The problem is, none of those technologies are superior to mice.
Look at your desktop. Look at where your monitor is. Look at where your mouse is.
Now, what is easier - reaching up to your monitor every time you want to move the cursor, or reaching over to the mouse?
Mice are more precise than fingers. Mice are less strain than pointing devices.
These analysts are idiots. Technology doesn't get replaced with new technology that doesn't work as well as the existing technology. And mice are better at what mice are used for than any other input device available in the desktop/laptop environment.
I completely agree. Who the hell wants greasy smidges all over their screen too? I never touch my LCD unless i'm moving it. Who the hell would want a touch screen all day? Thats awkward and messy.
These 'analysts' should be fired and told to go get a job that involves less of their 'analysis' and more standard work, like making burgers. I don't know about you guys, but I'm on a pentium 3 laptop right now. I love it. About 1/3 of the people I know are using computer systems from about 6-8 years ago. You know why? Because its virtually free and not everyone wants to buy the newest crap.
That means that 5 years from now they will probably have a computer from 2007. Last I recall, we were using mice in 2007.
Stupid----fuckin-----analysts. This prediction only serves to show that the author can say interesting things and people will read it.
------ I just clicked "Continue Editing", you know why? BECAUSE PC GAMERS LOVE THE MOUSE+KB. How the hell are you gonna pull mad headshots in CS/TF2/COD4 with a stupid ass touch screen or wiimote. Maybe in 15 years, but not in 5. Come to think about it, I haven't seen a single device, present or concept, that I would use instead.
SOMEONE MOD THIS POST UP! This is honesty and integrity right here man.!!!
@Evilsofa: Thanks for doing the right thing. I know you're probably scared for yourself as well. I hope the best for you and that you've found a comfortable way to do things.
Just remember you too, like I, will be old one day -- prepare yourself to take the bus, hail taxis and watch the world pass you by as you peer out the window. What comes around goes around, be REAL to yourselves too, and that could be your grandma holding up the traffic.
I have started saving for retirement for THERE WILL BE NO social security when I retire.
I will be prepared. And hopefully I'll retain enough conscious thought to know when I should stop driving because it is obvious the AARP won't be letting any of the obviously necessary laws be passed to keep me and you in check when we are too old to check ourselves.
The level of espionage out of China is pretty ridiculous. I wonder how long this goes on before the trade advantage of dealing with them is over weighed by their rampant spying.
I don't know what country you are from, but I can almost be sure that your country is making the same efforts against other countries.
I thought about that first reason when posting, but I'm always imagining a world of honesty and integrity, so I came up with what I came up with. I try to imagine the world in a better way, hoping it will become that way.
While I do see some purpose behind the second reason, I think the full $1 extra I put on there covers the fluctuation, and I'm sure these big corporate cell companies can include 'state-induced increases' into contracts in some way or another.
I know it wouldn't happen. I'm just talking about what a considerate and honest business might do to remove all the obfuscating factors from their product.
I am going to point and laugh at you and say "I told you so!" when you are 65 years old, living alone on a fixed income, and you have vision problems, and need to go to the grocery store.
How does that make it ok?
What if I need money... Can I endanger your life to get money from your wallet? Can I put people at serious risk of injury or death to make the money?
Tell me... When I've just heard about an old man who accidentally drove through the wall of a preschool and killed like a dozen of the kids... how it is justified.
Instead, you laugh. So should I laugh when you get robbed by a desperate person? Is it a bad thing for me to be laughing instead of caring about the crime?
And the population of seniors will jump in the US over the next couple decades. These people still need to get to work, shop, play golf, visit their kids, etc.
Sounds like they should be good to their younger family members or start saving for cab rides. Those necessities don't validate an unfit driver, they merely give them reasons to lie themselves into endangering others.
Entirely without reference to speed limits: if you're driving so fast that you couldn't handle a pink box around a road sign, then you're driving faster than you're capable of driving, and you should stop being an idiot and slow the fuck down before you kill someone.
Or the sheer fact that it is designed "...for older drivers with vision problems".
WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING DRIVING? I'm one of those people who think moving a large heavy object at relatively high speeds around other objects and PEOPLE is a potential THREAT and ought to be considered a privilege.
If they have vision problems, helping them to continue lying to themselves about their validity as a driver is not the answer. The answer is to pull their license.
