A friend just gave me a 50" plasma HD TV, about 5 years old. The lights flicker when I power that thing up. I have no idea if that's normal, or it means I have lousy wiring, or if my TV is using more electricity that it should.
A black hole as small as the Earth would not be stable. Contrary to what that Disney film will tell you, black holes DO emit energy, and a small one will rapidly shrink until it's too small to maintain itself.
In short: You can't have a small black hole that stays around. It will evaporate.
Typically, you get extra lift from ground effect when your wings are within about a wingspan of the ground. (Thus, larger planes can get ground effect while they're higher up.)
This thing uses very short rotary blades, with the thrust being directed by a cowling. Since the machine itself is about six feet tall, I doubt if it's getting any ground effect even when it's ON the ground.
"If you expect your mail server (Exchange, right? {grin}) to break 20 to 30 times a week, you are not doing your job. Your system is unstable. Your procedures are flawed. Your operators (or whatever group handles daily maintenance) are poorly trained. Something is horribly wrong. That is your problem. Not the on-call schedule's. "
I disagree with this. You can get 20-30 calls a week from people who're just plain too stupid to be trusted with an email system no matter how well configured it may be. A previous job I held had calls like this:
"Hi, I'm trying to send an email and it won't go."
"Well, what happens?"
"For the longest time it kept saying it couldn't find him, and now I've got the starfield lock."
"Right. Find who?"
"My cousin, Bob."
"What's his email address?"
"I don't know. Do I need that?"
This is not the fault of anyone but whoever hired this idiot... ("Starfield lock", just in case anyone cares, turned out to be that his screen saver had come on.)
Which is better:
------------
Millenium Falcon, with wires, loose rivets, burn marks, etc.
-or-
The mirror smooth ship in Phantom Menace
---------------
Chewbacca
-or-
Jar Jar
------------------
Jabba the Hutt
-or-
The winged blue guy who I don't even know his name
------------------
Storm Troopers
-or-
Those idiotic battle droids
-------------------
The Death Star
-or-
The silly looking ship Anakin accidentally blew up
-------------------
Doing it with CGI doesn't make it better, George. Twenty years later, everybody still knows what the Death Star is. Kids wanted to be Storm Troopers, even though they always got killed. I wanted to own the Millenium Falcon. I wanted R2D2 to be my friend. Nobody wants to be friends with a CGI. Nobody dreams of owning the Naboo silver ship, which didn't even have a name, and the battle droids- no, I don't think anyone dreams of being a battle droid. Oh, and BTW- Jar Jar sucks ass.
The story of the greatest thief in the world, and his sidekicks Cheegan and Goymon. "The Castle of Castigliostro" is a part of this series, despite not having "Lupin" or "Rupin" in the title. (Different versions use "Lupin" or "Rupin", but it's the same basic work. VERY good stuff.)
If the government set up a sting operation to prosecute people in this fashion, I'd be outraged. If a company tried to convince people to use their site and then did this, I'd boycott. But this is being done by someone who is TRYING to get people to quit using his site. (He wants pedophiles to stop using Gnutella.) I have no problem with that. This would be bad behavior from the police, but it's just fine for a person- he's not making anybody use his stuff.
No, it means they promised not to use it on a routine basis after 2006. They still CAN use it, and you can bet if we get in a war and somebody's using GPS to guide their missles at the US's most strategic targets (The Geek Compound, yes?) then they'll turn it right back on. (And I'm glad they've got that capability. I really, really hate for my tax dollars to be used to build a satilite which gets used to blow me up.)
Read a little closer. They were committed to turning off SA by 2006 at the latest. The point of that article is that they've done it early- it's off as of today, instead of waiting for 2006.
But the right to free speech is not something we should be able to take away from anyone in our society, not if we want it to remain a free one. A person who is IN prison gives up a lot of rights, but they can still speak their mind. They can still debate the justice of their imprisonment. If Mitnick cannot even discuss computers, he can no longer meaningfully discuss his own case. He can no longer speak in his own defense. That's one right we DARE not violate, not for anyone, in prison, on parole, or otherwise. Or else any of us could be thrown in jail, and never allowed to protest.
I wonder- if linking to a page containing illegal material means your page is itself in violation of the law, then you don't even have to link to an illegal page. You just link to a page that has a link, and so on. I think that, under this reasoning, almost all of the web pages in the world are in trouble. Certainly every search engine is. It spreads fast. As for Japanese laws being draconian, well, the obscenity laws under discussion here are a part of their constitution, which was written by-- wait for it-- the United States of America. After WWII, remember?
