Actually, the fact that they slept with her and paid her really doesn't having a bearing on the case where she is being convicted for prostitution. Nor would I consider the fact that a cop bought drugs from a drug dealer, tried them out, said that it was some "good shit" and then arrested the drug dealer. All of the above are arrests for people performing illegal acts. The cops in these cases also performed illegal acts, none of which have a bearing on the original legal act and should be prosecuted on their own. None of the actions in these examples seem to prove that the evidence was obtained illegally. The defense in the case you mentioned simply wants to paint the police in a bad light, saying that hookers wouldn't exist if johns like the cops wouldn't be there to pay them money.
So if I break into your house, take all of your personal records and put them up online... its good right? Free speech and all that.
Wikileaks isn't doing anything but prove to the government that their data isn't secure. In retaliation, the government needs to prove to itself and its allies that it can secure data. Most of the documents they've released don't prove anything, they are just documents. Sure, a few of them do point out things that the US government is doing wrong, but wikileaks itself doesn't seem to be building a case against that wrong. They're merely putting your credit card statements online and waiting for someone else to go through them to see if they can find inconsistencies that prove that you're cheating on your wife.
I have to agree. I think WikiLeaks has a case of target fixation. They made a name for themselves for the Iraq documents and then again with the Afgan documents. Both of these releases honestly just seemed like huge dumps of data with some cursory investigation to make sure names were blotted out. I honestly thought the point of Wikileaks was to point out specific problems and back them up with evidence. In all three of their data dumps, they seem to have lost this objective. There is too much data to be going through for most people, so instead you get a few incidents that people stumble across. I would have rather that they spent the time to look at the documents, identify what they believe are problems, illegal behavior, etc, and then build a package / case of evidence. If they had released a "package" of documents that showed how the US was spying on the UN and focused completely on that, it would have had a much bigger impact than "oh noes, your state department data isn't secure. Ha ha ha"
let them enjoy their a few bucks a sale cut from the right-leaning, democracy-unfriendly hardliner sellers they have there.
So you mean most corporations that make significant amounts of cash and would be the bulk of their customers? I'm really sure they are shaking in their boots that some minor companies will no longer be using their system.
Honestly, I don't see what the problem is. Google didn't take their money away or freeze their account. Google said that they believe that this site is currently breaking their TOS and Google will not do business with them until this is remedied. These two companies did not sign a contract stating that from this date to this date, Google will be giving them X dollars per month in exchange for advertising this or that on their site.
I'm sure the "contract", if it is that, is worded that Google can end it at any time, most likely for any reason, though legally speaking it would likely be for breaking the TOS.
In other parts of the advertising industry I've heard of this happening. A radio or TV show will do something and in response a company that was airing advertisements during that segment canceled doing so in the future. It doesn't need to be justified, it is business. If anything, business is usually very irrational.
Except that they didn't make the second KOTOR game. If you consider "The Old Republic" the third installment of KOTOR, then you may have a point. I'd argue that most aspects of the game are going to be different, as you can't really take KOTOR and make it an MMO since the focus is on you being the hero of the galaxy.
Completely agree. While I did like some of the awesome animations for the game, the fact that when I wanted to finish off the last 5% of an AT-ST's health I had to go play a button pressing mini game was annoying. The Dark Forces games were awesome and should have been the basis for this game.
Same thing happened to Demigod. I remember Stardock stating that at time of release, they had about 20,000 legitimate customers to 100,000 illegal copies (Source).
Of course my feelings about this go both ways. If both of these games hadn't been so easy to hack, would as many people put down the money and bought it? Would sales have been the same? Sometimes piracy does generate sales, and sometimes it hurts it. The major problem seems to be that with everything connected to a server now, having pirates overrun your server diminishes the experience for your paying customers as they experience lag, connection problems, overloaded servers, etc.
Actually I'm pretty sure that companies like Microsoft would enjoy his price scheme. A dollar an hour for commercial free use of their software?
To his point, I agree with the price. I only watch TV on DVD. Generally I only pay 15 to 20 USD for a season. This turns out to be about a dollar an episode. I'm not sure why you would pay more for a digital copy than what you could buy in the store.