There are many reasons why an unfit driver can convince themselves to keep driving: Pride, embarrassment, a hazy concept of rights, or possibly it all came on so slowly they don't even realize it...
Maybe this idea will help some people, but what happens when the device fails and they're on the freeway doing 65mph? What happens when the previously unfit driver, now fit by device, becomes unfit due to failure? Do they pull over and call for backup? Does the car automatically shut down? No... In reality they will probably keep driving, unfit for the task, and may or may not get the device repaired most likely depending on if they can afford it.
Are we going to set up a device-functionality bureau to make sure all these people still get to drive and that the devices are working? Lets get a grip on reality people. NOT EVERYONE ON THE PLANET IS CAPABLE OF DOING EVERYTHING THERE IS TO DO. GET REAL.
Figuring out the taxes on a phone line is rather complimakated, difficult enough that providers have made mistakes on it in the past and had to refund overcharges or eat the difference in undercharges. I'm not surprised that the salespeople don't know, and I'd bet nobody on phone support will know either. This is a brand new service, and once customers start receiving their typical monthly bills you'll be able to find out.
I don't see what would be so difficult as to offer a phone service at $xx/month and NOT bill you the customer for the fees+taxes we're talking about.
Have you ever been to a store where there is tax, but the price on the item is what you pay and the seller comes up with the taxes? Maybe you even pay for it with a few extra dollars on the tag, but aren't all these confusing mumbo-jumbo $.06 things something the carrier should care about and not us?
If the fees+taxes = 9 bucks. How about they take the original plan, add 10, and call it a day. So now the $70/month plan is $80/month and the bill is $80/month. Sounds too easy huh? Probably because it doesn't leave room for scandalous/deceptive sales activity.
I think the intent to assassinate a president, overthrow the whole country, and install a corporate-controlled dictatorship is a bit more than a reaction to a confusing time or response to hardship.
Looks worse in hindsight? If I plotted to kill your family and hold your house and family hostage for cash, would you look back 80 years later and say "oh... he was confused by the cost of gas?"
You can't spin this one another way, so quit trying.
First you'd have to hire (and pay) thousands of moderators to approve all Usenet postings. Make that 10's of thousands. Who'd fund that?
There are plenty of people who do things for free. Pretty much every website/forum I've ever gone to has voluntary moderators. I don't agree with you. An establishment of voluntary moderation could exist and work pretty well. Pretty well compared to NO moderation, and pretty well compared to bombing the world to kill a rat.
...attempted to kill democracy in an entire nation....
Prescott Bush, the grandfather of our current president, and father of our past president, is guilty of this right here. He was involved in a large corporate-based scheme to overthrow the US government early in the last century. Look it up, I can't make something this crazy up...
>What was wrong with paper ballots counted by hand?
Sheer numbers. The volume is too high to avoid human error. It's a real problem, say, in the areas TFA is concerned with, the metropolitan Atlanta area, an 8,000 square mile area with a population of nearly six million.
It is not a problem when integrity and democracy are your priority.
There are more than enough people who can count and witness the counting and then pass the numbers up the chain. I think my voting location sees a couple hundred votes total. I can count two hundred, and I'm sure one of the many old ladies that usually volunteer there would help me count to 200 and witness it. Then we can tell the level above us our count....
We have 300 million people in this country. I don't see any shortage of people who can count.
I think TRUTH is more important than HASTE, don't you agree?
I can see the future of your post.. and it doesn't involve more Score or any worthwhile caption.
I know mine is probably flamebait, but at least it is based in truth. Your post is based on ignorance and hatred. I can only guess you watch TV and believe it.
By definition, won't most experienced police officers already have jobs? Say, as police officers?
And how would they raise taxes from something that a pirate would not buy? How do they draw a conclusion that, if forced to choose, a pirate would PAY for the software instead of not use it?
Thats ridiculous. Purely ridiculous.
The reasons a pirate doesn't pay for software can be various, but I can assure you that only a small portion of pirates would actually pay/buy the software if forced to choose. They would instead not use it.
My main concern is that they are getting rid of a whole large segment of newsgroup for a very limited cause.
The reason I say limited is that, even if they only did it to child porn newsgroups, it does not remove the child from being in front of the camera. It merely disallows people to see the product. That doesn't really stop anything does it? Perverts will still keep taking pictures and abusing innocent children, but they'll either use a different form of data-sharing or keep to themselves. Either way, the abused children are not being helped.
