Unless dictionaries are to be designated the domain of only those with college degrees, they should probably be the former. It would seem that someone with the capability of writing "formally" would be someone who can choose their words to best serve their immediate purpose...someone who doesn't need to worry about accidentally using a word like "woot" (or "w00t") in important business correspondence just because it appears in a dictionary.
Grandparent was right for the wrong reasons. It's not that Best Buy, Gamestop, etc. shouldn't have representatives there to check out the new stuff. It's that they let nearly any schlub who works for a retailer selling videogames get a pass.
Of course, the linked article gets it wrong, too, in that he makes the leap that E3 is supposed to be all about the press. Yes, the press is important to the event but just as important are the retailers and, in the case of the smaller exhibitors, the publishers.
Just as every register monkey (and this includes managers of individual stores within chains) shouldn't be able to get a pass, neither should every asshat with a blog about videogames.
A cave? Maybe a different planet? You must have been isolated somewhere to be under the impression that Sony didn't sell plenty of PS2s at launch. People couldn't get the things if they wanted them that holiday season, and colossal idiots were paying a grand a pop for them on eBay.
What Sony learned from their PS2 launch was that there are people out there who will buy any garbage if it has the word "Playstation" in it..."Wow, I'm so glad I bought a PS2 - SSX rocks! And I hear another good game is coming out sometime next year."
Pretty simple answer: Don't hook the Xbox 360 up to the Internet and mod to your heart's content. Despite Microsoft's focus on the 360's online capabilities, it's not a requirement to play the games (well, at least apart from online-only titles like Final Fantasy XI and the like). If it was, since XBL is broadband-only, they'd be cutting their potential market WAY down...
"At launch, Xbox 360 will be backward compatible with the top Xbox games," Xbox PR manager Michael Wolf told GamesIndustry.biz today. "Our goal is to have every Xbox game work on Xbox 360. You will NOT need to purchase a new 'version' - your original games will work on Xbox 360."
What I read from that is that a) they're working on emulation and b) the top priority is to get the top-selling games working. This is very similar to MAME people getting something like "Donkey Kong" to work before worrying about more obscure titles like "League Bowling." Admittedly, it's a different process overall, but prioritization in this fashion seems very reasonable (though I guess Tecmo fans who wanted to play PS1 Gallop Racer on their PS2 might disagree).
One advantage that Xbox 360 seems to have is that they should be able to update their emulator through Xbox Live as time goes by and they work out any kinks in the process.
In other words, let the speculation about whether there will be backwards compatibility in Xbox 360 end, and let the speculation about specific games that WON'T work in the 360 begin.
Actually, you can get all the information (read "news") that the NY Times puts out without paying. This topic is about the Op-Ed section, a section that, while sometimes entertaining, hardly qualifies as "news."
You add in several problems with this solution, the most important being verification that a particular person is within the affiliate's coverage area or, more importantly, denying access to people outside the area. For example, here in Oregon a person in Salem might prefer to watch the Portland stations for some rason (maybe they moved from Portland to Salem). If there is no verification, then the Portland affiliate can suck viewers from the Salem affiliate.
This has also been an issue with "repeated" stations where a big station might have their own extension of coverage (usually via UHF) and marginalize smaller stations with less, or inferior, product.
At the moment, though, all of it is moot. Neither NBC nor your local NBC affiliate want you just downloading The Apprentice (as an example). They want you to be tuned to the station and watch ER, the local news and Jay Leno, too. Under the current system, they have a good chance of doing this since they can advertise the product they have coming up and encourage people to keep their TVs tuned in. Under an on-demand system, you get The Apprentice and then have to actively choose again if you want to watch ER. In other words, having you do nothing (not changing the channel) benefits the affiliate in the broadcast system but penalizes them in the on-demand system.
This is also why you have network executives who complain about TiVo. As another example, I have no interest in the local news programs so I never watch them - my TiVo enforces this because it never records those programs.
The current network/affiliate system is going to go away. Technology is advancing in such a way that it's only a matter of time. For now, though, the people making money off that system are going to fight like hell to keep it in business until they can find an option that will both give the consumers what they want and make them scads of dough in the process.
