His lawsuits weren't the only way he was making a fool of himself over those games. He can still offer publishers money he doesn't have to make videogames that are a parody of videogames, then refuse to pay up. You don't need to be a lawyer to make a confusing spectacle of yourself. And in recent years, he's gotten more press like this, videogamers talking about his latest ridiculousness. The only people who know the name "Jack Thompson" are people who don't agree with him, being disbarred just ensures that he won't ever break into mainstream consciousness again.
All it takes is pissing of the Bar and a few judges, and you've lost what you made with 12 years of college.
To be fair, he did more than that, he did his darndest to further the stereotype of lawyers as being rabid, idiotic, greedy, power hungry attack dogs. More significantly, he was tying up a lot of time and wasting a lot of other people's money by using completely frivolous lawsuits as a soapbox. Then he was blatantly disrespectful to everyone else, even those who disagreed with him.
This isn't like being fired because you beat your boss at golf, this is like being fired because you lost your temper, took out an ad in the local newspaper saying your company kills puppies, and then took a shit on your boss' desk.
And he's right, and they shouldn't be able to. It's the whole point behind the separation of powers in the US Constitution.
True, but they've trampled all over seperation. As they've left it, it's an excuse for the administration not to do something, it's not actually a limit on his power. Seperation of powers is not something there for the convinience of the president, to ignore when he wants it and use when he wants to avoid something.
Also I was pointing out that a lack of further reasoning for denying it means it's not out of the question. If they come back with the same plan to use taxpayer money for their heavy-handed copyright enforcement, trying to send college kids to jail for giving their friend a copy of a CD, but this time don't set up that office, Bush seems to be fine with it.
Unfettered web access leads to ridiculous losses of productivity.
That's a hypothesis. Is there proof one way or the other? If my job boss tried to increase productivity by a few percentage points by micromanaging, blocking all non-strictly work related websites, and tried to put blinders on me, I personally would spend more time trying to get around them and THEN goofing off than I would if they just left it up to my best judgement. Plus I'd think less of my job and would be less motivated.
That's just me though, I suppose other people might welcome the fetters, and possibly on average your approach would increase productivity. So lets see a study.
You people never cease to amaze me, the Bush administration defends your rights and you blast them with rhetorical bullshit.
You people?!?!? What do you mean by that?!? Just kidding.
Of course the rhetoric is important even if the outcome was good. It's good that Saddam is not ruling anything anymore, but the rhetoric was clearly bullshit and set up a bad precedent. (There were other mistakes too, notably what we did after invading, but let's keep focused here.)
Bush and Cheney have done everything to increase the power of the president short of claiming infallibility. If the administration had been opposing this because it's idiotic and would be spending taxpayer money to sue college kids for sharing songs with their friends, hey way to suddenly grow a brain bush! But it's not, they're saying "No, because you can't tell the president what to do."
It's important because if the RIAA comes back with "okay fine, same proposal, just without the requirement to make a new office," Bush is going to say "Okay, great!" So he's still a worthless sack o' crap.
Do they actually mean there was a metric ton of Liquid Helium released, or just a lot? I mean, any liquid helium spilled, even jus a measly ounce, to me seems like a big deal considering how expensive and, well, cold it is. A whole ton? Seriously, is this an actual figure or is it just an exageration? Or is it even an understatement? I really have no idea.
If there is anything that is likely to end the world, it might be when all the country folk lose their TV just long enough for their addiction to take over and........
Self-fufilling prophecy: this post will be modded down as troll because I imply that Linux does indeed sux, and for pointing out that mods who mod people down for insulting linux do indeed need to move out of their parent's basement. Also might get modded offtopic by people who don't realize I'm responding to the AC.
Is that supposed to imply that what's good for the economy is good for Ameria? Where does that leave its citizens?
He may have been talking about international copyright violations. International in relation to american copyrights. So presumably, americans would not be included in that because they're not international, they're nationals falling under national copyright.
His interests wouldn't be in copyrights held by people or groups in other countries enforcing their copyrights on american pirates. It's something that would of course be a part of any treaty, but the quote is blurby, maybe he adresses it more later on but it didn't make it into the article.
Anyway, I think the point of his statment was about how american companies enforce their copyrights overseas and was looking at it from a buisness standpoint. American citizens weren't mentioned because that wasn't what he was talking about maybe?
Keep in mind the quote was brief and may have been taken out of context. He may have just been talking about the motivation of the pro-buisiness lobbyists.
We computer professionals stick around other computer professionals - and nonprofessionals around us absorb enough knowledge from us by osmosis. So of course it FEELS like everyone is computer literate -- but they're not. We develop software for the braindead zombies and the braindead zombies use it.
And to think: some people say tech support guys have overinflated egos based on their specialized knowledge of things most people don't care about! Hah!
