I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but this is going to assume not, and if I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.
In New York City you can't eat any food with trans fatty acids, and in Chicago (which is probably more than 3 hours, but throwing it out here as an example), it gets tricky trying to get fois gras. And violent video games? Well, you can't play Manhunt 2...it was supposed to be released last month.
And even if those aren't things you care about, well, it's only a matter of time before they attack something you do.
Probably because most people would assume that you're talking about recording the whole film.
It's incredibly easy to sway a poll if you're looking for an answer. Let's see...these sample questionnaires might suck somewhat, I know the language, I just occassionally have difficulties making it say what I mean.
Con:
Do you believe people involved in creating a film deserve compensation? Do you believe unauthorized copying of a film hurts profits? Do you believe unauthorized copying should be stopped? Do you believe any means necessary should be used to prevent unauthorized copying? Do you believe copying even a short clip is allowed?
And the pro:
Do you believe people have a right to critizise art and media? Do you believe people should be allowed to use short clips or photos to exhibit their critique? Do you believe the creators of the work being criticized should provide adequate examples of their work? Do you believe, properly cited, people can use their own supplied examples of a work? Do you believe it's wrong to suppress the display of examples in a critique?
There you are. The perfectly balanced sample.
(I'm sure someone with a stronger grasp of vocabulary and structure could pick up on what I'm doing and make the questions even MORE perfectly balanced, but I guess for a start I'm good...)
A car is tangible. A car is tangible. A car is tangible.
If you take a car, you are depriving someone of the car.
If you record 20 seconds of a movie in a theater, those 480 frames of film don't magically disappear from the projector thereby removing the ability for anyone in the theater to view the scene.
Offtopic? Really? Pretty clever allusion comparing the RIAA and DoJ to LotR. Shows a grasp of language far beyond what most people I've seen are capable of.
[quote]It is perfectly possible to convey humor, sarcasm, or irony with text, plenty of authors did so well before the electronics age.[/quote]
Except those people go into writing, not business. We only know that it's possible to convey those emotions with writing as only the best examples have survived.
And how do you know they never said satire was hard to write? Maybe they only said it in their personal communications that went unsaved? Some people, even when educated properly, just lack the creativity necessary to aptly use satire as written. (Perhaps with long training, but then it'll be stilted and wouldn't feel natural.)
But that's why some people go into writing and others go into business.
Ahh, but you made sure to state that the changes are "signed by both parties."
That's entirely different. But what if two parties signed a lease agreement, then the property owner goes and makes changes to it and then sues you for violating the new changes that you never signed to.
Auto-correct is an active spell checker, not formatting. For that you need to find all the auto-formatting tools, like the ones that make bulleted lists.
Yea, I turn off auto correct as one of the first things on a new Office setup for myself. Cept it still does its own formatting bullcrap. Lists are what I hate the most about it. I've just been too lazy to find that setting though.
Electronic voting machines have their purpose but it shouldn't be to replace the pen & paper style, but rather to suppliment it. Perks of an electronic voting machine are to ensure privacy for voters who would prefer different languages or blind/disabled.
Sure, one can argue you can print out however many ballots you need in however many languages, but it's hard to judge how many you'll need, plus I wouldn't rely on having a translator available. With a voting machine, it's a simple matter of changing the display. As well, with blind or disabled, again, one could argue that they be allowed an assistant, but who can guarentee the assistant is trustworthy?
But this would be to augment the system; have a couple off to the side with the majority using durable cardstock....at least in my perfect system...
Before E3 06? Dunno, I'm sure we were expecting a solid console, but then we were also expecting the PS3 to be a freakin monster. The thing is, even AFTER E3 '06, analysts and industry leaders were still backing PS3 as #1 and Xbox as #2.
The lines at E3 '06 should have been a clue to even analysts that their previous thoughts on the PS3 might be shaky. The problem is, everyone in the industry was gauging the success of the new consoles on past history and no one gave even passing acknowledgement to the excitement in the Ninty fanbase. Basically, the people that saw the Wii's success were the people that play games. Those that felt the PS3 would win were those that analyze and make games....sorta like Jon Stewart's summary of Ted Stevens: "You know jack shit about the internet, but that's ok; you're just in charge of regulating it."