And this is one more reason why I typically buy all of my games through Steam. Since doing so, I've had no problems with game configurations or DRM. Everything just works.
First, Microsoft fucked up the PC as a gaming platform. The lack of interest, investment, the Games for Windows fuck-up, MS execs admitting that they deliberately don't release games for the PC to prop up the Xbox. Blizzard complained publicly but others can see the writing on the wall, too.
Yes, MS screwed up Games for Windows. That isn't why I see PC gaming declining though. The cost of console systems has decreased to the point that you usually can pay a lot less to get a console that has all of the features you want compared to a PC. XBox elite is 250, Xbox arcade is 150. Gaming PCs cost 600 - 2000 Dollars and that is just for one user to play on.
With that, a lot of game developers have been focusing on the consoles for releasing their games. I don't see FFXIII coming out on the PC, most FPSs come out on both PC and console... but the ones that don't tend to come out on Console only. Strategy games seem to be the niche that PC gaming will always have to itself.
The reason why most people like console gaming over PC gaming though is the simplicity of use. They plug their console into their big screen TV, put in the game, plug in the ethernet and go. They don't have to deal with drivers, windows updates, software and hardware conflicts and a dozen other problems that plague PC gamers.
Second, piracy is a real problem on the PC. Ubisoft did experiment with no DRM at all; that they came up with the total fubar they use now, should tell you how that experiment went. Apple users otoh are more likely to have more money than time.
Piracy is a problem on the computer as much as video game rentals are a problem for consoles.... as in it really isn't a problem at all. People who pirate games will always pirate games. They likely never have and probably never will just go and buy games. Putting games onto a console doesn't fix this, nor does putting games onto a Mac. Console games can be pirated just like PC games.
Third, Apple's market share's been increasing while the share of PC's who can run games has been decreasing. Compared to ten years ago MS lost the top end to Apple, the bottom end to netbooks and most of the middle's running intel integrated crap.
This is most likely due to the fact that those who had PCs that could run games are now playing their games on consoles. Since there was a major lack of games on Macs, I doubt those who own Macs use it for gaming or don't have another system (console or PC) that is their primary gaming server. Yes, this will allow them in some cases to use their Mac instead, but I wouldn't be looking at a flood of PC/Mac games except by certain groups of developers.
Note: while it may sound different from my post, I am a PC gamer. The only console I own is a PS2 to play some of the older FF games when I'm in the mood. Other than that, I'm a 100% PC gamer because of what I like about the PC over a console. Having friends that are console gamers though, I know exactly why they made the switch
The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.
I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist. Just because you don't know what the right answer is - maybe there's even no way you could know what the right answer is - doesn't make your answer right or even okay. It's much simpler than that. It's just plain wrong.
It is the estate of an past on author, of course they are looking for free money. They all are. I'm waiting for someone to claim themselves a descendant of Plato and start suing companies for publishing his works.
Spanking is actually a very effective tool, when used properly.
I completely agree.
A slap in the face is a sharp reminder that you aren't in charge, and you had better rethink your actions.
Umm... I thought we were talking about spanking here... Spanking is not slapping and should never be used. Slapping is a physical assault on a person, even if it does not cause permanent physical damage (though I'm not saying that it couldn't). Slapping people has always been a cornerstone of domestic abuse. Beyond that, it is also ineffective as a teaching aid. Slapping to remind someone that you "aren't in charge" only promotes the idea that for them to be in charge, you have to hit them back. This leads to a cycle of using physical force to assert one's dominance. It is the reason why in the animal kingdom, change of leadership is usually very violent and often deadly... it is a system where dominance is asserting by using physical force.
The former is like getting burned by a hot surface -- it's an instant reaction and shouldn't have long-lasting effects beyond the psychological effect (learning not to touch hot surfaces); the latter is like teaching the same lesson by lighting one's clothes on fire -- it _will_ have long-lasting painful effects and is not any more effective at teaching the lesson (learning not to touch hot surfaces)
Depending on what you meant, I'm going to have to disagree again. Spanking should never be used as an instant reaction. By using it as an instant reaction, it allows anger, frustration and all of the bad reasons to take precedent over. It should only be used when necessary, and when it is explained to the child why this is happening.
