Seeing as how there has only been one Civil War with a different political climate, I don't see that quite happening.
The folks at Ruby Ridge thought they were rebelling against an unjust government, as did the people at Waco. Heck, you could even make a case that the LA riots were about people trying to gather momentum to rise up against a corrupt establishment that had been oppressing them for years.
Now if states actually try to succeed...that might be a different story.
"Secede," not "succeed." Sorry. I don't usually do grammar-nazi posts.
If we go around saying "Oh God, North Korea is going to nuke us," even if North Korea had no intention of actually using nuclear weapons against us, it now basically has to as US nuclear weapons are probably inbound.
How old are you? This is nothing new. It's called "Mutually Assured Destruction", and it was all the rage in the 50's (and 60's, 70's, 80's, finally starting to burn out in the 90's with the dissemination of nuclear non-proliferation treaties). The idea was that if everybody had nukes, then it would prevent anyone from actually using them, because they'd be assured that a volley of nukes would be coming right back at them.
The problem with the current administration, is that it doesn't realize that by choosing a policy it is giving all of the rest of the countries in the world the right to use those policies as well.
Did you sleep through history class? Do you really think that the entire "current administration" is blissfully unaware of everything to do with the development of their own country's nuclear strategy over the preceding 5 decades?
It's a brave new world
You're 50 years late. This is just the rehashing of a very old idea. I suggest you visit a library and do a little reading up on history before the next time you shoot for an "Insightful" mod by educating us about "new" concepts that have actually been around for decades.
For the record, it actually worked. Since the proliferation of nukes, none have ever been used in combat. The ONLY time anyone has ever used a nuke in combat was when the US was the only ones with them. Now that everyone has them, everyone's afraid to use them. So think carefully before you criticise. The only solutions to the nuclear problem are either for everyone to have nukes, or for no one to have nukes. The idea behind the treaties in the 90's was to move towards "nobody," but now that the US is at war with "terrah," they're considerably less willing to part with their own stockpiles. So other nations are delaying their own compliance with the treaties. Nobody wants to be the first one to burn their own nukes. Nobody wants to be the only one unarmed.
The 'problem' is that creating an actual nuke is incedibly difficult.
This is not true. Creating a fission bomb ("A-bomb") is actually pretty trivial, and there are lots of web sites out there that thoroughly explain the principles, while omitting the actual math. The math can be deduced through some experimentation, but it certain doesn't require "billions" of dollars, or "decades" of research.
Now, creating a fusion bomb ("H-bomb", or "thermonuclear" bomb) is much, much harder. The math is orders of magnitude more complicated, and the experimentation involved would immediately set off alarm bells all over the planet. The cost is much greater, as is gathering together the required raw materials. I would be very surprised if any terrorist group ever managed to construct a true thermonuclear bomb. Their only hope would be to steal one or buy one, and either of those possibilities are highly unlikely. It takes a lot of time and resources to develop such a device, and it is impossible to do covertly. That is why we already know who has these types of bombs (the US, France, India, Pakistan, China, plus a few that are scattered throughout the former USSR states).
In just the last week alone I've had several marketting calls to my mobile. I've a feeling it didn't even ring on a couple of occasions. It costs me money to check my voice mail, only to discover it's unwanted crap. They're probably in some violation of CRTC regulations, but nobody seems to care.
This is actually a relatively new tactic by the telemarketers. You're right, your mobile doesn't "ring" in these instances. What's happening is the telemarketers aren't actually directly calling your phone (because that's technically illegal in Canada). What they do is they simply call into the voicemail system, then directly leave a message in your voicemail box. This is technically permitted under the current rules. Its cheaper for them, since they can use automated machines to leave the messages (current laws only forbid calling people with automated messages - there's no rule against using machines to leave voicemails), and they get around the "don't call cell phones" rules. It's particularly scummy, and I hope something is done about it soon, as it's really getting out of hand.
First, there's the automated systems which hold the line for a few seconds while they switch to an available representative. I just hang up on those before I ever have to talk to someone. If you're calling me you'd better be ready to talk to me right away.
These systems are particularly annoying, because if I don't pick up fast enough, then by the time I answer, the system has already selected some other caller, and I just get a dead line. That said, your approach can be improved upon. When I get a call, I pick up and say, "Hello," which usually triggers the system (they're called "Predictive Dialers"). If there isn't someone there immediately, I rapidly say "Hello hello hello," trying to trigger the system to direct me to a caller.
