"Do you ever record serial #'s for insurance reasons or maybe just to locate item after it has been stolen?"
Nope. I save the original documentation of expensive things I buy new, but I've never once even LOOKED for the serial number on anything I've bought used, especially something I've bought for as little as $60.
You mention above that you also look for the MS license key, and that is also something that I never look for. I would prefer if it didn't even have one, so that once I got it home and put my clean Linux installation on it, it would have no signs of having ever been tainted by that inferior OS.
Different strokes for different folks big guy. You can't expect everyone in the world to think about doing something because you're so OCD that it's the first thing you would even think to do. Not all minds work like yours, and I thank whatever higher power there is for that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why isn't the PD being sued as well?
If it can be refuted, then an argument can be made both ways, and it pretty much becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?? I mean, if it doesn't show anything one way or the other, how could it possibly be relevant to the argument??
And you actually do need conclusive, irrefutable proof to be proven guilty of a crime....beyond a reasonable doubt and all that.
I've even skipped seeing a movie in the theater because I caught some of a downloaded/bootlegged version, and it turned out the movie was crap and not worth the ticket price. Of course, I only ever did that after I was so fed up about paying ticket prices for too many movies that weren't worth it, so really, Hollywood is their own worst enemy here. They drove me to piracy. If I felt any confidence about a movie being worth the price, I wouldn't even question myself about going to see it. But they put out too much crap, and so I need to protect my own bank account.
Sure, a lot of people will say, "Then just don't watch them, you don't have to pirate the things and rob the people who worked on it of their financial reward!" or something like that. The thing is, I'm not robbing anyone of anything. If I liked the movie for free, I'll go see it on the big screen and have no problems paying for the theater experience. If I didn't like it for free, then it's one that I'd have either opted not to watch in the theater, or I would have seen it, gotten pissed cuz it sucked, and then made up my mind not to watch anything from that studio/producer/director...whoever, without a 5 star, two thumbs up, glowing review from a close, trusted friend. The ability to watch a bad movie without paying for it actually makes the chances that I'll go to the theater for a later movie from that studio significantly higher.
I got my laptop for free, 3 years used, because the person who gave it to me had a new one and no longer had a need for it. Not everyone is so greedy that they would need to sell something used, that they don't have a need for anymore, for the highest possible price, and this teacher could have thought the seller was a genuinely nice person. I know, it's hard for some to believe that those still exist, but they do, and I for one hope they don't go away because clowns like you think they should question every thing a person does which appears to be out of kindness. Have you ever heard of FreeCycle?
Well, you might not worry about it, and Kevin Smith probably isn't really going to miss that money....but that's the price of a new KIA isn't it? If the film is good enough to win an Oscar, isn't it the same quality film regardless of how much money was spent on advertisements? Hell, if that had been donated to the right charity, it likely could have fed a whole African family for nearly a year, spent on something they didn't want to spend it on...and for what? An unreasonable rule, probably created when newspapers gave a huge chunk of start up money to the AMPAS under the condition that they get a little bit back for every movie reviewed... Is racketeering the right word??
And it's "because designers would like to be lazier. They don't want competition and they don't want to have to innovate at the same pace."
They've made their money the hard way, now they want to sit back Scrooge McDuck style and watch the money keep coming in while they swim in it. Normal people, when they reach that point, they retire and do the things in life that they had been too busy working to do. Rich, greedy assholes though, the only thing they want to do is make money, and once they have some, they want to keep making it by doing even less to deserve it.
the perceived need for new laws is a result of someone doing something stupid, and then someone else reacting stupidly.
Fixed that for ya.
There doesn't need to be a new law, people simply need to be told that the existing law covers new technologies as well as everything it covered in the past. You can tell them that without passing a new law and wasting taxpayer money.
Your example shows that YOU still do not get it...