Lego test replaced SATS at some schools, remember?
on
Lego Machine Gun
·
· Score: 3
Boy, this guy's a shoo-in at any of the schools which are using LEGO projects as admission criteria now. I can see it now:
"Okay, uh, your Lego project doesn't really look much like it's supposed to, frankly we're a little disappointed in... Hey! Put that down! OK! You're in! You're in!"
Not quite a $200 camera pluggedinto a $2 million dollar supercomputer. More like somebody's EYEBALL plugged into a supercomputer, and working. If they can decode an image at the LGN, then encoding an image at the LGN is a logical extension of the technology. So an artificial eye could be built to view the image with a camera, then encode the image and put it into the LGN. Nobody's done it yet, but between the Cat Cam and Jerry, I think it's obvious that somebody's going to do it quite soon. In any event, by no means is communicating images with a brain "ludicrous".
I think our understanding over visual signals in the brain may better than you think. There's a lot of refinement, but the basic protocol is already know. I refer you to the Slashdot article at http://slashdot.org/articles/99/10/07/1313256/shtm l
Several reseachers at Harvard have run an implant into a cat's visual cortex, and can transmit images from the cat's mind to a computer. This is the reverse direction of sending images INTO the brain, but it displays a solid enough knowledge of visual signals in the brain that I'd hesitate to use the word "ludicrous". They'll get there, and soon.
News servers are not public and unownable- each and every one is owned by someone, and they can do whatever they like with it. They bought the toy, they get to play with it. They can choose to propigate messages from @Home with it, or they can choose not to. There's no law saying they MUST use their resources to propigate someone else's messages. Now, if you don't like the idea of your ISP not propigating messages from @Home, then you should find an ISP that doesn't participate in UDPs. I think there's plenty of ISPs out there that don't. If there isn't, and every single ISP in the wold does participate, then you're out of luck. There's also no law saying that you must be provided with USENET access that suits you. What you're failing to understand is that you're buying a service, not exercising a right. If no one sells the service you want, too bad. If someone does, buy it from them, but don't tell me that I should be forbidden from buying the service I want if I can find someone who wishes to sell it to me.
"supply decent light bulbs for quality lighting"? You want my employer to choose and buy my light bulbs? Because make no mistake, if my employer can be held libel for damages caused by crummy lights, then they'll be deciding what kind of lights I can have. I sort of enjoy freedom. I don't want a company lawyer poking into my house saying "We'll choose your furniture and your lights, and we'll eliminate anything dangerous in your house that isn't needed for work. Ditch the skateboard, you might trip on it. Shoot the dog, he might bite you. Abandon the wife and kids, you might catch their cold. You will be assimilated."
By "stricter and stricter laws", I assume you're referring to the US gun control laws, which are far and away the least strict of any first world nation. Go look at the gun control laws in Canada, England, Germany, or Japan. There are nations where everybody has a gun, as part of a civil defense force, but as far as I know the US is the only country that allows it's citizens who posses anything from a concealable snub-nosed.38 to an AK-47.
As for becoming the "Jews of Germany", that's downright offensive, not to mention self-aggrandizing. You haven't been gassed. Rounded up wholesale and slaughtered. Used in vile medical experiments to see what happens if your liver is removed without anethesia. Don't you dare to compare a 7 day waiting period to buy more guns with watching your entire family get butchered before your eyes. You might say that didn't happen during the 1930's, but they pieces were being put in place to do it in a few short years, and somehow I don't think you'll be seeing the inside of a gas chamber all that fast.
Kids want to grow up to be adults. They want to be seen as grown-ups, "I wanna be an astronaut, I wanna be a fireman". We want to become like the things that made us. A self aware machine, if it thinks the way we do (And it probably would, since it was made by humans and taught to think by humans then it should think somewhat like humans), would want to grow up and be like the things that made it. As you yourself pointed out, we are the sum of what goes in and what comes out- So why should an intelligence I create with a screwdriver be so very different from an intelligence I create through sex? I made it, I raised it.
This is exactly what happens every time somebody cooperates with Microsoft! Why is PrimeEnd the only one who sees it? You get in bed with Microsoft, YOU GET SCREWED!
