but the fact that they are punishing students for anything non-school related is downright draconian and offensive. They have no right to do that.
The article said that the students have to sign training rules before they can participate in extra-curriculars. This is a contract between the student and school. Just like a real contract, bad things will happen when you break it. This stuff has been around for awhile. Most schools have similar rules for if kids are seen drinking in public etc. Kids will just have to realize that doing something on the internet is no different than doing it on a street corner.
The Supreme Court ruled just last year that teens aren't mature enough to appreciate the consequences of their actions in murder cases. This is just more of the same "for the kiddies" garbage. I guess we get what we deserve when we let the government decide what is good for us.
I hope you are right. The only problem is that your prediction is based on a free market. Things get murky when the government gets involved. Acts like the DMCA and using the courts to bring unsatisfied customers back in line make a self correction less likely.
I agree that something like iTMS is going to have to be the silver bullet. Once one of the biggies takes a sensible approach and makes a killing, the rest will have to follow suit. Let's just hope it can happen before the studios can buy their way with their lobbyists.
You are seriously misguided if you think the MPAA will take any more steps in the right direction after this deal flops horribly. Do you think they will blame the impending failure on the fatal combination of ridiculously high prices and stifling DRM, or on the bogeyman of pirates? People want digital downloads because a) DVDs are too expensive - especially for the crap movies they are now making b) for convenience of portability - we have computers, carputers, ipods, media servers etc. They are completely ignoring both of these market forces.
I have a ps2 and 30+ games, and this convinced me NOT to buy a PS3. I had decided against it after the rootkit, but started to waiver back. Now I'm done. Can't wait for tomorrow for Nintendo's smackdown.
Get out of here with your logical right-wing blather you sumbitch. Don't you know we all think with our hearts around these parts? GWB is Satan so it is obviously his fault.
I'm not saying it wouldn't have fallen eventually. Communism can not and will not ever work because it is based on repression. However, having two superpowers at eachother's throat was dangerous to everyone. MAD was used to bankrupt their economy, and Star Wars was the last straw. Reagan and everyone around him knew it wasn't feasible, but the Soviets didn't. They knew they could no longer keep up. It was worth it if it ended the Cold War even a year sooner than it would have ended otherwise.
I agree that the change wouldn't have been as significant. However, the 2004 version is still an insult. Instead of making amends for his colossal lack of judgement, Lucas negotiated by changing the timing. This scene, as well as the Jabba scene are two of the worst examples of CG to ever grace the screen. It is salt in the wound to leave this crap in there. As they say, a teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of soup gives you a barrel of sewage.
Star Wars was one of the most successful projects in U.S. history. Its mere mention by Reagan broke the bank of the Soviets. They had to cry uncle because they couldn't afford to build a countermeasure to it. Whether or not it was actually built doesn't matter. It accomplished exactly what it was supposed to.
It would never have been an issue, nor changed anyone's view of Han as a character, had it been that way in 1977
If Lucas had originally had Han shooting second, but changed it to him shooting first there would have still been purists upset. It is not a minor thing to change a character's entire arc. The reason the actual change is so bad IMO, is that it was made in the name of political correctness. Look at the hoopla over changing the ESRB rating of Oblivion in the news lately. I don't know about you, but I'll be damned if I let the PC police make changes to a major staple of my childhood (by proxy through Lucas or otherwise). That's my $.02 anyway.
What would you say if Ford decided that it would tell consumers that only Mobil gas will work in their car?
Holy bad car analogy dumbass.
More like, What would you do if Ford sold you a car with a tank full of Ford-brand gas in their car? Obviously everyone but car mechanics are too stupid or lazy to put different gas in, so we should have mommy government force Ford to fill their cars with their competitor's gas.
I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but they aren't locking ANYONE in or out of a specific search option. This entire fiasco is stupid.
Oh shut up. I'm tired of this FUD over the big oil companies already. Exxon had sales of $100.72 billion in the third quarter last year. They made $9.92 billion in profit on that. 9.8% ROI isn't out of line (gouging). Almost anything else you buy every day has more than a 10% markup on it.
Hell yeah. Throw in 1 part Skinamax movie and 1 part Bloodsport and I'm there. I love a mindless popcorn flick once in awhile. I find that I actually enjoy them more than the pretentious crap coming out as "good" movies these days.