If you just hang up, they don't care, because they haven't wasted any time on you at all. The idea is to get through to a real person, then suck up as much of their time as you can. I let the telemarketer finish their pitch, then ask all kinds of questions, make some excuses for not wanting it, they try to come up with solutions to my objections, then finally I tell them that I would really love to buy their product, but I morally object to the use of predictive dialers and thus will not buy from them.
At that point, they usually act like they don't know what I'm talking about, so I politely explain it to them. "You know, the computer system your scummy boss uses to ensure all you little peons are never not annoying someone." Often, they realize they're not going to be able to sell me anything, then thank me for my time. If they instead keep pressing forward, trying to get me to buy something, I keep stringing them along until I get bored, or have something else to do.
Taking up their time discourages the use of these systems.
I get calls from ADT (a home security system company) all the time. The last time, I finally lost my patience and started getting blunt with the lady. She offered me a special "deal" where, if I allow them to put an ADT sign on my lawn, they'll install a home security system for me, absolutely free. Except, I'd have to pay the monthly monitoring fee and agree to a 2 year contract. I told her I wasn't interested. She tried again, and asked me why I would leave my family unprotected. I said, "I am protected. If someone breaks in while I'm not home, I have home insurance. And if someone breaks in while I am home, I have a gun."
She did a double-take. "A what?" "A gun. A rifle. I'm a firearms owner." She stammered, and tried to tell me it was illegal to shoot people who broke into my home. I told her I'd take my chances, thanks for your concern, goodbye.
Seems to me that the Atlantic hurricans almost never run out of letters, which bounds the number at 26.
Actually, it's bounded at 21. Q, U, X, Y, and Z aren't used. And you're right, they've never yet run out of letters, although this year, it appears that that's exactly what will happen. They're already up to 'O', and hurricane season doesn't end until November 30th. Apparently, if they exhaust the alphabet, they start using Greek letters to name the hurricanes. Could be an interesting and historical year.
The problem is that nobody in power (this adminstration or previous ones) has been willing to make the funds available to upgrade the levees
This is simply factually incorrect. The levees were, in fact in the process of being upgraded to withstand the full force of a category 5 hurricane. The upgrades have been underway for several years, but given the enormous size of the task, will not be completed for several more years yet. Unfortunately, Katrina wouldn't wait. But to say that nobody was doing anything is just plain ignorant and wrong. They were doing exactly what needed to be done. It's just not an instantaneous process.
I understand that the risk that the levees could break was well-known, and that governments (at various levels) decided to do nothing about it.
That's a lie. The levees were designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane. City officials fully recognized that this was insufficient, and the levees were/are in the process of being upgraded to withstand the full force of a category 5 hurricane. Unfortunately, however, given the enormous size of the levees, this is not an overnight process. There are several years remaining until the scheduled completion of the upgrades.
This is hardly "doing nothing about it." They were, in fact, in the midst of doing exactly what they should have been doing. Your criticism is ignorant and insensitive.
Today a special effected film seems to cost, what, 110 million. In six years, that will be up to 130 million
What? Get the hell off Slashdot. You've forfeited your geek license. That's like saying, "today, RAM costs $n/GB. In six years, it will be up to $3n/GB."
Technology costs go DOWN as time increases, not up. How much $$$ did Pixar have to invest in rendering farm servers to make the first "Toy Story?" How much do you think they spent on hardware for "The Incredibles?" I don't even need numbers from you, just say "more" or "less."
The correct answer, of course, is "less." Technology is making these effects cheaper, and at an incredible pace. 6 years from now, CGI like we saw in Skycaptain will be gracing the screens at independant film festivals.
I will admit, there is an occasional breakout hit: The Matrix, Sin City were amazing, Spiderman was not as bad as it could have been.
Sure, if by "not as bad as it could have been" you meant "smashed pretty much every box office record at the time." The "Batman" and "Superman" franchises have been very popular, the "X-Men" movies also broke records when they were both released. Comic book movies are almost sure-fire moneymakers. Very few fail to meet their profit expectations ("Fantastic Four," "Spawn," "LXG" to name a few).
Now, video game movies, those ones are almost always flops. "Super Mario Brothers," "Street Fighter," "Mortal Kombat" (and the inexplicable sequel)... the number of successful video game movies is roughly equal to the number of failed comic book movies. And that number is very, very small. "Resident Evil" did very well, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any other successful video game movie.
