) Take the time necessary to create a desirable product and presto, you have fans that will be waiting for your next release and creating a hype-machine for you in the meantime.
Sometimes, you cannot afford to wait until next time around. Like suppose you bought the rights to Warhammer Online? Your whole company might ride on that one product. You may even have to ship by an arbitary deadline or lose the rights.
Interesting. I can only listen to a song (for instance) so many times before I'm bored with it. Most songs get "overplayed" or "played out" over time and stop selling. So, is music piracy producing wear-and-tear on the song? Could it prevent a movie from including it on the soundtrack because it's played out? Could game piracy prevent a game from being reskinned and sold to a different market?
Under the table leasing of cars to employees.
That sounds illegal to me.
Lost time wondering where their car was.
Akin to the lost time spent trying to prevent piracy?
Shade for their parking lot.
This one is ludicrus.
A lot of non-physical factors you mention, with the exception of wear and tear.
make... games that run on reasonable hardware, instead of... games that require incredibly expensive stuff few people have.
That part is actually intentional. If you can afford a $1500-$2500 system (how cheap "incredibly expensive" computers have become), you can afford to buy the game. If you cannot, you probably cannot (or at least are less likely to). It's another method of copy protection.
It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything.
I know, when I took a car from Hertz and returned it several days later, they bitched and moaned. But, I looked over their records and they never sold out of SUVs, so I didn't reprive them of anything. Why should that be considered "stealing"?
I refuse to vote for President based on the makeup of the Supreme Court. The same party hacks who rolled over for Roberts and Alito are now bitching about how important this election is because of that. If they were taught that letting the president get away with murder doesn't lead to them winning, then maybe they'll learn what "advise and consent" means.
Congress declares war, but does NOT direct the military and tell it how to do its job. They have one power - that's it
Actually, they do tell the military how to do their job. They create the UCMJ, etc. etc. They don't individually approve operations, but they definately set up rules within which the operations can happen.
believe that, even during times of the founders, spies were often..dealt with... Terrorists abrogate rights by deliberately targeting known civilian populations
Since you apparently have a crystal ball which can 100% tell whether someone has or has not given up their rights by being EVIL, I suggest you try licensing it to the government. It would be great if we could start arresting murderers before they commit their crimes.
The President directs the military and calls the shots - NOT congress
Lies and propoganda. Congress makes the rules that the military has to follow, and gets control over what situations the military is allowed to operate. The president is Commander-in-Chief, not Lord of the Military.
Are there any American citizens (who understand what FISA is) that actually support it?
I do. The administration has not been using FISA over the past 8 years, hence the problem. FISA, like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, etc. is designed to let the president act first, justify later. But he still is supposed to justify it, and can be told to stop. This president skipped that step.
But in general, if the President needs to wiretap someone for national secuirty reasons, I'm fine with starting hte tap while the paperwork is processed, with the understanding that the tap is removed and records destroyed if the request is denied.
. If they change their views, they are "flip-floppers".
Romeny was able to avoid a flip-flopper label because he was able to tell a convincing story about why he changed his views. The default assumption for a politician is that the reason was political. A successful explaination can alter that.
Obama is being hammered for changing his views. Bush is hammered for NOT changing his views. They are damned if the do and damned if they don't.
They are both being hammered for the same views. Maybe the problem is that they have these views at all, not how long they've had them.
For instance, the speech he gave on race relations after the Rev. Wright controversy was the best speech given on the subject in recent history, and arguably the best one ever from major politician
Really? Why?
I found it self-serving and playing into, rather than above, racial stereotypes.
Well, at this point Obama shouldn't give a rat's ass about what his ultra-left base thinks. It's not like they'd go and vote for McCain anyways (the guy who's against abortions, big government, socialized healthcare, etc.)
The way it's SUPPOSED to work is that the candidates are supposed to campaign hard, build supporters, negotiate concessions from the primary parties, then pledge their supporters to the candidate that agrees to support their interests.
Close, only it is supposed to be electors, not individual supporters.
it's hard to tell if the robot's true advantage lies in being able to analyze the puck's path more quickly than the human players, or is the robot arm simply faster/more powerful/more accurate than a human arm? If the former, then that's pretty cool.
Why? It's a game where the puck is operating in a near frictionless environment. Hence, the speed can be computed as if it is linear. Of course a robot can more precisely measure time between samples and the location of an object on a fixed plane. So, the calculation of a puck's path had better be more impressive than a human player's.
