and were put off by Lugaru's (admitedly dated) grafics?
Or they just don't care for the genre? Lugaru seemed to me to be a fighting game, and though I cannot speak for GP, I'm just not that big a fan of fighting games.
Well given that the story is about the government being required to get a warrant, you saying you'd be more ok with the government snooping than with Google snooping to me implied without a warrant.
Thank you for clarifying that you did not mean that.
I'm a little confused, you would be ok with the Federal Government routinely snooping on your email w/o a warrant, so long as they don't prosecute you based on the contents of your email?
Though they may not be able to prosecute you based on the contents of your emails, they'd be sure to find something to put you away for. After all, Al Capone got put away for tax evasion.
Keep in mind that colonial control, secession, and a Nazi Europe are not acceptable outcomes in this game.
Why not? Why is secession not an acceptable outcome? The states do hold the power to dissolve the federal government, and some states seceding from the union is no different from dissolving the federal government and some states reforming in its former image (just with a few less states).
Although I suppose it could be argued that the number of states that seceded would not have been enough to approve dissolving the union.
So if I were to punch you and take all your stuff, you wouldn't try and defend yourself, you'd just let it happen? If not, please clarify your position.
Even on the job there should be _some_ expectation of privacy. For example, if your doctor should call with some important test results. Now where/how to draw the line? That I do not know.
Considering I have provided a citation in direct contradiction to your claim (speech is protected upto and including death threats), until you can prove your position, logically, we must conclude that you are lying.
Or do you consider "fighting words" to be even worse than death threats, and thus not worthy of being protected speech? While I would disagree, it would at least help better explain your position.
It's "morally wrong" because buying up the rights to movies I was in should never grant someone else sole ownership of my likeness everywhere. In a sequel/prequel to the movies they own the rights to, I could see that. I might (big might) even be ok with someone claiming that because they own the rights to all movies where the actor played particular style of character, they are only only ones who can use the actors likeness while portraying that particular character style.
But how does it make sense to say "ok, we own the rights to all movies this actor was in, therefore we completely own his likeness"?
After all, for the new Tron movie they needed a young version of a character, so they did almost exactly this - recreated him entirely in CGI. But it's a sequel, the actor they are doing this to is still alive, likely gave his permission, and is even in the movie as his older self! So no moral problems there!
I too do not care how my likeness is used after I am dead. But to buy up the "rights" to the likeness of a dead person buy buying up the rights to the movies that they were in? That just doesn't seem right, even by the current messed-up state of IP laws.
At places where you have separate vacation and sick buckets, and you don't get to carry over the sick days each year, you might have a point (you normally only get x days of pay for no work, but gaming the system can get you an extra y days of pay for no work).
Other places make no such distinction for time off, it's all a single bucket. In those cases the days will get used one way or another, it's just a matter of when. Although I suppose a point could be made about leaving your place of employment understaffed for that day.
It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it, just as a woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its end.
It's pretty obvious you were taking a slam against the R party
That's odd, because it looked to me more like GP was quoting something. I wonder what it could be.. maybe we should look at TFS?
"The FCC just released its tentative agenda for the December 21st open meeting, where the Commission will vote on whether to adopt rules to preserve net neutrality. According to the agenda the FCC will consider "adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression." House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."
Now if TFS had mentioned something about Democrats trying to get along with Republicans (as opposed to not mentioning them), you might have had a point. As is though, nice try at trying to twist things to your favor. You did it as well as a politician does it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'm wondering if they'll let you register the bundle with Steam (like they recently did with the first bundle).
and were put off by Lugaru's (admitedly dated) grafics?
Or they just don't care for the genre? Lugaru seemed to me to be a fighting game, and though I cannot speak for GP, I'm just not that big a fan of fighting games.
1) Pharmboy said 9, not 19.
2) I'm 27 and still play with my toys, you insensitive clod!
Does anyone expect them to continue serving files to Kindle users 10-20 years from now?