One problem with the idea of networks torrenting their own shows is that they would then be in competition with their own affiliates. Remember, the broadcast networks own relatively few television stations themselves and have to rely on agreements with TV stations owned by others in order to show their programming at all. If the network starts distributing their content outside this system, they risk the whole thing crashing down on them...not to mention that there are probably clauses in the contracts which state explicitly that the network can't use alternate means to distribute their shows in the area of each affiliate. The internet, of course, is available in every affiliate area and a network torrent system would end up the basis of many lawsuits.
The Defiant was not Worf's ship. Worf (or Dax, or Kira) commanded the ship when Sisko wasn't aboard, just as Riker commanded the Enterprise when Picard wasn't aboard. Sisko was, de facto and de jure, the captain of the Defiant - witness the fact that when Worf was commanding Defiant, the bridge crew still didn't call him "captain" and instead addressed him by his actual rank. Other evidence can be found when Admiral Ross turned over the second Defiant to Sisko's command. Yet another related note is that in a later episode, when Worf put his wife's life above completing a mission, Sisko told him that he would probably never get a command in Starfleet, implying that he had never had his own command in the first place.
On the ship, the Defiant may not have had the size of a Galaxy-class starship but it easily had the punch. The class was designed (at least partly by Sisko himself) to fight the Borg, after all.
Sweet Jeebus, I'm a geek.:)
Re:Every game in the Xbox 360 is Live aware...
on
The Xbox 360 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1
The Xbox 360 has an ethernet port (just like the Xbox) and they're calling it "WiFi ready." That most likely means that you'll have to hook a USB 802.11 adapter to one of the three USB 2.0 ports to get your wireless on - fortunately, such adapters have gotten to be dirt cheap (CompUSA has an 802.11g model on sale for $19.99, as one example).
Unfortunately, that's not evidence. Halo "2.5" optimized for the 360, with high-definition output and the graphical bells and whistles to go with it, has been speculated about (with hints from Bungie and the MS crew) for quite a while. This will likely be one of the big E3-exclusive official announcements. If it comes bundled with the console itself (another area of speculation), it might just be enough to push people on the fence - especially people riding the fence with HDTVs - over to buying the beast at launch.
Me, I hope that they manage to get backwards compatibility in there, but I don't consider it a dealbreaker. After all, my Xbox isn't going to quit working because the 360 is released...though it WILL probably quit working because the DVD-ROM fails.:)
This is why moving first on their new home console may be a big benefit to Microsoft. Clearly, the first "next-gen" games will be made for their platform, with their SDK. When folks go to port (when Nintendo and Sony actually have something out there with which to do so), they'll be starting from the Xbox 360 and going from there. Even if Revolution and PS3 end up with more power (which would be friggin' amazing - three 3+-GHz, dual-threaded cores is ridiculous) the ports from 360 won't experience dramatic improvement. If they're less powerful, either the developer will have to cut features back or skip making the port entirely (de facto exclusive).
Any way you slice it, it'll be fun watching this shake out over the next three years. Viva la console wars!
If anyone is overhyping the new console, it's a gaming "press" (I really hate when gaming websites and magazines try to pass themselves off as having anything to do with journalism) that's starved for "news" to throw out there. I mean, that's what they do. They take a press release and spin it into something that [vaguely] resembles news. Microsoft has been making announcements that any manufacturer of a new mass-market product would. I certainly haven't been overburdened by Microsoft themselves putting up banner ads on every website, buying a commercial during every TV program, etc. If you have, I'd be curious to know where this is going on.
Even if Microsoft WAS putting a lot of advertising out there, I'd understand completely. Advertising can work wonders, especially for a company that is trying hard to become #1 in a three-company race where the other two were deeply entrenched.
Oh, and you ARE anti-Xbox or, at least, anti-Microsoft. If you weren't, you'd be able to recognize that Microsoft is doing the right thing when they try hard to make people aware of their upcoming product(s). It's just good business.
Don't forget that CRTs also have the [potential] advantage of variable resolution which would make this discussion moot for them. It's the fixed-pixel displays that are the problem.
Here's the fundamental difference between Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft: Each person who has been playing WoW since day one has paid over a hundred bucks for the privilege through the six-month mark. Each person who played Diablo 2 from the beginning paid $80 (D2+LoD) to the 1.10 two-year mark. Anyone playing WoW from launch to its two-year anniversary will have paid - barring expansions and/or monthly rate increases - almost $400.
I don't play WoW (I'm playing City of Heroes and am not one to go in for multiple MMOGs), but your comparison in terms of support is invalid.
