so ppl. with sdl out there why hasnt anyone stepped up and made a remake of mule with better graphics than this graphically sucking commercial game.
I would love it if the new one also came with a clone of the original. Yes, I know it won't happen. But you say "graphically sucking" and I say "differently rendered." I have such a fond affection for the old graphics... the way the M.U.L.E. moved, the way the aliens moved... Even the blocky font of the "OVERALL YOUR COLONY WAS A SUCCESS"
All the little script k1dd135 who've read their George Orwell homework.
I am a 38 year old professor of mathematics who has read much, from many areas of the political spectrum. I would love to be a k1ddi3 again, but those days are long gone, and I am proud if I write a script to set freecell goals. (which I have.) It does not speak well of your own maturity or intelligence when you assume that people who disagree with you must not have put a lot of thought into a given issue.
BTW (fair question) what harm has come from the US having social security numbers?
That is a very fair question. Notice that I do not assume you are a "script kiddie" because you don't know a lot about a given issue. I don't claim to be an expert, but here is some from the top of my head. (If this thread were still live, I'm sure other people, more up on this than I am, would be able to add to my list)
1) Identity Theft. By expanding the Social Security number to an "ID" card, we are in a situation where, in order to transact business, most Americans wind up giving this number out. (Try getting electric service without it in some states) Then, if the number is taken, the thief can get a copy of your birth certificate, and start opening bank accounts and credit cards. This happens often, and is happening more and more frequently.
2) Government Harassment. (Our government has a history of using the FBI and the IRS to harass people who believe differently than they do. Read a book about the latter part of Martin Luther King's life for one example, and there are many others.) If the social security number was used as promised, then all the government could do with it would be to deny you your legitimate retirement benefits. Now, with it being used as an ID number, it can be used to track you. What's the harm? What if you are not a criminal, but a person using his/her constitutional rights to attend meetings that the government doesn't like, or to attend protests. You don't think the government would abuse this power? There was a protest in Minneapolis when George W. came to town. It was a peaceful protest. But when the News Cameras were setting up, your government decided they didn't want the protestors around... so they were all taken away and arrested for brandishing weapons. The "weapons" were pretzel sticks, and the police apologized as they were taking the protestors away.
3) Principle. I know that this probably doesn't carry a lot of weight with you, because you would prefer the illusion of safety over anything else. But when the social security cards were issued, the people, the people whom congress is supposed to represent, said, "No. We don't want this system, because we don't want national ID cards." The government doesn't get to say, "We will do what we want and then ask you 'what's the harm?' " That is not how it works. So a compromise was reached. The social security cards were issued ON THE CONDITION that they would NEVER be used as ID cards. That was the agreement. And the government broke it.
4) High Stakes Errors. A lot of information about me is now stored under my social security number. If there is a mistake at this point, the consequences could be very bad for me. If you have a number close to mine, and you default on a loan, that blemish could be entered under my number, and I wouldn't know about it until years later when I was trying to buy a house.
But social security numbers wasn't the point of my posting.
The point of my posting was that if the government says, "We will take away the following bit of your privacy but ONLY IN THIS ONE case, for ONLY THIS ONE PURPOSE and we will DELETE THE DATA" and you allow the structure to be set up; it is foolish and naive to believe that the government will keep its word. And I used the social security card as an example.
Yes. And if your idea got through, it might even be that way for a month. But once the infrastructure to collect the data is in place, it is the silliest of idealism to think that the "your data would be deleted after you left the airport" clause would last ten years.
Social Security numbers were NEVER supposed to be used for anything but retirement accounts - and people who claimed they would someday be used as identification were called paranoid.
You say: This is compromise. I have an idea. I want you to send me $100, you don't want to send me anything, so why not just send me $50? This is compromise, too.
Giving people the power to take away your rights is not "compromise", it is capitulation
Gateway is another large company with an agenda, and ITS agenda happens to coincide with my interests, and so I think it is good news.
But really, what is the online-privacy and free-speech fight really? It is large corporations fighting each other to see which one gets to write the laws. There is a debate going on, but we are not really part of it, except as the Prize. If a divorcing couple fight over who gets to keep the Car, they aren't really worried about what the Car wants.
Does anybody actually like the software? I accidentally installed it once, before I had heard about "spyware" and "scumware" and I just found it completely annoying. Now that I think about it - I had to do a google search to find out how to remove it, and that's when I first learned about that sort of thing.
