Problem is you guys are arguing the wrong point here. The point that should be argued here is if a show on VH1 thats supposed to be funny and entertaining counts as "commentary"? Followed by: are they "profiting" from your work without substantial benefit to yourself. Though in this case the latter I think is much weaker.
Well, even if the ESRB released their process information and it indicated that nothing was in fact changed, it would not really matter one bit legally. They are a voluntary organization, their is no legal enforcement behind their decisions. They can do whatever the hell they want. Would it possibly damage their image and put the whole self-rating system into a new light? Probably. Would it be good or bad in the long run? Tough call.
While technically true, their is a current debate raging concerning the overall quality and business model of those companies, though I will give Nintendo far more props then EA these days. Main concern with Nintendo is once they release the current gen sequels of their money-maker lines, then what? More sequels? (Incoming mildly unsolicited joke I cannot refrain from making.)
I can see it now:
Super Smash Brothers: Oops We Missed A Character You Never Heard Of, Zelda: Infinite Loop to the Past, Super Duper Metroid: Die Ridley Die, Super WTF is Mario Doing Now, Pokemon Tie-in #452-#498 etc... oh wait thats EA's style.
Disclaimer: Just cause their unoriginal tendencies annoy me a tad doesn't mean I won't play them anyways. That leads to a much larger discussion concerning the game industry, we'll leave that one for another day.
b.) realize that if they pursued a true investigation that would eventually reveal it's actually bad parenting, which in turn would indicate they are bad parents since they did not realize this
I have the strangest feeling if B is ever true it's a minority case.
...and as soon as the students pony up the investment costs they can "own" their work. Cause you know they do all their research on/with equipment, components, licenses, materials etc... that they do not own, and most likely could never afford. It's almost like universities are trying to give them a taste of the real thing so they are better prepared when they leave the university to actually work for these companies.
Most ancient or semi-ancient monuments were actually built by skilled laborers. Slaves were too unreliable for such grand and precise work. However, they may have been used for transport and some minor menial tasks.
I always found it annoying when site's basic design is continually changing, especially since it usually accumulates into a cluster fuck of links, pictures, and menus. And yet you still can't find what you're looking for on the dam things.
Personally I enjoy my relatively simple personal Google homepage. But that might just be me.
but if I'm understanding this correctly comets are blocks of ice with various other rubble frozen in them, or sometimes big rocks covered in ice. This water and rubble(rock) comes from the formation of stars, planets, nebula, etc...
Life must have originated on some planet somewhere to get expelled into space where a comet could form in the first place.
So, life may have came from a comet, but did not in fact originate in comets themselves since as noted they must come from somewhere and the emptiness of space is not conductive to life. Therefore, either life must exist (or did exist) on a planet elsewhere or the Earth is (or was) a possible source of life for these comets during out solar system's formation.
However, I may be (and probably am) wrong due to an inadequate knowledge base for this subject.
While I agree it sounds relatively preposterous, its always those dam 1 in a million possibilities that end up working out for some reason. Or at least winning me that amazing hand no one saw coming in pitch...
And, btw, just spending time in front of a video game, violent or NOT, makes you physically nervous, so potentially violent. Some kids nowadays seem to live only to get the next playsation:O
While potentially true, I have seen this with anyone who gets incredibly immersed in whatever they are doing, whether it's reading/tv/games/etc.. I do not believe it is singly video games that cause such reactions.
And if I am interpreting your initial question correctly, we are against it because Video Games are being singled out to be regulated by law. This does not exist in any other media outlet because it is censorship. Self-censorship does exist in other forms of media (MPAA for movies), and as mentioned above does exist for video games in the form of ESRB ratings. The ESRB ratings are followed by the majority of retailers, and those that don't, tend to also ignore the MPAA ratings. However, you must remember that following these ratings is entirely voluntary even though at this point in the US many assume they are law due to widespread practice.