1. How will the fortunate feel superior if everybody's perfect?
2. What about people who can't afford to get this treatment, such as residents of third world countries?
Right off, the questions answer each other. Futhermore, it doesn't matter whan Jon "Moron" Katz thinks because we have no choice. Natural selection has been eliminated from human evolution. No matter how stupid or inept a person is, they can have 10 kids and every one of those kids will survive to adulthood and breed, most likely. That fact that their parent is too limited to support them will NOT mean they starve. We, as a society, take care of them. Furthermore, if you look close, you'll notice that the smarter people are having fewer kids. We're rapidly evolving into a society of morons. SOMEBODY is going to decide to use genetic engineering to correct this for themselves and some friends- maybe a few friends, may a lot of friends, but either way they'll have an advantage over idiots like Jon Katz, nex thing you know natural selection is back in play. People can adapt, go with the future, or they can be hedged out of the world by those who have. Either way, evolution continues. Sorry if you don't like it Katz, but you can't stop it. Your opinion about it being a good or bad idea is like having an opinion about the sun coming up in the morning. It's a law of nature, and we don't get to vote on it.
To quote Lord John Worfin (John Lithgow in Buckaroo Banzai): 'Laugh-a while you can, Monkey Boy."
I wonder if he'll still be laughing when his company gets Slashdotted with email complaining about him.
Incidentally, his boss is the President of ArtX, David Orton. Mr. Orton's email address is deo@artxinc.com, if you'd care to express your thoughts on this type of behavior to him.
I think the point the author of that anti-sim article was trying to make is not that people who play sims will get in a jet and kill people. It's that we, as a country, will become desensitized to the fact that when a real jet shoots a real missle, a real person dies. When some other country thumbs is nose at the US, we get all angry and say "Let's go bomb the bastards", and they show us pictures on TV of a missle hitting an "enemy" plane or bunker, and while intellectually we know someone just died, we don't stop to really understand that a person who grew up, fell in love with a girl, likes the color blue, misses his family, and likes being alive just as much as you or I, is now dead, and everything he's ever dreamed of doing is gone. The pictures on TV look like a sim, and that's how we think of war, and so we call for war, it looks fun and clean and maybe somebody'll make a really good sim game of the fight. If every wargame looked more like the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan", we'd probably think a lot longer before we yelled "Fuq Iraq- Bomb the Bastard of Bagdhad!"
Sometimes a fight is inevitable. But war shouldn't seem fun.
11/13/1999 was an odd day. But it's in the PAST. It's over. Done with. There were a lot of odd days during the 1990s, but those days are gone. We must look to the future now, a future that contains, for us, only even days. (And mixed days, but who cares about a mixed day?) We boldly look forward to the bright hope presented by even days, never glancing back at the odd days that served us so well. It's time to move on.
When does Disney require me to use my imagination? Many of the attractions use a shadow, a hint, or what they want you to believe, at let you fill in the rest. I call your attention to having dinner in the Blue Bayou, or riding Space Mountain. If you have never done these things, this discussion is over because only one of us has meaningful information on the subject at hand. Disneyland also has a great deal of the imagination of other people put into it, and by going one can see their work and their dreams. Imagination is a two way street- a book should be read, a movie watched, a theme park experienced. Otherwise, why bother making them at all? For your own edification? That eliminates the possibility of using them to connect with your fellow man, to show what's in your heart and perhaps inspire something in return. If you think Disneyland is souless then that's your right, but I see beauty in the artwork in "Alice In Wonderland", I see adventure in the "Pirates of the Carribean (sp)", I see wonder in "Space Mountain", and I see incredible technical skill in "Star Tours". And don't even get me started on how much more Disneyland has to offer to children, who can really believe, who can meet Mickey Mouse and think they just met Mickey Mouse.
As for museums, I wasn't putting them down. That last paragraph was sarcasm, intended to highlight that most of the arguements you put forth concerning Disneyland also apply to other forms of entertainment, including the Louvre. They're not valid arguements in either case.
In any event, I'm done. I'm gonna go throw Katz in my killfile before he reprints this article for a fourth time.
"Copyrights can only be registered by those who wrote the initial work."
So God would hold the copyright on the Bible. Boy, there's a lawsuit for ya. "John Smith vs. God"
"I call to the stand my first witness, God Almighty. Do You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help You You?"
"I AM THE LORD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, ALMIGHTY GOD. THIS PERSON HAS VIOLATED MY COPYRIGHT AND I SHALL VISIT A PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS AND LAWYERS UPON HIM FOR ALL ETERNITY. I DEMAND JUDGEMENT NOW. MY WILL BE DONE."
"Defense has no witnesses, your honor. We request a recess so the Defendant can get some clean underwear."