It really is evident in the hollywood scheme of things that they have ran out of movie ideas
I disagree. It is only recently that Hollywood realized that documentaries can be very successful. "Bowling for Columbine" surprised them, so they followed up with "Farenheit 9/11," "Supersize Me," and "March of the Penguins." "Memento" was a very innovative movie that Hollywood bet on and succeeded. "Team America..." come on, when's the last time a marionette movie was in theaters? The entertainment industry tried several new groundbreaking things in releasing the Matrix sequels by filming them at the same time (I believe it was the first time Hollywood greenlighted 2 sequels to be filmed simultaneously), releasing them in rapid-succession (a tactic followed up by Kill Bill doing the same thing), releasing the movie simultaneously throughout the world instead of the conventional regionally-staggered schedule, and tying in the movies with a video game, and a DVD of dark, animated shorts that fit in with the movies.
Hollywood is not stupid. They know their revenues are dropping. They know they need new ideas. And they're not all a bunch of rock-dumb idiots. They've been in the business a very long time, and have lots of formal education doing this sort of thing. They're working on new ideas all the time, and trying things they wouldn't have had the courage to try a couple decades ago.
Absolutely false. I presume you're referring to the Budget dealer in the US that used GPS to detect when their customers were exceeding the speed limit excessively, and then charged them an extra fee on their rental charge.
This is not a "ticket." A ticket entails demerit points on your license, which can lead to license suspensions and other disciplinary action. This type of punishment can only be doled out by law enforcement agencies.
Why should we dwell on all the bad things as you ask when instead we can find something to laugh about. Millions of people die terrible, painful, untimely deaths every day around the world. Have you been avoiding laughing your entire life, every day, to honor those who die untimely deaths each day?
You sound like a young person who's not yet experienced the loss of a close loved one. You'll change your tune when your parents die from a long illness, and you truly experience "loss."
OMFG, will you guys please stop using that tired, cliche red herring. They're not "suing the customers." By definition, a customer is someone who pays to consume your product. The people downloading these movies for free are not paying for them.
There are 2 groups of people here. Those who know right from wrong, and who play along with the rules in our capitalist little society, and pay to see the movies in theaters. The other group think they're entitled to this stuff for free, scoff at people who pay for stuff that's so easy take for free. They're the ones downloading the movies. They're the ones being sued. Since they never pay for movies, they're not "customers."
I will concede that there is likely a small group of individuals that overlap into both groups, who both download the occassional movie, and see movies in theaters every now and then. Those who pay to see one movie in the theater in a year, while downloading 20, cannot count themselves in this group.
It's unlikely that many of the individuals being targetted by these lawsuits are in this middle group. The lawsuits, from what I understand, target high-volume traders, who are habitual infringers. These are typically not the type of folks who head out to the theater twice a month (i.e., the MPAA's "customers").
So stop calling them customers. They're not.
And for all you pedantic, nit-picking scumbags out there, notice that I deliberately avoided using the words "steal" or "thief" anywhere in my post. So f*** off with that idiotic non sequitur.
Again, I'm ignoring stuff that happened over a century ago. And "Hiroshima/Nagasaki?" Come on, give me some credit. We're talking about terrorist acts here.
The thing is, all the "white Christian" terrorist examples are just isolated examples of lone nuts. JFK assassination? Lone nut. Waco? Lone nut. Ruby Ridge? Lone nut. Unabomber? Lone nut. Oklohoma City? OK, you caught me. 2 nuts.
9/11? 17 nuts. See what I'm getting at? The "white terrorists" are just random, screwed up, misguided whackos. The ones doing the most damage out there are the ones who claim to be acting on behalf of Islam.
Don't forget: 14. President John F. Kennedy 15. The Alfred P. Murrah Building 16. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians
Oh goodness, this is not a game you want to play.
Unsuccessful WTC "van" bombing in early 90's.
Successful WTC attacks in 2001.
Pentagon plane attack in 2001.
Pennsylvania plane crash in 2001.
EgyptAir crash in the Atlantic.
US Embassy attack in Kenya.
US Embassy attack in Tanzania.
Bali bombing.
London attack #1.
London attack #2.
"Millenium" bomb plot to blow up LAX.
Olympic hostage taking in Munich.
Every single suicide bombing and car bombing in Iraq and Israel for the last 50 or so years.
Your list is pretty much exhausted. Mine can go on indefinitely. I strongly suggest you stay away from the "White Christians are terrorists too" angle. It just doesn't hold up. 3 exceptions to the rule (I'm ignoring your examples that weren't in the last century) doesn't not prove the rule wrong. That's why they're called "exceptions to the rule."
So quit bitching and start your own convention. If it truly is better, then people will come to yours. You're on a FOSS website, fer cryin' out loud. This board is ostensibly populated entirely by people who frequenly "roll their own" when store-bought versions are perceived to be inferior. Put up or shut up.