Although, I'd grant of late there seems to be a further tipping against the RIAA but it's more as an application of copyright misuse than abolishing copyright right out.
Umm, I think you'd find many people on/. would gladly let groups like the RIAA and MPAA hold onto copyrights if they didn't exert such a stranglehold on them and for so long.
What we're opposed to are the draconian enforcement and perpetual lengthening of copyright expiration.
So...no. I don't see where your argument has solid ground to stand on.
Ahh yes, because somewhere along the line "guilty until proven innocent" became the de facto standard.
We get riled up because of all the kneejerk reactions that create more problems than they solve. Sure, it might superficially seem ok, but the potential for abuse is so high, it's patently absurd.
Now, here's where I get confused about this. If this company that's selling goods for cheaper is, in fact, buying them from you, isn't that still a sale?
Honestly, this isn't clicking for me. Sounds to me like they'd just be selling it at a loss...
And then what? Assult? Property damage? Jaywalking? Littering? Unregistered gatherings...that simply turns out to be three people waiting for the lorry?
It always seems reasonable until it becomes too late to change it.
The GPL has potential weight (as opposed to kinetic weight), and they hope if they keep repeating that "No, it doesn't" they'll make enough decision makers believe it.
Microsoft really doesn't want to test the GPL because there's a good chance it will get kinetic weight from a legal standpoint, which would be bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the judge went 'Microsoft already paid to licence these patents from Franhaufer, why do they also need to licence them from Alcatel?'
Great, all I can think of now is someone in politics using my fist to hit my own face and going "Quit hittin yourself! Quit hittin yourself!"
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but this is going to assume not, and if I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.
In New York City you can't eat any food with trans fatty acids, and in Chicago (which is probably more than 3 hours, but throwing it out here as an example), it gets tricky trying to get fois gras. And violent video games? Well, you can't play Manhunt 2...it was supposed to be released last month.
And even if those aren't things you care about, well, it's only a matter of time before they attack something you do.
Probably because most people would assume that you're talking about recording the whole film.
It's incredibly easy to sway a poll if you're looking for an answer. Let's see...these sample questionnaires might suck somewhat, I know the language, I just occassionally have difficulties making it say what I mean.
Con:
Do you believe people involved in creating a film deserve compensation?
Do you believe unauthorized copying of a film hurts profits?
Do you believe unauthorized copying should be stopped?
Do you believe any means necessary should be used to prevent unauthorized copying?
Do you believe copying even a short clip is allowed?
And the pro:
Do you believe people have a right to critizise art and media?
Do you believe people should be allowed to use short clips or photos to exhibit their critique?
Do you believe the creators of the work being criticized should provide adequate examples of their work?
Do you believe, properly cited, people can use their own supplied examples of a work?
Do you believe it's wrong to suppress the display of examples in a critique?
There you are. The perfectly balanced sample.
(I'm sure someone with a stronger grasp of vocabulary and structure could pick up on what I'm doing and make the questions even MORE perfectly balanced, but I guess for a start I'm good...)
Is it really an exploit if it's left wide open?
Oh, it would've...if Britney Spears was found voting without panties.
Or if Paris Hilton crashed into a voting machine while DUI.
Or if...yea...
Repeat after me:
A car is tangible. A car is tangible. A car is tangible.
If you take a car, you are depriving someone of the car.
If you record 20 seconds of a movie in a theater, those 480 frames of film don't magically disappear from the projector thereby removing the ability for anyone in the theater to view the scene.
I'll take my business elsewhere... Netflix. So I won't see it RIGHT THEN. Chances are (currently) in my favor I'll live to see the video release.
Gee...do I want death by electroshock or death by lethal injection.
I get better market advice from my email spam folder.
Except with closed source, you'd be sued afterward.
Offtopic? Really? Pretty clever allusion comparing the RIAA and DoJ to LotR. Shows a grasp of language far beyond what most people I've seen are capable of.
apparently the moderator as well.
I can just see the commercials now:
"Hi, I'm a Mercedes."
"And I'm a Toyota."
(And it's all downhill from here. Apologies to Mercedes. Honestly, I have no clue about anything automotive, I just felt it was a good name to use.)