I think the moderation is a pretty good idea/requirement. I do think it is a good idea to remove child pornography from newsgroups (and anywhere else on the planet for that matter). But the fact of the matter is that a vast cornucopia of information is being silenced to present the image of 'success', though none of the criminals are actually getting busted.
This activity is like banning all home-printed newspapers (as opposed to some government approved form) simply because somewhere in Montana a person printed one that we don't agree with. The real answer, of course, is to prosecute and stop that one person.
The problem is that people want 100% security. The government cannot provide this, no matter how hard they try. We may end up with INGSOC, we may end up with cameras on every street corner, but we will not be protected from the ability of one or several people to inflict ridiculous damage upon innocent people.
You could kill 10 of your neighbors before someone would stop you. If you planned it right, you could kill 100. How can someone promise to stop you from doing that when they don't even know who you are or that you even are thinking about it at all?
There is no ultimate safety net; there is no security. We have what we have, and we can deal with it as best as we can, but we're all gonna die, and some of us at the hands/causes of malicious others.
Our ability to deal with terrorists and FIS has been as functional and necessary as it has ever needed to be since the late 90s. There is no further rights-breaking requirement to stop them. Simply put, the ability to do any and all types of surveillance have always been at our disposal, but only under the requirement of EVIDENCE.
That's what bothers me. If we could do virtually anything, open mail, setup mics, etc, to someone in the past, with only a shred of evidence to support the action, what the hell do we need to surveil the innocent for? Sure we want evidence, and that's what investigation is for. You don't go data-mining the whole population looking for a reason to carry out serious procedures; you're supposed to find out WHO you want, WHY you want to, and then congress approves it. (that was the past, of course).
The only purpose I see these new allowances serving is to collect incriminating information (whether the person is guilty or innocent) for future use against various citizens for political purposes, or to at least severely generate a fear of Federal Establishment; make us afraid of our government so we forget they work for us.
A person who pirates has no intention of paying for the software/music/etc. That person does not have the money to buy these products, but still has an urge to use them. This is the non-consumer consumer. They acquire the product via no actual production costs to the producer (its just internet electrons flying around being copied).
Even while all these 'free copies' are going around, being used by people who would never have actually bought the product, the product is seeing a much more extensive and widespread distribution. This distribution serves to influence more and more potential buyers, though their friends and family they heard about it from may have an illegal copy.
Furthermore, when one of these 'would not buy this product, but will use it' people (pirates) are satisfied with the product enough and happen to have a consumer-urge, they too may buy the product! More revenues!...
Here's an example.
Situation 1: 2000 people in LA buy a new Metallica album. Metallica is coming to their city for a concert. Those 2000 people get their friends to listen to metallica in their car, 1000 more people (the friends) get interested and go to the concert, pay $100 a ticket, and are quite possibly pretty into metallica and some are now buying metallica albums.... Sounds good.
Situation 2: 2000 people in LA buy a new Metallica album. 10,000 people get the album via piracy. These 12,000 total listeners hear about a metallica concert. They show the new album to their friends, and like the situation above, a matching 50% more are interested... Thats 6000 more people, not 1000 more like in situation 1, due to the larger free distribution of the media. Now maybe some of those 6000 more will pirate the album, but lets say like the other, they all pay $100/ticket for the show. Then some of them are hooked and they actually go out and buy CDs as well. The end result is MORE SALES.
A pirate has no intention of buying the product, so don't assume that they would buy it if there were no way to pirate it. They would most likely not buy it instead. But, as illustrated, a pirate WILL produce more buzz-meme-interest in the product to other people who may actually pay.
I was just playing some team fortress 2, so please don't hate me for my lack of enthusiasm when looking at this game.
I came up with chess bowling a while ago for the Chess-board gaming system, but nobody cared. 10 pawns, one orange, pure fun! I think Call of Duty 4 distracted the gamers from caring about my bowling idea.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, none of those technologies are superior to mice.
Look at your desktop. Look at where your monitor is. Look at where your mouse is.
Now, what is easier - reaching up to your monitor every time you want to move the cursor, or reaching over to the mouse?
Mice are more precise than fingers. Mice are less strain than pointing devices.
