I seem to remember a site called "Whitehouse.com" (not.gov) that was a porn site whose name was designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, especially children.
Emphasis mine, but how exactly can you back up that statement? Designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, sure. Especially children? I don't think so. Click-throughs are fine, but all those sites with porn galleries and links are trying to lead you to signup pages where you purchase a membership to a site or group of sites. That's where you always end up. Otherwise why would the porn site owners bother to buy ads?
Perhaps you weren't paying attention. The idea is that children who have reached a level of web proficiency that allows them to type "Barbie" or "Furby" into Google or Yahoo! Search still won't be sophisticated enough to tell which websites in the resulting link list will be toy stores, collector sites, as opposed to porn sites trying to glom the unwary.
First, I'd think that most kids searching for "Furby" don't have credit cards, so why would the porn sites want to attract them anyway? Second, prohibiting the use of common names like "Barbie" is just dumb.
Mostly for "stupid people doing stupid things and ending up injured" kinds of videos. He doesn't need to see idiot skateboarders losing teeth or breaking jawbones, either.
Might actually be good to let him watch those. It could, perhaps, discourage such behavior.
Net Neutrality will accomplish the exact opposite effect, in this case, as there won't be any incentive for ISP's to upgrade their networks if that bill is passed.
Who believes they'll upgrade anyway? They've said that before in order to get tax breaks, but they lied then just like they're lying now.
They can't drop the case if the defendant files a counterclaim. Or if they do, they're still in court on the counterclaim. If Hogan wants to teach them a lesson, he'll make sure his counterclaim litigates all of the issues they don't want litigated, including some they'd be forced to litigate if they actually took someone all the way to court.
That all depends on what the judge decides to let him pursue. The judge could decide that he doesn't have standing to pursue some issues.
Well, if you bothered to RTFA it seems that the MPAA is doing exactly the opposite. The head of their antipiracy division is openly saying they're looking forward to a trial and verdict next summer.
That's what they're saying now. Give it a couple months. They'll probably drop it quietly after everyone has forgotten about it.
OK then buy a fish or some prawns on Sunday and tell me how fresh it is on the following Saturday. Or a loaf of bread.
See, that would be six days, basically a week. You said things go bad in a day or so. I usually buy all my veggies and stuff for the week, and they stay just fine in the fridge. If it's something that goes bad really quickly (and I can't think of anything that won't last a week off the top of my head), then make 2 trips that week.
Re:What's the copy protection like?
on
Prey Review
·
· Score: 1
You know, I've noticed a simple work around for most games that require the CD be in the drive (Rise of Legends, C&C:Generals, others.) After the game is loaded to main menu, I eject the CD. Runs fine without the CD.
That's not really an improvement. I still have to dig up the disc to start the game in the first place.
Strategy = "give over your money and stuff to mugger-with-gun" Result Odds loss of $ 100% loss of life
Well it's all quite simple if we just make up a set of statistics to support our argument. Thanks! I gotta go put together some statistics to show that I've increased my productivity by 3300% before my upcoming review.
I think gun control is an all or nothing deal.. either you do it perfectly, and it reduces crime, or you dont' do it, and upstanding citizens being able to shoot back reduces crime... the US half-ass approch is what doesn't work.
And there's no way to do it perfectly as long as guns are available somewhere, so most gun-control is half-assed, which just makes things worse.
Better to be paranoid than be a victim. I wonder what anti-gun people tell women who get raped or people who are assaulted (and live at least) about why they aren't allowed to defend themselves. Probably nothing.
Well, size isn't everything, but if you are 5'5" 140lb, then yes, you probably are a pussy. You need to either learn how to fight (martial arts?), or learn how to avoid fighting. I tend to the latter; don't become a target in the first place. Be descrete with your expensive toys, avoid the bad streets/areas and always be aware what's going on around you.
Women, people with disabilities, people who don't want to roll the dice as to whether they are a better fighter than their opponent, multiple attackers? And size does matter. I don't care what theory you're operating on, but that's why pretty much every combat sport out there has weight classes. You may get lucky, or you may not. But why take that chance? A gun is much more effective, and you most likely won't even have to fire it.
Yes but it makes a barrier to entry for the mugging industry doesn't it? You have to have connections to be able to get a gun. So while organised crime will still be able to get guns, a low level street thug won't be able to until he is trusted. And mugging people is a lot harder when you don't have a gun. So instead of mugging people they go into selling crack or whatever, so they can get some connections so they can get a gun. But then once they have those connections they are making enough money off other crimes, they won't bother with mugging people.
This is just retarded. Why wouldn't any street thug be able to get a gun? As long as there is money to be made, there will be someone looking to sell him a gun. Witness the war on drugs. Drugs are banned, but anyone can still get them anytime they want. If there is a demand, there will be a supply.
It will also be easier to fight organised crime. Raid their social clubs or whatever, find some guns, put them all in jail for a long time for possession of illegal firearms. Then the gangsters will have to keep their guns stashed away, which means its less likely for there to be shoot outs in my neighbourhood.