Yes, but you'd have hope because what if Chuck didn't put the sign up or just wanted you to THINK you were going to die? You'd be wondering, and that would cause you to be anxious. Maybe he was just wanting a laugh. Maybe he didn't mean "This time."
Fuck biologists. If they don't have enough goddamn sense not to crap up the language they use to do science in, well, let's just say that explains a lot about the general lack of advancement in all the "life sciences". Some biology text books now spend nearly a whole chapter just explaining the definition of "species".
Hey, fuck you too! Anyway, we have to change our theories based on evidence. A lot of times we're wrong. Terminology changes to reflect reality, not vice versa. If we say a species is one morphology of animals that can breed together, then find that what are clearly two seperate species can productively breed, we're not going to be able to insist that they can't breed, we're going to say we were wrong and species actually means something else.
When it comes down to it, the whole concept of species is really a cop out as is. The vast majority of the taxa on the planet is bacteria/archea, and a lot of eukarya don't sexually reproduce anyway. Species defined as something that can mate then limits "species" to a very small minority of organisms. The fact that some "species" can interbreed only further shows that the concept is something artificial that better describes our perception than it does reality.
To summarize, there are two ways we can avoid the possibility of "crapping up" the language we use in science. The first is to ignore reality and insist on using what we know is incorrect useless terminology, the other is to stop doing science, quit needing new terms, and quit realizing when we're wrong.
Both are idiotic ideas.
It's the same reason doctors said eggs were good, then bad, then okay. It's not that they liked jerking you around, it's that we're trying to get to the truth, but it's a difficult process.
Sounds like the thing works by automatically detecting people who have the adrenaline rush going on.
This is great, all we need to do to knock homeland security off their high horse is to put up a billboard on the way to the airport with a picture of Chuck norris and the words "Chuck Norris will kill you when you get through airport security."
Everyone will have heightened body temperature, increased perspiration, faster breathing, and will be looking over their shoulder. The machine will get so many false positives that it will blow the fuck up.
Right, but I don't think their proposals included opt out measures, they were going to invest it for you, I think. Couldn't find any articles explaining what they actually were going to do, but allowing people to opt out would bankrupt the system immediately. Since you and I know that it won't be around when we retire, it would be unwise not to opt out. However, our payments are going to old people now who depend on it. If everyone working opts out, they all of a sudden have no money, and I think even the most unrealistic of libertarians would realize suddenly having a bunch of retirees with no money is a worse situation for everyone, not to mention it would be evil to let them starve.
Of course, it would have been bankrupt by now had the Bush/McCain plan gone into effect, and will go bankrupt soon anyways. They're going to have to increase the amount of money taken out of your paycheck and decrease the amount of money that retirees get, and for some reason Americans want to pretend it's not true. Who convinced us the government could spend more money and not have to take more money from you?
Ultimately, you either have no war, or you have bloody wars. There's not a lot in between.
Uh... way to miss my point almost entirely. If you had so much as finished reading the sentence you were quoting, you probably would have gotten it, even if you had ignored the context. Nonlethal weapons USED AGAINST HUMANS was what I was talking about. Not unmanned vehicles, infrastructure, and certainly not a game of checkers.
Well, great, except why they gotta mess with it like that? There are still plenty of things they could have done with 2d. If they wanted to make a franchise that was doom crossed with tomb raider crossed with an RPG... first of all that sounds like complete crap, but second why not make up a new franchise?
If it's quality, you're going to get bites even without brand name recognition. If it's crap, you're just going to ruin a good franchise until you "bring it back old school."
The "tired ol' megaman" would be the "newer" 3d one. I tried to play one of the newer ones, megaman X#KD_: or something like that (what's the japanese fascination with putting random letters after a title to make a new series? Gundam, okay, Gundam SD? Why not just "The next gundam" or "Gundam: viciously beating a dead horse to the point of making it into red pulp." Long tangent there...)
Uh... anyway, I tried to play it, and it made no sense.
There are some 2d franchises which can be successfully brought into the 3rd dimension. Metroid was one. But the vast majority of them turn out to be crap. For some reason, the parent companies refuse to accept the results of many failed experiments. The 3d castlevanias continue to be mediocre at best. The 2d ones are great. Mortal Kombat also was not much fun in 3d. Megaman is the same way. Whatever it was I was playing was an abomination that should have been killed early. Glad to see that capcom is seeing the light.
Slashdot Mirror
His lawsuits weren't the only way he was making a fool of himself over those games. He can still offer publishers money he doesn't have to make videogames that are a parody of videogames, then refuse to pay up. You don't need to be a lawyer to make a confusing spectacle of yourself. And in recent years, he's gotten more press like this, videogamers talking about his latest ridiculousness. The only people who know the name "Jack Thompson" are people who don't agree with him, being disbarred just ensures that he won't ever break into mainstream consciousness again.