Slashdot Mirror
A friend just gave me a 50" plasma HD TV, about 5 years old. The lights flicker when I power that thing up. I have no idea if that's normal, or it means I have lousy wiring, or if my TV is using more electricity that it should.
A black hole as small as the Earth would not be stable. Contrary to what that Disney film will tell you, black holes DO emit energy, and a small one will rapidly shrink until it's too small to maintain itself.
In short: You can't have a small black hole that stays around. It will evaporate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Typically, you get extra lift from ground effect when your wings are within about a wingspan of the ground. (Thus, larger planes can get ground effect while they're higher up.)
This thing uses very short rotary blades, with the thrust being directed by a cowling. Since the machine itself is about six feet tall, I doubt if it's getting any ground effect even when it's ON the ground.
"If you expect your mail server (Exchange, right? {grin}) to break 20 to 30 times a week, you are not doing your job. Your system is unstable. Your procedures are flawed. Your operators (or whatever group handles daily maintenance) are poorly trained. Something is horribly wrong. That is your problem. Not the on-call schedule's. " I disagree with this. You can get 20-30 calls a week from people who're just plain too stupid to be trusted with an email system no matter how well configured it may be. A previous job I held had calls like this: "Hi, I'm trying to send an email and it won't go." "Well, what happens?" "For the longest time it kept saying it couldn't find him, and now I've got the starfield lock." "Right. Find who?" "My cousin, Bob." "What's his email address?" "I don't know. Do I need that?" This is not the fault of anyone but whoever hired this idiot... ("Starfield lock", just in case anyone cares, turned out to be that his screen saver had come on.)
Which is better:
------------
Millenium Falcon, with wires, loose rivets, burn marks, etc.
-or-
The mirror smooth ship in Phantom Menace
---------------
Chewbacca
-or-
Jar Jar
------------------
Jabba the Hutt
-or-
The winged blue guy who I don't even know his name
------------------
Storm Troopers
-or-
Those idiotic battle droids
-------------------
The Death Star
-or-
The silly looking ship Anakin accidentally blew up
-------------------
Doing it with CGI doesn't make it better, George. Twenty years later, everybody still knows what the Death Star is. Kids wanted to be Storm Troopers, even though they always got killed. I wanted to own the Millenium Falcon. I wanted R2D2 to be my friend. Nobody wants to be friends with a CGI. Nobody dreams of owning the Naboo silver ship, which didn't even have a name, and the battle droids- no, I don't think anyone dreams of being a battle droid. Oh, and BTW- Jar Jar sucks ass.
The story of the greatest thief in the world, and his sidekicks Cheegan and Goymon. "The Castle of Castigliostro" is a part of this series, despite not having "Lupin" or "Rupin" in the title. (Different versions use "Lupin" or "Rupin", but it's the same basic work. VERY good stuff.)
If the government set up a sting operation to prosecute people in this fashion, I'd be outraged. If a company tried to convince people to use their site and then did this, I'd boycott. But this is being done by someone who is TRYING to get people to quit using his site. (He wants pedophiles to stop using Gnutella.) I have no problem with that. This would be bad behavior from the police, but it's just fine for a person- he's not making anybody use his stuff.
No, it means they promised not to use it on a routine basis after 2006. They still CAN use it, and you can bet if we get in a war and somebody's using GPS to guide their missles at the US's most strategic targets (The Geek Compound, yes?) then they'll turn it right back on. (And I'm glad they've got that capability. I really, really hate for my tax dollars to be used to build a satilite which gets used to blow me up.)
Read a little closer. They were committed to turning off SA by 2006 at the latest. The point of that article is that they've done it early- it's off as of today, instead of waiting for 2006.
But the right to free speech is not something we should be able to take away from anyone in our society, not if we want it to remain a free one. A person who is IN prison gives up a lot of rights, but they can still speak their mind. They can still debate the justice of their imprisonment. If Mitnick cannot even discuss computers, he can no longer meaningfully discuss his own case. He can no longer speak in his own defense. That's one right we DARE not violate, not for anyone, in prison, on parole, or otherwise. Or else any of us could be thrown in jail, and never allowed to protest.
I wonder- if linking to a page containing illegal material means your page is itself in violation of the law, then you don't even have to link to an illegal page. You just link to a page that has a link, and so on. I think that, under this reasoning, almost all of the web pages in the world are in trouble. Certainly every search engine is. It spreads fast. As for Japanese laws being draconian, well, the obscenity laws under discussion here are a part of their constitution, which was written by-- wait for it-- the United States of America. After WWII, remember?