So my question is: Is there anyone who actually WANTS the software? Or are ALL copies there because someone accidentally downloaded it and doesn't know how to remove it.
"Cyberspace is a wondrous place, but we are quickly learning it can also be a dangerous place for the unwary," she said. "Con artists who once relied on telephone boiler rooms and mass mailings can now rip people off through Web sites and e-mail."
I take issue with the word "quickly" in the above quotation.
To summarize: pot makes you do nothing but smoke pot because you don't care about accomplishing anything. EQ makes you do nothing by play EQ because it seems like you're accomplishing stuff.
Tell that to Carl Sagan, who said that he came up with some of the theories behind some of his major work while he was smoking pot.
Tell that to inventor, publisher, scientist, and American statesman Ben Franklin who also smoked pot, and yet accomplished quite a lot.
Tell that to Thomas Jefferson, Steve Jobs, Bob Marley, Supreme Court Justice Marquat (not "Paraquat"), Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas, etc.
Everquest is addictive. Not chemically addictive, but neither is marijuana, which is the perfect comparison
I'm sorry he's dead... no, wait, I'm not sorry he's dead. He was the one that was dumb enough to sit in front of a computer screen being completely unproductive 12 hours a day.
I am a theoretical mathematician... I suppose that means you won't be sorry when I am dead.
I can't tell you how sick I get of having to explain to people that our rights are not an indulgence on the part of the government. That the government is our servant and not our master. Unfortunately there are a whole big slew of loonies,who ironically call themselves "liberals", who are hard at work trying to instill the notion that we are at the mercy of the government and that it decides what is right and what privileges we are allowed to have.
I can't tell you how sick I get of having to explain to people that our rights are not an indulgence on the part of the government. That the government is our servant and not our master. Unfortunately there are a whole big slew of loonies,who ironically call themselves "conservatives", who are hard at work trying to instill the notion that we are at the mercy of the government and that it decides what is right and what privileges we are allowed to have.
These issues are too important for you to throw labels around, particularly since you don't understand what they mean. This article was about the FBI and Carnivore. The people who are in favor of this current efforts to take your and my rights away are not the Liberals, they are the Conservatives. It is this country's right-wing that is taking our fear of terrorism (and formerly using our fear of crime) to coerce us into giving up our rights to privacy, free association, and free-speech. Many of us (not me) are old enough to remember the McCarthy hearings. McCarthy and Nixon were not "liberals."
Don't throw labels around unless you understand them... better yet... don't throw labels around. Some of the people fighting to maintain our rights are liberal, some are conservative, and some are libertarian. Stop calling names - it is counter-productive.
The people who care....
on
Carnivore Update
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The thing I don't understand is this - it seems the people who get angriest about Carnivore are people like me, who have absolutely nothing to hide. I am not involved in any sort of criminal activity, and my "secrets" wouldn't earn an R rating if they were made into a movie. Yet this story makes me furious.
The people I know who DO have things to hide, who actually deal with sensitive corporate stuff, who do drugs and have affairs, these people tend to be very blase about privacy issues.
I remember years ago hearing about the "talk to my cat" site. You could go ONLINE, find this guy's WEB PAGE, and type a sentence, and his voice-synthesizer would say it in the room in which his CAT was kept! I could TALK TO HIS CAT! That was such a hilarious thing!
And I could go to this other WEB PAGE, and find out the temperature of the can of Coke in this one graduate student's REFRIGERATOR! Can you believe it?
Now? I'm sure there is lots of fun stuff like that out there, but it isn't as interesting to me anymore. I still think its cool that people CAN do stuff like that, but I don't feel a need to go to the actual site and witness the effect.
If we arrange our papers so that it has some cool effect, then BY GOD WE CAN WRITE CODE THAT DOES THAT TOO
You can only write code that changes the display on a video monitor. If I have my paper-arranging set up to maximize the surface area of my desk, and my walls (via post-its) and the floor under my desk, and the top of my filing cabinet; the only way you are going to "write code that does that too" is to replace every flat surface in my office with a CRT.
And if you did that, then I wouldn't have any surface on which I can put a "bang cap" and whack it with my Swiss Army Knife when it is time to let off steam.
The virtual desktop is nice, and I'm staring at it for maybe 5 hours a day, but it doesn't replace the surface area and versatility of a real desktop, no matter how clever the software.
Either ISPs or a government tax should charge one cent per email. The average user who probably sends less than a dollar's worth per day would hardly notice the charge. The spammer would be paralyzed.
I really hate it when people propose things without thinking them through.