Therefore, these games are getting to the kids because their parents are buying them, but instead of blaming the parents for not paying attention to their kids and what they buy them, some people would much rather attempt to pass some constitution infringing laws. Ironically, these laws, if they somehow miraculously passed, would inevitably have little effect on keeping inappropriate games away from kids since adults will still be buying them for their kids in the majority of situations.
Well PS3s do have the option to install Linux on them out of the box, my guess is that's what they did. In terms of price, I'm pretty sure to build a machine as powerful as a PS3 would cost more then $500. IBM and Mercury sell Cell Processor server blades, however I can't find a price or specs page. (Didn't really try all that hard.) However need more info about performance to determine if it is a "better" option for servers.
Hmmm, not a bad idea in all honesty, I wonder what the cost trade-off is? Worse case they shut them down and sell the clusters to medical research or power computing.
They may not sellout near you or globally but it depends on the supply/demand in a given area. As for pushing a button to make more copies, you do know that (most) software companies do not own their own plants for stamping CDs? They rent them for given periods of time, usually I think it's a month before release, to have their product stamped for a preset amount. So if they need another "stamping" period they have to wait or possibly buy someone else's spot.
While thats technically possible, I do know that if you pre-order early enough some stores will insure they have at least enough copies at release to cover the pre-orders. But I admit that it probably depends on the store. Since I tend to use the same store, I have never ran into a problem with pre-orders even on sell out games.
Sure that works, especially if you are in a region with a large supply of stores. Then again sometimes it doesn't.
So why are you ridiculing the concept of pre-ordering? Do you inherently hate it for some reason? If you go with the "it's completely unnecessary" route try living in a 4 college town in the 'middle of nowhere' Northern NY and get a popular release. But if you're inclined to wait you can also just order it online, which more often then not was my method. Beats driving 40mins in -30F to the nearest game store.
Well it depends on where you are and the units available in your vicinity. For example if you have 1 Gamestop for say 100 miles, then ya it might be a problem. Sometimes they do not produce enough copies to ship initially, for example WoW sold out in tons of locations. So pre-ordering generally insures that their is a copy with your name on it waiting to be picked up. Since it doesn't cost extra to pre-order at most places how can it be a bad deal?
Actually no, it is perfectly valid. The tool is never in and of itself evil. It is the person who uses it, that directs it, and makes choices for it's use that creates evil. By your stretch of logic anything that can cause harm is inherently going to cause harm regardless of human action, you are being imprecise and quite silly. My reasoning is meant to extend to almost anything. It is not a useless bit of information since instead of blaming the tool for existing, you blame the person which used it, whom you then analyze to see why they used it in such a manner instead of assuming because it the tool is what it is. Which then results in a clearer understand of human nature and society.
The problem I have with the statement in question is that saying the internet (a non-living thing without intelligence or conscience) "can be a dangerous thing" quickly becomes the internet "is a dangerous thing". Which now spreads and becomes "true" simply due to a contextual and logical error by the ill-informed. Now you have inserted irrational thoughts into a general populace which then spreads the same basic logic flaw to other tools. If you think thats preposterous, then you should pay more attention to the world around you.
So here's a question: if no one is looking is the internet still there?
Well it would only effect those who actually use these types of services, and it's still technically cheaper then itunes. So either way it beats the competition. (Barely for popular music.)
Sigh, either you missed the point or I was not clear enough. Choice for one's self. I choose to eat that burger with enough grease to give me a heart attack, I choose to smoke even though it gives me cancer, those are personal choices against oneself, not against others. That was my point. The only moral reason to prevent others actions is if they impact someone besides themselves. All law and all moral systems are built around that simple premise. (Though ironically suicide is illegal in the US, still not too sure about that one.) The reason we interfere abroad is because whether you like it or not what happens elsewhere can have very real consequences here. While it's very easy to point fingers and tout conspiracy theories and over-simplify complex ideas, it is very hard to accurately predict the outcome of every global action, thus it is a good idea to try and stack the odds in your favor when possible.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like 1 million people have ever been wrong before, majority wins logic?