The Serenity trailer was really crappy. The problem is that MOST trailers are really crappy and are pitiful indicators of a movie quality. The studios have their couple of trailer formulas that they rinse and repeat (I'm convinced they don't lather) over and over again.
I agree that the Batman trailer is superior to the Serenity trailer but I found the Batman trailer similarly tired. Just like the covers of books, movie trailers are rarely designed by their creators. Thus, it's pointless to try to make an informed judgement on either movie until they hit theaters.
In my experience, a fifty takes care of most of my activities. Police officers are underpaid, so it rarely takes much...besides, what's a C felony between friends? For the really trivial stuff like speeding tickets, just keep a few ten-dollar Dunkin Donuts gift certificates handy. You know how cops love their donuts!
Tandy (and maybe a select few others) released at least one machine with Micro Channel as well. Like IBM, they never went anywhere with it, but there were non-IBM MCA machines.
Upon Googling, I found this link which would seem to indicate that both Tandy and Dell released MCA PCs.
Nail, I believe your head has been struck. I have Adblock installed in Firefox, but I don't block all ads. I block ads that are distracting, either by flashing/animating in annoying fashion or by making the formatting of a particular page annoying. Simple banner ads, even multiple ads on the same page, don't usually bother me and I leave them alone - I even read and click them every once in a while if it's something that interests me. Pop-ups, overlays, "click on the monkey" and other crap gets put in Adblock's garbage bin and I certainly don't feel bad about it.
I use similar methods with TiVo. I have the remote set for the 30-second advance function, and when I see an ad that I think might interest - or even maybe entertain - me, I watch it.
The truth that marketing folks don't like to talk about is that advertising is often useless because many of the people watching it don't care about what's being advertised. Why would I, as a guy, care about Revlon or Loreal? Summer's Eve could be the finest feminine hygiene product on the market but any interest I might have in it doesn't extend to buying or recommending it. In the area of more male-oriented products, no Budweiser, Coors or Michelob commercial is going to make me buy crappy beer (I have access to too many GOOD ones where I live).
Further, if advertisements for those, or other, products appear on a website and annoy me they're actually COUNTERproductive in that I then associate that brand name with my annoyance and could end up discouraging others from purchasing them. In those cases, the companies should be HAPPY I'm blocking their ads since I've prevented myself from being reminded how much I dislike them.
The problem with that is this: If the movie or record industry was to embrace BitTorrent, the idea would likely to be to have authentication to access the tracker. Thus, it could be presumed (if the system was secure) that everyone accessing the tracker - and, thus, everyone to whom a downloader would be uploading - would be authorized to be receiving their copy. In the case of a copyrighted work being distributed via BT by someone NOT authorized to do so, everyone downloading is committing the dual violations of receiving and distributing.
So, does that mean that if I carry around a bunch of old $1,000 bills and offer them as payment I get to magically discharge any debts I have when people won't take them? I don't think so. If so, I'd certainly like to see the applicable law on the subject.
See my link again. The library could tell a person that they'll only accept a MONEY ORDER for the fine if they wanted to, never mind restricting payments to $20 bills or smaller. They don't lose the right to enforce the debt just because they won't take a C-note.
Here is a link to the FAQ page you're talking about.
To summarize, "legal tender" means that US currency is to be considered a legally valid OFFER for payment. Whether someone is willing to accept that offer is entirely up to them. In other words, not only can a place refuse to accept $50 in pennies as payment for an item but they can, theoretically, REQUIRE you to pay only in pennies for your purchase.
That being said, if a B&M store isn't willing to take my $2 bills (however they happened to arrive in my wallet) in payment, then they can just lose my business. Restrictions on large numbers of pennies (or even nickels) I consider reasonable, "nothing over a $20 bill" I consider reasonable, etc. In other words, give me a good reason and I'll modify my payment. If a business refuses to accept my payment because they don't believe $2 bills are circulated by the Department of Treasury, then that's not a good reason.
I have to say, though, that the guy in the article, despite being technically "in the right," was purposely being an asshole and he knew it. He clearly keeps $2 bills on hand because he knows that few people see them and either a) likes to educate people that, yes, $2 bills are real or more likely b) wants to have them around so that he can make his little "protests" like this one. He probably already KNEW that most places won't take - and don't have to take - thousands of coins as payment and that's the only reason he doesn't keep carefully counted jars of pennies around to screw with people.
