and now I'm "Bettawrekonize" contradicting myself, too.
It's that easy.
Perhaps you should go find a bridge and some billy goats to bother...?
I have no links to offer, nor articles to cite, but I do recall learning that automobiles were once considered as no more than a passing fad.
Hey AC, apparently you're cool enough to have your IDENTITY trolled on here. WTG man!
Pet peeve of mind IRT writing -- can't let it go:
Loose: 1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained
Lose: a. To be deprived of (something one has had)
Yes, but unfortunately the cattle of America will simply "Moo" right along with Cuomo and McMaster.
"If you offer people more choice, and help them make that choice, they will take that choice."
Well....yeah....
If I were an established expert on, say, pizza, and presented you with a choice of toppings, and then recommended Pepperoni, the odds are good that you will choose pepperoni. A) because the expert recommended it, and B) because it's a known popular topping.
This isn't exactly a nascent phenomenon.
wow! That's a long dry read...which is why I didn't read it.
Care to summarize key points?
"Copyright is not a property right nor does it protect a property right.": True, depending on which definition of "property" you use.
"Copyright is merely a government granted monopoly.": False. Not only false, but a complete fallacy.
Monopoly: 2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
Copyright: The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.
So, yes, by definition it's government granted. However, a copyright DOES NOT grant an author the exclusive rights to sell ALL books, as would a monopoly. A copyright grants an author exclusive rights to HIS/HER own work.
The two definitions, while they are both granted/allowed by the government, the similarity ENDS there; they ARE NOT synonymous.
Just to clarify, though, I'm not in agreement with Helprin. I just don't like fallacious arguments; even if I'm in agreement with the one making them.
...and neither am I, but on a hunch I googled
"www.j-ive.com" and it doesn't exist.
www.jive.com does, but then that harkens back to the subject of this post.
If I'm not very creative and I found one that Mr. Ive could use, why isn't a freakin designer not creative enough to come up with a domain name?? Sounds like 3-year-old sandbox tactics to me.
I really DID see the IMAX version at dole cannery in Honolulu.
But I only know it's real because I've been to the fake/poorly presented ones in the past.
Kind of proving a negative, I know, but otherwise I don't know how else you really could tell the difference. Sounds like AMC and IMAX are counting on that; thus heralding back to people simply believing in a brand simply because it IS said brand, and not actually doing their research.
Wait...sorry. I forgot that google will not be sorely missed. My bad.
Re:
Just FYI that was me.
AND I don't contradict myself
AND you're calling out Anonymous Coward for something that :Lobo Santo said.
AND yes, Mike can tell, but it's not displayed on the general thread, so YOU can't. My point is that the contradictions are typically done by trollers.
AND nobody likes it when people get upset when they're called on they're own shortcomings; CTFU