I for one always dislike it when parents spank their children out of frustration. This happens often in stores when children as misbehaving, a parent will give their child a smack on the bottom. This is usually followed by a "Stop that" or "Cut it out". In turn, the child usually just ends up crying. Yes, the spank itself did very little physical harm, but what is more is that the child is punished and most likely has no clue why. Thus the child has learned nothing except that their parents are going to inflict minor physical pain when they are angry and frustrated.
Yes, there should be legal repercussions for a company doing something like this to its customers. Unfortuneately, lawyers aren't cheap and companies can pay to have more of them. While more doesn't mean better, it does reduce your chances of being able to go up against such a company. Of course it would be different if you identified the people who were wronged by this ahead of time and had each one chip in five bucks for a legal team ($5 X 1 million people, you get the idea).
Regardless of this, getting a settlement of 16 million isn't going to hurt anyone. They'll make that amount back from a "customer" in a few months. So if you disagree with a company's practicies... don't use that company. Give up your cable modem or switch to another provider. It makes no sense that you are willing to continue to pay a company which you are suing, and thus financing their legal defense against your claim. Having 1 million subscribers choose to drop Comcast would do tons more than paying each one 16$.
They said this after the American Civil War. They said this after the first world war, the war to end all wars.... War will never end. "Let him who wishes for peace prepare for war" ~ Vegetius
Explosions are basically a waste of energy in space. On the ground, these are devastating because of the shock wave that goes along with them.
This I would heavily disagree with. Explosions are usually devastating on the ground because of the amounts of shrapnel that are generated by them. I don't believe a grenade is deadly because of the shock wave caused by them. Bits of metal flying in all directions is deadly both on the ground and in space.
Slashdot Mirror
Because one gender is a lot louder than the other gender
I always have preferred bone or stone myself
Actually, the fact that they slept with her and paid her really doesn't having a bearing on the case where she is being convicted for prostitution. Nor would I consider the fact that a cop bought drugs from a drug dealer, tried them out, said that it was some "good shit" and then arrested the drug dealer. All of the above are arrests for people performing illegal acts. The cops in these cases also performed illegal acts, none of which have a bearing on the original legal act and should be prosecuted on their own. None of the actions in these examples seem to prove that the evidence was obtained illegally. The defense in the case you mentioned simply wants to paint the police in a bad light, saying that hookers wouldn't exist if johns like the cops wouldn't be there to pay them money.
So if I break into your house, take all of your personal records and put them up online... its good right? Free speech and all that. Wikileaks isn't doing anything but prove to the government that their data isn't secure. In retaliation, the government needs to prove to itself and its allies that it can secure data. Most of the documents they've released don't prove anything, they are just documents. Sure, a few of them do point out things that the US government is doing wrong, but wikileaks itself doesn't seem to be building a case against that wrong. They're merely putting your credit card statements online and waiting for someone else to go through them to see if they can find inconsistencies that prove that you're cheating on your wife.
I have to agree. I think WikiLeaks has a case of target fixation. They made a name for themselves for the Iraq documents and then again with the Afgan documents. Both of these releases honestly just seemed like huge dumps of data with some cursory investigation to make sure names were blotted out. I honestly thought the point of Wikileaks was to point out specific problems and back them up with evidence. In all three of their data dumps, they seem to have lost this objective. There is too much data to be going through for most people, so instead you get a few incidents that people stumble across. I would have rather that they spent the time to look at the documents, identify what they believe are problems, illegal behavior, etc, and then build a package / case of evidence. If they had released a "package" of documents that showed how the US was spying on the UN and focused completely on that, it would have had a much bigger impact than "oh noes, your state department data isn't secure. Ha ha ha"
let them enjoy their a few bucks a sale cut from the right-leaning, democracy-unfriendly hardliner sellers they have there.
So you mean most corporations that make significant amounts of cash and would be the bulk of their customers? I'm really sure they are shaking in their boots that some minor companies will no longer be using their system.