Exactly. A free market is based on a mutually beneficial trade. If you are giving something up that you feel is worth less than what you are getting, then you have no one to blame but yourself. This includes selling your labor. If you are pissed because someone won't give you something like health care for nothing, then I have a hard time feeling sorry for you. Find a better job where you feel you are getting a better deal for your effort. We don't have a completely free market, but ours is as close as it gets.
Putting pressure on the market is what makes it work. That what makes it self-correcting. It is the sole reason that our economy is constantly growing while other countries have stagnant economies. It is not "needless" to encourage innovation through pressure on the market.
If individuals are to pay for their own (which doesn't make much sense) then minimum wage has to be much, much higher for people to afford it.
Why doesn't it make sense? This money has to come from somewhere, so the costs will be passed on to the employee anyway. This raises the cost of each employee to the company, which means either lower wages to compensate, or fewer employees. I think the solution is for Wal Mart to use it's clout to organize group plans with lower rates that the employees can opt into (on their own dime). To use the government to force Wal Mart into paying is wrong in my mind, since the government doesn't seem too keen on shutting down things like illegals using public health care and bogus lawsuits that force doctors to pay 50 grand a year on malpractice insurance. These two issues are a huge reason why the costs of health care are so high to begin with, and the government is directly involved in both.
Pretty narrow definition there. Regulating business to support social causes IS socialism. Wal Mart (and any employer for that matter) shouldn't be in business to better society. I have yet to hear a good reason as to why my employer (not Wal Mart) should be in the healthcare business in addition to what they already do.
The socialist playbook says that this forces the cost on the tax payers so it is wrong. This is a contradiction. Wal Mart shareholders are a subset of taxpayers. Taxpayers paying=bad and shareholders paying=good doesn't compute for me. If it is more ethical to put the cost on a smaller group, why not reduce it to the most ethical size of 1 person and have the employee pay for it on his own?
You can argue that Wal Mart is a globally traded company, so shareholders also include foreign investors. Now you get into the contradiction of how paying foreigners low wages is exploitation, but costing them money for our social causes isn't?
Why should we pay more for the same product? The philosophy of "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is nothing but thoughts of puppy dogs and rainbows. If you can give me a logical reason for this crap I'd like to hear it.
I completely agree with Ayn Rand that socialism is the purest form of evil.
I agree. The whole issue is a rift between the free market advocates and socialists. I'm SHOCKED that people can't remain neutral when politics are involved.
Slashdot Mirror
but the fact that they are punishing students for anything non-school related is downright draconian and offensive. They have no right to do that.
The article said that the students have to sign training rules before they can participate in extra-curriculars. This is a contract between the student and school. Just like a real contract, bad things will happen when you break it. This stuff has been around for awhile. Most schools have similar rules for if kids are seen drinking in public etc. Kids will just have to realize that doing something on the internet is no different than doing it on a street corner.
The Supreme Court ruled just last year that teens aren't mature enough to appreciate the consequences of their actions in murder cases. This is just more of the same "for the kiddies" garbage. I guess we get what we deserve when we let the government decide what is good for us.
I hope you are right. The only problem is that your prediction is based on a free market. Things get murky when the government gets involved. Acts like the DMCA and using the courts to bring unsatisfied customers back in line make a self correction less likely.
I agree that something like iTMS is going to have to be the silver bullet. Once one of the biggies takes a sensible approach and makes a killing, the rest will have to follow suit. Let's just hope it can happen before the studios can buy their way with their lobbyists.
You are seriously misguided if you think the MPAA will take any more steps in the right direction after this deal flops horribly. Do you think they will blame the impending failure on the fatal combination of ridiculously high prices and stifling DRM, or on the bogeyman of pirates? People want digital downloads because
a) DVDs are too expensive - especially for the crap movies they are now making
b) for convenience of portability - we have computers, carputers, ipods, media servers etc.
They are completely ignoring both of these market forces.
I have a ps2 and 30+ games, and this convinced me NOT to buy a PS3. I had decided against it after the rootkit, but started to waiver back. Now I'm done. Can't wait for tomorrow for Nintendo's smackdown.
Then you have to learn to type while you're tilting your keyboard all over the place.
I would mod you up if I had points
I'm not saying it wouldn't have fallen eventually. Communism can not and will not ever work because it is based on repression. However, having two superpowers at eachother's throat was dangerous to everyone. MAD was used to bankrupt their economy, and Star Wars was the last straw. Reagan and everyone around him knew it wasn't feasible, but the Soviets didn't. They knew they could no longer keep up. It was worth it if it ended the Cold War even a year sooner than it would have ended otherwise.
