Pfft... they looked at Rupert's myspace page and saw that "Rupert is in your extended network" and had a little angry emoticon next to it. Red-faced smiley and everything.
Aaaah! Finally! I lost my excellent karma after a month or so of trolling and disagreeing with the bandwagoners. No I can go on knowing that the majority, regardless of how wrong they are, will always win =)
Cry me a river. This is not new. You had to have known this before you stood in line for your Wii. You want it to change? Don't buy your status-increasing Wii, iPod, or anything else. Kind of sounds like the 20-something who is still living in his parent's basement complaining about the rules they make him follow.
This crappy post, an AC having the smartest post, Bill Gates isn't the richest man... can someone call somebody and find out the weather conditions in Hell?
What makes you think this? The people who did the right thing and purchased said DRM software rarely complain, they either don't understand the reason why it's there or understand it too well. Neither of those people are going to be on here complaining because they either don't know why it's doing that or realize that they are yet again victimized by the people who want to steal (paying for other peoples' childishness).
...project by adding to the conversation? I guess so. Project by knowing I am wrong? No really, I know that I am IN THE RIGHT, even if it is not "correct" by your or other peoples' standards.
Try logging in next time, or maybe your first post should have been anonymous, then everyone else wouldn't know that you were a tard trying to come off as enlightened by bandwagoning.
You are arguing that it's the creator's fault for creating something that is exactly the same, so much so that nobody is willing to pay for it, but they want it bad enough that they're willing to steal it? Do you kind of see how your argument is backwards and counter-productive? If it's really something that nobody wants, nobody will HAVE it, regardless of price, thereby putting the company out of business or losing them money.
The real argument is that people WANT what's being put out, because they are childish mouthbreathers who don't understand how the real world works.
You should take your sig's advice. You were wrong and you know it, you're just trying to get out of it. It's ok, I don't blame you, it sucks when you have nothing to actually add to the conversation.
You're right, it's redundant of me to have to explain my own shit to the grammar Nazis... or was it calling him fuck-o that was redundant? Either way, you're right.
Right now, most of your DNA is open-source. I think you're right, I know this because I GPL'd some of my DNA all over my keyboard last night when I found out Valve was releasing the Pyro update Thursday.
I don't know anything about Democrats, but it could be that the government is trying to protect people from themselves and other Democrats. There, fixed that for you.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it or what words you use, there will be those with morality enough to do the right thing instead of the easy thing. The right thing is rarely the easy answer, as is proved by this example. The right thing is supporting the things that you get use out of, but here supporting is the hard choice, created as such in an attempt to force morality on an immoral world.
You can call it whatever you want, just as I can call it theft, but since neither of us think the other has the limited intelligence enough to understand that, we're both just pissing in the wind. The difference being that I'm willing to put my name behind my penis.
1 A fall on the buttocks. 2 A humiliating error, failure, or defeat: "His characters not only survive their snarled problems and pratfalls but learn from their experiences"
Source - pratfalls. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from Dictionary.com website
To give praise to; glorify. See Synonyms at praise.
n. 1 Praise; glorification. 2 A hymn or song of praise. lauds also Lauds (used with a sing. or pl. verb) A) Ecclesiastical The service of prayers following the matins and constituting with them the first of the seven canonical hours. b) The time appointed for this service.
laud. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from Dictionary.com website:
In otherword, "to praise its shortcomings"
---
Next time try adding to the conversation instead of attempting to sound smart by citing a Wiki-level source, fuck-o.
Then again, if people actually did what they were supposed to and actually supported the things they enjoy using instead of stealing them, DRM wouldn't be needed.
