic creation based upon major concepts of a previous work. A hash file taking a fingerprint of a work is not an artistic creation, thus it doesn't fall under intellectual property. Unless you somehow think that semi-random letters constitutes a good story, in which case you must be the brains behind Gigli.
Either that or you're astroturfing, which I find increadibly likely.
Because a Constitutional ammendment would require 2/3rds of the vote by both houses of Congress just to be initiated, as well as 3/4ths of the states to pass. Currently, the Republicans are in control of 55% of the Senate and 53% of the House. It won't pass because there aren't the numbers.
My bad.:\ I must've just been influenced too much by those Chessnistas, who insist that they're not really Arabic. We all know that we can't be sure about anyone from that general part of the world, as in everywhere east of Europe, no, wait, everywhere east of Great Briton (I'm looking at you, France). We all know that America doesn't need chess, besides, it was dominated by a Russian for years, and we don't need to support anything or anyone related to communists, because we all know that terrorists are really communists in disguise.
Just so you know, Chess may have passed through Arabia during it's history, but is derived from an earlier game from India, which in turn may have been based loosely on a game from China.
The problem is that it's just one more avenue that the government is attempting to go down that it should really have the power to. If they say that the material is patently offensive for children, so children shouldn't be able to buy it, what's to stop them from introducing another law that makes it illegal to allow children to just play the game. And then what's to stop them from introducing more and more regulation, to the point where it becomes nearly impossible to make an M rated game, which stifles free speech.
To compare the sale of video games, which no scientific study has shown to cause harm, to cigarretes, booze, or sex, which actually can have negative effects, is a strawman arguement beyond belief. As far as tossing kids out of theaters, that's up to the owners of the theaters, and their ways of handling things, not the government (which just goes to show you that you don't need a government nanny).
Except that those same people will pay $50 for 10 year old Johnny to get a game that's clearly marked as being for 17 year olds. But the average person isn't really driving it. Jack Thompson attempts to drive it. The moral right does drive it. But what is it? A mere 10% of the population (true, it's still a large number in absolute terms)? Just because some people yell and scream about things doesn't mean that the majority agrees with it, it just means that the majority doesn't seem to care enough to give a shit.
At the very least they could easily allow for *installation* of older Windows versions so that if someone wanted to, they could partition their hard drive and run something. That's not a perfect solution either, but at least you wouldn't be stuck with the complete inability to run older software without trying to find older versions of windows for resale (or download them, and risk an inane lawsuit).
Because the Windows XP attempt at compatability layering with older games went soooooo well. There were plenty of good games, like Alpha Centari, that XP won't run unless you get the patch that the developer had to make to let it be compatable. Given that Vista is coming with a new version of Direct X that won't be compatable with any version before it, will the situation repeat itself where the attempt of a system workaround will fail miserably?
No, my point is that none of the "Intelligent Design" folks would ever let schools teach the inconsistancies within the Bible.
And I never said I frowned on historical evidence. In fact, if you'll read, I said that it was the Bible which didn't have historical evidence. For example, the entire Jewish captivity by the Egyptians has no evidence outside of the Bible.
You can verify evolution by fossils. You can show that the organic chemicals that are nessicary for life can be created in an environment similar to prehistoric Earth.
Oh yes, evolution surely would fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. Why, we would need a huge source of power for that. I wonder if there's anything nearby which might account for that...
Oh, and I'm sure you'll find that the Theory of Reletivity is likely to be modified at some point, given that it isn't entirely complete for the universe. It's great at what it sets out to do, that is explain the very large, but ideally there would be a link between it and quantum mechanics, which is currently being sought. I assure you, if there is something there, it will upset physicists, and will be tested more than you could possibly imagine. Unfortunately there isn't anything that's testable (I'm looking at you string theory).
However, if someone with no evidence came forward and said that the Bible disproves the Theory of Relativity and that some sort of Biblical perception of time should be taught in physics classes, you'd get a good laugh out of physicists for awhile. But if you tried to do it for a few decades, the joke would be as stale as creationism.
He was talking about abstract probability. The coin is just there as a way to get results.
We can very much find evidence for the Big Bang, such as backround radiation and the red shift of distant galaxies.
Molecules to man evolution is a complete misnomer. No one has ever said that a group of molecules just came together to form a man (well, except for the Bible, where gawd collected dust together...). Nevertheless, perhaps you should read up on the Miller-Urey experiment, which shows the formation of amino acids. From there, the path of life is fuzzy, yes, but very likely revoled around self replicating proteins and simplistic RNA. From there, there is a movement towards protocells, then more and more complicated structures. Sit back and wait a few billion years and you get some pretty damn complicated life, including humans.
I don't understand where you make the bridge between order, design, and a designer. A Mandelbrot set is quite orderly, but in no way did Mandelbrot design it. He merely found it. Beyond that, if there is something complicated enough to design the universe, it would need quite a bit more order than the universe, and thus would've had to be disigned, thus wouldn't the designer need a designer. And designer B would need designer C, and so on an so forth ad infinitum?
