"If you really remember, you will recall certain facts you left out, such as the man was fleeing from police. He created the dangerous situation. If you do such things, especially in a security-critical transportation environment, don't be surprised if you get shot."
Oh please! If you're going to declare that the police were right to shoot him, make sure you have the full story! First, they failed to identify his identity as he left his house, because the surveilance guy was taking a piss. (He was probably not even the guy they were supposed to be watching). He was NOT wearing a heavy jacket as police originally reported, that was a flat out lie. He was running to catch a train. You've never done that? No witnesses confirmed that the police identified themselves to him before shooting him. There must have been a bunch of witnesses, why didn't any of them hear the police yelling? The end result, an innocent man gets shot seven times in the head.
Whatever happened today, you certainly have to be critical of the anti-terrorist policies in England after such a monstrous error. When they have to ground flights and ban water on airplanes, I'm not so quick to praise a clear-cut victory. Something feels wrong.
Heck, I'm 24 and still don't want to go to family barbeques. What, it's my day off and you want me to drive for 2 hours so I can watch NASCAR and tell my relatives that yes indeed, I still work at the same place? Can't I just stay in bed?
Did you read the original article by Ray Beckerman (linked in the FA)? I thought it was pretty straightforward and very easy to understand. (IANAL or anything close). Grant Robertson just sort of stretched it out and threw a lot of examples in there, and made it harder to follow in my mind.
Maybe I'm not paying attention, but who is this Paul Thurrott? I'd rather read an article by someone who thinks Vista is ready (for what? He doesn't even say.), I'm sure it would make for a more interesting read.
Okay, so like, what percentage of those involved flaming wreckage, and what percentage of accidents involving cellphones were of the "Oh shit I tapped your bumper" variety? I mean, you would think if people were being hospitalized because of other people using their cell phones while driving, I would know someone who it happened to. I've known a few people in the past few years who have been hospitalized or killed because of drunk drivers. You see my point?
People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.
He doesn't have to prove he owned the DVD before he supposedly "downloaded" it. As many people have already stated, he could have bought the movie and then downloaded it for some reason, it's still illegal. But he doesn't even have to own the DVD. He's just pointing out that he does because it strenghtens his case. If you read his blog (someone posted the link previously in the comments, should be moderated +5 informative btw!), this guy knows what he's doing. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who got caught downloading a movie, panicked, so he bought it and said, "But I already own it!" That's an aside. The point is, they haven't yet presented any evidence that he downloaded it, but they're really pushing a settlement. As he says in his blog, they could make a lot more than $2500 by taking this to court... if they're so sure he did it, why are they content, eager even, to settle this out of court?
Guilty until proven innocent, eh? I'd like to hear what proof the MPAA has that he downloaded this movie, before I worry about whether or not it was legal of him to download it. The "ownership" is far from irrelevent... it's him saying, "Look, I already bought your damn movie, what motive do I have to download it?" He has no burden to prove he bought it, they have to prove he downloaded it.
This is great. In their greed the *AAs are bound to piss off some people who can fight back, and the more they do that, the more they will be forced to change their strategies. This is exactly the kind of story we need more of.
Yes, but we can't just remove the electoral college. That would be too straighforward. People might not be confused! Stupid government, thinks they're better than me...
I have a question for all you people who claim cell phones are worse than driving blindfolded. Have you ever seen an accident caused by a cell phone? I've seen old people smash into things because they didn't have the reaction time to stop, I've seen kids just learning how to drive rear end someone, I've seen people with no (obvious) distraction run a red light and hit someone, I've heard of several incidents with family members and friends getting hit by a person who turned out to be drunk, but I have never ever witnessed or heard about a single accident caused because the driver was distracted by their phone. I'm not saying it's the most brilliant idea in the world to operate your cell phone and drive, but it's not something new and it's certainly no worse than operating a cd player/combing your hair/reading (yes I know people who read books while they drive, this concerns me a hell of a lot more than cell phones). So, why all the fuss?
