Yes, i know, Sony is an evil company. So is Microsoft. If I just want to play games, nothing you list affected me. The rootkit fiasco wasn't about games at all - it was about music CDs, which is basically a completely different division of Sony. Stripping Linux may have ticked off some geeks, but it wasn't anything useful for gaming at all. And while the George Hotz case may have been gaming related - if you just wanted to play legal games, not pirate them and cheat, then it wasn't of interest either.
So, yes - Sony may be evil, but not any more so than most large companies. I'm going to buy a PS4 anyway.
This is exactly how the vast majority of the population think and corporations (like Sony) know this very well. There will never be any significant backlash against a company that provides affordable entertainment.
English is my third language and my command of it is imperfect. I am pretty sure that his actual statement was more grammatically correct than my quoting.
Unfortunately, it does not have a public "justice care" system. If you need to defend yourself in court, you either need to pay a huge amount of money or, if you cannot afford the shittiest possible lawyer, you'll get a public defender that is so overworked and underfunded as to be even worse than the aforementioned shittiest possible lawyer.
Once I asked an acquaintance of mine, who happens to be a criminal lawyer, how much on the average does it cost to have a decent legal representation for, say, a murder case. His answer: "How much does it worth it to you?"
The institutional injustice system is a blight upon society.
Idiots have gotten "Alcoholism" classified as a disease, so technically a treatment that immunizes you against alcoholism would be a vaccine in the "one time immunization to a disease" sense.
At least in the common vernacular. In medical terminology vaccines likely do refer strictly to immunization against virii.
Firstly, I see nothing in the quoted statement that limits the proposed ban to "actual" violence. Secondly, what makes you think that most "violent porn" is not simulated or consensual? Please share your data.
This ban is aimed at violent porn, not porn (as in naked people having sex). So, just to be clear, images depicting naked people having sex will be a-ok, whereas images depicting, say, women being raped or abused would not. It's the consenting adults principle, if you will.
How do I know this? Well, first of all, it's in the article: "We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said.
Um, let me try:
We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent movies which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime
If one is to be banned, the other should also be, for the same reasons.
Because with the right incentives, this parser may be upgraded to recognize key words like, say, "fertilizer" and "airport" and, once it detects a match, sends your personal information to a certain vacation company specializing in long-term accommodations on a Caribbean island resort.
Unfortunately, she doesn't have the money to fight them.
And here lies the the problem with our so called "justice" system: it's cost. Even when you are 100% in the right, you still need to spend (a lot of) money to get justice, money you will never get back and sometimes, when the other side can throw vastly larger amount of money at the problem, you will still lose.
There is no justice, only institutionalized extortion.
I just reviewed the common definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" which only confirmed that I have it right. Give me a reference that clearly explains your understanding of these concepts and I'll gladly educate myself. Until then I will assume that you're merely playing word games with a concept that you personally consider "too simplistic to be true".
FYI, most things in life ARE simplistic. And no, I don't pretend to be "better" than anyone, even those who try to tell ME what I'm thinking.
The problem with "common" definitions is that they do, with time, gravitate toward the simplistic, thus losing any fine distinctions, nuances and tomes that originally existed. When the original definition encompassed a broad range of meanings and depended on context for disambiguation, the "simplification" will most often drop all but one. Then, how would you communicate a concept when there are no longer words to describe it?
Regardless of what the words "atheist" and "agnostic" are currently accepted to mean, we still need a distinction among the various concepts, mainly because "lacking a belief in god(s)" is not the same as "believing there is/are no god(s)".
US citizens relinquished citizenship and due process if they joined an enemy army of the US, whether it was the Redcoats, Germans, or Al Cada (sic).
So, if the sociopathic boyfriend of your vengeful ex, who happens to hold a high position in the executive branch, "determines" that you have "joined an enemy army of the US", you are fair game? And the fact that you are stripped of your due process rights conveniently prevents you from proving your innocence? Neat.
