Wow, they really need to keep some play-doh around in SD-6. Next time Sloane is stuck in the torture room and they need his fingerprint they've got the solution right there!
Of course he's going to appeal. The guy can't lose anything! I go to a Illinois college where all construction was halted for 3 years on a much needed revamping. It was said because it was a George Ryan project (George Ryan is kind of seen as corrupt these days) and they had to be sure it went through the right bidding. Of course, they had just demolished it so it was unusable.
Seriously, this guy would to the ends of the Earth to try and prove he isn't wrong, even if everyone but Chicago knows he is. He thinks that fighting this thing will make mothers vote for him. I hope he's wrong.
and I'm sorry but Episode IV practically invented the "summer blockbuster" for better or worse. It should be listed first.
I'd have to disagree with you. On a skill of pop culture, I'd agree, but on the scale of space movies, it should be top 3, no better than, IMHO of course. Just because a space movie became a blockbuster, doesn't mean that it's one of the best for a specific category.
I agree. 2001 should be up a bit higher too. I'd say Star Trek VI should be higher than II, but that's bbecause I have a bit more philosophy to it.
In the end, it wasn't up to us. They should've known better./. Will rip apart anything geek that we don't agree with!
So what if Jhymn doesn't support iTunes 6.0. All you have to do is revert yourself back to iTunes 4.9 with downloads that can be found on www.ilounge.com and use Jhymn still. Last I checked (admittedly a while ago) you could still buy music with 4.9.
I never argued against that point, I was just trying to give an explaination to the original poster's question as to why he would have the copyright (or why he would think he should have it).
The closest example of "anything at all" can be seen in Pirates of Silicon Valley where Woz takes his PC in front of HP because there's a clause in his contract that stated he needed to give them first pick on anything he creates.
No, really it's because it's not specified in the Photographer's contract. Same goes for an author, painter, or composer. If you're commissioned to make a piece for a person or a company you maintain the copyright, unless you sign it away in your contract, which people often attempt to avoid, and even then usually your only signing away part of the copyright, usually you maintain the moral rights, meaning you are still credited as the author/painter/composer/photographer.
I understand that's the way the laws and contracts are written. Thing is, a photographer is hired to take a picture for someone. The photographer takes said picture, gives the person the picture and is paid for it. Who owns the copyright? The photographer. Because of my understanding on that, I understand where the coder is coming from (to an extent. Lesson here, read you contract before signing!).
The example posted by voidptr is an excellent response:
"If I bought a gun legally last year and they've banned it this year, I can't keep it in state anymore."
It has been known to happen with drugs (Alcohol at prohibition, you own a bunch and now you can not own any of it. Granted that took an amendment, but back to my point from before, things like the patriot act would need an amendment, but it still gets passed in this day and age.
Yeah, but than again, you can't be wiretapped without a warrent. You can't be held for a large length of time without being charged. Just because it's not supposed to happen, doesn't mean it's not possible.
The article states that it would ban Mythtv, but that's already been made and thus should be legal. Hell, based solely upon ex post facto, shouldn't this law never happen because we already have these things?!
So it's basically saying that they're trying to make it completely illegal to make and or use things such as MythTV and tuner cards and even the DVD Recorders currently on the market today? And anyone who owns one already is SOL?
So a single power that just happens to have been "stable" for 50 years means leaving that single power in charge is a good idea. Amazing how America has turned around. We used to think having a single power a thousand miles away controlling things was a very bad thing, now we seem to want to keep power in a single body that is easily a thousand miles away from some people who need it. The "democracy" America has (which is actually a democratic republic) is, in some respects, a "rule by committee" enviroment. So we shouldn't treat the DNS servers with the same respect we treat ourselves?
I loved that movie. I may be too young to have seen it in it's prime, but I loved it ever since I saw it on TNT (I think that was it).
Ah the days when changing a grade was easy.
How about France? Would that be a nation you would want control to be taken from? Maybe Germany? Spain? Stop me when I'm getting to one you would like to see control it.
If China had controlled the Internet (as we know it today) I would have taken steps to remove it from them immediately. Which is basically exactly why I don't want countries like China to have a say in matters concerning the Internet.
So basically you're saying that if someone else had control, you would want it in the US?
I believe the poster's point with saying:
Wouldnt the US take a hardball approach if it was the other way around?
was that the only way to communicate to the current administration is a hardball approach. I will be the first to admit a hardball approach isn't right, but that doesn't make it any less true that the administration in the US is being a bunch of hardasses.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, they really need to keep some play-doh around in SD-6. Next time Sloane is stuck in the torture room and they need his fingerprint they've got the solution right there!
Wow, thanks. Just learned he had a hand in some of my favorite games of all time.