If he was really convinced he was in the right and WASN'T an asshole, he would have gone down to the store, asked to speak to the manager and explained his understanding of the situation. If they still threatened to call the police because of non-payment, he could have then invited them to do so (whereupon the police would have laughed and told the manager that it was time for small claims court). THAT is the way to protest against threats like that. Going down and paying a charge you don't feel you owe in $2 bills is what I call "being a little bitch."
It's bad enough that Christian sects each claim to know what "true" Christianity means, with some going as far as to declare other Christians outside their sect as destined for hell. It goes beyond absurd when non-Christians feel they can make the judgement, too.
Your idea that "true" Christians would have to cut themselves off from the rest of the world is ludicrous and would, in itself, seem to go against the teachings of Jesus Christ who wanted everyone to feel His love and that of His Father. Oh yes, and I don't know where you've been or where you learned all your information about Christian sects, but Quakers are not generally isolated from the rest of society. Far from it, Quakers tend to "fight" (some might eschew this word due to it's more violent connotations) for their beliefs. For example, they helped run the Underground Railroad freeing slaves and were instrumental in the creation of "conscientious objector" status, allowing pacificists to serve their country in wartime without participating in violence (such as by serving as medics). If you're interested in learning more about the Society of Friends, you might want to head over to this website(!!) which might help you understand what you're trying to talk about.
The Shakers, on the other hand, are a lot more complex. They practiced (I use the past tense since there are so few left - they don't accept new members) a very extreme religion which embraced, among other things, celibacy which even extended to marital relations, communing with dead spirits and a belief that God was a male/female duality. I'm over-simplifying (I'm no expert on Shakers and the few that are left aren't exactly running around with pamphlets), but the truth is that they had practices which had little or nothing to do with the teachings most often attributed to Jesus Christ. I can't speak to the validity of their beliefs since I haven't had an actual conversation with God to get His views on the matter, but I hardly think that the Shakers can be pointed to as being examples of "true" or "genuine" Christians if one accepts the New Testament as representing His teachings (which most Christians - even the Quakers - do).
As a final note, I would say that I don't think William Penn, Thomas Paine, Herbert Hoover or Susan B. Anthony - Quakers all - invited "everyone else to walk all over [them]."
You should really pursue more education before letting your ass do your talking.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless dictionaries are to be designated the domain of only those with college degrees, they should probably be the former. It would seem that someone with the capability of writing "formally" would be someone who can choose their words to best serve their immediate purpose...someone who doesn't need to worry about accidentally using a word like "woot" (or "w00t") in important business correspondence just because it appears in a dictionary.
Of course, the linked article gets it wrong, too, in that he makes the leap that E3 is supposed to be all about the press. Yes, the press is important to the event but just as important are the retailers and, in the case of the smaller exhibitors, the publishers.
Just as every register monkey (and this includes managers of individual stores within chains) shouldn't be able to get a pass, neither should every asshat with a blog about videogames.
What Sony learned from their PS2 launch was that there are people out there who will buy any garbage if it has the word "Playstation" in it..."Wow, I'm so glad I bought a PS2 - SSX rocks! And I hear another good game is coming out sometime next year."
Pretty simple answer: Don't hook the Xbox 360 up to the Internet and mod to your heart's content. Despite Microsoft's focus on the 360's online capabilities, it's not a requirement to play the games (well, at least apart from online-only titles like Final Fantasy XI and the like). If it was, since XBL is broadband-only, they'd be cutting their potential market WAY down...
"At launch, Xbox 360 will be backward compatible with the top Xbox games," Xbox PR manager Michael Wolf told GamesIndustry.biz today. "Our goal is to have every Xbox game work on Xbox 360. You will NOT need to purchase a new 'version' - your original games will work on Xbox 360."
What I read from that is that a) they're working on emulation and b) the top priority is to get the top-selling games working. This is very similar to MAME people getting something like "Donkey Kong" to work before worrying about more obscure titles like "League Bowling." Admittedly, it's a different process overall, but prioritization in this fashion seems very reasonable (though I guess Tecmo fans who wanted to play PS1 Gallop Racer on their PS2 might disagree).
One advantage that Xbox 360 seems to have is that they should be able to update their emulator through Xbox Live as time goes by and they work out any kinks in the process.
In other words, let the speculation about whether there will be backwards compatibility in Xbox 360 end, and let the speculation about specific games that WON'T work in the 360 begin.