I wasn't aware that science had any presuppositions besides the universe being self-consistant within itself (which is admidedly quite a bit, but without it you can't be sure of reality itself, and that would imply that nothing really matters, etc). Science builds upon itself, sure, so if something changes, then many things may need to be reexamined. Yet things are also surprisingly strong, due to actually being tested or otherwise confirmed with data.
Beliving the universe to be orderly and designed is anti-science simply because there's no evidence for it being designed. If you've got some evidence for it, there's a Nobel prize in it for you, I'm sure.
Ahem, he said Iraq, which, despite the best attempts of the Bush Administration's PR team, did not have affiliations with Al-Qaeda under Saddam Housein, and thus was in no way connected to 9/11 or Osama Bin Laden.
In fact, following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, Osama offered Saudi Arabia the protection of his Jihadists, fearing expansionist goals of Hussein. Saddam attempted to make overtures to get Osama into his country several times, but Osama refused, because Hussein was too secular and thus against the fundamentalist Muslim views of bin Laden.
Be sure you never trample on the garden of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) with your blashphemy about technological invisibility. There is only one invisible creature, and She has raptured my socks to show Her favor. In the distance, I even hear Her whinny on the wind, and you should be careful of wearing pink, as well, lest you turn invisibly pink, and terribly upset the marvelous being that is the IPU.
That leads me to ponder something: If a European company distributed software that contained US patented code over the internet (and thus not having a physical presence in the US), how would that court case go? Assuming that they were found in the wrong, would there even be a way to get damages (short of pulling another Dmitry Sklyarov)?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that Wal-Mart, and very likely most other stores wouldn't carry the game. Although this becomes more and more moot as the means of distribution switches away from the physical and more and more over the internet (ala Steam and the Wii's back catalogue).
What would you call a slightly larger (yet still small in proportion to the population) body that attempts to legislate against someone making a very personal medical decision. I think most would call that tyranny.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-Ninth Ammendment to the Constitution
Just because the founding fathers didn't list medical privacy as a right, doesn't mean that it isn't a fundamental right in our society. For the government to intrude into medicine when neither party wishes it is clearly overstepping any reasonable bounds.
While I agree with you that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act was a heinious piece of legislation that is sickening to anyone but the copyright holders, you are factually mistaken in some points. The Bono Act didn't put expired copyrights back into effect, though it was retroactive back as far as it could go (January 1, 1923). It also will only hold those works till 2019.
None of this justifies the extension, and quite honestly I wouldn't mind a huge contraction of the number of years. Quite honestly, though, the way this country is going, it'll take more than just voting out some politicians to change things.
Than this could quickly turn into a first ammendment case, if a band cannot legally copy it's own music or distribute according to it's wishes.
If buying a DVD means that you only own the disk, but not the content on it, does that mean that when you buy a book, you own the paper it's printed on, but not the ink the words are printed in?
A derivative work would have to be an artistic creation based upon major concepts of a previous work. A hash file taking a fingerprint of a work is not an artistic creation, thus it doesn't fall under intellectual property. Unless you somehow think that semi-random letters constitutes a good story, in which case you must be the brains behind Gigli.
Either that or you're astroturfing, which I find increadibly likely.
Because a Constitutional ammendment would require 2/3rds of the vote by both houses of Congress just to be initiated, as well as 3/4ths of the states to pass. Currently, the Republicans are in control of 55% of the Senate and 53% of the House. It won't pass because there aren't the numbers.
Last time I checked, Bush's approval ratings were down in the low 30s, nowhere near a majority.
My bad. :\ I must've just been influenced too much by those Chessnistas, who insist that they're not really Arabic. We all know that we can't be sure about anyone from that general part of the world, as in everywhere east of Europe, no, wait, everywhere east of Great Briton (I'm looking at you, France). We all know that America doesn't need chess, besides, it was dominated by a Russian for years, and we don't need to support anything or anyone related to communists, because we all know that terrorists are really communists in disguise.
Just so you know, Chess may have passed through Arabia during it's history, but is derived from an earlier game from India, which in turn may have been based loosely on a game from China.
The problem is that it's just one more avenue that the government is attempting to go down that it should really have the power to. If they say that the material is patently offensive for children, so children shouldn't be able to buy it, what's to stop them from introducing another law that makes it illegal to allow children to just play the game. And then what's to stop them from introducing more and more regulation, to the point where it becomes nearly impossible to make an M rated game, which stifles free speech.
To compare the sale of video games, which no scientific study has shown to cause harm, to cigarretes, booze, or sex, which actually can have negative effects, is a strawman arguement beyond belief. As far as tossing kids out of theaters, that's up to the owners of the theaters, and their ways of handling things, not the government (which just goes to show you that you don't need a government nanny).
Except that those same people will pay $50 for 10 year old Johnny to get a game that's clearly marked as being for 17 year olds. But the average person isn't really driving it. Jack Thompson attempts to drive it. The moral right does drive it. But what is it? A mere 10% of the population (true, it's still a large number in absolute terms)? Just because some people yell and scream about things doesn't mean that the majority agrees with it, it just means that the majority doesn't seem to care enough to give a shit.