What's sad is that I know enough about computers to teach a HS computer science class but they wouldn't hire me if I begged them because I don't have a teaching degree. I don't have a CS degree either
Really? You think it's "sad" that school boards, in their infinite wisdom, are apprehensive about hiring an individual to teach computer science, when that individual has neither a teaching nor computer science degree?
Exactly what should they base their hiring practices on, praytell? Do you think it would be a much more "sensible" situation for our schools to be staffed by thousands and thousands of "teachers" who don't have teaching degrees? Do you really think that would improve America's education system?
Google is better than any investment in the world right now.
Are you sure about that? I hear oil's been doing pretty well. Try not to make statements that are so obviously gross exaggerations. Google is not the safe bet you seem to think it is.
Fascinating story, I'd honestly not heard of that incident. I did a little more digging, and it turns out the mall realized what PR disaster they'd created for themselves, and dropped the charges. While I still condone the mall's right to restrict what people wear on their private premises, it is obviously blatently hypocritical to expell a patron for wearing a shirt he purchased at that very same mall.
I am sure you remember how private individuals were prohibited from displaying trademarks belonging to the competitors of official sponsors.
You left off "... while on private property under license to the IOC." People were free to walk around Athens decked out in all the Coke clothing they wanted, but they weren't going to be allowed onto the private property where the games were being held. I still see no problem here.
So back to pratical question - why trademark use isn't enough for sponsors and ISOC?
This is the core of your argument, so I'll just focus on this, rather than the irrelevant side-argument about whose country uses whatever political model. The reason existing trademark laws are insufficient is because the IOC can't trademark "2012" (numbers can't be trademarked, that's why Intel switched to "Pentium" after 286, 386, 486), "summer", "games", and other generic words. Indeed, they don't want to. They'd probably never be approved, and it'd be bad for the society in general. But for these particular games, they desire protection from unauthorized use of terms referring to their games, so they've been granted this special extension of the law, in one country, for this one particular event.
The Olympics is not some big charity hubbub. It's a corporate event. Think of it like Sun's big "JavaOne" conference in San Francisco. Imagine if coffee shops and diners in San Francisco started running ad campaigns like "Starbuck's triple-mocha-frappuchino is the official coffee of the conference!" in and around San Francisco during JavaOne. Clearly, they'd be profiting from Sun's investment in putting on the event. Shouldn't Starbuck's be required to pay Sun in this case, or be prevented from using such misleading advertising?
It's the same thing with the Olympics. London worked very hard to put together a bid and win the Olympics in 2012. They are simply trying to protect their investment and keep the IOC happy, so that they may have an opportunity to host again. They don't want the IOC to remember them as "the host country that let every mom and pop donut shop in the country profit from our games without paying." It's as simple as that.
Strawman fallacy: "The practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer."
You're confusing individual speech and commercial speech. The law under discussion only restricts commercial speech (i.e., advertising), while your example depicts individual speech (which, of course, is not affected by this law at all).
I love how they were given powers over a word that was around LONG before "The Games" were.
They weren't "given powers [sic] over a word," they inherently already had it. They're the government. One of the things government is empowered to regulate is commercial speech.
And just because a word has been around a long time doesn't mean it can't be restricted. We're not talking about a free speech issue here, we're talking about a commercial speech issue. Individuals have much greater freedoms to say what they want, but corporations have to play by a more restrictive set of rules. This act isn't saying that people aren't allowed to walk around talking about the games with each other, it's just saying that Burger King isn't allowed to advertise an "Olympic Whopper Combo!" Just like McDonald's isn't allowed to advertise their new chicken burger as a "Big Crunch", even though the words "big" and "crunch" have been in the dictionary forever.
Actually, in case that reference is locale-specific, the "Big Crunch" is a chicken sandwich sold by KFC in Canada. I'm not sure if they have it in other parts of the world. But now that I've explained it, you see my point.
Individuals are perfectly welcome to walk around, using the phrase "Big Crunch" however they please (within the boundaries of libel, slander, and fraud laws), but other corporations do not enjoy such freedom. They must license the mark from KFC, if they wish to use it.
This is the same thing. The IOC owns the trademark "Olympic(s)". Individuals can talk about it all we want, but if corporations wish to use it in advertising (thus, make money from it), then they must license the mark from the IOC. Lots of companies have paid their dues for the right to use the word. This law is simply preventing those who haven't paid their dues from using the trademark in advertising.