You watch too many movies. Just like with gun bans in many states, there are always exceptions for the rich. While many of them are vocally opposed to gun ownership, they can and do hire all the armed guards they want. Same thing would go for organized crime figures. They would have legal armed guards protecting them. They wouldn't have to carry a gun themselves.
So let's review. Ban guns, and then only people willing to buy them illegally (also known as criminals) will have guns. It will have no discernible effect on the rich. The police still won't have the mandate or ability to protect the rest of us, and we can no longer own the most effective tools for home and self-defense. Sound wonderful.
A judge still has to rule on guilt or innocence; the only difference with an ASBO is that the case is decided civilly (on preponderance of evidence), not criminally (beyond any reasonable doubt).
Not under the new proposed law they wouldn't. It's different than ASBOs.
So, where are the abuses of which you speak? The people charged with being anti-social were anti-social, and the things for which they were charged should be or already are crimes.
The difference is that they don't have to prove that you actually committed an offense. If someone commits a crime, then they should prosecute, and if their case is good enough, convict them. If they can't do that, then they should leave them alone.
considering that this will be resolved by companies paying money to the NY AG, and not a criminal prosecution, my point is that this is grandstanding, and not law enforcement.
Three things. First, the fact that the AG gathered enough evidence against them to make a solid case caused them to plead guilty. That means that they'll have to pay the fines, and hopefully if the fines hurt enough, they'll be discouraged from trying it again (and this isn't the first time they've done it).
Second, the guilty plea makes the class-action cases a no-brainer. Yes, we won't get much back, but something is better than nothing, and again, the cost will hurt and discourage them.
Finally, I don't understand why people who say we should let the market sort it out are the same people who don't seem to care when the market is undermined by deceptive or fraudulent behavior. The market only works when there is competition. Anti-competitive actions cause a breakdown that may not be corrected for a very long time without someone stepping in to point it out and punish illegal actions. Many industries have a high barrier to entry, either due to infrastructure costs, IP barriers, or legal barriers. So new competitors often won't appear to challenge a monopoly or oligopoly. Seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing that the AG should be dealing with (though it is far from the only thing that they deal with). Especially since the DOJ seems to have been castrated on the Anti-trust front by the current administration. They're protecting consumers from the illegal behavior of a group of corporations.
... Seriously, they do not share our values. They hate that we have good taste. They like to keep their windows maximized and their ligatures uncombined. They think gray is a color. Hell, most of them are perfect little squares in perfectly square holes and if you go to PC strongholds like Staten Island you'll see most of the media they consume is produced by Mac users, as the Windows demographic is incapable of creativity in music, the arts, interior design, etc....
Let me be the first to say... What the fuck are you on?
Nobody here cared, it didn't even hit the main news. The only reason this ad was pulled was because America had a fit.
Actually, only a very small percentage of Americans seemed to notice or care at all about this. Most people I've talked to about it seemed to think that only an idiot would consider the ads to be racist. Too bad that small group was able to make enough noise to get Sony to kill the ads.
As technology progresses, we'll be able to save more premature babies and it's hard to argue that a baby is a "blob of cells" or inviable when we have others at the same stage of development living in ICUs.
Then the question becomes, what happens to those children? Especially considering that most of the same people opposing abortion are also opposed to allowing same-sex couples adopt. Given that there are a lot of same-sex couples out there, and that many of them would like to have children, it seems that their goals are conflicting in that regard. Of course there are also those who oppose contraception as well. I believe you're correct that effective, universally available contraception is critically important to reducing the number of abortions performed, as well as reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the resultant poor conditions that many of these children grow up in. Parents who abuse, neglect, resent, or are simply incapable of caring for more children could have an effective method of preventing pregnancy in the first place. There's no method that's perfect, but a mostly effective solution is far better than nothing.
Tell that to the people who bought SA licenses between 2001 and 2003. The paid more so that they could a discount on the next release within 3 years. With 3 years being up, MS does not have to honor those SA agreements.
Yeah, but they're all Bill's bitches anyway. They'll pay up, and he knows it. Is this flamebait? I don't think so. I think it's absolutely true in at least 95% of all cases. People just can't seem to ween themselves off of Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Emphasis mine, but how exactly can you back up that statement? Designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, sure. Especially children? I don't think so. Click-throughs are fine, but all those sites with porn galleries and links are trying to lead you to signup pages where you purchase a membership to a site or group of sites. That's where you always end up. Otherwise why would the porn site owners bother to buy ads?
You're in a very tiny minority then, and certainly not one that is worth creating such overreaching and unconstitutional legislation for.
First, I'd think that most kids searching for "Furby" don't have credit cards, so why would the porn sites want to attract them anyway? Second, prohibiting the use of common names like "Barbie" is just dumb.
Might actually be good to let him watch those. It could, perhaps, discourage such behavior.
Who believes they'll upgrade anyway? They've said that before in order to get tax breaks, but they lied then just like they're lying now.