All it takes is pissing of the Bar and a few judges, and you've lost what you made with 12 years of college.
To be fair, he did more than that, he did his darndest to further the stereotype of lawyers as being rabid, idiotic, greedy, power hungry attack dogs. More significantly, he was tying up a lot of time and wasting a lot of other people's money by using completely frivolous lawsuits as a soapbox. Then he was blatantly disrespectful to everyone else, even those who disagreed with him.
This isn't like being fired because you beat your boss at golf, this is like being fired because you lost your temper, took out an ad in the local newspaper saying your company kills puppies, and then took a shit on your boss' desk.
And he's right, and they shouldn't be able to. It's the whole point behind the separation of powers in the US Constitution.
True, but they've trampled all over seperation. As they've left it, it's an excuse for the administration not to do something, it's not actually a limit on his power. Seperation of powers is not something there for the convinience of the president, to ignore when he wants it and use when he wants to avoid something.
Also I was pointing out that a lack of further reasoning for denying it means it's not out of the question. If they come back with the same plan to use taxpayer money for their heavy-handed copyright enforcement, trying to send college kids to jail for giving their friend a copy of a CD, but this time don't set up that office, Bush seems to be fine with it.
Unfettered web access leads to ridiculous losses of productivity.
That's a hypothesis. Is there proof one way or the other? If my job boss tried to increase productivity by a few percentage points by micromanaging, blocking all non-strictly work related websites, and tried to put blinders on me, I personally would spend more time trying to get around them and THEN goofing off than I would if they just left it up to my best judgement. Plus I'd think less of my job and would be less motivated.
That's just me though, I suppose other people might welcome the fetters, and possibly on average your approach would increase productivity. So lets see a study.
You people never cease to amaze me, the Bush administration defends your rights and you blast them with rhetorical bullshit.
You people?!?!? What do you mean by that?!? Just kidding.
Of course the rhetoric is important even if the outcome was good. It's good that Saddam is not ruling anything anymore, but the rhetoric was clearly bullshit and set up a bad precedent. (There were other mistakes too, notably what we did after invading, but let's keep focused here.)
Bush and Cheney have done everything to increase the power of the president short of claiming infallibility. If the administration had been opposing this because it's idiotic and would be spending taxpayer money to sue college kids for sharing songs with their friends, hey way to suddenly grow a brain bush! But it's not, they're saying "No, because you can't tell the president what to do."
It's important because if the RIAA comes back with "okay fine, same proposal, just without the requirement to make a new office," Bush is going to say "Okay, great!" So he's still a worthless sack o' crap.
A physicists analogy is that a LN2 costs as much as cheap beer, while L He as much as good whiskey, per volume
Well... I usually purchase whiskey by the half-ton at costco, so that really puts it into perspective!
Do they actually mean there was a metric ton of Liquid Helium released, or just a lot? I mean, any liquid helium spilled, even jus a measly ounce, to me seems like a big deal considering how expensive and, well, cold it is. A whole ton? Seriously, is this an actual figure or is it just an exageration? Or is it even an understatement? I really have no idea.
If there is anything that is likely to end the world, it might be when all the country folk lose their TV just long enough for their addiction to take over and........
Blame it on president Obama somehow.
I guess now all first posts are marked offtopic? "This" was referring to... wait for it... the topic. It was definitely on the topic.
What exactly is the criteria for stuff on idle? Isn't idle just a soapbox for how stupid letters to the editor are?
So the world runs out of addresses before China runs out?
Did the Chinese government move themselves to outer space?
In communist china, IPv4 addresses run out of YOU.
Self-fufilling prophecy: this post will be modded down as troll because I imply that Linux does indeed sux, and for pointing out that mods who mod people down for insulting linux do indeed need to move out of their parent's basement. Also might get modded offtopic by people who don't realize I'm responding to the AC.
Do we "need" any games? GODYESWHATAMITHINKING!?! Uh sorry.
Is that supposed to imply that what's good for the economy is good for Ameria? Where does that leave its citizens?
He may have been talking about international copyright violations. International in relation to american copyrights. So presumably, americans would not be included in that because they're not international, they're nationals falling under national copyright.
His interests wouldn't be in copyrights held by people or groups in other countries enforcing their copyrights on american pirates. It's something that would of course be a part of any treaty, but the quote is blurby, maybe he adresses it more later on but it didn't make it into the article.
Anyway, I think the point of his statment was about how american companies enforce their copyrights overseas and was looking at it from a buisness standpoint. American citizens weren't mentioned because that wasn't what he was talking about maybe?
Keep in mind the quote was brief and may have been taken out of context. He may have just been talking about the motivation of the pro-buisiness lobbyists.
We computer professionals stick around other computer professionals - and nonprofessionals around us absorb enough knowledge from us by osmosis. So of course it FEELS like everyone is computer literate -- but they're not. We develop software for the braindead zombies and the braindead zombies use it.
