Someone look up the number of people in jail. We may be number one at that, or at least the number of people who have served time even if they aren't currently in jail.
But we are forced to look a step back and ask what would have happened had Evil Bill & Ted never arrived. Sadly, the movie fails on this point, because they would have had no show, no message, no glory, and no future of peace and brotherhood which De Nomolos would wish to destroy. However, this particular history--the one in which Bill and Ted appear at the Battle of the Bands but Evil Bill and Ted did not arrive to interfere--never happened. But the reason for that has not yet been revealed.
As time reaches 2691, De Nomolos realizes that he has failed, and somehow steals a time machine to go back and do it himself. Again, he faces the same hazards he created by sending back his robots, but he has not considered these. De Nomolos then in large part intensifies the history he wishes to avoid: He gives his enemies a world-wide audience they could not have had without him.
What happens in this timeline is highly speculative. Bill and Ted decide to set up the sandbag, but it is not there. In a bloody shoot-out, the police capture De Nomolos, but the boys escape. At this point it might not matter whether or not they perform, because they have a time machine on stage, and they know how to use it. Once De Nomolos is taken, they take the time machine, and quietly go back to set up the sandbag. Note that if De Nomolos is not captured or killed, they cannot make the trip in his time machine, so they have to win; but as we discussed in Terminator, if something bad hasn't happened they will have no reason to do so. Thus I suggest that De Nomolos hurt, possibly killed, some people other than the boys, leading them to decide to undo it.
This sets up another timeline, because on cue the sandbag falls, smashing the gun in De Nomolos' hand. But the villain is infuriated, and Bill and Ted suddenly realize they should have included a cage. He charges them, and is again taken prisoner. Again Bill and Ted use the time machine on schedule, this time installing the sandbag and the cage. De Nomolos is captured in the new timeline.
He suggests that he, too, can travel back and make changes. He produces a key for the cage. He then produces a second gun. But Ted tells him that he's mistaken: only the winner can go back and make changes. This point is critical to our understanding of time travel: in order to make the trip back to fix the past, you must have survived to make the trip. Bill and Ted take credit for the key and the gun. But this means two more trips. First they must plant the key. This strikes me as unlikely in the extreme. De Nomolos appears to draw it from his pocket, which would mean they would have to have found him before he appeared on stage and planted it in his pocket; but he just came from the future, a time and place unknown to them, so it would not be easy to do. But overlooking this logistical complication, they must have decided that it would make for a better show if they also provided him with a key. He pops out and announces that he has arranged for another gun, but it isn't there, so he is taken by the police. Again Bill and Ted go for the showmanship, and in this timeline add the gun, the fake gun which promotes them. Finally De Nomolos is taken into custody, no one is hurt, and the show is perfect.
In each of these timelines the next event is that Bill and Ted are faced with the fact that they are lousy musicians asked to perform to the world. The world has seen only the tail end of this show, but could still be impressed. And these concerts don't matter too much, because in each case the boys are about to go back and make changes to history, so they'll get another first try.
And they still have the time machine, and they still know that this is a critically important moment in their lives. So having bombed at the concert, they now abscond with the time machine, make that trip back to alter the past, and then begin their
You almost had a good point, however the government has a bad habit of enforcing morals that aren't shared by all and by forcing propaganda down peoples throats. So why would we want the government to have sole control over the largest source of information the world has ever known? So they can censor it? Its bad enough they censor it as much as they do already, just imagine what would happen if they had 100% control over the internet.
What is wrong with not having a diverse demographic? This is even better for advertisers because they are hitting the most valuable market. If you can't afford broadband you most likely can't afford whatever it is they are advertising. Not only that but now they can do targeted advertising which is more valuable to advertisers.
Hulu is the TV model of the future, on demand TV for whatever it is you want to watch, when you want to watch it. It gives near exact viewing numbers to at least the household if not to the viewer. The commercials are reasonable so you don't skip them, if they were longer I don't think hulu would work, 15-30 seconds is about as much as we're willing to stomach these days. My only complaint about Hulu is that you can't download shows in advance in HD to watch later. On demand is nice, but not so nice when it lags.
Why not blacklist all email, then white list by request? When a message arrives, auto-reply with a captcha. If they don't reply with the captcha then they remain blacklisted. Manually add businesses you associate with to the white list.
Read the history of copyright law. Copyright law didn't even exist before the printing press. It is something created by a king to ensure a monopoly on information. Which is a bad concept. The world would be a better place if all copyright law was abolished. It had its purpose in a time when there was a limited supply to copy. Today in the information age when digital copies can be made instantaneously for almost zero cost there is no longer a need for copyright. The people who create works worthy of a copyright also have the skills to make money on whatever they created without the need to copyright it. They may not make millions, but they should be able to make a living wage. This would also free up labor and resources that are currently being waisted to preserve a dying system. Those resources could be better used to promote science and improve the well being of all. Instead greedy politicians and industry tycoons force a dumb law on the masses to maintain their monopoly. If all the information was free and anyone could produce replicas then quality and service would be what defines the business, not the novel idea. If you came up with the idea and also have the best quality, best support, best service, or cheapest price you could still maintain your business and be successful.