Actually, you can get all the information (read "news") that the NY Times puts out without paying. This topic is about the Op-Ed section, a section that, while sometimes entertaining, hardly qualifies as "news."
This has also been an issue with "repeated" stations where a big station might have their own extension of coverage (usually via UHF) and marginalize smaller stations with less, or inferior, product.
At the moment, though, all of it is moot. Neither NBC nor your local NBC affiliate want you just downloading The Apprentice (as an example). They want you to be tuned to the station and watch ER, the local news and Jay Leno, too. Under the current system, they have a good chance of doing this since they can advertise the product they have coming up and encourage people to keep their TVs tuned in. Under an on-demand system, you get The Apprentice and then have to actively choose again if you want to watch ER. In other words, having you do nothing (not changing the channel) benefits the affiliate in the broadcast system but penalizes them in the on-demand system.
This is also why you have network executives who complain about TiVo. As another example, I have no interest in the local news programs so I never watch them - my TiVo enforces this because it never records those programs.
The current network/affiliate system is going to go away. Technology is advancing in such a way that it's only a matter of time. For now, though, the people making money off that system are going to fight like hell to keep it in business until they can find an option that will both give the consumers what they want and make them scads of dough in the process.
One problem with the idea of networks torrenting their own shows is that they would then be in competition with their own affiliates. Remember, the broadcast networks own relatively few television stations themselves and have to rely on agreements with TV stations owned by others in order to show their programming at all. If the network starts distributing their content outside this system, they risk the whole thing crashing down on them...not to mention that there are probably clauses in the contracts which state explicitly that the network can't use alternate means to distribute their shows in the area of each affiliate. The internet, of course, is available in every affiliate area and a network torrent system would end up the basis of many lawsuits.
On the ship, the Defiant may not have had the size of a Galaxy-class starship but it easily had the punch. The class was designed (at least partly by Sisko himself) to fight the Borg, after all.
Sweet Jeebus, I'm a geek. :)
The Xbox 360 has an ethernet port (just like the Xbox) and they're calling it "WiFi ready." That most likely means that you'll have to hook a USB 802.11 adapter to one of the three USB 2.0 ports to get your wireless on - fortunately, such adapters have gotten to be dirt cheap (CompUSA has an 802.11g model on sale for $19.99, as one example).
Me, I hope that they manage to get backwards compatibility in there, but I don't consider it a dealbreaker. After all, my Xbox isn't going to quit working because the 360 is released...though it WILL probably quit working because the DVD-ROM fails. :)
Any way you slice it, it'll be fun watching this shake out over the next three years. Viva la console wars!
Even if Microsoft WAS putting a lot of advertising out there, I'd understand completely. Advertising can work wonders, especially for a company that is trying hard to become #1 in a three-company race where the other two were deeply entrenched.
Oh, and you ARE anti-Xbox or, at least, anti-Microsoft. If you weren't, you'd be able to recognize that Microsoft is doing the right thing when they try hard to make people aware of their upcoming product(s). It's just good business.
PS- Why would you have virus concerns about a document that YOU are producing and sending to someone else?
Don't forget that CRTs also have the [potential] advantage of variable resolution which would make this discussion moot for them. It's the fixed-pixel displays that are the problem.
I don't play WoW (I'm playing City of Heroes and am not one to go in for multiple MMOGs), but your comparison in terms of support is invalid.
I agree that the Batman trailer is superior to the Serenity trailer but I found the Batman trailer similarly tired. Just like the covers of books, movie trailers are rarely designed by their creators. Thus, it's pointless to try to make an informed judgement on either movie until they hit theaters.
In my experience, a fifty takes care of most of my activities. Police officers are underpaid, so it rarely takes much...besides, what's a C felony between friends? For the really trivial stuff like speeding tickets, just keep a few ten-dollar Dunkin Donuts gift certificates handy. You know how cops love their donuts!
Clearly, you underestimate the eroticism of a good circuit diagram.
Upon Googling, I found this link which would seem to indicate that both Tandy and Dell released MCA PCs.
I use similar methods with TiVo. I have the remote set for the 30-second advance function, and when I see an ad that I think might interest - or even maybe entertain - me, I watch it.
