There are many ways a founding document can be interpreted. It can be to the letter, or it can be flexible. Or it can be someplace in between.

That's what makes the US constitution so cool. We left it open to interpretation by future citizens! The United States would have fallen long ago if it weren't for the ability to add amendments.

Is this true? Man, console games aren't going to leap into better graphics until 2015???

I'd love to see some sort of sort of source from 2005 about that...

...to get free stuff.

(TL;DR: If you don't have the cash, you can't buy it. Period.)

Alright, what follows this sentence will probably get me modded into the negatives, but I have the right to free speech, so I'm going type out my opinion and leave it be...

*sigh* Here it goes... rant/

According to my personal ethics (which I realize is not shared with others), if you can't pay for it, you CANNOT own/use/view/listen/read (to) the content.

I know there are those like me out there that will buy the real thing and not make excuses such as "try before you buy" (which is reasonable, but not always practical for content creators), "DRM sucks" (It does work, it may annoy the hell out of you, but I've personally never had problems with DRM), "It costs too much", etc.

But there are several out there that use all of the above excuses to cover their true intentions for pirating: They don't want to pay for it. Or they do it because they can.

If you find some paid content on the internet that's easily downloaded that's not done through some semi-obscure or really obscure method (torrenting is not mainstream, no matter how you spin it. I doubt those using Limewire years ago knew it was P2P and legally dubious...), do yourself a favor and don't download it. Support the official release, even if there is no "demo" available. Sometimes you just gotta swallow the content and the fact that your money is gone and either like it or don't. That's how reality works most of the time. Support even the big Hollywood releases!........../rant

Alright, thanks for your time in reading my opinion. Commence downmodding.

(Disclaimer: I live near Dallas, Texas. AT&T's HQ is located here.) I'm going to go against the "geek grain" here at the risk of mod points (like I have any...) and say that AT&T IS actually good in some places but has some weak points. Verizon, believe it or not, isn't perfect and has weak points and does have bad customer service in some regions of the country (away from "geek havens" like California and New York). If you plan on visiting the southern or southwestern U.S., AT&T will tend to be your better bet. In my experience, ATT has given me customer service ABOVE AND BEYOND Verizon and T-Mobile. Second in line is Sprint. This may be due to my location since AT&T's current incarnation used to be Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC), hence the better coverage/customer service. If you want to go to places like Cali or NY, Verizon or T-Mobile will probably be better in terms of 3G/4G LTE coverage. Although AT&T is slowly improving, it's not as good as Verizon or T-Mo in those locations.

Perhaps some feel this way... I feel it is social. I usually go with friends to the theater. Perhaps I should not have assumed that most everyone would go the the theaters with friends/family.

Somehow work out all the technicalities... and "Universal Translators" will come to be. Speak any language at will!

It's the social part of going to the theater that makes it appealing, regardless of ticket price. I'm finding it telling that perhaps there are quite a few Slashdotters that aren't exactly social... Although most of them have valid reasons to not elect the theaters as their favorite way, some may just not like the social part of it.

Have you ever been to a foreign country's movie theaters? We have some of the best freaking etiquette in the world in terms of watching movies at a theater. If this sort of stuff bugs you, you'd probably lose your s*** trying to watch a movie in a place other than the US and Canada... And yes, I'm leaving out European countries since I don't have first hand knowledge of how it's like over there...

I guess the reason you don't have a higher score is because you're speaking the truth... What follows now is not the majority opinion of the Internet. I will be modded down to oblivion. I know this. But I will state my argument anyway. Corporations, with as big wallets as they do, still have budgets. To upgrade a cellular network takes a LOT of investment. It's not a simple software upgrade like taking out data "chokepoints" like with working on servers in an IT environment or something like that. They literally have to buy more and install more towers to improve backhaul on given area. There very much is a physical and electromagnetic element to this equation. (I've worked with Nokia. I've worked with T-Mo. I know my shizzle.) If everyone would rather have super strong signal but super cruddy phones (ala Verizon before 2007, exception being the Razr), then live with that. There is a balance between getting nice phones and having good signal. Some of the loud critics of ATT and/or Verizon need to get their facts straight. They're doing the best they can while trying to maximize their profits and keep their incomes steady. Yes, ATT coverage sucks in New England and California (geek havens), while it's amazing in the southern US (they were formerly Southwestern Bell Corporation, so this would explain things...) Believe it or not, Verizon actually has quite a few dead spots around where I live, Texas...

Eh, this sounds loosely based on the anime "Eden of the East"... and the company within that anime that makes the "Eden" system. It's really cool, though. :)

Already? Geez, Google's still the top page visited on the internet, and he's saying this? Then again, he could be one that's looking into the future where Google may not necessarily exist any more...