There's nothing nefarious going on here, or even anything new. Commercial speech is very commonly restricted, and it should be. It's an important part of a healthy capitalist economy. It's just another part of intellectual property laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing as how there has only been one Civil War with a different political climate, I don't see that quite happening.
The folks at Ruby Ridge thought they were rebelling against an unjust government, as did the people at Waco. Heck, you could even make a case that the LA riots were about people trying to gather momentum to rise up against a corrupt establishment that had been oppressing them for years.
Now if states actually try to succeed...that might be a different story.
"Secede," not "succeed." Sorry. I don't usually do grammar-nazi posts.
If we go around saying "Oh God, North Korea is going to nuke us," even if North Korea had no intention of actually using nuclear weapons against us, it now basically has to as US nuclear weapons are probably inbound.
How old are you? This is nothing new. It's called "Mutually Assured Destruction", and it was all the rage in the 50's (and 60's, 70's, 80's, finally starting to burn out in the 90's with the dissemination of nuclear non-proliferation treaties). The idea was that if everybody had nukes, then it would prevent anyone from actually using them, because they'd be assured that a volley of nukes would be coming right back at them.
The problem with the current administration, is that it doesn't realize that by choosing a policy it is giving all of the rest of the countries in the world the right to use those policies as well.
Did you sleep through history class? Do you really think that the entire "current administration" is blissfully unaware of everything to do with the development of their own country's nuclear strategy over the preceding 5 decades?
It's a brave new world
You're 50 years late. This is just the rehashing of a very old idea. I suggest you visit a library and do a little reading up on history before the next time you shoot for an "Insightful" mod by educating us about "new" concepts that have actually been around for decades.
For the record, it actually worked. Since the proliferation of nukes, none have ever been used in combat. The ONLY time anyone has ever used a nuke in combat was when the US was the only ones with them. Now that everyone has them, everyone's afraid to use them. So think carefully before you criticise. The only solutions to the nuclear problem are either for everyone to have nukes, or for no one to have nukes. The idea behind the treaties in the 90's was to move towards "nobody," but now that the US is at war with "terrah," they're considerably less willing to part with their own stockpiles. So other nations are delaying their own compliance with the treaties. Nobody wants to be the first one to burn their own nukes. Nobody wants to be the only one unarmed.
The 'problem' is that creating an actual nuke is incedibly difficult.
This is not true. Creating a fission bomb ("A-bomb") is actually pretty trivial, and there are lots of web sites out there that thoroughly explain the principles, while omitting the actual math. The math can be deduced through some experimentation, but it certain doesn't require "billions" of dollars, or "decades" of research.
Now, creating a fusion bomb ("H-bomb", or "thermonuclear" bomb) is much, much harder. The math is orders of magnitude more complicated, and the experimentation involved would immediately set off alarm bells all over the planet. The cost is much greater, as is gathering together the required raw materials. I would be very surprised if any terrorist group ever managed to construct a true thermonuclear bomb. Their only hope would be to steal one or buy one, and either of those possibilities are highly unlikely. It takes a lot of time and resources to develop such a device, and it is impossible to do covertly. That is why we already know who has these types of bombs (the US, France, India, Pakistan, China, plus a few that are scattered throughout the former USSR states).
In just the last week alone I've had several marketting calls to my mobile. I've a feeling it didn't even ring on a couple of occasions. It costs me money to check my voice mail, only to discover it's unwanted crap. They're probably in some violation of CRTC regulations, but nobody seems to care.
This is actually a relatively new tactic by the telemarketers. You're right, your mobile doesn't "ring" in these instances. What's happening is the telemarketers aren't actually directly calling your phone (because that's technically illegal in Canada). What they do is they simply call into the voicemail system, then directly leave a message in your voicemail box. This is technically permitted under the current rules. Its cheaper for them, since they can use automated machines to leave the messages (current laws only forbid calling people with automated messages - there's no rule against using machines to leave voicemails), and they get around the "don't call cell phones" rules. It's particularly scummy, and I hope something is done about it soon, as it's really getting out of hand.
First, there's the automated systems which hold the line for a few seconds while they switch to an available representative. I just hang up on those before I ever have to talk to someone. If you're calling me you'd better be ready to talk to me right away.
These systems are particularly annoying, because if I don't pick up fast enough, then by the time I answer, the system has already selected some other caller, and I just get a dead line. That said, your approach can be improved upon. When I get a call, I pick up and say, "Hello," which usually triggers the system (they're called "Predictive Dialers"). If there isn't someone there immediately, I rapidly say "Hello hello hello," trying to trigger the system to direct me to a caller.