[quote]It is perfectly possible to convey humor, sarcasm, or irony with text, plenty of authors did so well before the electronics age.[/quote]
Except those people go into writing, not business. We only know that it's possible to convey those emotions with writing as only the best examples have survived.
And how do you know they never said satire was hard to write? Maybe they only said it in their personal communications that went unsaved? Some people, even when educated properly, just lack the creativity necessary to aptly use satire as written. (Perhaps with long training, but then it'll be stilted and wouldn't feel natural.)
But that's why some people go into writing and others go into business.
Ahh, but you made sure to state that the changes are "signed by both parties."
That's entirely different. But what if two parties signed a lease agreement, then the property owner goes and makes changes to it and then sues you for violating the new changes that you never signed to.
Auto-correct is an active spell checker, not formatting. For that you need to find all the auto-formatting tools, like the ones that make bulleted lists.
Yea, I turn off auto correct as one of the first things on a new Office setup for myself. Cept it still does its own formatting bullcrap. Lists are what I hate the most about it. I've just been too lazy to find that setting though.
Electronic voting machines have their purpose but it shouldn't be to replace the pen & paper style, but rather to suppliment it. Perks of an electronic voting machine are to ensure privacy for voters who would prefer different languages or blind/disabled.
...at least in my perfect system...
Sure, one can argue you can print out however many ballots you need in however many languages, but it's hard to judge how many you'll need, plus I wouldn't rely on having a translator available. With a voting machine, it's a simple matter of changing the display. As well, with blind or disabled, again, one could argue that they be allowed an assistant, but who can guarentee the assistant is trustworthy?
But this would be to augment the system; have a couple off to the side with the majority using durable cardstock.
Before E3 06? Dunno, I'm sure we were expecting a solid console, but then we were also expecting the PS3 to be a freakin monster. The thing is, even AFTER E3 '06, analysts and industry leaders were still backing PS3 as #1 and Xbox as #2.
...sorta like Jon Stewart's summary of Ted Stevens: "You know jack shit about the internet, but that's ok; you're just in charge of regulating it."
The lines at E3 '06 should have been a clue to even analysts that their previous thoughts on the PS3 might be shaky. The problem is, everyone in the industry was gauging the success of the new consoles on past history and no one gave even passing acknowledgement to the excitement in the Ninty fanbase. Basically, the people that saw the Wii's success were the people that play games. Those that felt the PS3 would win were those that analyze and make games.
My point is that the slashdot groupthink opposes all RIAA/MPAA copyrights, regardless of freshness.
1 3/1233201 for one argument)
That's not the general feeling I've gotten. It's the tactics they use that produce the most vitrol. Copyright on the whole is worth having, but not Life+75. ( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/
Although, I'd grant of late there seems to be a further tipping against the RIAA but it's more as an application of copyright misuse than abolishing copyright right out.
Umm, I think you'd find many people on /. would gladly let groups like the RIAA and MPAA hold onto copyrights if they didn't exert such a stranglehold on them and for so long.
What we're opposed to are the draconian enforcement and perpetual lengthening of copyright expiration.
So...no. I don't see where your argument has solid ground to stand on.
Ahh yes, because somewhere along the line "guilty until proven innocent" became the de facto standard.
We get riled up because of all the kneejerk reactions that create more problems than they solve. Sure, it might superficially seem ok, but the potential for abuse is so high, it's patently absurd.
Now, here's where I get confused about this. If this company that's selling goods for cheaper is, in fact, buying them from you, isn't that still a sale?
Honestly, this isn't clicking for me. Sounds to me like they'd just be selling it at a loss...
And then what? Assult? Property damage? Jaywalking? Littering? Unregistered gatherings...that simply turns out to be three people waiting for the lorry?
It always seems reasonable until it becomes too late to change it.
But speculation is half the fun!
The GPL has potential weight (as opposed to kinetic weight), and they hope if they keep repeating that "No, it doesn't" they'll make enough decision makers believe it.
Microsoft really doesn't want to test the GPL because there's a good chance it will get kinetic weight from a legal standpoint, which would be bad.
What, and force people to edit their boilerplate responces each time this comes up?!