I dont understand how people can not 'get' the scene with the architect. Perhaps you are attempting to read into it too much? Here's a hint: he says everything straightforward. There is no obfuscation whatsoever, nothing needs to be interpreted, the whole thing is 100% just plain flat-out said. You know, with words. So can someone please explain to me what it is they dont understand, and how they are capable of not understanding it? I suspect that a lot of "questions about the scene with with architect" are actually just "questions about the movie in general, which everyone already had or had developed their own theories for, which the architect raised but didnt answer, so that you'll go see the third movie, not because you just can't understand his obfuscated answers"
English changes too much to have a definitive guide. If somebody says it's a word, it's a word. Meanwhile, if somebody says it isnt a word, it's not a word.
The purpose of this act seems to be to put anything not currently used for financial gain to be placed into the public domain. So why not extend this to actually say that? How about a law that says, in order to have trademark, patent, or copyright, the item [or a derivitive of that item] in question must be offered for sale, or in the case of trademark, used as a mark of trade. [obvious exceptions for non-profit orgs] The law says that you have copyright on your history paper, but if you're not going to gain money from it, why should you? Certainly you would have written it anyway in that case.
Discuss below, I'll admit my ignorance if you'll admit that you're a queer.
The issue here isn't violence or sex, it's specifically about rebelling against authority. Not violence in general, not sex in general, but specifically acts of violence against authority, even though that authority happens to be enslaving all humanity and murdering thousands in order to make sure they can keep enslaving humanity. "Don't do it, because they're the ones in power."
And dont say "The laws exist" in order to go against "The laws are unjust"
Pornography laws aside (that would be going too far off-topic), Smoking restrictions and the Right to Vote have nothing to do with what we can tell people. Smoke-advertising laws are fundamentally different from anti-speech: They aren't limitting an idea, they're limitting a product. No one's philosophy will be altered by not seeing an advertisement for a product, and cigarretts arent a form of speech.
"Protecting" minors _IS_ a violation of free-speech. Some people are fool enough to think that as long as the law doesnt apply to all age-groups, it doesnt count as going against free speech. Remember that your speech is not free unless you can choose who you are speaking to! "You can say that, as long as certain people aren't listening." Is NOT good enough. If you're a parent, don't depend on the law to do your job for you! "I can't watch my kid every second of the day" is no excuse, because raising a child is about what you kid does when you aren't watching.
I was under the impression that "restricted" things were often only "restricted" to certain classes of individuals. Thanks for clearing that up for me, I'll go call the police now because my movie theater is allowing those over 18 to see the "restricted" movie The Matrix: Reloaded.
No one is under any legal obligation to make sure that no one else stole something of theres. Whenever it is realized, he can get his stuff back. "Sorry man, he should have checked first!" is not going to hold up in court if you steal things from somebody and shove it in the cracks of something he's selling you.
In this case, the "Stuff" that has been stolen is intellectual property rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see how this doesnt entirely prove my point.
I dont understand how people can not 'get' the scene with the architect. Perhaps you are attempting to read into it too much? Here's a hint: he says everything straightforward. There is no obfuscation whatsoever, nothing needs to be interpreted, the whole thing is 100% just plain flat-out said. You know, with words.
So can someone please explain to me what it is they dont understand, and how they are capable of not understanding it?
I suspect that a lot of "questions about the scene with with architect" are actually just "questions about the movie in general, which everyone already had or had developed their own theories for, which the architect raised but didnt answer, so that you'll go see the third movie, not because you just can't understand his obfuscated answers"
English changes too much to have a definitive guide. If somebody says it's a word, it's a word. Meanwhile, if somebody says it isnt a word, it's not a word.
is bullshit
Go fuck yourself.
The purpose of this act seems to be to put anything not currently used for financial gain to be placed into the public domain. So why not extend this to actually say that?
How about a law that says, in order to have trademark, patent, or copyright, the item [or a derivitive of that item] in question must be offered for sale, or in the case of trademark, used as a mark of trade. [obvious exceptions for non-profit orgs]
The law says that you have copyright on your history paper, but if you're not going to gain money from it, why should you? Certainly you would have written it anyway in that case.
Discuss below, I'll admit my ignorance if you'll admit that you're a queer.
Man, Jesus raped his own mother before he was even concieved!
That's better. Lies will get you nowhere!
No shit? Really, you did?!
DVD players on Linux, bnetd, region-altering modchips...
Some guy named Fermi just e-mailed me out of the blue asking to transfer 31 million dollars out of Nigeria..
Anything with potential for illegitimate use is instantly shut down. Go away.
If the drivers were open-source- they dont have to be "free" software, just open, this could all go away, couldnt it?
Of course if you're an american, where god damnit you SHOULD be in debt.
You'll ruin EVERYTHING!
The reason it's like that is because every time someone notices, they start their own hosting company, fuckwit!
Once such a thing is accepted, one is undefeatable. ;)
let's go buy some code from Microsoft, and slip a windows disc in the binder before they hand it to us. THEN IT'LL BE OURS!
The issue here isn't violence or sex, it's specifically about rebelling against authority. Not violence in general, not sex in general, but specifically acts of violence against authority, even though that authority happens to be enslaving all humanity and murdering thousands in order to make sure they can keep enslaving humanity.
"Don't do it, because they're the ones in power."
And dont say "The laws exist" in order to go against "The laws are unjust"
Pornography laws aside (that would be going too far off-topic), Smoking restrictions and the Right to Vote have nothing to do with what we can tell people.
Smoke-advertising laws are fundamentally different from anti-speech: They aren't limitting an idea, they're limitting a product. No one's philosophy will be altered by not seeing an advertisement for a product, and cigarretts arent a form of speech.
"Protecting" minors _IS_ a violation of free-speech. Some people are fool enough to think that as long as the law doesnt apply to all age-groups, it doesnt count as going against free speech. Remember that your speech is not free unless you can choose who you are speaking to!
"You can say that, as long as certain people aren't listening." Is NOT good enough.
If you're a parent, don't depend on the law to do your job for you! "I can't watch my kid every second of the day" is no excuse, because raising a child is about what you kid does when you aren't watching.
I was under the impression that "restricted" things were often only "restricted" to certain classes of individuals. Thanks for clearing that up for me, I'll go call the police now because my movie theater is allowing those over 18 to see the "restricted" movie The Matrix: Reloaded.
Pfft.. you can't ramp a segway
Sold!
read the rest of this thread.
No one is under any legal obligation to make sure that no one else stole something of theres. Whenever it is realized, he can get his stuff back. "Sorry man, he should have checked first!" is not going to hold up in court if you steal things from somebody and shove it in the cracks of something he's selling you.
In this case, the "Stuff" that has been stolen is intellectual property rights.