Oh boo hoo. This is a nice tool! How many times have I been out somewhere and thought, boy, google maps sure would come in handy right now! And as far as the traffic monitoring... if you're checking traffic on the road while driving, it's probably because you're NOT MOVING and want to know how long you should expect to be stuck not moving. If you're cruising along at 75 you have no reason to glance at your phone and make sure traffic is clear, you can SEE that it is.
Well then they're idiots. Some record companies/artists are going to get it and sell us DRM-free music, the rest can keep dicking around and push themselves right out of business when noone can access their music any more.
When you find all the coins in each world you will get a * complete! at the top of the world map screen.
I liked the New Super Mario Brothers, I don't have hours to sit in front of a game any more so I was happy it didn't drag on forever. Certainly it was no comparison to the complexity of SMB3, but SMB1? That game was hella easy, except it was probably the first game a lot of us played as kids, so it seemed harder. I remember my cousin could beat that game in like half an hour. Go back and play it now, I bet you wouldn't say the new one is easier.
You're not interested in getting an emulator (free and simple) or a SNES ($40 with SM All Stars on ebay), but you want to find a rare japanese game and try to get it to work on your NES?
You know I was talking to some kids the other day, and they like to get together and download tabs and cover other bands songs! Songs that don't even belong to them! They ought to crack down on that too. And whistling and humming, I think those are big problems. Ooh and maybe they could hide razors in their packaging to slice their customers.
That's like saying you hate Osama Bin Ladin for making the word "terrorism" popular! Hate Sony/Osama for their actions, hate Slashdot/the NSA for popularizing the word.
Enough with the superiority complex, give us the link to her myspace page!!!
Re:Aren't we forgeting something....
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
I was told in driver ed to stay 5 miles under the speed limit at all times.
Re:Aren't we forgeting something....
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
Oh God... I pity you if you think there's no way to connect your iPod to your car radio. "Sounds like somebody's living in the past! Contemporize, man!!!"
But seriously, is it illegal? Cause I've seen idiots driving around with headphones on, and while I thought they looked kind of stupid, I never thought it was extremely dangerous. Are there laws against deaf people driving? (Seriously I have no idea).
Re:Road users of the world rejoice
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
So... what do you do when you're driving along and your iPod plays a song you don't like? Huck it out the window???
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, links to support my previous post:0 6/07/23/2003320046
t ype=topNews&storyid=2006-07-17T081430Z_01_L1677892 8_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&src=071706_1228_TOPSTORY_off icers_escape_charges_over_menezes_shooting
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/20
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?
"If you really remember, you will recall certain facts you left out, such as the man was fleeing from police. He created the dangerous situation. If you do such things, especially in a security-critical transportation environment, don't be surprised if you get shot."
Oh please! If you're going to declare that the police were right to shoot him, make sure you have the full story! First, they failed to identify his identity as he left his house, because the surveilance guy was taking a piss. (He was probably not even the guy they were supposed to be watching). He was NOT wearing a heavy jacket as police originally reported, that was a flat out lie. He was running to catch a train. You've never done that? No witnesses confirmed that the police identified themselves to him before shooting him. There must have been a bunch of witnesses, why didn't any of them hear the police yelling? The end result, an innocent man gets shot seven times in the head.
Whatever happened today, you certainly have to be critical of the anti-terrorist policies in England after such a monstrous error. When they have to ground flights and ban water on airplanes, I'm not so quick to praise a clear-cut victory. Something feels wrong.
Oh no, I'm getting these symptoms while studying for the MCSE exams. I'm addicted to Microsoft! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Heck, I'm 24 and still don't want to go to family barbeques. What, it's my day off and you want me to drive for 2 hours so I can watch NASCAR and tell my relatives that yes indeed, I still work at the same place? Can't I just stay in bed?
Did you read the original article by Ray Beckerman (linked in the FA)? I thought it was pretty straightforward and very easy to understand. (IANAL or anything close). Grant Robertson just sort of stretched it out and threw a lot of examples in there, and made it harder to follow in my mind.
lovechess! Now that's classy on so many levels.
Maybe I'm not paying attention, but who is this Paul Thurrott? I'd rather read an article by someone who thinks Vista is ready (for what? He doesn't even say.), I'm sure it would make for a more interesting read.
People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.