The argument is was the chicken first or the egg, and I'm going to get modded down for this, but it needs to be said. It's also the people who are guilty of stealing who are the loudest to laud DRM's pratfalls.
pfft... and John Carmack said that they were going the wrong direction with ray tracing. Shows how much he knows. And they only pulled it off with 4 quadcore processors at 15 FPS. That'll show you! Maybe someone should tell Carmack to go back to developing new shades of black instead of dealing with the light!/sarcasm
I know quite a bit about HTML tags, my downfall is apparently down-drop menus. Thank you very much =)
Sure. Josh Marshall won a Polk award for his almost single-handed coverage of the US Attorneys scandal. Just because Russert was at the head of a concerted effort by the mainstream press to abdicate their responsibilities as newsmen doesn't mean everybody has to follow suit. People who think the US Attorney Scandal was really a "scandal" also think the Iraq War is really a "war". For all your archaic English you misunderstand the meaning of the current words. But... I guess... congratulations... you're the one voice of reason in the throng. You've successfully, slightly, picked apart the character of one man for one or two insignificant incidents that didn't really mean anything (again, Libby's sentence was commuted, so the whole point is really moot). You've brought a dose of (your) reality to an otherwise make-believe world. Gratz.
Do you listen to yourself while you rave, or do you just kind of fade in and out? Your own double-talk would be laughable if it weren't so scary.
<quote>A belief structure entirely at odds with his responsibilities as a member of the Fifth Estate.</quote>
<quote>Protecting sources is only important when it serves the interests of the people.</quote>
<p>So which one is right? Russert is evil while Novak is awesome? Does the law only apply to you when it involves you, otherwise everyone else should only be out there to do your bidding? I understand that you think the press should be constantly fighting the government and exposing all the horrible things they do to those that aren't wearing tin-foil hats, but who is doing that anymore? Have there been great journalistic strides in reporting lately that I've missed? We uncovered bad conditions at Walter Reed and... and...? Surely you don't think that it's because of some imagined Russert horribleness that has caused reporting as a whole to go downhill. If you really think that an interview with the President on Meet the Press is not going to be fluff, I sincerely hope you have never watched a State of the Union address. That would infuriate you beyond belief. The super-sleuthing days are over my friend, and I am not willing to blame that on Russert. I think he was out there doing more for your beloved Fifth Estate than anyone else in mainstream media.</p>
<p>The press is only going to get information from informants who can be protected, without that trust there will be no informants. But you assert that informants should only be protected when it is for the good of the people, and since we need laws to govern ourselves, enforcing and upholding those laws should be very important to you. Why is what Novak did somehow secondary to what you portray Russert as doing? Let's not forget that it is illegal to reveal the identity of an undercover agent.</p>
<quote>Where on Earth in your ignorant, idiotic screed do you explain why the American media is supposed to say precisely and exactly what the government tells it to?</quote>
<p>First off, I would have to try to be both ignorant and idiotic. Try craven again, it seemed to work well for you the 5 times you've said it in this thread.</p>
<p>Secondly, Russert's show was not live. You think the President is going to sit there for a second longer than he has to while being asked questions he doesn't want to be asked? Honestly? No, he stands up, takes his mike off, and leaves. You purposefully didn't answer any of the questions I posed to you because I think in some little spot in your consciousness you know I'm right.</p>
<p>Yeah, he asks the questions anyway. You'd love that because then he'd never be on TV again, then you'd have nothing to complain about because he'd have his own little fringe website that gets 100 visitors a day.</p>
<p>Get real. He can't do that to the President and nobody does. There's a reason for it. Now, what he can do is ask the hard questions of virtually anyone else. Rice, Powell, Cheney, etc...</p>
<p>There's your Fifth Estate. How powerful is the estate if they have no sources and no interviews? How powerful is it if nobody reads, listens, or pulls it out of the ether? You think that creating an extremist website actually does anything? Which is better, being on national television asking at least some hard questions to everyone but the President, or being on the internet ranting about this theory or that with no interviews?</p>
<quote>I never heard of Tim Russert reporting from anywhere dangerous. To hear him described as "heroic" and "courageous" is the height of hilarity.</quote>
<p>You have very strict rules on who can be in your imagined Fifth Estate, don't you? Is there anyone left? Is there anyone who matters, or do they just have little websites here
Slashdot Mirror
...it's full of stars!
Pfft... they looked at Rupert's myspace page and saw that "Rupert is in your extended network" and had a little angry emoticon next to it. Red-faced smiley and everything.