And to think: some people say tech support guys have overinflated egos based on their specialized knowledge of things most people don't care about! Hah!
Yes, but you'd have hope because what if Chuck didn't put the sign up or just wanted you to THINK you were going to die? You'd be wondering, and that would cause you to be anxious. Maybe he was just wanting a laugh. Maybe he didn't mean "This time."
Fuck biologists. If they don't have enough goddamn sense not to crap up the language they use to do science in, well, let's just say that explains a lot about the general lack of advancement in all the "life sciences". Some biology text books now spend nearly a whole chapter just explaining the definition of "species".
Hey, fuck you too! Anyway, we have to change our theories based on evidence. A lot of times we're wrong. Terminology changes to reflect reality, not vice versa. If we say a species is one morphology of animals that can breed together, then find that what are clearly two seperate species can productively breed, we're not going to be able to insist that they can't breed, we're going to say we were wrong and species actually means something else.
When it comes down to it, the whole concept of species is really a cop out as is. The vast majority of the taxa on the planet is bacteria/archea, and a lot of eukarya don't sexually reproduce anyway. Species defined as something that can mate then limits "species" to a very small minority of organisms. The fact that some "species" can interbreed only further shows that the concept is something artificial that better describes our perception than it does reality.
To summarize, there are two ways we can avoid the possibility of "crapping up" the language we use in science. The first is to ignore reality and insist on using what we know is incorrect useless terminology, the other is to stop doing science, quit needing new terms, and quit realizing when we're wrong.
Both are idiotic ideas.
It's the same reason doctors said eggs were good, then bad, then okay. It's not that they liked jerking you around, it's that we're trying to get to the truth, but it's a difficult process.
Sounds like the thing works by automatically detecting people who have the adrenaline rush going on.
This is great, all we need to do to knock homeland security off their high horse is to put up a billboard on the way to the airport with a picture of Chuck norris and the words "Chuck Norris will kill you when you get through airport security."
Everyone will have heightened body temperature, increased perspiration, faster breathing, and will be looking over their shoulder. The machine will get so many false positives that it will blow the fuck up.
Right, but I don't think their proposals included opt out measures, they were going to invest it for you, I think. Couldn't find any articles explaining what they actually were going to do, but allowing people to opt out would bankrupt the system immediately. Since you and I know that it won't be around when we retire, it would be unwise not to opt out. However, our payments are going to old people now who depend on it. If everyone working opts out, they all of a sudden have no money, and I think even the most unrealistic of libertarians would realize suddenly having a bunch of retirees with no money is a worse situation for everyone, not to mention it would be evil to let them starve.
Of course, it would have been bankrupt by now had the Bush/McCain plan gone into effect, and will go bankrupt soon anyways. They're going to have to increase the amount of money taken out of your paycheck and decrease the amount of money that retirees get, and for some reason Americans want to pretend it's not true. Who convinced us the government could spend more money and not have to take more money from you?
Ultimately, you either have no war, or you have bloody wars. There's not a lot in between.
Uh... way to miss my point almost entirely. If you had so much as finished reading the sentence you were quoting, you probably would have gotten it, even if you had ignored the context. Nonlethal weapons USED AGAINST HUMANS was what I was talking about. Not unmanned vehicles, infrastructure, and certainly not a game of checkers.
Why szhouldn't they have tried some 3d?
They did. It was crap. They shouldn't KEEP trying it after it didn't work.
Castlevania FPS on mars: the only way Konami could make the 3d series any worse!
I was just thinking we should have started investing social security like Bush and McCain were saying a few years ago.
Well, great, except why they gotta mess with it like that? There are still plenty of things they could have done with 2d. If they wanted to make a franchise that was doom crossed with tomb raider crossed with an RPG... first of all that sounds like complete crap, but second why not make up a new franchise?
If it's quality, you're going to get bites even without brand name recognition. If it's crap, you're just going to ruin a good franchise until you "bring it back old school."
The "tired ol' megaman" would be the "newer" 3d one. I tried to play one of the newer ones, megaman X#KD_: or something like that (what's the japanese fascination with putting random letters after a title to make a new series? Gundam, okay, Gundam SD? Why not just "The next gundam" or "Gundam: viciously beating a dead horse to the point of making it into red pulp." Long tangent there...)
Uh... anyway, I tried to play it, and it made no sense.
There are some 2d franchises which can be successfully brought into the 3rd dimension. Metroid was one. But the vast majority of them turn out to be crap. For some reason, the parent companies refuse to accept the results of many failed experiments. The 3d castlevanias continue to be mediocre at best. The 2d ones are great. Mortal Kombat also was not much fun in 3d. Megaman is the same way. Whatever it was I was playing was an abomination that should have been killed early. Glad to see that capcom is seeing the light.