At the very least they could easily allow for *installation* of older Windows versions so that if someone wanted to, they could partition their hard drive and run something. That's not a perfect solution either, but at least you wouldn't be stuck with the complete inability to run older software without trying to find older versions of windows for resale (or download them, and risk an inane lawsuit).
Because the Windows XP attempt at compatability layering with older games went soooooo well. There were plenty of good games, like Alpha Centari, that XP won't run unless you get the patch that the developer had to make to let it be compatable. Given that Vista is coming with a new version of Direct X that won't be compatable with any version before it, will the situation repeat itself where the attempt of a system workaround will fail miserably?
He did say so, right in the headline!
And then they'd lay down some of MC Hawking's phat rhymes.
In Soviet Russia, +? modifier makes you funny!
No, my point is that none of the "Intelligent Design" folks would ever let schools teach the inconsistancies within the Bible.
And I never said I frowned on historical evidence. In fact, if you'll read, I said that it was the Bible which didn't have historical evidence. For example, the entire Jewish captivity by the Egyptians has no evidence outside of the Bible.
You can verify evolution by fossils. You can show that the organic chemicals that are nessicary for life can be created in an environment similar to prehistoric Earth.
Oh yes, evolution surely would fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. Why, we would need a huge source of power for that. I wonder if there's anything nearby which might account for that...
Oh, and I'm sure you'll find that the Theory of Reletivity is likely to be modified at some point, given that it isn't entirely complete for the universe. It's great at what it sets out to do, that is explain the very large, but ideally there would be a link between it and quantum mechanics, which is currently being sought. I assure you, if there is something there, it will upset physicists, and will be tested more than you could possibly imagine. Unfortunately there isn't anything that's testable (I'm looking at you string theory).
However, if someone with no evidence came forward and said that the Bible disproves the Theory of Relativity and that some sort of Biblical perception of time should be taught in physics classes, you'd get a good laugh out of physicists for awhile. But if you tried to do it for a few decades, the joke would be as stale as creationism.
Unless that nuclear bomb that the government dropped is reported by Fox News as a bomb set off by the rebellion, or terrorists, or Democrats.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/index.html
Heck, if you want to debate on a forum, feel free to drop by iidb.org . They've got plenty of folks who will debate you till the cows come home.
He was talking about abstract probability. The coin is just there as a way to get results.
We can very much find evidence for the Big Bang, such as backround radiation and the red shift of distant galaxies.
Molecules to man evolution is a complete misnomer. No one has ever said that a group of molecules just came together to form a man (well, except for the Bible, where gawd collected dust together...). Nevertheless, perhaps you should read up on the Miller-Urey experiment, which shows the formation of amino acids. From there, the path of life is fuzzy, yes, but very likely revoled around self replicating proteins and simplistic RNA. From there, there is a movement towards protocells, then more and more complicated structures. Sit back and wait a few billion years and you get some pretty damn complicated life, including humans.
I don't understand where you make the bridge between order, design, and a designer. A Mandelbrot set is quite orderly, but in no way did Mandelbrot design it. He merely found it. Beyond that, if there is something complicated enough to design the universe, it would need quite a bit more order than the universe, and thus would've had to be disigned, thus wouldn't the designer need a designer. And designer B would need designer C, and so on an so forth ad infinitum?
I wasn't aware that science had any presuppositions besides the universe being self-consistant within itself (which is admidedly quite a bit, but without it you can't be sure of reality itself, and that would imply that nothing really matters, etc). Science builds upon itself, sure, so if something changes, then many things may need to be reexamined. Yet things are also surprisingly strong, due to actually being tested or otherwise confirmed with data.
Beliving the universe to be orderly and designed is anti-science simply because there's no evidence for it being designed. If you've got some evidence for it, there's a Nobel prize in it for you, I'm sure.
Just like we should try every day to knock down gravity, relativity, and the laws of thermodynamics.
Just never try to knock down Jebus, or the lack of evidence for the vast majority of the events in the Bible, which is exactly how religion works.
Ahem, he said Iraq, which, despite the best attempts of the Bush Administration's PR team, did not have affiliations with Al-Qaeda under Saddam Housein, and thus was in no way connected to 9/11 or Osama Bin Laden.
In fact, following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, Osama offered Saudi Arabia the protection of his Jihadists, fearing expansionist goals of Hussein. Saddam attempted to make overtures to get Osama into his country several times, but Osama refused, because Hussein was too secular and thus against the fundamentalist Muslim views of bin Laden.
Be sure you never trample on the garden of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) with your blashphemy about technological invisibility. There is only one invisible creature, and She has raptured my socks to show Her favor. In the distance, I even hear Her whinny on the wind, and you should be careful of wearing pink, as well, lest you turn invisibly pink, and terribly upset the marvelous being that is the IPU.
That leads me to ponder something: If a European company distributed software that contained US patented code over the internet (and thus not having a physical presence in the US), how would that court case go? Assuming that they were found in the wrong, would there even be a way to get damages (short of pulling another Dmitry Sklyarov)?