These analysts are idiots. Technology doesn't get replaced with new technology that doesn't work as well as the existing technology. And mice are better at what mice are used for than any other input device available in the desktop/laptop environment.
I completely agree. Who the hell wants greasy smidges all over their screen too? I never touch my LCD unless i'm moving it. Who the hell would want a touch screen all day? Thats awkward and messy.
These 'analysts' should be fired and told to go get a job that involves less of their 'analysis' and more standard work, like making burgers. I don't know about you guys, but I'm on a pentium 3 laptop right now. I love it. About 1/3 of the people I know are using computer systems from about 6-8 years ago. You know why? Because its virtually free and not everyone wants to buy the newest crap.
That means that 5 years from now they will probably have a computer from 2007. Last I recall, we were using mice in 2007.
Stupid----fuckin-----analysts. This prediction only serves to show that the author can say interesting things and people will read it.
------
I just clicked "Continue Editing", you know why? BECAUSE PC GAMERS LOVE THE MOUSE+KB. How the hell are you gonna pull mad headshots in CS/TF2/COD4 with a stupid ass touch screen or wiimote. Maybe in 15 years, but not in 5. Come to think about it, I haven't seen a single device, present or concept, that I would use instead.
SOMEONE MOD THIS POST UP! This is honesty and integrity right here man.!!!
@Evilsofa: Thanks for doing the right thing. I know you're probably scared for yourself as well. I hope the best for you and that you've found a comfortable way to do things.
Just remember you too, like I, will be old one day -- prepare yourself to take the bus, hail taxis and watch the world pass you by as you peer out the window. What comes around goes around, be REAL to yourselves too, and that could be your grandma holding up the traffic.
I have started saving for retirement for THERE WILL BE NO social security when I retire.
I will be prepared. And hopefully I'll retain enough conscious thought to know when I should stop driving because it is obvious the AARP won't be letting any of the obviously necessary laws be passed to keep me and you in check when we are too old to check ourselves.
The level of espionage out of China is pretty ridiculous. I wonder how long this goes on before the trade advantage of dealing with them is over weighed by their rampant spying.
I don't know what country you are from, but I can almost be sure that your country is making the same efforts against other countries.
Who paid you to write this?
I thought about that first reason when posting, but I'm always imagining a world of honesty and integrity, so I came up with what I came up with. I try to imagine the world in a better way, hoping it will become that way.
While I do see some purpose behind the second reason, I think the full $1 extra I put on there covers the fluctuation, and I'm sure these big corporate cell companies can include 'state-induced increases' into contracts in some way or another.
I know it wouldn't happen. I'm just talking about what a considerate and honest business might do to remove all the obfuscating factors from their product.
I am going to point and laugh at you and say "I told you so!" when you are 65 years old, living alone on a fixed income, and you have vision problems, and need to go to the grocery store.
How does that make it ok?
What if I need money... Can I endanger your life to get money from your wallet? Can I put people at serious risk of injury or death to make the money?
Tell me... When I've just heard about an old man who accidentally drove through the wall of a preschool and killed like a dozen of the kids... how it is justified.
Instead, you laugh. So should I laugh when you get robbed by a desperate person? Is it a bad thing for me to be laughing instead of caring about the crime?
And the population of seniors will jump in the US over the next couple decades. These people still need to get to work, shop, play golf, visit their kids, etc.
Sounds like they should be good to their younger family members or start saving for cab rides. Those necessities don't validate an unfit driver, they merely give them reasons to lie themselves into endangering others.
Because you can be a less than perfect driver and still be good enough that it's not justified to take away your license.
It's not a substitute for basic competency, it's a way to improve on factors that are already deemed adequate, but could still be better.
We need a more strict definition of adequacy then. What we have right now are a lot of accidents waiting to happen (pun intended).
Entirely without reference to speed limits: if you're driving so fast that you couldn't handle a pink box around a road sign, then you're driving faster than you're capable of driving, and you should stop being an idiot and slow the fuck down before you kill someone.
Or the sheer fact that it is designed "...for older drivers with vision problems".
WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING DRIVING? I'm one of those people who think moving a large heavy object at relatively high speeds around other objects and PEOPLE is a potential THREAT and ought to be considered a privilege.
If they have vision problems, helping them to continue lying to themselves about their validity as a driver is not the answer. The answer is to pull their license.