I think I'll get one of these things. Never can be too safe!
Oh, wait. I have a fence.
Of course he's going to appeal. The guy can't lose anything! I go to a Illinois college where all construction was halted for 3 years on a much needed revamping. It was said because it was a George Ryan project (George Ryan is kind of seen as corrupt these days) and they had to be sure it went through the right bidding. Of course, they had just demolished it so it was unusable.
Seriously, this guy would to the ends of the Earth to try and prove he isn't wrong, even if everyone but Chicago knows he is. He thinks that fighting this thing will make mothers vote for him. I hope he's wrong.
I'd have to disagree with you. On a skill of pop culture, I'd agree, but on the scale of space movies, it should be top 3, no better than, IMHO of course. Just because a space movie became a blockbuster, doesn't mean that it's one of the best for a specific category.
I agree. 2001 should be up a bit higher too. I'd say Star Trek VI should be higher than II, but that's bbecause I have a bit more philosophy to it. In the end, it wasn't up to us. They should've known better. /. Will rip apart anything geek that we don't agree with!
Damn. I thought that was the meaning of life!
First they tell us that the foil hats are bad and now they tell us what to listen to!
So what if Jhymn doesn't support iTunes 6.0. All you have to do is revert yourself back to iTunes 4.9 with downloads that can be found on www.ilounge.com and use Jhymn still. Last I checked (admittedly a while ago) you could still buy music with 4.9.
I never argued against that point, I was just trying to give an explaination to the original poster's question as to why he would have the copyright (or why he would think he should have it).
The closest example of "anything at all" can be seen in Pirates of Silicon Valley where Woz takes his PC in front of HP because there's a clause in his contract that stated he needed to give them first pick on anything he creates.
No, really it's because it's not specified in the Photographer's contract. Same goes for an author, painter, or composer. If you're commissioned to make a piece for a person or a company you maintain the copyright, unless you sign it away in your contract, which people often attempt to avoid, and even then usually your only signing away part of the copyright, usually you maintain the moral rights, meaning you are still credited as the author/painter/composer/photographer.
I understand that's the way the laws and contracts are written. Thing is, a photographer is hired to take a picture for someone. The photographer takes said picture, gives the person the picture and is paid for it. Who owns the copyright? The photographer. Because of my understanding on that, I understand where the coder is coming from (to an extent. Lesson here, read you contract before signing!).
Everybody can just run Knoppix and be let it take care of hardware!
And who is going to spend that much on a sub that's going to go out of the range of human hearing!?
The example posted by voidptr is an excellent response:
"If I bought a gun legally last year and they've banned it this year, I can't keep it in state anymore."
It has been known to happen with drugs (Alcohol at prohibition, you own a bunch and now you can not own any of it. Granted that took an amendment, but back to my point from before, things like the patriot act would need an amendment, but it still gets passed in this day and age.
Yeah, but than again, you can't be wiretapped without a warrent. You can't be held for a large length of time without being charged. Just because it's not supposed to happen, doesn't mean it's not possible.
The article states that it would ban Mythtv, but that's already been made and thus should be legal. Hell, based solely upon ex post facto, shouldn't this law never happen because we already have these things?!
So it's basically saying that they're trying to make it completely illegal to make and or use things such as MythTV and tuner cards and even the DVD Recorders currently on the market today? And anyone who owns one already is SOL?
*bashes head against wall*
My bad.
Am I the only one whose first thought upon reading this headline was Rama II where an appendicitis is performed?
So a single power that just happens to have been "stable" for 50 years means leaving that single power in charge is a good idea. Amazing how America has turned around. We used to think having a single power a thousand miles away controlling things was a very bad thing, now we seem to want to keep power in a single body that is easily a thousand miles away from some people who need it. The "democracy" America has (which is actually a democratic republic) is, in some respects, a "rule by committee" enviroment. So we shouldn't treat the DNS servers with the same respect we treat ourselves?
I loved that movie. I may be too young to have seen it in it's prime, but I loved it ever since I saw it on TNT (I think that was it). Ah the days when changing a grade was easy.
Because they can't afford it they must not be smart enough to use it! Seriously, no one has ever been smart and poor!
What's that? Socrates was poor? Mozart was poor? Monet was poor? Freud was poor? Even J.K. Rowling was poor!?!?!?!
So much for that philosophy!
How about France? Would that be a nation you would want control to be taken from? Maybe Germany? Spain? Stop me when I'm getting to one you would like to see control it.
So basically you're saying that if someone else had control, you would want it in the US?
I believe the poster's point with saying: was that the only way to communicate to the current administration is a hardball approach. I will be the first to admit a hardball approach isn't right, but that doesn't make it any less true that the administration in the US is being a bunch of hardasses.