Sorry, you're stuck with those of us who can't seem to filter out unfunny jokes.
That all depends on what the judge decides to let him pursue. The judge could decide that he doesn't have standing to pursue some issues.
That's what they're saying now. Give it a couple months. They'll probably drop it quietly after everyone has forgotten about it.
See, that would be six days, basically a week. You said things go bad in a day or so. I usually buy all my veggies and stuff for the week, and they stay just fine in the fridge. If it's something that goes bad really quickly (and I can't think of anything that won't last a week off the top of my head), then make 2 trips that week.
That's not really an improvement. I still have to dig up the disc to start the game in the first place.
Everyone except the lawyers. Wonder why that is... oh yeah, because lawyers are running the country!
Well it's all quite simple if we just make up a set of statistics to support our argument. Thanks! I gotta go put together some statistics to show that I've increased my productivity by 3300% before my upcoming review.
And there's no way to do it perfectly as long as guns are available somewhere, so most gun-control is half-assed, which just makes things worse.
Better to be paranoid than be a victim. I wonder what anti-gun people tell women who get raped or people who are assaulted (and live at least) about why they aren't allowed to defend themselves. Probably nothing.
Women, people with disabilities, people who don't want to roll the dice as to whether they are a better fighter than their opponent, multiple attackers? And size does matter. I don't care what theory you're operating on, but that's why pretty much every combat sport out there has weight classes. You may get lucky, or you may not. But why take that chance? A gun is much more effective, and you most likely won't even have to fire it.
This is just retarded. Why wouldn't any street thug be able to get a gun? As long as there is money to be made, there will be someone looking to sell him a gun. Witness the war on drugs. Drugs are banned, but anyone can still get them anytime they want. If there is a demand, there will be a supply.
You watch too many movies. Just like with gun bans in many states, there are always exceptions for the rich. While many of them are vocally opposed to gun ownership, they can and do hire all the armed guards they want. Same thing would go for organized crime figures. They would have legal armed guards protecting them. They wouldn't have to carry a gun themselves.
So let's review. Ban guns, and then only people willing to buy them illegally (also known as criminals) will have guns. It will have no discernible effect on the rich. The police still won't have the mandate or ability to protect the rest of us, and we can no longer own the most effective tools for home and self-defense. Sound wonderful.
I think the Japanese just have a different idea of what is fun than most westerners. To many, Japanese games seem more tedious than fun.
Not under the new proposed law they wouldn't. It's different than ASBOs.
The difference is that they don't have to prove that you actually committed an offense. If someone commits a crime, then they should prosecute, and if their case is good enough, convict them. If they can't do that, then they should leave them alone.
Three things. First, the fact that the AG gathered enough evidence against them to make a solid case caused them to plead guilty. That means that they'll have to pay the fines, and hopefully if the fines hurt enough, they'll be discouraged from trying it again (and this isn't the first time they've done it).
Second, the guilty plea makes the class-action cases a no-brainer. Yes, we won't get much back, but something is better than nothing, and again, the cost will hurt and discourage them.
Finally, I don't understand why people who say we should let the market sort it out are the same people who don't seem to care when the market is undermined by deceptive or fraudulent behavior. The market only works when there is competition. Anti-competitive actions cause a breakdown that may not be corrected for a very long time without someone stepping in to point it out and punish illegal actions. Many industries have a high barrier to entry, either due to infrastructure costs, IP barriers, or legal barriers. So new competitors often won't appear to challenge a monopoly or oligopoly. Seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing that the AG should be dealing with (though it is far from the only thing that they deal with). Especially since the DOJ seems to have been castrated on the Anti-trust front by the current administration. They're protecting consumers from the illegal behavior of a group of corporations.
There are worse crimes than carjacking too. Doesn't mean we don't prosecute them. So again, I don't see your point.
Well, if it should have been "2003 - 512 MB DIMM $160" then they were pretty good at it. As it stands though, your post is meaningless."
Let me be the first to say... What the fuck are you on?
Actually, only a very small percentage of Americans seemed to notice or care at all about this. Most people I've talked to about it seemed to think that only an idiot would consider the ads to be racist. Too bad that small group was able to make enough noise to get Sony to kill the ads.
Then the question becomes, what happens to those children? Especially considering that most of the same people opposing abortion are also opposed to allowing same-sex couples adopt. Given that there are a lot of same-sex couples out there, and that many of them would like to have children, it seems that their goals are conflicting in that regard. Of course there are also those who oppose contraception as well. I believe you're correct that effective, universally available contraception is critically important to reducing the number of abortions performed, as well as reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the resultant poor conditions that many of these children grow up in. Parents who abuse, neglect, resent, or are simply incapable of caring for more children could have an effective method of preventing pregnancy in the first place. There's no method that's perfect, but a mostly effective solution is far better than nothing.
Yeah, but they're all Bill's bitches anyway. They'll pay up, and he knows it. Is this flamebait? I don't think so. I think it's absolutely true in at least 95% of all cases. People just can't seem to ween themselves off of Windows.