If you just hang up, they don't care, because they haven't wasted any time on you at all. The idea is to get through to a real person, then suck up as much of their time as you can. I let the telemarketer finish their pitch, then ask all kinds of questions, make some excuses for not wanting it, they try to come up with solutions to my objections, then finally I tell them that I would really love to buy their product, but I morally object to the use of predictive dialers and thus will not buy from them.
At that point, they usually act like they don't know what I'm talking about, so I politely explain it to them. "You know, the computer system your scummy boss uses to ensure all you little peons are never not annoying someone." Often, they realize they're not going to be able to sell me anything, then thank me for my time. If they instead keep pressing forward, trying to get me to buy something, I keep stringing them along until I get bored, or have something else to do.
Taking up their time discourages the use of these systems.
I get calls from ADT (a home security system company) all the time. The last time, I finally lost my patience and started getting blunt with the lady. She offered me a special "deal" where, if I allow them to put an ADT sign on my lawn, they'll install a home security system for me, absolutely free. Except, I'd have to pay the monthly monitoring fee and agree to a 2 year contract. I told her I wasn't interested. She tried again, and asked me why I would leave my family unprotected. I said, "I am protected. If someone breaks in while I'm not home, I have home insurance. And if someone breaks in while I am home, I have a gun."
She did a double-take. "A what?" "A gun. A rifle. I'm a firearms owner." She stammered, and tried to tell me it was illegal to shoot people who broke into my home. I told her I'd take my chances, thanks for your concern, goodbye.
Seems to me that the Atlantic hurricans almost never run out of letters, which bounds the number at 26.
Actually, it's bounded at 21. Q, U, X, Y, and Z aren't used. And you're right, they've never yet run out of letters, although this year, it appears that that's exactly what will happen. They're already up to 'O', and hurricane season doesn't end until November 30th. Apparently, if they exhaust the alphabet, they start using Greek letters to name the hurricanes. Could be an interesting and historical year.
The problem is that nobody in power (this adminstration or previous ones) has been willing to make the funds available to upgrade the levees
This is simply factually incorrect. The levees were, in fact in the process of being upgraded to withstand the full force of a category 5 hurricane. The upgrades have been underway for several years, but given the enormous size of the task, will not be completed for several more years yet. Unfortunately, Katrina wouldn't wait. But to say that nobody was doing anything is just plain ignorant and wrong. They were doing exactly what needed to be done. It's just not an instantaneous process.
I understand that the risk that the levees could break was well-known, and that governments (at various levels) decided to do nothing about it.
That's a lie. The levees were designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane. City officials fully recognized that this was insufficient, and the levees were/are in the process of being upgraded to withstand the full force of a category 5 hurricane. Unfortunately, however, given the enormous size of the levees, this is not an overnight process. There are several years remaining until the scheduled completion of the upgrades.
This is hardly "doing nothing about it." They were, in fact, in the midst of doing exactly what they should have been doing. Your criticism is ignorant and insensitive.
Today a special effected film seems to cost, what, 110 million. In six years, that will be up to 130 million
What? Get the hell off Slashdot. You've forfeited your geek license. That's like saying, "today, RAM costs $n/GB. In six years, it will be up to $3n/GB."
Technology costs go DOWN as time increases, not up. How much $$$ did Pixar have to invest in rendering farm servers to make the first "Toy Story?" How much do you think they spent on hardware for "The Incredibles?" I don't even need numbers from you, just say "more" or "less."
The correct answer, of course, is "less." Technology is making these effects cheaper, and at an incredible pace. 6 years from now, CGI like we saw in Skycaptain will be gracing the screens at independant film festivals.
I will admit, there is an occasional breakout hit: The Matrix, Sin City were amazing, Spiderman was not as bad as it could have been.
Sure, if by "not as bad as it could have been" you meant "smashed pretty much every box office record at the time." The "Batman" and "Superman" franchises have been very popular, the "X-Men" movies also broke records when they were both released. Comic book movies are almost sure-fire moneymakers. Very few fail to meet their profit expectations ("Fantastic Four," "Spawn," "LXG" to name a few).
Now, video game movies, those ones are almost always flops. "Super Mario Brothers," "Street Fighter," "Mortal Kombat" (and the inexplicable sequel)... the number of successful video game movies is roughly equal to the number of failed comic book movies. And that number is very, very small. "Resident Evil" did very well, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any other successful video game movie.