Boy, this guy's a shoo-in at any of the schools which are using LEGO projects as admission criteria now. I can see it now:
"Okay, uh, your Lego project doesn't really look much like it's supposed to, frankly we're a little disappointed in... Hey! Put that down! OK! You're in! You're in!"
Not quite a $200 camera pluggedinto a $2 million dollar supercomputer. More like somebody's EYEBALL plugged into a supercomputer, and working. If they can decode an image at the LGN, then encoding an image at the LGN is a logical extension of the technology. So an artificial eye could be built to view the image with a camera, then encode the image and put it into the LGN. Nobody's done it yet, but between the Cat Cam and Jerry, I think it's obvious that somebody's going to do it quite soon. In any event, by no means is communicating images with a brain "ludicrous".
I think our understanding over visual signals in the brain may better than you think. There's a lot of refinement, but the basic protocol is already know. I refer you to the Slashdot article at http://slashdot.org/articles/99/10/07/1313256/shtm l
Several reseachers at Harvard have run an implant into a cat's visual cortex, and can transmit images from the cat's mind to a computer. This is the reverse direction of sending images INTO the brain, but it displays a solid enough knowledge of visual signals in the brain that I'd hesitate to use the word "ludicrous". They'll get there, and soon.
News servers are not public and unownable- each and every one is owned by someone, and they can do whatever they like with it. They bought the toy, they get to play with it. They can choose to propigate messages from @Home with it, or they can choose not to. There's no law saying they MUST use their resources to propigate someone else's messages. Now, if you don't like the idea of your ISP not propigating messages from @Home, then you should find an ISP that doesn't participate in UDPs. I think there's plenty of ISPs out there that don't. If there isn't, and every single ISP in the wold does participate, then you're out of luck. There's also no law saying that you must be provided with USENET access that suits you. What you're failing to understand is that you're buying a service, not exercising a right. If no one sells the service you want, too bad. If someone does, buy it from them, but don't tell me that I should be forbidden from buying the service I want if I can find someone who wishes to sell it to me.
"supply decent light bulbs for quality lighting"? You want my employer to choose and buy my light bulbs? Because make no mistake, if my employer can be held libel for damages caused by crummy lights, then they'll be deciding what kind of lights I can have. I sort of enjoy freedom. I don't want a company lawyer poking into my house saying "We'll choose your furniture and your lights, and we'll eliminate anything dangerous in your house that isn't needed for work. Ditch the skateboard, you might trip on it. Shoot the dog, he might bite you. Abandon the wife and kids, you might catch their cold. You will be assimilated."
By "stricter and stricter laws", I assume you're referring to the US gun control laws, which are far and away the least strict of any first world nation. Go look at the gun control laws in Canada, England, Germany, or Japan. There are nations where everybody has a gun, as part of a civil defense force, but as far as I know the US is the only country that allows it's citizens who posses anything from a concealable snub-nosed .38 to an AK-47.
As for becoming the "Jews of Germany", that's downright offensive, not to mention self-aggrandizing. You haven't been gassed. Rounded up wholesale and slaughtered. Used in vile medical experiments to see what happens if your liver is removed without anethesia. Don't you dare to compare a 7 day waiting period to buy more guns with watching your entire family get butchered before your eyes. You might say that didn't happen during the 1930's, but they pieces were being put in place to do it in a few short years, and somehow I don't think you'll be seeing the inside of a gas chamber all that fast.
Kids want to grow up to be adults. They want to be seen as grown-ups, "I wanna be an astronaut, I wanna be a fireman". We want to become like the things that made us. A self aware machine, if it thinks the way we do (And it probably would, since it was made by humans and taught to think by humans then it should think somewhat like humans), would want to grow up and be like the things that made it. As you yourself pointed out, we are the sum of what goes in and what comes out- So why should an intelligence I create with a screwdriver be so very different from an intelligence I create through sex? I made it, I raised it.
This is exactly what happens every time somebody cooperates with Microsoft! Why is PrimeEnd the only one who sees it? You get in bed with Microsoft, YOU GET SCREWED!