If they are still in the business of selling Kindles and/or e-books, yes.
Well given that the story is about the government being required to get a warrant, you saying you'd be more ok with the government snooping than with Google snooping to me implied without a warrant.
Thank you for clarifying that you did not mean that.
I'm a little confused, you would be ok with the Federal Government routinely snooping on your email w/o a warrant, so long as they don't prosecute you based on the contents of your email?
Though they may not be able to prosecute you based on the contents of your emails, they'd be sure to find something to put you away for. After all, Al Capone got put away for tax evasion.
Source, presuming this is the same Watson.
Keep in mind that colonial control, secession, and a Nazi Europe are not acceptable outcomes in this game.
Why not? Why is secession not an acceptable outcome? The states do hold the power to dissolve the federal government, and some states seceding from the union is no different from dissolving the federal government and some states reforming in its former image (just with a few less states).
Although I suppose it could be argued that the number of states that seceded would not have been enough to approve dissolving the union.
So if I were to punch you and take all your stuff, you wouldn't try and defend yourself, you'd just let it happen? If not, please clarify your position.
You know what they say... Old enough to bleed....
Old enough for weed?
Even on the job there should be _some_ expectation of privacy. For example, if your doctor should call with some important test results. Now where/how to draw the line? That I do not know.
That's just proof God hates bisexuals, not homosexuals :P
Nevertheless that case exists
Considering I have provided a citation in direct contradiction to your claim (speech is protected upto and including death threats), until you can prove your position, logically, we must conclude that you are lying.
Or do you consider "fighting words" to be even worse than death threats, and thus not worthy of being protected speech? While I would disagree, it would at least help better explain your position.
(see SCOTUS rulings from the turbulent 1960s)
I did, and this is what I found.
Question, why is it so hard for you to provide your own citations to back up your claims?
But how does it make sense to say "ok, we own the rights to all movies this actor was in, therefore we completely own his likeness"?
After all, for the new Tron movie they needed a young version of a character, so they did almost exactly this - recreated him entirely in CGI. But it's a sequel, the actor they are doing this to is still alive, likely gave his permission, and is even in the movie as his older self! So no moral problems there!
FTFY.
I too do not care how my likeness is used after I am dead. But to buy up the "rights" to the likeness of a dead person buy buying up the rights to the movies that they were in? That just doesn't seem right, even by the current messed-up state of IP laws.
At places where you have separate vacation and sick buckets, and you don't get to carry over the sick days each year, you might have a point (you normally only get x days of pay for no work, but gaming the system can get you an extra y days of pay for no work).
Other places make no such distinction for time off, it's all a single bucket. In those cases the days will get used one way or another, it's just a matter of when. Although I suppose a point could be made about leaving your place of employment understaffed for that day.
To get pirates to out themselves?
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/09/10/eidos-intentionally-glitches-batman-arkham-asylum-pirates/
I think you mean the publishers are doing it wrong.
Er, so you usually sell or otherwise get rid of your car before the headlights burn out? o.0
So the data on your computer is worth exactly $0 to you?
Verizon estimates you'll be able to get around 8.5Mbps with a loaded network
Are you really going to be having trouble accessing email and Google Maps with an 8.5Mbps connection?
It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it, just as a woman has a right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to its end.
It's pretty obvious you were taking a slam against the R party
That's odd, because it looked to me more like GP was quoting something. I wonder what it could be.. maybe we should look at TFS?
"The FCC just released its tentative agenda for the December 21st open meeting, where the Commission will vote on whether to adopt rules to preserve net neutrality. According to the agenda the FCC will consider "adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression." House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."
Now if TFS had mentioned something about Democrats trying to get along with Republicans (as opposed to not mentioning them), you might have had a point. As is though, nice try at trying to twist things to your favor. You did it as well as a politician does it. :)
There is nothing natural preventing the building of 3 or 5 or 10 competing lines to your home.
I'm fairly certain the number of cables I can ram through my walls is limited by the size of my walls ;)