LOL
"But I pay for teh internets and I want it my way! Developers, Developers, DEVELOPERS!"
...Wii wants some more.
Aaaah! Finally! I lost my excellent karma after a month or so of trolling and disagreeing with the bandwagoners. No I can go on knowing that the majority, regardless of how wrong they are, will always win =)
Cry me a river. This is not new. You had to have known this before you stood in line for your Wii. You want it to change? Don't buy your status-increasing Wii, iPod, or anything else. Kind of sounds like the 20-something who is still living in his parent's basement complaining about the rules they make him follow.
This crappy post, an AC having the smartest post, Bill Gates isn't the richest man... can someone call somebody and find out the weather conditions in Hell?
That... happens... when you post something dumb that doesn't apply to or further the discussion in any way. Oh yeah, and when it's wrong to boot.
Jesus! You really are blustering on about this, aren't you? You're definitively wrong, dude; face facts and get over it. I'm sure everyone else has.
If you really, really need to believe that you're right, that's fine, just...please, shut the fuck up about it.
=)
...project by adding to the conversation? I guess so. Project by knowing I am wrong? No really, I know that I am IN THE RIGHT, even if it is not "correct" by your or other peoples' standards.
Try logging in next time, or maybe your first post should have been anonymous, then everyone else wouldn't know that you were a tard trying to come off as enlightened by bandwagoning.
You are arguing that it's the creator's fault for creating something that is exactly the same, so much so that nobody is willing to pay for it, but they want it bad enough that they're willing to steal it? Do you kind of see how your argument is backwards and counter-productive? If it's really something that nobody wants, nobody will HAVE it, regardless of price, thereby putting the company out of business or losing them money.
The real argument is that people WANT what's being put out, because they are childish mouthbreathers who don't understand how the real world works.
You should take your sig's advice. You were wrong and you know it, you're just trying to get out of it. It's ok, I don't blame you, it sucks when you have nothing to actually add to the conversation.
You're right, it's redundant of me to have to explain my own shit to the grammar Nazis... or was it calling him fuck-o that was redundant? Either way, you're right.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it or what words you use, there will be those with morality enough to do the right thing instead of the easy thing. The right thing is rarely the easy answer, as is proved by this example. The right thing is supporting the things that you get use out of, but here supporting is the hard choice, created as such in an attempt to force morality on an immoral world.
You can call it whatever you want, just as I can call it theft, but since neither of us think the other has the limited intelligence enough to understand that, we're both just pissing in the wind. The difference being that I'm willing to put my name behind my penis.
Really?
1 A fall on the buttocks.
2 A humiliating error, failure, or defeat: "His characters not only survive their snarled problems and pratfalls but learn from their experiences"
Source - pratfalls. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from Dictionary.com website
To give praise to; glorify. See Synonyms at praise.
n.
1 Praise; glorification.
2 A hymn or song of praise.
lauds also Lauds (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
A) Ecclesiastical The service of prayers following the matins and constituting with them the first of the seven canonical hours.
b) The time appointed for this service.
laud. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from Dictionary.com website:
In otherword, "to praise its shortcomings"
---
Next time try adding to the conversation instead of attempting to sound smart by citing a Wiki-level source, fuck-o.
Then again, if people actually did what they were supposed to and actually supported the things they enjoy using instead of stealing them, DRM wouldn't be needed.
The argument is was the chicken first or the egg, and I'm going to get modded down for this, but it needs to be said. It's also the people who are guilty of stealing who are the loudest to laud DRM's pratfalls.
pfft... and John Carmack said that they were going the wrong direction with ray tracing. Shows how much he knows. And they only pulled it off with 4 quadcore processors at 15 FPS. That'll show you! Maybe someone should tell Carmack to go back to developing new shades of black instead of dealing with the light! /sarcasm
What about yellow cake? I was to understand that there'd be yellow cake and some kind of tube to be served at this jihad?
*raises hand meekly*
Joeistan? Is Joe Terrorist just Joe Blow after he converted is Islam?