Problem is you guys are arguing the wrong point here. The point that should be argued here is if a show on VH1 thats supposed to be funny and entertaining counts as "commentary"? Followed by: are they "profiting" from your work without substantial benefit to yourself. Though in this case the latter I think is much weaker.
Well, even if the ESRB released their process information and it indicated that nothing was in fact changed, it would not really matter one bit legally. They are a voluntary organization, their is no legal enforcement behind their decisions. They can do whatever the hell they want. Would it possibly damage their image and put the whole self-rating system into a new light? Probably. Would it be good or bad in the long run? Tough call.
While technically true, their is a current debate raging concerning the overall quality and business model of those companies, though I will give Nintendo far more props then EA these days. Main concern with Nintendo is once they release the current gen sequels of their money-maker lines, then what? More sequels? (Incoming mildly unsolicited joke I cannot refrain from making.)
I can see it now:
Super Smash Brothers: Oops We Missed A Character You Never Heard Of, Zelda: Infinite Loop to the Past, Super Duper Metroid: Die Ridley Die, Super WTF is Mario Doing Now, Pokemon Tie-in #452-#498 etc... oh wait thats EA's style.
Disclaimer: Just cause their unoriginal tendencies annoy me a tad doesn't mean I won't play them anyways. That leads to a much larger discussion concerning the game industry, we'll leave that one for another day.
Besides their not being any, they are either:
a.) looking for a new scapegoat
b.) realize that if they pursued a true investigation that would eventually reveal it's actually bad parenting, which in turn would indicate they are bad parents since they did not realize this
I have the strangest feeling if B is ever true it's a minority case.
...and as soon as the students pony up the investment costs they can "own" their work. Cause you know they do all their research on/with equipment, components, licenses, materials etc... that they do not own, and most likely could never afford. It's almost like universities are trying to give them a taste of the real thing so they are better prepared when they leave the university to actually work for these companies.
Nah, must be corporate greed all around.
While I agree, I think the problem would be that most research is quite boring.
One quick point:
Most ancient or semi-ancient monuments were actually built by skilled laborers. Slaves were too unreliable for such grand and precise work. However, they may have been used for transport and some minor menial tasks.
I always found it annoying when site's basic design is continually changing, especially since it usually accumulates into a cluster fuck of links, pictures, and menus. And yet you still can't find what you're looking for on the dam things.
Personally I enjoy my relatively simple personal Google homepage. But that might just be me.
but if I'm understanding this correctly comets are blocks of ice with various other rubble frozen in them, or sometimes big rocks covered in ice. This water and rubble(rock) comes from the formation of stars, planets, nebula, etc...
Life must have originated on some planet somewhere to get expelled into space where a comet could form in the first place.
So, life may have came from a comet, but did not in fact originate in comets themselves since as noted they must come from somewhere and the emptiness of space is not conductive to life. Therefore, either life must exist (or did exist) on a planet elsewhere or the Earth is (or was) a possible source of life for these comets during out solar system's formation.
However, I may be (and probably am) wrong due to an inadequate knowledge base for this subject.
While I agree it sounds relatively preposterous, its always those dam 1 in a million possibilities that end up working out for some reason. Or at least winning me that amazing hand no one saw coming in pitch...
While potentially true, I have seen this with anyone who gets incredibly immersed in whatever they are doing, whether it's reading/tv/games/etc.. I do not believe it is singly video games that cause such reactions.
And if I am interpreting your initial question correctly, we are against it because Video Games are being singled out to be regulated by law. This does not exist in any other media outlet because it is censorship. Self-censorship does exist in other forms of media (MPAA for movies), and as mentioned above does exist for video games in the form of ESRB ratings. The ESRB ratings are followed by the majority of retailers, and those that don't, tend to also ignore the MPAA ratings. However, you must remember that following these ratings is entirely voluntary even though at this point in the US many assume they are law due to widespread practice.
Therefore, these games are getting to the kids because their parents are buying them, but instead of blaming the parents for not paying attention to their kids and what they buy them, some people would much rather attempt to pass some constitution infringing laws. Ironically, these laws, if they somehow miraculously passed, would inevitably have little effect on keeping inappropriate games away from kids since adults will still be buying them for their kids in the majority of situations.
