Oblivion then came out with more mods that added value to the game and the community's received them much better. The funny thing is though, that none of the mods released by Bethesda can even come close to the level of mods being released by the Oblivion modding community. The mod community saved Oblivion from... well oblivion I supposed. The game really is pretty crappy out of the box. I had quit playing by the time I reached level 14 because the level-scaling of the enemies was just dumb and made the game boring.
The Pirate Bay is openly and unashamedly dedicated to supporting and promoting illegal activity. I'd rather see them act illegally than immorally, as the corporations who have bribed and cajoled the government into passing our existing set of ridiculous IP laws have unashamedly done. Both in the states and around the world. Copyright law, as it stands today, is completely out of whack. It does damn little to promote the public good, and a lot to increase costs to everyone.
It's all about those Neilsen boxes. If one person with a box goes to watch the game at church rather than at home, that shows up in the statistics as thousands of people not watching. Nielson people have journals too. They have accounted for the possibility of them watching TV somewhere besides their home.
You probably haven't noticed this stuff because rarely is there an organization like the NFL who is greedy enough to think they need to demand the fees in public from everyone rather accept that some viewers won't be counted and they will make an ass load of money anyways. What is this talk about viewers not being counted? How do you think they get counted?
Actually 1+1=2 is "blind faith". It's just that it's practically an extremely useful definition, one that we cannot live without. No, it's a consistently repeatable and observable fact. It's nothing at all like religious belief. You're trying to change the meaning of blind faith into something that I think both religious and scientific-minded people would take exception to, albeit for different reasons.
I would say that it is a verifiable fact that sin is bad And I would disagree with you. There is no way to both objectively define sin and objectively test it to determine whether it is truly bad in all cases or not. I could disagree with any number of things that various religions consider to be sins, and I do. How do you prove otherwise, and which sins are you referring to?
There are a lot of agreements on things that *aren't* verifiable facts, or are easily 'verifiable' either way depending on which side of the fence you're on.
Gay marriage is wrong. (Objective opinion held by lots of people) America is a good/bad place to live. (Again, objective opinion which people pull various facts to prove either way) Sex before the age of consent is bad. (Age of consent varies worldwide with no major issues, so the actual age is just an arbitrary value people agreed on) Speaking ill of the dead is not polite. (Some cultures don't care, others have *any* speaking of the dead as not polite) The atom is the smallest possible particle. (For a time, it looked to be) Slim women are attractive. (Pick a culture, any culture...) Guns are good. (See NRA) Sure. People can agree on things, or in most cases, agree to compromise on something. Finding a significantly large group of people who all actually agree with all of those things would be tough. That's why it seems strange that a huge group of people are all agreeing to a whole book full of things.
Like all mathematicians who believe that 1 + 1 = 2 or all software developers thinking that memory leaks are a bad thing? Big difference between agreeing on verifiable facts and agreeing to have blind faith in something. As another Catholic poster pointed out, confirmation is supposed to be done based on faith alone or not at all.
Also, Baptism gives grace, and grace always enables the freedom of choice. Not sure how you figure that one. Baptism gets you wet, but that's about it. Anything else is just the beliefs of the people performing the act. People who aren't baptised have freedom of choice as well.
The problem occurs most often with a new, boxed game, on a computer with limited (or no) network access. Or on computers with broadband access. If the servers are overloaded, which happens with new games sometimes, then you're out of luck. It happened to me with HL2/CSS.
Did anyone else read "Bot Sex Frustrations"? Hah. I was just about to ask the same question:) Had all kinds of thoughts about what that phrase could mean...
But I am very, very sick of this same old mantra that gamers are a group of lazy perverts. It's about damned time the gaming industry stands up for it's customers, and the customers stand up for themselves. Exactly! I am NOT lazy!
At a relatively small non-tech company I do some support for, the major means of movie sharing goes like this:
Every other week, an Asian man who speaks little English sells dvd's containing newly released or about to be released movies.
Those that get purchased are the passed around the employees to be viewed at home.
Any that turn out to be defective, or too dim to be watched, are returned to the Asian man for acredit against the next dvd's purchased.
The whole process is off-line and involves no P2P networks, college students or campus networks. Cool. Where can I download one of these little asian guys?
Rent BioShock, play it to the end, and you might change your mind about COD4 -- especially if you're interested in what can happen when flawed people try to create a flawless society. Bioshock has a cool story and atmosphere, that much I can't argue with. It just doesn't really do anything innovative gameplay-wise. It's all stuff that's been done before, and often done better since. The story is the only thing to keep you going forward, it's certainly not the gameplay.
If you object to something - speak! And trust, me you'll feel better for having done something Yeah, it feels a bit better for a while. Then a few months later I get a reply from the rep/senator's office that either blows off the issue or is so far off base that it tells me that they didn't even read what I wrote. Unless you enclose a large check with your letter, I don't think they pay much attention.
What should have happened is that we should have talked to our party chairperson (on whatever party that we wanted someone out of) and explained that they had 2 choices- make that guy not run for re-election and we'd stick with that party or let that guy run and we'd switch. Party chairs have far more influence than any lobby rep. Believe me these guys will listen when their phones start ringing. The problem is getting enough people in any given district to complain about this. If it's just a drop in the bucket, which it very likely would be, even if every Slashdotter called tomorrow, then it won't have any impact. Too many people are ignorant of what is happening. You think this is getting any kind of coverage in the mainstream news?