There are bad laws that shouldn't be on the books. Copyright is one of them, at least in its current form. Giving people a few years of non-compete for there idea is one thing, giving them 120 years to squander away their idea is an entirely different beast. Other bad laws include interstate speed limits and drug prohibition and any law designed to protect an individual from themselves.
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
So apparently they'll just do that google search and then issue take down notices.
I liked the old lawless internet. Who let the feds in anyway? Why do we need internet laws? Someone enlighten me.
There are places where etiquette is required. Like the library, restaurants, court rooms, etc. However places where people can choose to ignore the medium are not those places. I can choose not to go to a website, subscribe to a twitter feed, choose a radio station and change the channel on the TV. If I want to broadcast garbage I should be able to and all that should happen is you ignore it if you don't like it.
No matter what you say you are going to offend someone. People need to learn to not be offended by others so that people can communicate, not the other way around. People shouldn't be forced to police their speech or their thought. Words change meaning and when police one word a new word will pop up to replace it. We aren't killing the meaning behind the words.
I am not, nor should I be worried about some "psychotic lunatic". The lunatic that is offended enough to cause someone else physical harm should be locked up in jail.
I don't know if any of you go back and read your old posts, however my only point in bringing up squatters rights and easements is the principle behind these laws. I wasn't trying to nit-pick. The idea is that if you let someone use something for a period of time, eventually they own the rights to it. It is a small part of property law that many people don't pay attention to but does exist and does serve a purpose in society. I was just purposing the idea that something like this could exist in intellectual property as well.
People need to grow some skin. Not everyone in the world likes you and not everyone is going to be nice to you. Calling you a "skanky ho" is not the same thing as falsely posting that contractor did shoddy work or that a politician had sex with you when he really didn't. In those cases there is actual damage being done. Calling someone a "skank", even if they are a model, on an internet forum or blog is par for the course. Get used to it and grow some skin. Hopefully she'll be picked up on south park and we'll see real hilarity ensue.
I hope this gets picked up by 4chan. I bet they'd have some fun with it.
Wow there is a lot of bad/mis information in this post.
Names like "Kevin" do have meaning. People choose names because of their meanings. For example Kevin means handsome or gentle birth.
A fun naming scheme: keywords. NULL, DROP_TABLES, INT, FLOAT, etc.
Actually... There is something called "squatters rights" or Squatting. So in the case of the residents taking care of the park for years, they would have a legal claim of ownership, at least in some states. There are also property laws in regards to "right of way" or Easement.
The important quote from the article:
In common law, through the legally recognized concept of adverse possession, a squatter can become a bona fide owner of property without compensation to the owner. Adverse possession is the process by which one acquires the title to a piece of land by occupying it for the number of years necessary, dictated differently by each state. A necessary component of this transfer of ownership requires that the landowner is aware of the land occupation and does nothing to put an end to it. If the land use by the new occupant goes unchecked for the said number of years, the new occupant can claim legal rights to the title of the land. The occupant must show that the "possession is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, under cover of claim or right, and continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period."[53]As Erin Wiegand notes, the most difficult part of claiming adverse possession on the part of squatters is the continuous part. Squatting is a very transient lifestyle and many are evicted on a frequent basis. [54] In an article regarding recent foreclosures in the United States, a current squatter in Miami stated of her housing, "It's a beautiful castle and it's temporary for me, if I can be here twenty-four hours, I'm thankful."[55] Thus, while adverse possession allows for the legality of a squatter's situation, it is not easy to win a case of adverse possession.
By We, I meant Americans, and more specifically Floridians... which didn't change that law until 2007. So for the majority of my life that was the law. I'm glad to see it has since changed.
We deny rights all the time. If you are convicted of a felony you loose all your rights. You loose the right to vote and the right to bear arms. Felons are second class citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone look up the number of people in jail. We may be number one at that, or at least the number of people who have served time even if they aren't currently in jail.
You almost had a good point, however the government has a bad habit of enforcing morals that aren't shared by all and by forcing propaganda down peoples throats. So why would we want the government to have sole control over the largest source of information the world has ever known? So they can censor it? Its bad enough they censor it as much as they do already, just imagine what would happen if they had 100% control over the internet.
This we know states that Atlanta has 0 violent crimes. It is so wrong, how can it even be useful?