I soooooo saw you at that rave the other night, who are you kidding?
Touche. Teach me to post before reading.
Though the possibility remains for other games. Or even Sony itself to setup dedicated clusters.
Well PS3s do have the option to install Linux on them out of the box, my guess is that's what they did. In terms of price, I'm pretty sure to build a machine as powerful as a PS3 would cost more then $500. IBM and Mercury sell Cell Processor server blades, however I can't find a price or specs page. (Didn't really try all that hard.) However need more info about performance to determine if it is a "better" option for servers.
Hmmm, not a bad idea in all honesty, I wonder what the cost trade-off is? Worse case they shut them down and sell the clusters to medical research or power computing.
They may not sellout near you or globally but it depends on the supply/demand in a given area. As for pushing a button to make more copies, you do know that (most) software companies do not own their own plants for stamping CDs? They rent them for given periods of time, usually I think it's a month before release, to have their product stamped for a preset amount. So if they need another "stamping" period they have to wait or possibly buy someone else's spot.
While thats technically possible, I do know that if you pre-order early enough some stores will insure they have at least enough copies at release to cover the pre-orders. But I admit that it probably depends on the store. Since I tend to use the same store, I have never ran into a problem with pre-orders even on sell out games.
Sure that works, especially if you are in a region with a large supply of stores. Then again sometimes it doesn't.
So why are you ridiculing the concept of pre-ordering? Do you inherently hate it for some reason? If you go with the "it's completely unnecessary" route try living in a 4 college town in the 'middle of nowhere' Northern NY and get a popular release. But if you're inclined to wait you can also just order it online, which more often then not was my method. Beats driving 40mins in -30F to the nearest game store.
Well it depends on where you are and the units available in your vicinity. For example if you have 1 Gamestop for say 100 miles, then ya it might be a problem. Sometimes they do not produce enough copies to ship initially, for example WoW sold out in tons of locations. So pre-ordering generally insures that their is a copy with your name on it waiting to be picked up. Since it doesn't cost extra to pre-order at most places how can it be a bad deal?
Actually no, it is perfectly valid. The tool is never in and of itself evil. It is the person who uses it, that directs it, and makes choices for it's use that creates evil. By your stretch of logic anything that can cause harm is inherently going to cause harm regardless of human action, you are being imprecise and quite silly. My reasoning is meant to extend to almost anything. It is not a useless bit of information since instead of blaming the tool for existing, you blame the person which used it, whom you then analyze to see why they used it in such a manner instead of assuming because it the tool is what it is. Which then results in a clearer understand of human nature and society.
The problem I have with the statement in question is that saying the internet (a non-living thing without intelligence or conscience) "can be a dangerous thing" quickly becomes the internet "is a dangerous thing". Which now spreads and becomes "true" simply due to a contextual and logical error by the ill-informed. Now you have inserted irrational thoughts into a general populace which then spreads the same basic logic flaw to other tools. If you think thats preposterous, then you should pay more attention to the world around you.
So here's a question: if no one is looking is the internet still there?
Well it would only effect those who actually use these types of services, and it's still technically cheaper then itunes. So either way it beats the competition. (Barely for popular music.)
For those who didn't, prices start a $0.00 and cap out at $0.98.
I for one welcome our DRM free overlords.
Sigh, either you missed the point or I was not clear enough. Choice for one's self. I choose to eat that burger with enough grease to give me a heart attack, I choose to smoke even though it gives me cancer, those are personal choices against oneself, not against others. That was my point. The only moral reason to prevent others actions is if they impact someone besides themselves. All law and all moral systems are built around that simple premise. (Though ironically suicide is illegal in the US, still not too sure about that one.) The reason we interfere abroad is because whether you like it or not what happens elsewhere can have very real consequences here. While it's very easy to point fingers and tout conspiracy theories and over-simplify complex ideas, it is very hard to accurately predict the outcome of every global action, thus it is a good idea to try and stack the odds in your favor when possible.