Okay, lets say they did. What would be involved? We would have to create a structure, both technological (finding a way to bill you your pennies) and sociological (finding a way to get people to tolerate their government charging them for sending email)
Let's say you get your wish. There are certainly people working on both fronts right now to grant it. Now what? "Only a penny" right? But then, in the name of national security, we are going to have to raise it to a nickle. You aren't on the terrorists side, right? But Rush Limbaugh says that businesses are going to be hurt by this "tax" so GE and Disney will be exempted. They NEED their email. And [insert powerful liberal equivalent of Rush here] will point out that the health care industry NEEDS its email, so that will be exempt, too. To make up the shortfall, we'll have to raise it to a dime.
Once you allow the government to tax your email, you are foolish if you think it will remain at a penny. It is hard to create a new tax. It is easy to raise an existing one.
Definition: A model of computation consisting of a finite state machine controller, a read-write head, and an unbounded sequential tape. Depending on the current state and symbol read on the tape, the machine can change its state and move the head to the left or right. Unless otherwise specified, a Turing machine is deterministic.
The above is correct, but does not show the beauty of what Turing proved. First: Notice how limited-seeming the machine is - its only input is one piece of tape, and its only output is being able to write a 1 or a 0 wherever the tape happens to be. Based only on its "state" and the bit right in front of its nose, it has to decide whether to (1) Change the bit or (2) Move the tape, and then it can change its state accordingly.
What Turing proved is that ANY problem a computer program can solve can be solved with a Turing Machine. (Granted, it will take a lot of time and a long piece of tape to get PI computed to 1 billion places, but it CAN be done)
If this seems obvious to you now, I would say
(1) Oh, is it? Let's hear your proof.
and
(2) Realise that you have so much more background than Turing did. It's like talking Engineering with Scotty ("Who d'ye think WROTE the spec?") Turing figured all of this out without having taken a programming course at his local university. He showed how his Turing Machine could be set up to do arithmetic, to execute loops, to store values, and (most important) to make branching decisions ("If X > 3 goto 100")
Then he showed that once you have a computer that can do the simple things that Turing Machines can do (Increment a number, Compare two numbers, Branch based on the result of a comparison) then it can solve any problem that any other computer can do.
DJS (P.S. It has been a long time since I read about this stuff, so don't quote me verbatim) (But love me for admitting it)
When Turing Machines are outlawed, then only outlaws will have Turing Machines.
Re:User input could solve problems
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That is to say, give users a free user account which could be used to give input on whats crap and whats not
For the sake of the discussion, let us call the users who are giving input "moderators."
As another poster mentioned, this system opens up a NEW can of worms, as spammers, idiots, and conservatives will use the system to call certain sites "crap", not because they are not relevant, but because they want the sites' listing to go down.
So then people would demand that the "moderators" were overseen, perhaps by a system of "meta-moderators", and you see where I am going with this.
Raise your hand if you can close your eyes and make yourself "hear" the sound of the cycles warming up from the video-game... if you can make yourself "see" the guy ALMOST losing his balance from Disks Of Tron... if you can perfectly picture the exact shade bright blue that permeated the movie....
But the fact, not the idea, that they are using court rooms as away to improve their bottom line and not a place to seek redress makes me want to vomit. Those are the types of people at sun. Amoral sophists. That's what they stand for. It's only a matter of time before that attitude permiates everything they do
If Microsoft hasn't trademarked the term "amoral sophists" then they should. That attitude already permeates everything Microsoft does. When you do something they don't want you to do, they whine and sue. When they break the law, they complain about whiners and sue-ers. And all the time they feed a steady stream of money into the gullets of people who are able to make it easier for them to sue, and harder for them to be sued. And when they were finally caught in a court of law, their generous bribery was able to get people to say, "Well, they broke the law, but Jesus has forgiven them, why shouldn't we?" And then those who fought for leniency will go back to the American People and say that their opponents are "soft-on-crime."
Slashdot Mirror
so ppl. with sdl out there why hasnt anyone stepped up and made a remake of mule with better graphics than this graphically sucking commercial game.
I would love it if the new one also came with a clone of the original. Yes, I know it won't happen. But you say "graphically sucking" and I say "differently rendered." I have such a fond affection for the old graphics... the way the M.U.L.E. moved, the way the aliens moved... Even the blocky font of the "OVERALL YOUR COLONY WAS A SUCCESS"
I can play M.U.L.E. now? You mean I've wasted all these years not playing when I could have been?