I'm around 30 years old, give or take a few. That doesn't have anything to do with this conversation though, except in the same context as Henley's age, which is to try and get a sense of motivation. Henley's motivation, I have no doubt, is purely financial. He's not making new music, it's unlikely that people are still buying his work all that much, and he needs to be able to pay for his mansion(s). He doesn't care one bit about the implications of this legislation, that is my point. I care, because it will impact me and my children. Henley is undoubtedly one of those rich arrogant assholes who thinks as long as he can spend enough money, he and his family can't get into trouble with the law... I don't know anything about him really, but the simple fact that he's clueless about the impacts of this legislation, and is willing to throw his name behind it for a paycheck, makes him a low-life in my book. Unless you can say something that adds value to this conversation, we're done here.
I'd agree, except that you're kinda wrong.... Age has a lot to do with this matter. I really have no idea what Don Henley is up to these days, nor do I care even the slightest. But, given what I do know about him, he's probably not going to be writing/recording/performing many new hit singles these days, and as such, he's probably not going to make as much money in his later years as he may have earlier on. That being the case, he is likely to be looking at alternatives for supplementing that lost income, and one way is to "act" like so many celebrities do. Say what someone wants you to say, make it sound sincere, and get paid a ton based on how popular you may once have been. That's pretty common these days, and it's almost painfully obvious that many of the clowns who take that path don't know or care too much about what they're talking about.
Basically, what I meant was that if someone paid him enough, Don Henley would probably start trying to convince everyone that grass was red and the sky was yellow, because he likes money and wouldn't be affected one way or the other from the spreading of his misinformation.
No one disagreed that you should follow the judge's orders. If he says don't talk about it, then don't. That is simple, just as you say. That part was covered in the laws already in place before this new one. This new one doesn't really add anything of value that wasn't already there. What Mike seems to not "get" is why taxpayer money and elected officials' time needed to be wasted to make a new law that covers what an old one already did. I don't get that either. I'm sure he understands that it's important to follow a judge's orders, but from that sentence in your quote, it's clear to me that he simply isn't sure why the judge would need to order you to not talk about a case...not that he isn't sure why you should have to listen to him, like you seem to think.
I just meant that I believe there are payments/exchanges of cash that aren't reported to those sites. I literally want to know if they dropped a quarter into a bum's cup on the sidewalk, or a dime into someone's guitar case. I want to know of every hundred dollar bill they got in a briefcase at the coffee shop, even the ones that go straight to their off shore bank accounts.
Today my browser was taken over again when I looked away for about 4 seconds to take a bite of my breakfast. This is the main reason I got an ad blocker anyway, so I didn't constantly have to be extra careful about where I put my mouse cursor. When I'm reading something, I move the cursor out of the way, and out of the way is usually where sites put ads. When an add covers my screen in a black window with a 'loading' bar that won't allow me to close it until it finishes loading, it really makes me want to just close the page and not go back. This is only strike 2 for your ads, but one more and it'll be a year or so before I even consider showing them again.
Instead of things that don't require interaction to take over the page, which is really beyond infuriating and flat out unacceptable, play the little video in the ad window upon the mouse over. Some of your ads do that, and they're fine. Don't allow anything to get in my way of reading your posts or the comments unless I specifically ask for it to do so with a click of my mouse.
Oh man oh man.... That's exactly what I was hoping would NOT be the answer. As a native of NH, who loves so much about that great state, I simply can't find words powerful enough to express my disappointment. Where's that old man to watch out for this crap when you really need him...(the one in the mountain that fell... :-( )
I have to apologize, I had assumed you meant limiting wealth for everyone... Limiting it for Government officials (the amount they can take in while in office) is a great idea now that I am thinking about it properly. More important than limiting it though, would be FULL and COMPLETE disclosure of elected officials finances, to the point where they can't drop a quarter into a bums coffee cup without reporting it to the public.
To the other responders, I had said could, and never meant to imply that it always would.
Would have been if you could have excluded patent lawyers from the vote altogether. Their livelihood depends on them, so of course they are going to vote in favor of patents in any and every way they can, regardless of the question. They are so biased it's not even funny, not to mention the fact that they think, because they went through law school and passed a test, that they are smarter than everyone else on the planet...