I read the statement, "If they suck and censor stuff that doesn't make sense, they go out of business." as a hypothetical statement.
Hypothetical comes from hypothesis. I questioned his. You might be thinking of a hypothetical question, which is different from a hypothetical statement. A hypothetical question, but not a hypothetical statement, cannot have its assumptions questioned.
haven't read much more of the discussion, did you ever get around to answering the relevant part of of his reply?
Answer it? I cannot even parse it. Is he asking whether I wish to be granted dictatorial authority to run their business, or if I want the government to do so? I don't believe he intends to ask that.
If the "liberals" said domething they had to counter it with a "conservative" stance.
No, if the "liberals" kept saying the same thing for several days, they had to offer a "conservative" alternative.
And the conrporate media wants to keep it that way so the corporations only have two candidates to bribe.
From a bribery point of view, 3 candidates are better than 2. Sure, your costs go up 50%, but the bribes tend to be quite small anyway. And the politicians get far more desperate, so you end up getting more for your money.
Why do the poster and TFA have to be necessarily conservative? They may simply have been misinformed (i.e., didn't read up on everything)
Because the letter is two pages, with quite a bit of white space. The second paragraph explains that the current rules are overly restrictive and need to be relaxed. If it is a case of being misinformed, it is because they willfully did not read the primary source. That usually only happens when the story you are hearing is in line with your own prejudices already.
Basically, it's letter stating that House members should be allowed to use non house.gov areas to post things. But in order to use non house.gov resources, the materials and the site in question has to be vetted by a committee.
To post offical house things. There is a world of difference.
I doubt you can post offical business things willy-nilly in your employers name either.
And the site approval is to ensure that you don't get offical house messages next to partisan ads, etc, which it would look like the federal government was endorsing.
Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine
Since the letter doesn't mention the fairness doctrine, I wouldn't tilt at that windmill if I were you.
Secondly, even a cursory review of the letter disproves the blogger's rant. The letter itself states that the recommendations do not change any of the rules governing members of congress in their official communications.
The first part is true, the second part is not. Or at least the second part grants the unsubstained allegation that the recommendations are that evil. The letter reads, to paraphrase:
Right now, all offical content must be hosted on house.gov. This policy is bad, for many reasons, among them the lack of server space. The committee suggests that other websties be certified as acceptable for offical postings.
Nothing about unoffical postings is being mentioned (a member's twitter account, for instance.) And it seeks to expand, not limit, options.
I would contend that N.B. is not a good choice, as it implies (to my mind at least) important clarifications of a statement. "Spanish is only spoken by X million Europeans, while German is spoken by Y million. N.B. the figures I have quoted were as of December 2007."
I would suggest you look at "bona fides". While the singular merely means good faith, the plural is used to supply arguments for your opinion being given weight. The usage is different as you would speak of your bona fides including: speaking Spanish; hailing from Spain; working for the E.U.
N.B. I am an American, and my point may be invalid in Great Britian, etc.
Disclaimer: Most Americans would be more likely to interpert "btw" as a claim of your bona fides then know what bona fides are; a fault of our education system.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes, you cannot afford to wait until next time around. Like suppose you bought the rights to Warhammer Online? Your whole company might ride on that one product. You may even have to ship by an arbitary deadline or lose the rights.
Interesting. I can only listen to a song (for instance) so many times before I'm bored with it. Most songs get "overplayed" or "played out" over time and stop selling. So, is music piracy producing wear-and-tear on the song? Could it prevent a movie from including it on the soundtrack because it's played out? Could game piracy prevent a game from being reskinned and sold to a different market?
That sounds illegal to me.
Akin to the lost time spent trying to prevent piracy?
This one is ludicrus.
A lot of non-physical factors you mention, with the exception of wear and tear.
That part is actually intentional. If you can afford a $1500-$2500 system (how cheap "incredibly expensive" computers have become), you can afford to buy the game. If you cannot, you probably cannot (or at least are less likely to). It's another method of copy protection.
I know, when I took a car from Hertz and returned it several days later, they bitched and moaned. But, I looked over their records and they never sold out of SUVs, so I didn't reprive them of anything. Why should that be considered "stealing"?
97. And I wish more of them hadn't voted instead of voting the way they felt pressured to.
I refuse to vote for President based on the makeup of the Supreme Court. The same party hacks who rolled over for Roberts and Alito are now bitching about how important this election is because of that. If they were taught that letting the president get away with murder doesn't lead to them winning, then maybe they'll learn what "advise and consent" means.