How does one go about setting up their PC to play M.U.L.E. ? Where are the programs I need?
All the little script k1dd135 who've read their George Orwell homework.
I am a 38 year old professor of mathematics who has read much, from many areas of the political spectrum. I would love to be a k1ddi3 again, but those days are long gone, and I am proud if I write a script to set freecell goals. (which I have.) It does not speak well of your own maturity or intelligence when you assume that people who disagree with you must not have put a lot of thought into a given issue.
BTW (fair question) what harm has come from the US having social security numbers?
That is a very fair question. Notice that I do not assume you are a "script kiddie" because you don't know a lot about a given issue. I don't claim to be an expert, but here is some from the top of my head. (If this thread were still live, I'm sure other people, more up on this than I am, would be able to add to my list)
1) Identity Theft. By expanding the Social Security number to an "ID" card, we are in a situation where, in order to transact business, most Americans wind up giving this number out. (Try getting electric service without it in some states) Then, if the number is taken, the thief can get a copy of your birth certificate, and start opening bank accounts and credit cards. This happens often, and is happening more and more frequently.
2) Government Harassment. (Our government has a history of using the FBI and the IRS to harass people who believe differently than they do. Read a book about the latter part of Martin Luther King's life for one example, and there are many others.) If the social security number was used as promised, then all the government could do with it would be to deny you your legitimate retirement benefits. Now, with it being used as an ID number, it can be used to track you. What's the harm? What if you are not a criminal, but a person using his/her constitutional rights to attend meetings that the government doesn't like, or to attend protests. You don't think the government would abuse this power? There was a protest in Minneapolis when George W. came to town. It was a peaceful protest. But when the News Cameras were setting up, your government decided they didn't want the protestors around... so they were all taken away and arrested for brandishing weapons. The "weapons" were pretzel sticks, and the police apologized as they were taking the protestors away.
3) Principle. I know that this probably doesn't carry a lot of weight with you, because you would prefer the illusion of safety over anything else. But when the social security cards were issued, the people, the people whom congress is supposed to represent, said, "No. We don't want this system, because we don't want national ID cards." The government doesn't get to say, "We will do what we want and then ask you 'what's the harm?' " That is not how it works. So a compromise was reached. The social security cards were issued ON THE CONDITION that they would NEVER be used as ID cards. That was the agreement. And the government broke it.
4) High Stakes Errors. A lot of information about me is now stored under my social security number. If there is a mistake at this point, the consequences could be very bad for me. If you have a number close to mine, and you default on a loan, that blemish could be entered under my number, and I wouldn't know about it until years later when I was trying to buy a house.
But social security numbers wasn't the point of my posting.
The point of my posting was that if the government says, "We will take away the following bit of your privacy but ONLY IN THIS ONE case, for ONLY THIS ONE PURPOSE and we will DELETE THE DATA" and you allow the structure to be set up; it is foolish and naive to believe that the government will keep its word. And I used the social security card as an example.
Yes. And if your idea got through, it might even be that way for a month. But once the infrastructure to collect the data is in place, it is the silliest of idealism to think that the "your data would be deleted after you left the airport" clause would last ten years.
Social Security numbers were NEVER supposed to be used for anything but retirement accounts - and people who claimed they would someday be used as identification were called paranoid.
You say: This is compromise. I have an idea. I want you to send me $100, you don't want to send me anything, so why not just send me $50? This is compromise, too.
Giving people the power to take away your rights is not "compromise", it is capitulation
The use of an inanimate object was deliberate. A child can protest one parent or another, and the government will take that protest into account.
I do not believe your letter to your Congressman has nearly the weight of MPAA dollars or Gateway dollars.
While I think this is good news and all...
Gateway is another large company with an agenda, and ITS agenda happens to coincide with my interests, and so I think it is good news.
But really, what is the online-privacy and free-speech fight really? It is large corporations fighting each other to see which one gets to write the laws. There is a debate going on, but we are not really part of it, except as the Prize. If a divorcing couple fight over who gets to keep the Car, they aren't really worried about what the Car wants.
Does anybody actually like the software? I accidentally installed it once, before I had heard about "spyware" and "scumware" and I just found it completely annoying. Now that I think about it - I had to do a google search to find out how to remove it, and that's when I first learned about that sort of thing.
So my question is: Is there anyone who actually WANTS the software? Or are ALL copies there because someone accidentally downloaded it and doesn't know how to remove it.
