Yes, yes... But is it usable as a weapon?
They are peaceful vegetarians, they don't even have any weapons!
And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old
... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
So either they start this one in which Deckard isn't a replicant, and they'll piss off the fans of the movie. Or they'll have to treat very carefully to explain it.
Of course, there is an easy way around this.. just because it is now 30+ years after the release of Blade Runner, doesn't mean that this amount of time has passed in that world. Deckard could only be 3 years older, and be deteriorating rapidly.
I recommend you do something rather unreasonable. That thing is to learn about what you're talking about.
I'll also bring up that the UK has a horrible problem with violent crime in areas other than gun violence.
Hi. I'm in the UK and I don't think this is actually true. Also, I'm not the only one to think that way. The Guardian, The BBC and The Office for National Statistics all think violent crime is lower than ever:
The little known fact is that socks are actually the larval form of hangars, which makes perfect sense, you always find socks missing but check your closet.. and you find that you have many more hangars than you accounted for. Mystery was solved back in 09.
More like 99. Thats from Lord Demon, by Roger Zelazny.
If the software is copyrighted, you can't make a derivative work without permission, and that's what modifying it is doing. It seems silly to say that a modified program you use only on your own computer is any more a "derivative work" than clipping photos out of newspapers is, but the EULA typically specifies conditions you must agree to in order to use the software, and you don't really get a say. All the rights are with the creator.
This is not correct. The copyright only restricts distribution. As in, you are not allowed to distribute a derivative work without permission. You certainly are allowed to create derivative works for your own usage. Also, clipping photos out of a newspaper is not creating a derivative work anyway, it depends what you do with them. I suppose if you clip a photo, trace some outlines and colour it in with crayon.. that would be a derivative work, depending on how closely it resembles the original. If significantly different it might be considered a new work.
As far as I can tell Android appears to be FOSS. You might need a version without Googles logos for it to be legal to use without paying them though?
here you go: Cyanogenmod Downloads
why does it have to continue on after the creator dies?
why not just a straight up fixed term, like 10 years?
In fact, I'd say that a fixed term is so overwhelmingly easier to participate in that it should unquestionably be the case. When you see the phrase "Copyright (c) 2001 John Thomas" then you can know that after N years, then the work is available for you to reproduce.. you don't have to track down all the possible John Thomases who claimed the copyright and find out if they are still alive or if they died in obscure circumstances some years ago, or if they were a corporation and the copyright term is a different beast. Although I agree that a short fixed term
like 10 years?
is actually reasonable, I would certainly support simplifying the laws to use a longer fixed one.. and I'm also sure that the copyright cartels are completely comfortable with the current state of affairs which are vague and in their favour and would fight tooth and nail to prevent such a change
Do you work for the MPAA? If not you should consider applying because that sounds a lot like their level of stupid... The video quality is awful the sound quality is awful. No-one in their right minds would attempt to record a film like this.
No, I don't work for them and neither do I have any desire to do so (and I doubt they would be interested in me, since I am not currently permitted to work in the USA) In fact, there was nothing stupid about my message.. The previous commenter said "The two big issues are" and listed two. I merely pointed out that the second one was not an issue at all
Regarding the issue you are focused on (the poor video and audio quality), well of course technology improves at a rapid rate. If a device such as this was not available with better recording capabilities within a few years, I would be very surprised.. The other poster mentioned that a head mounted cam is likely to be jittery.. thats true also, but software and hardware solutions exist to remove jitter already.
I'm not saying, that this theatre banning such a device is a great idea. I think that it is a futile idea! Miniscule devices capable of streaming high definition video to external storage are going to be ubiquitous in a few years. If you want to oppose banning them then you really need to start thinking about non-technical reasons for that. If you base your entire argument on the fact that they are rubbish, then when they get better as they inexorably will.. your argument collapses!
currently Glass has a 30 minute battery life while recording video. Realistically you would need to see a 6-8X improvement in battery life to record a video. Batteries are not improving at anywhere near that rate
So apparently it charges with a micro-usb cable. I can fully imagine somebody having a small 12v battery pack and a car charger in their bag, or pocket.. just wait until the lights dim, plug cable in and off you go..
How many young women and girls were kidnapped, raped, tortured, and eventually killed by Ted Bundy after the state of Florida lit him up like a Christmas tree?
That's what I thought. It seems he was pretty thoroughly deterred.
Except, that is not what a deterrent is.
The question is, how many young women and girls did Ted Bundy not kidnap, rape, torture or kill because he was worried about being executed? I'd say none, but its difficult to say for sure..
Then, you can ask how many young women and girls were not kidnapped, raped, tortured or killed by other people because of the fear that they would be executed for this, as Ted Bundy was, rather than just being imprisoned for life, or a long time.. this one is harder, but I'd say that people who are prone to kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing young women and girls are not really the kind of people who care about the consequences of their actions, or they think they won't get caught anyway.
The more these beliefs...
beliefs, you say? I don't believe that anybody actually believes all that claptrap about Xenu.. L Ron Hubbard made it all up to bilk money out of desparate people, and plenty of other folk are happy to continue the premise and keep the money flowing.. but does anybody actually believe it? I doubt it..