What is wrong with not having a diverse demographic? This is even better for advertisers because they are hitting the most valuable market. If you can't afford broadband you most likely can't afford whatever it is they are advertising. Not only that but now they can do targeted advertising which is more valuable to advertisers. Hulu is the TV model of the future, on demand TV for whatever it is you want to watch, when you want to watch it. It gives near exact viewing numbers to at least the household if not to the viewer. The commercials are reasonable so you don't skip them, if they were longer I don't think hulu would work, 15-30 seconds is about as much as we're willing to stomach these days. My only complaint about Hulu is that you can't download shows in advance in HD to watch later. On demand is nice, but not so nice when it lags.
Go a step further - recreate the universe.
Why not blacklist all email, then white list by request? When a message arrives, auto-reply with a captcha. If they don't reply with the captcha then they remain blacklisted. Manually add businesses you associate with to the white list.
Read the history of copyright law. Copyright law didn't even exist before the printing press. It is something created by a king to ensure a monopoly on information. Which is a bad concept. The world would be a better place if all copyright law was abolished. It had its purpose in a time when there was a limited supply to copy. Today in the information age when digital copies can be made instantaneously for almost zero cost there is no longer a need for copyright. The people who create works worthy of a copyright also have the skills to make money on whatever they created without the need to copyright it. They may not make millions, but they should be able to make a living wage. This would also free up labor and resources that are currently being waisted to preserve a dying system. Those resources could be better used to promote science and improve the well being of all. Instead greedy politicians and industry tycoons force a dumb law on the masses to maintain their monopoly. If all the information was free and anyone could produce replicas then quality and service would be what defines the business, not the novel idea. If you came up with the idea and also have the best quality, best support, best service, or cheapest price you could still maintain your business and be successful.
There are bad laws that shouldn't be on the books. Copyright is one of them, at least in its current form. Giving people a few years of non-compete for there idea is one thing, giving them 120 years to squander away their idea is an entirely different beast. Other bad laws include interstate speed limits and drug prohibition and any law designed to protect an individual from themselves.
So apparently they'll just do that google search and then issue take down notices. I liked the old lawless internet. Who let the feds in anyway? Why do we need internet laws? Someone enlighten me.
Not only that, space is an imperfect vacuum, meaning it has junk in it.
Did you try ctrl-c?
There are places where etiquette is required. Like the library, restaurants, court rooms, etc. However places where people can choose to ignore the medium are not those places. I can choose not to go to a website, subscribe to a twitter feed, choose a radio station and change the channel on the TV. If I want to broadcast garbage I should be able to and all that should happen is you ignore it if you don't like it.
This rant brought to you by: thinkb4 youspeak
No matter what you say you are going to offend someone. People need to learn to not be offended by others so that people can communicate, not the other way around. People shouldn't be forced to police their speech or their thought. Words change meaning and when police one word a new word will pop up to replace it. We aren't killing the meaning behind the words.
I am not, nor should I be worried about some "psychotic lunatic". The lunatic that is offended enough to cause someone else physical harm should be locked up in jail.
I don't know if any of you go back and read your old posts, however my only point in bringing up squatters rights and easements is the principle behind these laws. I wasn't trying to nit-pick. The idea is that if you let someone use something for a period of time, eventually they own the rights to it. It is a small part of property law that many people don't pay attention to but does exist and does serve a purpose in society. I was just purposing the idea that something like this could exist in intellectual property as well.
And then right back again.
People need to grow some skin. Not everyone in the world likes you and not everyone is going to be nice to you. Calling you a "skanky ho" is not the same thing as falsely posting that contractor did shoddy work or that a politician had sex with you when he really didn't. In those cases there is actual damage being done. Calling someone a "skank", even if they are a model, on an internet forum or blog is par for the course. Get used to it and grow some skin. Hopefully she'll be picked up on south park and we'll see real hilarity ensue.
I hope this gets picked up by 4chan. I bet they'd have some fun with it.
Wow there is a lot of bad/mis information in this post.
Names like "Kevin" do have meaning. People choose names because of their meanings. For example Kevin means handsome or gentle birth.
A fun naming scheme: keywords. NULL, DROP_TABLES, INT, FLOAT, etc.
The important quote from the article:
Apparently you've never seen goatse or tubgirl. (NO I will not include links to those.)
My physics professor was one. I'm the only PC in a family of MACS. They do exist, just not in computer literate circles.
I've been to jail for speeding. I had to stay until I paid a $1000 bond. Was not fun.
By We, I meant Americans, and more specifically Floridians... which didn't change that law until 2007. So for the majority of my life that was the law. I'm glad to see it has since changed.
They still loose the right to bear arms. I googled it this time to be sure.
We deny rights all the time. If you are convicted of a felony you loose all your rights. You loose the right to vote and the right to bear arms. Felons are second class citizens.
Yes.
(speeding, marijuana, etc - do you need more examples?)
9.8 works just fine. But then again on Earth its the law.
6.67300 works as well.
So does 98.6.
Although -240, 365, 32 didn't work.
If give it 58.4 it returns: frequency of the note A#
I was watching "Watchmen" the other night and I thought it was odd that the smartest man in the world set his password to RamessesII.