You do mean DefKHAAAAAAAN ONE... right?
I know quite a bit about HTML tags, my downfall is apparently down-drop menus. Thank you very much =)
Sure. Josh Marshall won a Polk award for his almost single-handed coverage of the US Attorneys scandal. Just because Russert was at the head of a concerted effort by the mainstream press to abdicate their responsibilities as newsmen doesn't mean everybody has to follow suit. People who think the US Attorney Scandal was really a "scandal" also think the Iraq War is really a "war". For all your archaic English you misunderstand the meaning of the current words. But... I guess... congratulations... you're the one voice of reason in the throng. You've successfully, slightly, picked apart the character of one man for one or two insignificant incidents that didn't really mean anything (again, Libby's sentence was commuted, so the whole point is really moot). You've brought a dose of (your) reality to an otherwise make-believe world. Gratz.Do you listen to yourself while you rave, or do you just kind of fade in and out? Your own double-talk would be laughable if it weren't so scary.
<quote>A belief structure entirely at odds with his responsibilities as a member of the Fifth Estate.</quote>
<quote>Protecting sources is only important when it serves the interests of the people.</quote>
<p>So which one is right? Russert is evil while Novak is awesome? Does the law only apply to you when it involves you, otherwise everyone else should only be out there to do your bidding? I understand that you think the press should be constantly fighting the government and exposing all the horrible things they do to those that aren't wearing tin-foil hats, but who is doing that anymore? Have there been great journalistic strides in reporting lately that I've missed? We uncovered bad conditions at Walter Reed and... and...? Surely you don't think that it's because of some imagined Russert horribleness that has caused reporting as a whole to go downhill. If you really think that an interview with the President on Meet the Press is not going to be fluff, I sincerely hope you have never watched a State of the Union address. That would infuriate you beyond belief. The super-sleuthing days are over my friend, and I am not willing to blame that on Russert. I think he was out there doing more for your beloved Fifth Estate than anyone else in mainstream media.</p>
<p>The press is only going to get information from informants who can be protected, without that trust there will be no informants. But you assert that informants should only be protected when it is for the good of the people, and since we need laws to govern ourselves, enforcing and upholding those laws should be very important to you. Why is what Novak did somehow secondary to what you portray Russert as doing? Let's not forget that it is illegal to reveal the identity of an undercover agent.</p>
<quote>Where on Earth in your ignorant, idiotic screed do you explain why the American media is supposed to say precisely and exactly what the government tells it to?</quote>
<p>First off, I would have to try to be both ignorant and idiotic. Try craven again, it seemed to work well for you the 5 times you've said it in this thread.</p>
<p>Secondly, Russert's show was not live. You think the President is going to sit there for a second longer than he has to while being asked questions he doesn't want to be asked? Honestly? No, he stands up, takes his mike off, and leaves. You purposefully didn't answer any of the questions I posed to you because I think in some little spot in your consciousness you know I'm right.</p>
<p>Yeah, he asks the questions anyway. You'd love that because then he'd never be on TV again, then you'd have nothing to complain about because he'd have his own little fringe website that gets 100 visitors a day.</p>
<p>Get real. He can't do that to the President and nobody does. There's a reason for it. Now, what he can do is ask the hard questions of virtually anyone else. Rice, Powell, Cheney, etc...</p>
<p>There's your Fifth Estate. How powerful is the estate if they have no sources and no interviews? How powerful is it if nobody reads, listens, or pulls it out of the ether? You think that creating an extremist website actually does anything? Which is better, being on national television asking at least some hard questions to everyone but the President, or being on the internet ranting about this theory or that with no interviews?</p>
<quote>I never heard of Tim Russert reporting from anywhere dangerous. To hear him described as "heroic" and "courageous" is the height of hilarity.</quote>
<p>You have very strict rules on who can be in your imagined Fifth Estate, don't you? Is there anyone left? Is there anyone who matters, or do they just have little websites here
Oh, thank God, I thought I was the only one who had that come immediately to mind.