I agree that the change wouldn't have been as significant. However, the 2004 version is still an insult. Instead of making amends for his colossal lack of judgement, Lucas negotiated by changing the timing. This scene, as well as the Jabba scene are two of the worst examples of CG to ever grace the screen. It is salt in the wound to leave this crap in there. As they say, a teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of soup gives you a barrel of sewage.
Star Wars was one of the most successful projects in U.S. history. Its mere mention by Reagan broke the bank of the Soviets. They had to cry uncle because they couldn't afford to build a countermeasure to it. Whether or not it was actually built doesn't matter. It accomplished exactly what it was supposed to.
If Lucas had originally had Han shooting second, but changed it to him shooting first there would have still been purists upset. It is not a minor thing to change a character's entire arc. The reason the actual change is so bad IMO, is that it was made in the name of political correctness. Look at the hoopla over changing the ESRB rating of Oblivion in the news lately. I don't know about you, but I'll be damned if I let the PC police make changes to a major staple of my childhood (by proxy through Lucas or otherwise). That's my $.02 anyway.
Holy bad car analogy dumbass.
More like, What would you do if Ford sold you a car with a tank full of Ford-brand gas in their car? Obviously everyone but car mechanics are too stupid or lazy to put different gas in, so we should have mommy government force Ford to fill their cars with their competitor's gas.
I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but they aren't locking ANYONE in or out of a specific search option. This entire fiasco is stupid.
Oh shut up. I'm tired of this FUD over the big oil companies already. Exxon had sales of $100.72 billion in the third quarter last year. They made $9.92 billion in profit on that. 9.8% ROI isn't out of line (gouging). Almost anything else you buy every day has more than a 10% markup on it.
Universities are (and always were) less worried about protecting free speech than the current administration.
I would have modded it funny but I never get points. I think I'm still too new.
Disclaimer: I'm a fiscal conservative/social libertarian
Starforce is the reason I consider my consoles to be antivirus hardware. If a SF infected game is PC only, then it doesn't exist to me.
Because real>fake(silicon)>fake(animated) boobies.
Hell yeah. Throw in 1 part Skinamax movie and 1 part Bloodsport and I'm there. I love a mindless popcorn flick once in awhile. I find that I actually enjoy them more than the pretentious crap coming out as "good" movies these days.
Exactly. A free market is based on a mutually beneficial trade. If you are giving something up that you feel is worth less than what you are getting, then you have no one to blame but yourself. This includes selling your labor. If you are pissed because someone won't give you something like health care for nothing, then I have a hard time feeling sorry for you. Find a better job where you feel you are getting a better deal for your effort. We don't have a completely free market, but ours is as close as it gets.
Putting pressure on the market is what makes it work. That what makes it self-correcting. It is the sole reason that our economy is constantly growing while other countries have stagnant economies. It is not "needless" to encourage innovation through pressure on the market.
Like I said, I agree with Rand. Read "Atlas Shrugged" for a good look at her philosophy.
Why doesn't it make sense? This money has to come from somewhere, so the costs will be passed on to the employee anyway. This raises the cost of each employee to the company, which means either lower wages to compensate, or fewer employees. I think the solution is for Wal Mart to use it's clout to organize group plans with lower rates that the employees can opt into (on their own dime). To use the government to force Wal Mart into paying is wrong in my mind, since the government doesn't seem too keen on shutting down things like illegals using public health care and bogus lawsuits that force doctors to pay 50 grand a year on malpractice insurance. These two issues are a huge reason why the costs of health care are so high to begin with, and the government is directly involved in both.
The socialist playbook says that this forces the cost on the tax payers so it is wrong. This is a contradiction. Wal Mart shareholders are a subset of taxpayers. Taxpayers paying=bad and shareholders paying=good doesn't compute for me. If it is more ethical to put the cost on a smaller group, why not reduce it to the most ethical size of 1 person and have the employee pay for it on his own?
You can argue that Wal Mart is a globally traded company, so shareholders also include foreign investors. Now you get into the contradiction of how paying foreigners low wages is exploitation, but costing them money for our social causes isn't?
I completely agree with Ayn Rand that socialism is the purest form of evil.
I agree. The whole issue is a rift between the free market advocates and socialists. I'm SHOCKED that people can't remain neutral when politics are involved.