The second answer also seems to be likely "yes." A consumer picking up the calendar about Ford Mustangs might think that the goods originated with Ford or someone authorized to use. I guess that the question then becomes, is it ok for them to publish a calendar featuring their cars as long as they make it clear, through the use of some sort of disclaimer, that they are not Ford Motor Company, nor do they represent Ford in any way? Seems like there shouldn't be any reason that they couldn't sell a calendar that features a bunch of guys' cars as long as they make it clear that that's all they are.
Imagine if some college football fans started publishing a calendar of their favorite team. Do they own the team? The BMC members do own their cars.
Apply the same logic to NASCAR, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, or Playboy and you see the position Ford is in. Not really. It would be like a Playboy playmate selling pictures of herself in a calendar. I don't see the problem.
Oh, btw, I'm not saying that there isn't a difference, as I can think of at least one off the top of my head, just that you didn't answer that part, and explain why the differences matter legally.
Finally, NONE of this has to do with the case here. Using Ford's marks to sell a calendar is VERY different than using Ford's marks to sell a Ford car that you was lawfully acquired. I believe that the previous poster was asking precisely how they are different, which you haven't really answered. You just re-state that they are different.
Do we really want to put people on new drugs like this? What if in 40 years all these people come down with some kind of cancer?
Do the math.
I think a 75 year old diagnosed with alzheimer's wouldn't blink at taking a chance on that. Coming down with cancer at 115 is not going to impact him much. He'll probably have died 15-25 years prior. Slasdot. Where everyone plays the straight man, without even realizing it.
The problem with WPA is that certain manufacturers of certain non-computer wifi-devices decided not to support anything other than WEP...
Damn stupid if you ask me. This is the problem that I have. I needed to get my living room devices connected to my wireless router in my office, but the access points that are available either aren't compatible with my router, or only support WEP when used as a wireless bridge. There's probably a solution, but I'm not a networking genius, so I don't know what it is, and with all the various devices out there, it's hard to tell what will work and what won't without actually trying them in my specific setup. That would get expensive.
In a prefect world I'd agree with you, unfortunately things you do off-the-clock can and do affect you on-the-clock. you go out and get all drunked-up or high and it affects my safety the next day. If you smoke off-premises it increases the healthcare costs and takes from my profit-sharing bonus or stock dividends. If you want to go that far, then why not keep going just a little more? Why not prohibit people from engaging in any sports, or from driving cars (the bus is much safer, statistically speaking), engaging in extramarital sex, or eating unhealthy foods? Once you start banning things, it gets real hard to draw a hard line anywhere, as logical arguments can be made against a huge variety of things, and it simply comes down to people wanting to ban the things that they don't engage in themselves.
don't ask, don't tell? Remember, we're also talking about employers deciding that you can't smoke at all, or maybe that you shouldn't drink ever. If they don't bring that stuff into work, it's not the employer's business, even if they post it online. True, and I don't think someone should be fired for smoking off the clock and off the premises. But I was responding to a post about a video of illegal activity, which is a different issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Gay marriage is wrong. (Objective opinion held by lots of people)
America is a good/bad place to live. (Again, objective opinion which people pull various facts to prove either way)
Sex before the age of consent is bad. (Age of consent varies worldwide with no major issues, so the actual age is just an arbitrary value people agreed on)
Speaking ill of the dead is not polite. (Some cultures don't care, others have *any* speaking of the dead as not polite)
The atom is the smallest possible particle. (For a time, it looked to be)
Slim women are attractive. (Pick a culture, any culture...)
Guns are good. (See NRA) Sure. People can agree on things, or in most cases, agree to compromise on something. Finding a significantly large group of people who all actually agree with all of those things would be tough. That's why it seems strange that a huge group of people are all agreeing to a whole book full of things.
Every other week, an Asian man who speaks little English sells dvd's containing newly released or about to be released movies.
Those that get purchased are the passed around the employees to be viewed at home.
Any that turn out to be defective, or too dim to be watched, are returned to the Asian man for acredit against the next dvd's purchased.
The whole process is off-line and involves no P2P networks, college students or campus networks. Cool. Where can I download one of these little asian guys?
Not quite 3-digit, but I'm still old enough to put these whipper-snappers over my knee if they don't behave.
Oh, btw, I'm not saying that there isn't a difference, as I can think of at least one off the top of my head, just that you didn't answer that part, and explain why the differences matter legally.
I think a 75 year old diagnosed with alzheimer's wouldn't blink at taking a chance on that. Coming down with cancer at 115 is not going to impact him much. He'll probably have died 15-25 years prior. Slasdot. Where everyone plays the straight man, without even realizing it.
Damn stupid if you ask me. This is the problem that I have. I needed to get my living room devices connected to my wireless router in my office, but the access points that are available either aren't compatible with my router, or only support WEP when used as a wireless bridge. There's probably a solution, but I'm not a networking genius, so I don't know what it is, and with all the various devices out there, it's hard to tell what will work and what won't without actually trying them in my specific setup. That would get expensive.