It really is evident in the hollywood scheme of things that they have ran out of movie ideas
I disagree. It is only recently that Hollywood realized that documentaries can be very successful. "Bowling for Columbine" surprised them, so they followed up with "Farenheit 9/11," "Supersize Me," and "March of the Penguins." "Memento" was a very innovative movie that Hollywood bet on and succeeded. "Team America..." come on, when's the last time a marionette movie was in theaters? The entertainment industry tried several new groundbreaking things in releasing the Matrix sequels by filming them at the same time (I believe it was the first time Hollywood greenlighted 2 sequels to be filmed simultaneously), releasing them in rapid-succession (a tactic followed up by Kill Bill doing the same thing), releasing the movie simultaneously throughout the world instead of the conventional regionally-staggered schedule, and tying in the movies with a video game, and a DVD of dark, animated shorts that fit in with the movies.
Hollywood is not stupid. They know their revenues are dropping. They know they need new ideas. And they're not all a bunch of rock-dumb idiots. They've been in the business a very long time, and have lots of formal education doing this sort of thing. They're working on new ideas all the time, and trying things they wouldn't have had the courage to try a couple decades ago.
In some states, rental companies already do this.
Absolutely false. I presume you're referring to the Budget dealer in the US that used GPS to detect when their customers were exceeding the speed limit excessively, and then charged them an extra fee on their rental charge.
This is not a "ticket." A ticket entails demerit points on your license, which can lead to license suspensions and other disciplinary action. This type of punishment can only be doled out by law enforcement agencies.
Not rental car companies.
Why should we dwell on all the bad things as you ask when instead we can find something to laugh about. Millions of people die terrible, painful, untimely deaths every day around the world. Have you been avoiding laughing your entire life, every day, to honor those who die untimely deaths each day?
You sound like a young person who's not yet experienced the loss of a close loved one. You'll change your tune when your parents die from a long illness, and you truly experience "loss."
Why not? Do we not treat child-porn JPGs, which are nothing but a series of numbers stored in a file, the same way we treat polariods of child-porn?
Let's sue the customers.
OMFG, will you guys please stop using that tired, cliche red herring. They're not "suing the customers." By definition, a customer is someone who pays to consume your product. The people downloading these movies for free are not paying for them.
There are 2 groups of people here. Those who know right from wrong, and who play along with the rules in our capitalist little society, and pay to see the movies in theaters. The other group think they're entitled to this stuff for free, scoff at people who pay for stuff that's so easy take for free. They're the ones downloading the movies. They're the ones being sued. Since they never pay for movies, they're not "customers."
I will concede that there is likely a small group of individuals that overlap into both groups, who both download the occassional movie, and see movies in theaters every now and then. Those who pay to see one movie in the theater in a year, while downloading 20, cannot count themselves in this group.
It's unlikely that many of the individuals being targetted by these lawsuits are in this middle group. The lawsuits, from what I understand, target high-volume traders, who are habitual infringers. These are typically not the type of folks who head out to the theater twice a month (i.e., the MPAA's "customers").
So stop calling them customers. They're not.
And for all you pedantic, nit-picking scumbags out there, notice that I deliberately avoided using the words "steal" or "thief" anywhere in my post. So f*** off with that idiotic non sequitur.
Again, I'm ignoring stuff that happened over a century ago. And "Hiroshima/Nagasaki?" Come on, give me some credit. We're talking about terrorist acts here.
The thing is, all the "white Christian" terrorist examples are just isolated examples of lone nuts. JFK assassination? Lone nut. Waco? Lone nut. Ruby Ridge? Lone nut. Unabomber? Lone nut. Oklohoma City? OK, you caught me. 2 nuts.
9/11? 17 nuts. See what I'm getting at? The "white terrorists" are just random, screwed up, misguided whackos. The ones doing the most damage out there are the ones who claim to be acting on behalf of Islam.
These are all just off the top of my head. Feel free to add more.
14. President John F. Kennedy
15. The Alfred P. Murrah Building
16. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians
Oh goodness, this is not a game you want to play.
Your list is pretty much exhausted. Mine can go on indefinitely. I strongly suggest you stay away from the "White Christians are terrorists too" angle. It just doesn't hold up. 3 exceptions to the rule (I'm ignoring your examples that weren't in the last century) doesn't not prove the rule wrong. That's why they're called "exceptions to the rule."
So quit bitching and start your own convention. If it truly is better, then people will come to yours. You're on a FOSS website, fer cryin' out loud. This board is ostensibly populated entirely by people who frequenly "roll their own" when store-bought versions are perceived to be inferior. Put up or shut up.