Ok, so the arguements seem to be
1. How will the fortunate feel superior if everybody's perfect?
2. What about people who can't afford to get this treatment, such as residents of third world countries?
Right off, the questions answer each other. Futhermore, it doesn't matter whan Jon "Moron" Katz thinks because we have no choice. Natural selection has been eliminated from human evolution. No matter how stupid or inept a person is, they can have 10 kids and every one of those kids will survive to adulthood and breed, most likely. That fact that their parent is too limited to support them will NOT mean they starve. We, as a society, take care of them. Furthermore, if you look close, you'll notice that the smarter people are having fewer kids. We're rapidly evolving into a society of morons. SOMEBODY is going to decide to use genetic engineering to correct this for themselves and some friends- maybe a few friends, may a lot of friends, but either way they'll have an advantage over idiots like Jon Katz, nex thing you know natural selection is back in play. People can adapt, go with the future, or they can be hedged out of the world by those who have. Either way, evolution continues. Sorry if you don't like it Katz, but you can't stop it. Your opinion about it being a good or bad idea is like having an opinion about the sun coming up in the morning. It's a law of nature, and we don't get to vote on it.
"P.S. you're good. snagged my IP, huh?! i'm rotfl - rick." "
To quote Lord John Worfin (John Lithgow in Buckaroo Banzai): 'Laugh-a while you can, Monkey Boy."
I wonder if he'll still be laughing when his company gets Slashdotted with email complaining about him.
Incidentally, his boss is the President of ArtX, David Orton. Mr. Orton's email address is deo@artxinc.com, if you'd care to express your thoughts on this type of behavior to him.
I think the point the author of that anti-sim article was trying to make is not that people who play sims will get in a jet and kill people. It's that we, as a country, will become desensitized to the fact that when a real jet shoots a real missle, a real person dies. When some other country thumbs is nose at the US, we get all angry and say "Let's go bomb the bastards", and they show us pictures on TV of a missle hitting an "enemy" plane or bunker, and while intellectually we know someone just died, we don't stop to really understand that a person who grew up, fell in love with a girl, likes the color blue, misses his family, and likes being alive just as much as you or I, is now dead, and everything he's ever dreamed of doing is gone. The pictures on TV look like a sim, and that's how we think of war, and so we call for war, it looks fun and clean and maybe somebody'll make a really good sim game of the fight. If every wargame looked more like the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan", we'd probably think a lot longer before we yelled "Fuq Iraq- Bomb the Bastard of Bagdhad!"
Sometimes a fight is inevitable. But war shouldn't seem fun.
11/13/1999 was an odd day. But it's in the PAST. It's over. Done with. There were a lot of odd days during the 1990s, but those days are gone. We must look to the future now, a future that contains, for us, only even days. (And mixed days, but who cares about a mixed day?) We boldly look forward to the bright hope presented by even days, never glancing back at the odd days that served us so well. It's time to move on.
When does Disney require me to use my imagination? Many of the attractions use a shadow, a hint, or what they want you to believe, at let you fill in the rest. I call your attention to having dinner in the Blue Bayou, or riding Space Mountain. If you have never done these things, this discussion is over because only one of us has meaningful information on the subject at hand. Disneyland also has a great deal of the imagination of other people put into it, and by going one can see their work and their dreams. Imagination is a two way street- a book should be read, a movie watched, a theme park experienced. Otherwise, why bother making them at all? For your own edification? That eliminates the possibility of using them to connect with your fellow man, to show what's in your heart and perhaps inspire something in return. If you think Disneyland is souless then that's your right, but I see beauty in the artwork in "Alice In Wonderland", I see adventure in the "Pirates of the Carribean (sp)", I see wonder in "Space Mountain", and I see incredible technical skill in "Star Tours". And don't even get me started on how much more Disneyland has to offer to children, who can really believe, who can meet Mickey Mouse and think they just met Mickey Mouse.
As for museums, I wasn't putting them down. That last paragraph was sarcasm, intended to highlight that most of the arguements you put forth concerning Disneyland also apply to other forms of entertainment, including the Louvre. They're not valid arguements in either case.
In any event, I'm done. I'm gonna go throw Katz in my killfile before he reprints this article for a fourth time.
"Copyrights can only be registered by those who wrote the initial work."
So God would hold the copyright on the Bible. Boy, there's a lawsuit for ya. "John Smith vs. God"
"I call to the stand my first witness, God Almighty. Do You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help You You?"
"I AM THE LORD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, ALMIGHTY GOD. THIS PERSON HAS VIOLATED MY COPYRIGHT AND I SHALL VISIT A PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS AND LAWYERS UPON HIM FOR ALL ETERNITY. I DEMAND JUDGEMENT NOW. MY WILL BE DONE."
"Defense has no witnesses, your honor. We request a recess so the Defendant can get some clean underwear."