Can't stake them through the heart if there isn't one there
Honestly, I don't see what the problem is. Google didn't take their money away or freeze their account. Google said that they believe that this site is currently breaking their TOS and Google will not do business with them until this is remedied. These two companies did not sign a contract stating that from this date to this date, Google will be giving them X dollars per month in exchange for advertising this or that on their site. I'm sure the "contract", if it is that, is worded that Google can end it at any time, most likely for any reason, though legally speaking it would likely be for breaking the TOS. In other parts of the advertising industry I've heard of this happening. A radio or TV show will do something and in response a company that was airing advertisements during that segment canceled doing so in the future. It doesn't need to be justified, it is business. If anything, business is usually very irrational.
No, moral of the story is don't work for a company that is going to put a proof of concept into production.
I'm sure google could have taken care of this for you
Except that they didn't make the second KOTOR game. If you consider "The Old Republic" the third installment of KOTOR, then you may have a point. I'd argue that most aspects of the game are going to be different, as you can't really take KOTOR and make it an MMO since the focus is on you being the hero of the galaxy.
Completely agree. While I did like some of the awesome animations for the game, the fact that when I wanted to finish off the last 5% of an AT-ST's health I had to go play a button pressing mini game was annoying. The Dark Forces games were awesome and should have been the basis for this game.
Same thing happened to Demigod. I remember Stardock stating that at time of release, they had about 20,000 legitimate customers to 100,000 illegal copies (Source). Of course my feelings about this go both ways. If both of these games hadn't been so easy to hack, would as many people put down the money and bought it? Would sales have been the same? Sometimes piracy does generate sales, and sometimes it hurts it. The major problem seems to be that with everything connected to a server now, having pirates overrun your server diminishes the experience for your paying customers as they experience lag, connection problems, overloaded servers, etc.
Actually I'm pretty sure that companies like Microsoft would enjoy his price scheme. A dollar an hour for commercial free use of their software? To his point, I agree with the price. I only watch TV on DVD. Generally I only pay 15 to 20 USD for a season. This turns out to be about a dollar an episode. I'm not sure why you would pay more for a digital copy than what you could buy in the store.
As an American, I say, "Thank you very much", to the EU.
As an American, I say that we should have the balls to do what the EU is doing for us.
And this is one more reason why I typically buy all of my games through Steam. Since doing so, I've had no problems with game configurations or DRM. Everything just works.
First, Microsoft fucked up the PC as a gaming platform. The lack of interest, investment, the Games for Windows fuck-up, MS execs admitting that they deliberately don't release games for the PC to prop up the Xbox. Blizzard complained publicly but others can see the writing on the wall, too.
Yes, MS screwed up Games for Windows. That isn't why I see PC gaming declining though. The cost of console systems has decreased to the point that you usually can pay a lot less to get a console that has all of the features you want compared to a PC. XBox elite is 250, Xbox arcade is 150. Gaming PCs cost 600 - 2000 Dollars and that is just for one user to play on.
With that, a lot of game developers have been focusing on the consoles for releasing their games. I don't see FFXIII coming out on the PC, most FPSs come out on both PC and console... but the ones that don't tend to come out on Console only. Strategy games seem to be the niche that PC gaming will always have to itself.
The reason why most people like console gaming over PC gaming though is the simplicity of use. They plug their console into their big screen TV, put in the game, plug in the ethernet and go. They don't have to deal with drivers, windows updates, software and hardware conflicts and a dozen other problems that plague PC gamers.
Second, piracy is a real problem on the PC. Ubisoft did experiment with no DRM at all; that they came up with the total fubar they use now, should tell you how that experiment went. Apple users otoh are more likely to have more money than time.
Piracy is a problem on the computer as much as video game rentals are a problem for consoles.... as in it really isn't a problem at all. People who pirate games will always pirate games. They likely never have and probably never will just go and buy games. Putting games onto a console doesn't fix this, nor does putting games onto a Mac. Console games can be pirated just like PC games.
Third, Apple's market share's been increasing while the share of PC's who can run games has been decreasing. Compared to ten years ago MS lost the top end to Apple, the bottom end to netbooks and most of the middle's running intel integrated crap.