There are many reasons why an unfit driver can convince themselves to keep driving: Pride, embarrassment, a hazy concept of rights, or possibly it all came on so slowly they don't even realize it...
Maybe this idea will help some people, but what happens when the device fails and they're on the freeway doing 65mph? What happens when the previously unfit driver, now fit by device, becomes unfit due to failure? Do they pull over and call for backup? Does the car automatically shut down? No... In reality they will probably keep driving, unfit for the task, and may or may not get the device repaired most likely depending on if they can afford it.
Are we going to set up a device-functionality bureau to make sure all these people still get to drive and that the devices are working? Lets get a grip on reality people. NOT EVERYONE ON THE PLANET IS CAPABLE OF DOING EVERYTHING THERE IS TO DO. GET REAL.
Figuring out the taxes on a phone line is rather complimakated, difficult enough that providers have made mistakes on it in the past and had to refund overcharges or eat the difference in undercharges. I'm not surprised that the salespeople don't know, and I'd bet nobody on phone support will know either. This is a brand new service, and once customers start receiving their typical monthly bills you'll be able to find out.
I don't see what would be so difficult as to offer a phone service at $xx/month and NOT bill you the customer for the fees+taxes we're talking about.
Have you ever been to a store where there is tax, but the price on the item is what you pay and the seller comes up with the taxes? Maybe you even pay for it with a few extra dollars on the tag, but aren't all these confusing mumbo-jumbo $.06 things something the carrier should care about and not us?
If the fees+taxes = 9 bucks. How about they take the original plan, add 10, and call it a day. So now the $70/month plan is $80/month and the bill is $80/month. Sounds too easy huh? Probably because it doesn't leave room for scandalous/deceptive sales activity.
I think the intent to assassinate a president, overthrow the whole country, and install a corporate-controlled dictatorship is a bit more than a reaction to a confusing time or response to hardship.
Looks worse in hindsight? If I plotted to kill your family and hold your house and family hostage for cash, would you look back 80 years later and say "oh... he was confused by the cost of gas?"
You can't spin this one another way, so quit trying.
First you'd have to hire (and pay) thousands of moderators to approve all Usenet postings. Make that 10's of thousands. Who'd fund that?
There are plenty of people who do things for free. Pretty much every website/forum I've ever gone to has voluntary moderators. I don't agree with you. An establishment of voluntary moderation could exist and work pretty well. Pretty well compared to NO moderation, and pretty well compared to bombing the world to kill a rat.
Prescott Bush, the grandfather of our current president, and father of our past president, is guilty of this right here. He was involved in a large corporate-based scheme to overthrow the US government early in the last century. Look it up, I can't make something this crazy up...
>What was wrong with paper ballots counted by hand?
Sheer numbers. The volume is too high to avoid human error.
It's a real problem, say, in the areas TFA is concerned with,
the metropolitan Atlanta area, an 8,000 square mile area with
a population of nearly six million.
It is not a problem when integrity and democracy are your priority.
There are more than enough people who can count and witness the counting and then pass the numbers up the chain. I think my voting location sees a couple hundred votes total. I can count two hundred, and I'm sure one of the many old ladies that usually volunteer there would help me count to 200 and witness it. Then we can tell the level above us our count....
We have 300 million people in this country. I don't see any shortage of people who can count.
I think TRUTH is more important than HASTE, don't you agree?
I can see the future of your post.. and it doesn't involve more Score or any worthwhile caption.
I know mine is probably flamebait, but at least it is based in truth. Your post is based on ignorance and hatred. I can only guess you watch TV and believe it.
'hire nearly 25,000 experienced police officers.'
By definition, won't most experienced police officers already have jobs? Say, as police officers?
And how would they raise taxes from something that a pirate would not buy? How do they draw a conclusion that, if forced to choose, a pirate would PAY for the software instead of not use it?
Thats ridiculous. Purely ridiculous.
The reasons a pirate doesn't pay for software can be various, but I can assure you that only a small portion of pirates would actually pay/buy the software if forced to choose. They would instead not use it.
I understand what you've explained.
My main concern is that they are getting rid of a whole large segment of newsgroup for a very limited cause.
The reason I say limited is that, even if they only did it to child porn newsgroups, it does not remove the child from being in front of the camera. It merely disallows people to see the product. That doesn't really stop anything does it? Perverts will still keep taking pictures and abusing innocent children, but they'll either use a different form of data-sharing or keep to themselves. Either way, the abused children are not being helped.