Oh, by the way, that link that you provided? Might want to read at the bottom of that page: "Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding [...] under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence."
Exactly. You have no idea of knowing whether "distributing" something might lend you in jail or ruin you financially. Better be safe and all of your cultural sharing only via approved channels. After all, what's a small fee for the assurance that you won't be charged with supporting communist terrorist pedophiles?
It's funny how you people are against other's copyright, except when it belongs to one of your own. Hypocrite much?!?
I cannot speak for "you people", but that makes perfect sense to me: 1. We (myself and like-thinkers) are against copyright as it is currently implemented. 2. Some of us are against copyright in principle, while others will be OK with sane terms (which will allow free public participation in the culture of their generation). 3. Regardless of the above, as long as copyright remain are what they are, we will insist that they apply with equal (or, preferably, greater) harshness to the people and corporations that created, perpetuated and weaponized them, as they do to the rest of the population.
"A world out of time" by Larry Niven. None of the usual "kill your grandfather" paradoxes, but a well-thought-out and entertaining story about a man catapulted a L O N G way into the future.
Alternatively, the "Rainbow Mars" collection by the same author.
Slashdot Mirror
Why exactly would I give money to Sony?
Because I want to play games?
Yes, i know, Sony is an evil company. So is Microsoft. If I just want to play games, nothing you list affected me. The rootkit fiasco wasn't about games at all - it was about music CDs, which is basically a completely different division of Sony. Stripping Linux may have ticked off some geeks, but it wasn't anything useful for gaming at all. And while the George Hotz case may have been gaming related - if you just wanted to play legal games, not pirate them and cheat, then it wasn't of interest either.
So, yes - Sony may be evil, but not any more so than most large companies. I'm going to buy a PS4 anyway.
This is exactly how the vast majority of the population think and corporations (like Sony) know this very well.
There will never be any significant backlash against a company that provides affordable entertainment.
English is my third language and my command of it is imperfect.
I am pretty sure that his actual statement was more grammatically correct than my quoting.
And in all the countries outside the USA, we see two sides of the same coin.
And that is why copyright laws need reforming!
Before you clamour for a reform, spend a moment to think who will do the reforming[1] and whose interest they have in mind[2].
[1] Hint: not your ilk.
[2] Hint: not your ilk's.
Canada has a public health care system.
Unfortunately, it does not have a public "justice care" system. If you need to defend yourself in court, you either need to pay a huge amount of money or, if you cannot afford the shittiest possible lawyer, you'll get a public defender that is so overworked and underfunded as to be even worse than the aforementioned shittiest possible lawyer.
Once I asked an acquaintance of mine, who happens to be a criminal lawyer, how much on the average does it cost to have a decent legal representation for, say, a murder case. His answer: "How much does it worth it to you?"
The institutional injustice system is a blight upon society.
Idiots have gotten "Alcoholism" classified as a disease, so technically a treatment that immunizes you against alcoholism would be a vaccine in the "one time immunization to a disease" sense.
At least in the common vernacular. In medical terminology vaccines likely do refer strictly to immunization against virii.
Virii is not a word.
Viri is a word, but is the plural of Vir.
Firstly, I see nothing in the quoted statement that limits the proposed ban to "actual" violence.
Secondly, what makes you think that most "violent porn" is not simulated or consensual? Please share your data.
Of course there is: deceipt == deceit with a receipt.
This ban is aimed at violent porn, not porn (as in naked people having sex). So, just to be clear, images depicting naked people having sex will be a-ok, whereas images depicting, say, women being raped or abused would not. It's the consenting adults principle, if you will.
How do I know this? Well, first of all, it's in the article: "We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said.
Um, let me try:
We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent movies which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime
If one is to be banned, the other should also be, for the same reasons.
I don't see a difference. Do you?
It does not matter as long as they protect you from "inappropriate" results.