What's sad is that I know enough about computers to teach a HS computer science class but they wouldn't hire me if I begged them because I don't have a teaching degree. I don't have a CS degree either
Really? You think it's "sad" that school boards, in their infinite wisdom, are apprehensive about hiring an individual to teach computer science, when that individual has neither a teaching nor computer science degree?
Exactly what should they base their hiring practices on, praytell? Do you think it would be a much more "sensible" situation for our schools to be staffed by thousands and thousands of "teachers" who don't have teaching degrees? Do you really think that would improve America's education system?
Google is better than any investment in the world right now.
Are you sure about that? I hear oil's been doing pretty well. Try not to make statements that are so obviously gross exaggerations. Google is not the safe bet you seem to think it is.
Fascinating story, I'd honestly not heard of that incident. I did a little more digging, and it turns out the mall realized what PR disaster they'd created for themselves, and dropped the charges. While I still condone the mall's right to restrict what people wear on their private premises, it is obviously blatently hypocritical to expell a patron for wearing a shirt he purchased at that very same mall.
I am sure you remember how private individuals were prohibited from displaying trademarks belonging to the competitors of official sponsors.
You left off "... while on private property under license to the IOC." People were free to walk around Athens decked out in all the Coke clothing they wanted, but they weren't going to be allowed onto the private property where the games were being held. I still see no problem here.
So back to pratical question - why trademark use isn't enough for sponsors and ISOC?
This is the core of your argument, so I'll just focus on this, rather than the irrelevant side-argument about whose country uses whatever political model. The reason existing trademark laws are insufficient is because the IOC can't trademark "2012" (numbers can't be trademarked, that's why Intel switched to "Pentium" after 286, 386, 486), "summer", "games", and other generic words. Indeed, they don't want to. They'd probably never be approved, and it'd be bad for the society in general. But for these particular games, they desire protection from unauthorized use of terms referring to their games, so they've been granted this special extension of the law, in one country, for this one particular event.
The Olympics is not some big charity hubbub. It's a corporate event. Think of it like Sun's big "JavaOne" conference in San Francisco. Imagine if coffee shops and diners in San Francisco started running ad campaigns like "Starbuck's triple-mocha-frappuchino is the official coffee of the conference!" in and around San Francisco during JavaOne. Clearly, they'd be profiting from Sun's investment in putting on the event. Shouldn't Starbuck's be required to pay Sun in this case, or be prevented from using such misleading advertising?
It's the same thing with the Olympics. London worked very hard to put together a bid and win the Olympics in 2012. They are simply trying to protect their investment and keep the IOC happy, so that they may have an opportunity to host again. They don't want the IOC to remember them as "the host country that let every mom and pop donut shop in the country profit from our games without paying." It's as simple as that.
Strawman fallacy: "The practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer."
You're confusing individual speech and commercial speech. The law under discussion only restricts commercial speech (i.e., advertising), while your example depicts individual speech (which, of course, is not affected by this law at all).
I love how they were given powers over a word that was around LONG before "The Games" were.
They weren't "given powers [sic] over a word," they inherently already had it. They're the government. One of the things government is empowered to regulate is commercial speech.
And just because a word has been around a long time doesn't mean it can't be restricted. We're not talking about a free speech issue here, we're talking about a commercial speech issue. Individuals have much greater freedoms to say what they want, but corporations have to play by a more restrictive set of rules. This act isn't saying that people aren't allowed to walk around talking about the games with each other, it's just saying that Burger King isn't allowed to advertise an "Olympic Whopper Combo!" Just like McDonald's isn't allowed to advertise their new chicken burger as a "Big Crunch", even though the words "big" and "crunch" have been in the dictionary forever.
Actually, in case that reference is locale-specific, the "Big Crunch" is a chicken sandwich sold by KFC in Canada. I'm not sure if they have it in other parts of the world. But now that I've explained it, you see my point.
Individuals are perfectly welcome to walk around, using the phrase "Big Crunch" however they please (within the boundaries of libel, slander, and fraud laws), but other corporations do not enjoy such freedom. They must license the mark from KFC, if they wish to use it.
This is the same thing. The IOC owns the trademark "Olympic(s)". Individuals can talk about it all we want, but if corporations wish to use it in advertising (thus, make money from it), then they must license the mark from the IOC. Lots of companies have paid their dues for the right to use the word. This law is simply preventing those who haven't paid their dues from using the trademark in advertising.
There's nothing nefarious going on here, or even anything new. Commercial speech is very commonly restricted, and it should be. It's an important part of a healthy capitalist economy. It's just another part of intellectual property laws.