I think the moderation is a pretty good idea/requirement. I do think it is a good idea to remove child pornography from newsgroups (and anywhere else on the planet for that matter). But the fact of the matter is that a vast cornucopia of information is being silenced to present the image of 'success', though none of the criminals are actually getting busted.
This activity is like banning all home-printed newspapers (as opposed to some government approved form) simply because somewhere in Montana a person printed one that we don't agree with. The real answer, of course, is to prosecute and stop that one person.
... that have child porn?
The problem is that people want 100% security. The government cannot provide this, no matter how hard they try. We may end up with INGSOC, we may end up with cameras on every street corner, but we will not be protected from the ability of one or several people to inflict ridiculous damage upon innocent people.
You could kill 10 of your neighbors before someone would stop you. If you planned it right, you could kill 100. How can someone promise to stop you from doing that when they don't even know who you are or that you even are thinking about it at all?
There is no ultimate safety net; there is no security. We have what we have, and we can deal with it as best as we can, but we're all gonna die, and some of us at the hands/causes of malicious others.
Our ability to deal with terrorists and FIS has been as functional and necessary as it has ever needed to be since the late 90s. There is no further rights-breaking requirement to stop them. Simply put, the ability to do any and all types of surveillance have always been at our disposal, but only under the requirement of EVIDENCE.
That's what bothers me. If we could do virtually anything, open mail, setup mics, etc, to someone in the past, with only a shred of evidence to support the action, what the hell do we need to surveil the innocent for? Sure we want evidence, and that's what investigation is for. You don't go data-mining the whole population looking for a reason to carry out serious procedures; you're supposed to find out WHO you want, WHY you want to, and then congress approves it. (that was the past, of course).
The only purpose I see these new allowances serving is to collect incriminating information (whether the person is guilty or innocent) for future use against various citizens for political purposes, or to at least severely generate a fear of Federal Establishment; make us afraid of our government so we forget they work for us.
A person who pirates has no intention of paying for the software/music/etc. That person does not have the money to buy these products, but still has an urge to use them. This is the non-consumer consumer. They acquire the product via no actual production costs to the producer (its just internet electrons flying around being copied).
Even while all these 'free copies' are going around, being used by people who would never have actually bought the product, the product is seeing a much more extensive and widespread distribution. This distribution serves to influence more and more potential buyers, though their friends and family they heard about it from may have an illegal copy.
Furthermore, when one of these 'would not buy this product, but will use it' people (pirates) are satisfied with the product enough and happen to have a consumer-urge, they too may buy the product! More revenues! ...
Here's an example.
Situation 1:
2000 people in LA buy a new Metallica album. Metallica is coming to their city for a concert. Those 2000 people get their friends to listen to metallica in their car, 1000 more people (the friends) get interested and go to the concert, pay $100 a ticket, and are quite possibly pretty into metallica and some are now buying metallica albums.... Sounds good.
Situation 2:
2000 people in LA buy a new Metallica album. 10,000 people get the album via piracy. These 12,000 total listeners hear about a metallica concert. They show the new album to their friends, and like the situation above, a matching 50% more are interested... Thats 6000 more people, not 1000 more like in situation 1, due to the larger free distribution of the media. Now maybe some of those 6000 more will pirate the album, but lets say like the other, they all pay $100/ticket for the show. Then some of them are hooked and they actually go out and buy CDs as well. The end result is MORE SALES.
A pirate has no intention of buying the product, so don't assume that they would buy it if there were no way to pirate it. They would most likely not buy it instead. But, as illustrated, a pirate WILL produce more buzz-meme-interest in the product to other people who may actually pay.
Lets not vote for any congressman/senator that is in support. And lets stop using the telecoms in question. If its all of them, then so beit.
I know my congressman was actually against it, so I've got less work to do that most of ya'll. Get to it.
what is digg? Is it a game for the NES?
I was just playing some team fortress 2, so please don't hate me for my lack of enthusiasm when looking at this game.
I came up with chess bowling a while ago for the Chess-board gaming system, but nobody cared. 10 pawns, one orange, pure fun! I think Call of Duty 4 distracted the gamers from caring about my bowling idea.
I remembered this cool term called "Checks and Balances", but then I was quickly reminded we have none when we're all in debt.