Google parses email to place ads. But so what?
Because with the right incentives, this parser may be upgraded to recognize key words like, say, "fertilizer" and "airport" and, once it detects a match, sends your personal information to a certain vacation company specializing in long-term accommodations on a Caribbean island resort.
And for all that we know, it already has.
The Toyota Corolla, Matrix, RAV4 and the Lexus RX 350 are all built in Canada but cost less (often significantly so) in the US.
Even if that was true, why should I care as long as I get better results?
Unfortunately, she doesn't have the money to fight them.
And here lies the the problem with our so called "justice" system: it's cost.
Even when you are 100% in the right, you still need to spend (a lot of) money to get justice, money you will never get back and sometimes, when the other side can throw vastly larger amount of money at the problem, you will still lose.
There is no justice, only institutionalized extortion.
What's "Bing"?
A search engine that doesn't forcefully censor the results of your searches.
Retard.. things are copywritten (sic) automatically when they are published.
Why is slashdot filled with retards these days.
I think you got your answer.
Cows argue that McDonald's should be abolished.
I just reviewed the common definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" which only confirmed that I have it right. Give me a reference that clearly explains your understanding of these concepts and I'll gladly educate myself. Until then I will assume that you're merely playing word games with a concept that you personally consider "too simplistic to be true".
FYI, most things in life ARE simplistic. And no, I don't pretend to be "better" than anyone, even those who try to tell ME what I'm thinking.
The problem with "common" definitions is that they do, with time, gravitate toward the simplistic, thus losing any fine distinctions, nuances and tomes that originally existed. When the original definition encompassed a broad range of meanings and depended on context for disambiguation, the "simplification" will most often drop all but one. Then, how would you communicate a concept when there are no longer words to describe it?
Regardless of what the words "atheist" and "agnostic" are currently accepted to mean, we still need a distinction among the various concepts, mainly because "lacking a belief in god(s)" is not the same as "believing there is/are no god(s)".
US citizens relinquished citizenship and due process if they joined an enemy army of the US, whether it was the Redcoats, Germans, or Al Cada (sic).
So, if the sociopathic boyfriend of your vengeful ex, who happens to hold a high position in the executive branch, "determines" that you have "joined an enemy army of the US", you are fair game? And the fact that you are stripped of your due process rights conveniently prevents you from proving your innocence? Neat.
Oh, by the way, that link that you provided? Might want to read at the bottom of that page:
"Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding [...] under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence."
"XPEH BAM", "HAXEP", "XEPOBO", "XPEHOBO", "MYTOPHO", "MYCOP", "3ACYHTE", "3ACYHEM", "MA3OK", "MAT", "CTEPBA", "CYKA" and so on should be safe for now.
And what plate does your wife have?
After she learned of the mistress, "COUCH4U"
Exactly. You have no idea of knowing whether "distributing" something might lend you in jail or ruin you financially.
Better be safe and all of your cultural sharing only via approved channels.
After all, what's a small fee for the assurance that you won't be charged with supporting communist terrorist pedophiles?
If the aftermath of this does not completely ruin Ortiz's career, then Swartz has died in vain.
It's funny how you people are against other's copyright, except when it belongs to one of your own. Hypocrite much?!?
I cannot speak for "you people", but that makes perfect sense to me:
1. We (myself and like-thinkers) are against copyright as it is currently implemented.
2. Some of us are against copyright in principle, while others will be OK with sane terms (which will allow free public participation in the culture of their generation).
3. Regardless of the above, as long as copyright remain are what they are, we will insist that they apply with equal (or, preferably, greater) harshness to the people and corporations that created, perpetuated and weaponized them, as they do to the rest of the population.
"A world out of time" by Larry Niven. None of the usual "kill your grandfather" paradoxes, but a well-thought-out and entertaining story about a man catapulted a L O N G way into the future.
Alternatively, the "Rainbow Mars" collection by the same author.