I sent mine. I think everyone should send an email to bob@petswarehouse.com, as did the parent poster.
"Cyberspace is a wondrous place, but we are quickly learning it can also be a dangerous place for the unwary," she said. "Con artists who once relied on telephone boiler rooms and mass mailings can now rip people off through Web sites and e-mail."
I take issue with the word "quickly" in the above quotation.
DJS
To summarize: pot makes you do nothing but smoke pot because you don't care about accomplishing anything. EQ makes you do nothing by play EQ because it seems like you're accomplishing stuff.
Tell that to Carl Sagan, who said that he came up with some of the theories behind some of his major work while he was smoking pot.
Tell that to inventor, publisher, scientist, and American statesman Ben Franklin who also smoked pot, and yet accomplished quite a lot.
Tell that to Thomas Jefferson, Steve Jobs, Bob Marley, Supreme Court Justice Marquat (not "Paraquat"), Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas, etc.
Everquest is addictive. Not chemically addictive, but neither is marijuana, which is the perfect comparison
Your analogy stinks.
I'm sorry he's dead... no, wait, I'm not sorry he's dead. He was the one that was dumb enough to sit in front of a computer screen being completely unproductive 12 hours a day.
I am a theoretical mathematician... I suppose that means you won't be sorry when I am dead.
I can't tell you how sick I get of having to explain to people that our rights are not an indulgence on the part of the government. That the government is our servant and not our master. Unfortunately there are a whole big slew of loonies,who ironically call themselves "liberals", who are hard at work trying to instill the notion that we are at the mercy of the government and that it decides what is right and what privileges we are allowed to have.
I can't tell you how sick I get of having to explain to people that our rights are not an indulgence on the part of the government. That the government is our servant and not our master. Unfortunately there are a whole big slew of loonies,who ironically call themselves "conservatives", who are hard at work trying to instill the notion that we are at the mercy of the government and that it decides what is right and what privileges we are allowed to have.
These issues are too important for you to throw labels around, particularly since you don't understand what they mean. This article was about the FBI and Carnivore. The people who are in favor of this current efforts to take your and my rights away are not the Liberals, they are the Conservatives. It is this country's right-wing that is taking our fear of terrorism (and formerly using our fear of crime) to coerce us into giving up our rights to privacy, free association, and free-speech. Many of us (not me) are old enough to remember the McCarthy hearings. McCarthy and Nixon were not "liberals."
Don't throw labels around unless you understand them... better yet... don't throw labels around. Some of the people fighting to maintain our rights are liberal, some are conservative, and some are libertarian. Stop calling names - it is counter-productive.
The thing I don't understand is this - it seems the people who get angriest about Carnivore are people like me, who have absolutely nothing to hide. I am not involved in any sort of criminal activity, and my "secrets" wouldn't earn an R rating if they were made into a movie. Yet this story makes me furious.
The people I know who DO have things to hide, who actually deal with sensitive corporate stuff, who do drugs and have affairs, these people tend to be very blase about privacy issues.
Why?
Anyone remember PLATO? That was da shit. Tiny little 5" touch-sensitive plasma screen, inside a 30"x30"X30" box. . .
Plato was great
Twas clean and start
And it gave me
My computing start
Btyping was great
And one might say better
And you could run it
Regardless of weather
BTYPING!
I remember years ago hearing about the "talk to my cat" site. You could go ONLINE, find this guy's WEB PAGE, and type a sentence, and his voice-synthesizer would say it in the room in which his CAT was kept! I could TALK TO HIS CAT! That was such a hilarious thing!
And I could go to this other WEB PAGE, and find out the temperature of the can of Coke in this one graduate student's REFRIGERATOR! Can you believe it?
Now? I'm sure there is lots of fun stuff like that out there, but it isn't as interesting to me anymore. I still think its cool that people CAN do stuff like that, but I don't feel a need to go to the actual site and witness the effect.
...and Radiskull hasn't been updated in months.
DJS
If we arrange our papers so that it has some cool effect, then BY GOD WE CAN WRITE CODE THAT DOES THAT TOO
You can only write code that changes the display on a video monitor. If I have my paper-arranging set up to maximize the surface area of my desk, and my walls (via post-its) and the floor under my desk, and the top of my filing cabinet; the only way you are going to "write code that does that too" is to replace every flat surface in my office with a CRT.
And if you did that, then I wouldn't have any surface on which I can put a "bang cap" and whack it with my Swiss Army Knife when it is time to let off steam.