The truth that marketing folks don't like to talk about is that advertising is often useless because many of the people watching it don't care about what's being advertised. Why would I, as a guy, care about Revlon or Loreal? Summer's Eve could be the finest feminine hygiene product on the market but any interest I might have in it doesn't extend to buying or recommending it. In the area of more male-oriented products, no Budweiser, Coors or Michelob commercial is going to make me buy crappy beer (I have access to too many GOOD ones where I live).
Further, if advertisements for those, or other, products appear on a website and annoy me they're actually COUNTERproductive in that I then associate that brand name with my annoyance and could end up discouraging others from purchasing them. In those cases, the companies should be HAPPY I'm blocking their ads since I've prevented myself from being reminded how much I dislike them.
The problem with that is this: If the movie or record industry was to embrace BitTorrent, the idea would likely to be to have authentication to access the tracker. Thus, it could be presumed (if the system was secure) that everyone accessing the tracker - and, thus, everyone to whom a downloader would be uploading - would be authorized to be receiving their copy. In the case of a copyrighted work being distributed via BT by someone NOT authorized to do so, everyone downloading is committing the dual violations of receiving and distributing.
See my link again. The library could tell a person that they'll only accept a MONEY ORDER for the fine if they wanted to, never mind restricting payments to $20 bills or smaller. They don't lose the right to enforce the debt just because they won't take a C-note.
To summarize, "legal tender" means that US currency is to be considered a legally valid OFFER for payment. Whether someone is willing to accept that offer is entirely up to them. In other words, not only can a place refuse to accept $50 in pennies as payment for an item but they can, theoretically, REQUIRE you to pay only in pennies for your purchase.
That being said, if a B&M store isn't willing to take my $2 bills (however they happened to arrive in my wallet) in payment, then they can just lose my business. Restrictions on large numbers of pennies (or even nickels) I consider reasonable, "nothing over a $20 bill" I consider reasonable, etc. In other words, give me a good reason and I'll modify my payment. If a business refuses to accept my payment because they don't believe $2 bills are circulated by the Department of Treasury, then that's not a good reason.
I have to say, though, that the guy in the article, despite being technically "in the right," was purposely being an asshole and he knew it. He clearly keeps $2 bills on hand because he knows that few people see them and either a) likes to educate people that, yes, $2 bills are real or more likely b) wants to have them around so that he can make his little "protests" like this one. He probably already KNEW that most places won't take - and don't have to take - thousands of coins as payment and that's the only reason he doesn't keep carefully counted jars of pennies around to screw with people.
If he was really convinced he was in the right and WASN'T an asshole, he would have gone down to the store, asked to speak to the manager and explained his understanding of the situation. If they still threatened to call the police because of non-payment, he could have then invited them to do so (whereupon the police would have laughed and told the manager that it was time for small claims court). THAT is the way to protest against threats like that. Going down and paying a charge you don't feel you owe in $2 bills is what I call "being a little bitch."
Your idea that "true" Christians would have to cut themselves off from the rest of the world is ludicrous and would, in itself, seem to go against the teachings of Jesus Christ who wanted everyone to feel His love and that of His Father. Oh yes, and I don't know where you've been or where you learned all your information about Christian sects, but Quakers are not generally isolated from the rest of society. Far from it, Quakers tend to "fight" (some might eschew this word due to it's more violent connotations) for their beliefs. For example, they helped run the Underground Railroad freeing slaves and were instrumental in the creation of "conscientious objector" status, allowing pacificists to serve their country in wartime without participating in violence (such as by serving as medics). If you're interested in learning more about the Society of Friends, you might want to head over to this website(!!) which might help you understand what you're trying to talk about.
The Shakers, on the other hand, are a lot more complex. They practiced (I use the past tense since there are so few left - they don't accept new members) a very extreme religion which embraced, among other things, celibacy which even extended to marital relations, communing with dead spirits and a belief that God was a male/female duality. I'm over-simplifying (I'm no expert on Shakers and the few that are left aren't exactly running around with pamphlets), but the truth is that they had practices which had little or nothing to do with the teachings most often attributed to Jesus Christ. I can't speak to the validity of their beliefs since I haven't had an actual conversation with God to get His views on the matter, but I hardly think that the Shakers can be pointed to as being examples of "true" or "genuine" Christians if one accepts the New Testament as representing His teachings (which most Christians - even the Quakers - do).
As a final note, I would say that I don't think William Penn, Thomas Paine, Herbert Hoover or Susan B. Anthony - Quakers all - invited "everyone else to walk all over [them]."
You should really pursue more education before letting your ass do your talking.