How do you know? It's never been tried, except by people whose principles were reviled by 90% of the population.
Actually, they do tell the military how to do their job. They create the UCMJ, etc. etc. They don't individually approve operations, but they definately set up rules within which the operations can happen.
Since you apparently have a crystal ball which can 100% tell whether someone has or has not given up their rights by being EVIL, I suggest you try licensing it to the government. It would be great if we could start arresting murderers before they commit their crimes.
Lies and propoganda. Congress makes the rules that the military has to follow, and gets control over what situations the military is allowed to operate. The president is Commander-in-Chief, not Lord of the Military.
I do. The administration has not been using FISA over the past 8 years, hence the problem. FISA, like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, etc. is designed to let the president act first, justify later. But he still is supposed to justify it, and can be told to stop. This president skipped that step.
But in general, if the President needs to wiretap someone for national secuirty reasons, I'm fine with starting hte tap while the paperwork is processed, with the understanding that the tap is removed and records destroyed if the request is denied.
Romeny was able to avoid a flip-flopper label because he was able to tell a convincing story about why he changed his views. The default assumption for a politician is that the reason was political. A successful explaination can alter that.
They are both being hammered for the same views. Maybe the problem is that they have these views at all, not how long they've had them.
Really? Why?
I found it self-serving and playing into, rather than above, racial stereotypes.
Voting for the war was a good thing. It made a credible threat. And it worked. Hussien caved, and gave up stockpiles of illicit weapons.
Of course, it was far easier to predict that Hussien would cave then that President Bush would invade anyway.
Voting for the resolution on force while never expecting it to lead to war is perfectly reasonable.
Of course, they may have seen the movie, and known that Bush fired the attorney that Tom Cruise's character was based on.
Sheesh, yes Kucinich saw a UFO. Who cares? It's not as though it reflects on his position.
Why not?
Close, only it is supposed to be electors, not individual supporters.
Obama voted aye. McCain didn't vote; but no Republican voted nay.
Why? It's a game where the puck is operating in a near frictionless environment. Hence, the speed can be computed as if it is linear. Of course a robot can more precisely measure time between samples and the location of an object on a fixed plane. So, the calculation of a puck's path had better be more impressive than a human player's.
Hypothetical comes from hypothesis. I questioned his. You might be thinking of a hypothetical question, which is different from a hypothetical statement. A hypothetical question, but not a hypothetical statement, cannot have its assumptions questioned.
Answer it? I cannot even parse it. Is he asking whether I wish to be granted dictatorial authority to run their business, or if I want the government to do so? I don't believe he intends to ask that.
No, if the "liberals" kept saying the same thing for several days, they had to offer a "conservative" alternative.
From a bribery point of view, 3 candidates are better than 2. Sure, your costs go up 50%, but the bribes tend to be quite small anyway. And the politicians get far more desperate, so you end up getting more for your money.
Because the letter is two pages, with quite a bit of white space. The second paragraph explains that the current rules are overly restrictive and need to be relaxed. If it is a case of being misinformed, it is because they willfully did not read the primary source. That usually only happens when the story you are hearing is in line with your own prejudices already.
Add to
To post offical house things. There is a world of difference.
I doubt you can post offical business things willy-nilly in your employers name either.
And the site approval is to ensure that you don't get offical house messages next to partisan ads, etc, which it would look like the federal government was endorsing.
Since the letter doesn't mention the fairness doctrine, I wouldn't tilt at that windmill if I were you.
The first part is true, the second part is not. Or at least the second part grants the unsubstained allegation that the recommendations are that evil. The letter reads, to paraphrase:
Nothing about unoffical postings is being mentioned (a member's twitter account, for instance.) And it seeks to expand, not limit, options.
I would contend that N.B. is not a good choice, as it implies (to my mind at least) important clarifications of a statement. "Spanish is only spoken by X million Europeans, while German is spoken by Y million. N.B. the figures I have quoted were as of December 2007."
I would suggest you look at "bona fides". While the singular merely means good faith, the plural is used to supply arguments for your opinion being given weight. The usage is different as you would speak of your bona fides including: speaking Spanish; hailing from Spain; working for the E.U.
N.B. I am an American, and my point may be invalid in Great Britian, etc.
Disclaimer: Most Americans would be more likely to interpert "btw" as a claim of your bona fides then know what bona fides are; a fault of our education system.