The virtual desktop is nice, and I'm staring at it for maybe 5 hours a day, but it doesn't replace the surface area and versatility of a real desktop, no matter how clever the software.
This is what Dell has to say: "Dude, you're getting a blue screen."
Either ISPs or a government tax should charge one cent per email. The average user who probably sends less than a dollar's worth per day would hardly notice the charge. The spammer would be paralyzed.
I really hate it when people propose things without thinking them through.
Okay, lets say they did. What would be involved? We would have to create a structure, both technological (finding a way to bill you your pennies) and sociological (finding a way to get people to tolerate their government charging them for sending email)
Let's say you get your wish. There are certainly people working on both fronts right now to grant it. Now what? "Only a penny" right? But then, in the name of national security, we are going to have to raise it to a nickle. You aren't on the terrorists side, right? But Rush Limbaugh says that businesses are going to be hurt by this "tax" so GE and Disney will be exempted. They NEED their email. And [insert powerful liberal equivalent of Rush here] will point out that the health care industry NEEDS its email, so that will be exempt, too. To make up the shortfall, we'll have to raise it to a dime.
Once you allow the government to tax your email, you are foolish if you think it will remain at a penny. It is hard to create a new tax. It is easy to raise an existing one.
...how people are going to be able to blame it on Bill Clinton.
Definition: A model of computation consisting of a finite state machine controller, a read-write head, and an unbounded sequential tape. Depending on the current state and symbol read on the tape, the machine can change its state and move the head to the left or right. Unless otherwise specified, a Turing machine is deterministic.
The above is correct, but does not show the beauty of what Turing proved. First: Notice how limited-seeming the machine is - its only input is one piece of tape, and its only output is being able to write a 1 or a 0 wherever the tape happens to be. Based only on its "state" and the bit right in front of its nose, it has to decide whether to (1) Change the bit or (2) Move the tape, and then it can change its state accordingly.
What Turing proved is that ANY problem a computer program can solve can be solved with a Turing Machine. (Granted, it will take a lot of time and a long piece of tape to get PI computed to 1 billion places, but it CAN be done)
If this seems obvious to you now, I would say
(1) Oh, is it? Let's hear your proof.
and
(2) Realise that you have so much more background than Turing did. It's like talking Engineering with Scotty ("Who d'ye think WROTE the spec?") Turing figured all of this out without having taken a programming course at his local university. He showed how his Turing Machine could be set up to do arithmetic, to execute loops, to store values, and (most important) to make branching decisions ("If X > 3 goto 100")
Then he showed that once you have a computer that can do the simple things that Turing Machines can do (Increment a number, Compare two numbers, Branch based on the result of a comparison) then it can solve any problem that any other computer can do.
DJS
(P.S. It has been a long time since I read about this stuff, so don't quote me verbatim) (But love me for admitting it)
When Turing machines are outlawed
When Turing Machines are outlawed, then only outlaws will have Turing Machines.
That is to say, give users a free user account which could be used to give input on whats crap and whats not
For the sake of the discussion, let us call the users who are giving input "moderators."
As another poster mentioned, this system opens up a NEW can of worms, as spammers, idiots, and conservatives will use the system to call certain sites "crap", not because they are not relevant, but because they want the sites' listing to go down.
So then people would demand that the "moderators" were overseen, perhaps by a system of "meta-moderators", and you see where I am going with this.
Raise your hand if you can close your eyes and make yourself "hear" the sound of the cycles warming up from the video-game... if you can make yourself "see" the guy ALMOST losing his balance from Disks Of Tron... if you can perfectly picture the exact shade bright blue that permeated the movie....
Tron!
But the fact, not the idea, that they are using court rooms as away to improve their bottom line and not a place to seek redress makes me want to vomit. Those are the types of people at sun. Amoral sophists. That's what they stand for. It's only a matter of time before that attitude permiates everything they do
If Microsoft hasn't trademarked the term "amoral sophists" then they should. That attitude already permeates everything Microsoft does. When you do something they don't want you to do, they whine and sue. When they break the law, they complain about whiners and sue-ers. And all the time they feed a steady stream of money into the gullets of people who are able to make it easier for them to sue, and harder for them to be sued. And when they were finally caught in a court of law, their generous bribery was able to get people to say, "Well, they broke the law, but Jesus has forgiven them, why shouldn't we?" And then those who fought for leniency will go back to the American People and say that their opponents are "soft-on-crime."
"How about India?"
"d00d! W3 R Indi4!"