Ugh, I didn't realize that. Why do they have to make the rules different? Just when I was starting to understand how the courts worked...
He doesn't have to prove he owned the DVD before he supposedly "downloaded" it. As many people have already stated, he could have bought the movie and then downloaded it for some reason, it's still illegal. But he doesn't even have to own the DVD. He's just pointing out that he does because it strenghtens his case. If you read his blog (someone posted the link previously in the comments, should be moderated +5 informative btw!), this guy knows what he's doing. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who got caught downloading a movie, panicked, so he bought it and said, "But I already own it!" That's an aside. The point is, they haven't yet presented any evidence that he downloaded it, but they're really pushing a settlement. As he says in his blog, they could make a lot more than $2500 by taking this to court... if they're so sure he did it, why are they content, eager even, to settle this out of court?
Guilty until proven innocent, eh? I'd like to hear what proof the MPAA has that he downloaded this movie, before I worry about whether or not it was legal of him to download it. The "ownership" is far from irrelevent... it's him saying, "Look, I already bought your damn movie, what motive do I have to download it?" He has no burden to prove he bought it, they have to prove he downloaded it.
This is great. In their greed the *AAs are bound to piss off some people who can fight back, and the more they do that, the more they will be forced to change their strategies. This is exactly the kind of story we need more of.
I love how fruity the left land of silliness is!
You, sir, are the biggest fruit in this discussion.
Yes, but we can't just remove the electoral college. That would be too straighforward. People might not be confused! Stupid government, thinks they're better than me...
I have a question for all you people who claim cell phones are worse than driving blindfolded. Have you ever seen an accident caused by a cell phone? I've seen old people smash into things because they didn't have the reaction time to stop, I've seen kids just learning how to drive rear end someone, I've seen people with no (obvious) distraction run a red light and hit someone, I've heard of several incidents with family members and friends getting hit by a person who turned out to be drunk, but I have never ever witnessed or heard about a single accident caused because the driver was distracted by their phone. I'm not saying it's the most brilliant idea in the world to operate your cell phone and drive, but it's not something new and it's certainly no worse than operating a cd player/combing your hair/reading (yes I know people who read books while they drive, this concerns me a hell of a lot more than cell phones). So, why all the fuss?
Oh boo hoo. This is a nice tool! How many times have I been out somewhere and thought, boy, google maps sure would come in handy right now! And as far as the traffic monitoring... if you're checking traffic on the road while driving, it's probably because you're NOT MOVING and want to know how long you should expect to be stuck not moving. If you're cruising along at 75 you have no reason to glance at your phone and make sure traffic is clear, you can SEE that it is.
Well then they're idiots. Some record companies/artists are going to get it and sell us DRM-free music, the rest can keep dicking around and push themselves right out of business when noone can access their music any more.
I liked the New Super Mario Brothers, I don't have hours to sit in front of a game any more so I was happy it didn't drag on forever. Certainly it was no comparison to the complexity of SMB3, but SMB1? That game was hella easy, except it was probably the first game a lot of us played as kids, so it seemed harder. I remember my cousin could beat that game in like half an hour. Go back and play it now, I bet you wouldn't say the new one is easier.
You're not interested in getting an emulator (free and simple) or a SNES ($40 with SM All Stars on ebay), but you want to find a rare japanese game and try to get it to work on your NES?
You know I was talking to some kids the other day, and they like to get together and download tabs and cover other bands songs! Songs that don't even belong to them! They ought to crack down on that too. And whistling and humming, I think those are big problems. Ooh and maybe they could hide razors in their packaging to slice their customers.
That's like saying you hate Osama Bin Ladin for making the word "terrorism" popular! Hate Sony/Osama for their actions, hate Slashdot/the NSA for popularizing the word.
Enough with the superiority complex, give us the link to her myspace page!!!
I was told in driver ed to stay 5 miles under the speed limit at all times.
But seriously, is it illegal? Cause I've seen idiots driving around with headphones on, and while I thought they looked kind of stupid, I never thought it was extremely dangerous. Are there laws against deaf people driving? (Seriously I have no idea).
So... what do you do when you're driving along and your iPod plays a song you don't like? Huck it out the window???