This is most likely due to the fact that those who had PCs that could run games are now playing their games on consoles. Since there was a major lack of games on Macs, I doubt those who own Macs use it for gaming or don't have another system (console or PC) that is their primary gaming server. Yes, this will allow them in some cases to use their Mac instead, but I wouldn't be looking at a flood of PC/Mac games except by certain groups of developers.
Note: while it may sound different from my post, I am a PC gamer. The only console I own is a PS2 to play some of the older FF games when I'm in the mood. Other than that, I'm a 100% PC gamer because of what I like about the PC over a console. Having friends that are console gamers though, I know exactly why they made the switch
Eliminating sugar would solve a bunch of the US's health problems.
The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.
I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist. Just because you don't know what the right answer is - maybe there's even no way you could know what the right answer is - doesn't make your answer right or even okay. It's much simpler than that. It's just plain wrong.
Dr. Gregory House
It is the estate of an past on author, of course they are looking for free money. They all are. I'm waiting for someone to claim themselves a descendant of Plato and start suing companies for publishing his works.
Spanking is actually a very effective tool, when used properly.
I completely agree.
A slap in the face is a sharp reminder that you aren't in charge, and you had better rethink your actions.
Umm... I thought we were talking about spanking here... Spanking is not slapping and should never be used. Slapping is a physical assault on a person, even if it does not cause permanent physical damage (though I'm not saying that it couldn't). Slapping people has always been a cornerstone of domestic abuse. Beyond that, it is also ineffective as a teaching aid. Slapping to remind someone that you "aren't in charge" only promotes the idea that for them to be in charge, you have to hit them back. This leads to a cycle of using physical force to assert one's dominance. It is the reason why in the animal kingdom, change of leadership is usually very violent and often deadly... it is a system where dominance is asserting by using physical force.
The former is like getting burned by a hot surface -- it's an instant reaction and shouldn't have long-lasting effects beyond the psychological effect (learning not to touch hot surfaces); the latter is like teaching the same lesson by lighting one's clothes on fire -- it _will_ have long-lasting painful effects and is not any more effective at teaching the lesson (learning not to touch hot surfaces)
Depending on what you meant, I'm going to have to disagree again. Spanking should never be used as an instant reaction. By using it as an instant reaction, it allows anger, frustration and all of the bad reasons to take precedent over. It should only be used when necessary, and when it is explained to the child why this is happening.
I for one always dislike it when parents spank their children out of frustration. This happens often in stores when children as misbehaving, a parent will give their child a smack on the bottom. This is usually followed by a "Stop that" or "Cut it out". In turn, the child usually just ends up crying. Yes, the spank itself did very little physical harm, but what is more is that the child is punished and most likely has no clue why. Thus the child has learned nothing except that their parents are going to inflict minor physical pain when they are angry and frustrated.
Yes, there should be legal repercussions for a company doing something like this to its customers. Unfortuneately, lawyers aren't cheap and companies can pay to have more of them. While more doesn't mean better, it does reduce your chances of being able to go up against such a company. Of course it would be different if you identified the people who were wronged by this ahead of time and had each one chip in five bucks for a legal team ($5 X 1 million people, you get the idea).
Regardless of this, getting a settlement of 16 million isn't going to hurt anyone. They'll make that amount back from a "customer" in a few months. So if you disagree with a company's practicies... don't use that company. Give up your cable modem or switch to another provider. It makes no sense that you are willing to continue to pay a company which you are suing, and thus financing their legal defense against your claim. Having 1 million subscribers choose to drop Comcast would do tons more than paying each one 16$.
Independence War was a game that my friends loved back in the day for its space physics (we were all flight sim geeks at the time).
They said this after the American Civil War. They said this after the first world war, the war to end all wars.... War will never end. "Let him who wishes for peace prepare for war" ~ Vegetius
Explosions are basically a waste of energy in space. On the ground, these are devastating because of the shock wave that goes along with them.
This I would heavily disagree with. Explosions are usually devastating on the ground because of the amounts of shrapnel that are generated by them. I don't believe a grenade is deadly because of the shock wave caused by them. Bits of metal flying in all directions is deadly both on the ground and in space.