The cynic in me says it went more like this:
"What high-profile action can we take to keep attention on our product?"
"Lets say that it is so controversial, we won't sell it to soldiers out of 'respect'."
Grant funding based on citations (in addition to the current method).
If all you do is gather data and publish it, you will be cited by everyone in that field because you have the best data. Then funding is granted to you based on those citations.
I think it is viewed more as:
"Well, this guy was in an accident. We could attach him to a life-support system whereupon he will probably heal up and fully recover, or we could just wait, let him die and harvest his organs."
"We have more use for the organs, let's wait."
The catch is that if anyone else wants to do this they will have to just do it, get sued, get the people suing them to get it up to a class action lawsuit, then reach the same (or at least very similar) settlement as Google has done here.
You see, some people have a really weird obsession with male chickens, and they like to imagine that there are cockerels so big they can jump on their back and outrun a car.
This is another example of why I am always saying people are insane and you should never trust any of them.
Nah, that was just Haughey pretending to be cultured. "We may be poverty stricken with mass emigration, but look! We have A Singer! All is well in Ireland!"
The most depressing thing is that it actually worked.
No, because then everyone would have grown up seeing animals being slaughtered and would be inured to it. So there would probably be fewer vegetarians.
Rubbish.
The people of Europe were assured that the Lisbon Treaty could not go ahead without unanimous consent from everyone. Then Ireland voted no and they said that, actually, they didn't need unanimous consent and they would go ahead with it anyway. Then they told Ireland to have another referendum to try for the 'right' result.
This all came about because the citizens of several other EU countries voted no to the constitution so they repackaged it and tried to just ram it through.
The EU is anti-democratic, anti-civil rights and anti-citizen. And yes, I do mean 'anti' as in their behaviour shows they actively dislike the involvement of the people of Europe. Except when they can get agreement to something so that they can pretend they have a mandate.
After purchasing Mass Effect I used a crack to circumvent the activation. I felt...unclean for paying a company to treat me like that.
I decided that I would take a moral stand on the issue and so I will not buy any more games with crazy DRM on them (I did the same with Starforce).
Now however I am in something of a quandary, should I:
a) Be strong! Not only will I not purchase these products, I will not use them in any way. A total boycott.
b) Be pragmatic! The publisher will label me a lost sale due to piracy anyway so why not see for myself what everyone is talking about?
I intially chose A so as to lend weight to my statement, but my voice goes unheard. Drowned in a sea of corporate propaganda. B appears ever more attractive (and self-serving, admittedly.)
If their entertainment budget won't cover everything they want then they should have to choose which is most valuable to them. Just because they want entertainment A more doesn't mean they are entitled to entertainment B for free.
My understanding was that they did not actually remove any features, they just marked some as 'deprecated' with an announcement that they would be removed in a later release.
Of course, that they had claimed those features would be removed in this iteration is what has made users highly suspicious as to whether or not they will actually be removed next time. Meaning that a number of users have quite vocally questioned the claim that they 'cut the fat'.
Your link misses the entire point of the term "African American," which is not a fancy P.C. word for "black people," but a term used to identify people in a specific cultural group, with certain overall traditions, customs, and apparently gaming habits. It's come into commonplace usage because it's a unique phrase which sets that group off from other cultural, ethnic and racial groups in America. This is my exact problem with the use of the term "African-American". Imagine two people, both "African-American". One is from a single parent home, grew up in a ghetto, had a child at 15 and dropped out of school. The other had two hard working parents who insisted on education, sent them to a private school and has set aside money for them to attend college.
"African-American" assigns to both of these people specific cultural backgrounds. It suggests that, irrelevant of their personal experiences and lifestyle, knowledge of minor details of their genetic heritage gives major knowledge of their culture, traditions, customs and beliefs. That is racist. Knowing your racial heritage does not tell me anything about you, and to assume that it does is simply ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
35% of 61.4% who voted, or only 1/5 or so of the electorate, gave their explicit support.
Oh wait, that's exactly what he said!
The cynic in me says it went more like this:
"What high-profile action can we take to keep attention on our product?"
"Lets say that it is so controversial, we won't sell it to soldiers out of 'respect'."
Grant funding based on citations (in addition to the current method). If all you do is gather data and publish it, you will be cited by everyone in that field because you have the best data. Then funding is granted to you based on those citations.
What breed of cattle does he have?
I think it is viewed more as:
"Well, this guy was in an accident. We could attach him to a life-support system whereupon he will probably heal up and fully recover, or we could just wait, let him die and harvest his organs."
"We have more use for the organs, let's wait."
Why would you believe that the accuser had somehow seen inside the other child's underwear?
The catch is that if anyone else wants to do this they will have to just do it, get sued, get the people suing them to get it up to a class action lawsuit, then reach the same (or at least very similar) settlement as Google has done here.
Or just change the law to be less silly.
You see, some people have a really weird obsession with male chickens, and they like to imagine that there are cockerels so big they can jump on their back and outrun a car. This is another example of why I am always saying people are insane and you should never trust any of them.
At what point do you decide that someone has been sufficiently indoctrinated to permit questioning?
Actually, no. It is now theorised that they had a common ancestor, but dogs are not descendants of wolves.
Nah, that was just Haughey pretending to be cultured. "We may be poverty stricken with mass emigration, but look! We have A Singer! All is well in Ireland!"
The most depressing thing is that it actually worked.
Ah! I've been shot! Where's the QuickLoad key for real life?
Apparently XPLite can still strip out IE, Outlook Express and Windows media player.
No, because then everyone would have grown up seeing animals being slaughtered and would be inured to it. So there would probably be fewer vegetarians.
Rubbish. The people of Europe were assured that the Lisbon Treaty could not go ahead without unanimous consent from everyone. Then Ireland voted no and they said that, actually, they didn't need unanimous consent and they would go ahead with it anyway. Then they told Ireland to have another referendum to try for the 'right' result.
This all came about because the citizens of several other EU countries voted no to the constitution so they repackaged it and tried to just ram it through.
The EU is anti-democratic, anti-civil rights and anti-citizen. And yes, I do mean 'anti' as in their behaviour shows they actively dislike the involvement of the people of Europe. Except when they can get agreement to something so that they can pretend they have a mandate.
Good luck convincing some clueless judge that they didn't believe they had reasonable grounds for making a claim.
After purchasing Mass Effect I used a crack to circumvent the activation. I felt...unclean for paying a company to treat me like that. I decided that I would take a moral stand on the issue and so I will not buy any more games with crazy DRM on them (I did the same with Starforce). Now however I am in something of a quandary, should I:
a) Be strong! Not only will I not purchase these products, I will not use them in any way. A total boycott.
b) Be pragmatic! The publisher will label me a lost sale due to piracy anyway so why not see for myself what everyone is talking about?
I intially chose A so as to lend weight to my statement, but my voice goes unheard. Drowned in a sea of corporate propaganda. B appears ever more attractive (and self-serving, admittedly.)
If their entertainment budget won't cover everything they want then they should have to choose which is most valuable to them. Just because they want entertainment A more doesn't mean they are entitled to entertainment B for free.
Weren't there plans to tag every car with a GPS monitor to allow the government to trace individual road use? Just for taxation purposes of course.
My understanding was that they did not actually remove any features, they just marked some as 'deprecated' with an announcement that they would be removed in a later release. Of course, that they had claimed those features would be removed in this iteration is what has made users highly suspicious as to whether or not they will actually be removed next time. Meaning that a number of users have quite vocally questioned the claim that they 'cut the fat'.
When presented with the image of an injured human, conservatives were more likely to respond than liberals.