But the express subway to hell is bad intentions. Or maybe the rails are the bad intentions...
I'm bad with analogies and metaphors. My point is that greed, ACTA, big content, that will infringe on your rights much more substantially and more rapidly than this will. Fight both of course, but I hate that saying basically. Seems like many people on the internet view hypocrisy as the worst thing ever, that people on moral crusades like this are the worst of the worst, and the saying fits into that. I always have found the RIAA/MPAA etc much more loathsome than anyone who actually thinks they need to clean up society. Both are scum, but the moral crusaders are usually too deluded to do much damage to my rights.
Again, both need to be countered of course. Sorry for the tangent.
Yes. It was a good reference to the source material, but it would have been quite boring to watch for much longer. Any longer and I would have wondered why I was watching someone act out doom when I could just play it.
I suspect that if we limit ourselves to boycotting, we're going to lose. Most people don't remember the sony rootkit thing. In fact, I'm betting most of them didn't know it while it was a story. The word "spyware" is probably not something most consumers know about.
I also don't see a real potential for them to hurt themselves with this. Doesn't any EULA already grant them the "consent" they'd need to install spyware?
I think you're calling it while it's still in the air though. These groups are lobbying for it. Of course they are: it's in their interests. Lobbying groups always ask for things that are in their interests, often at the expense of everyone else's. As always, the rest of us must oppose it. I saw nothing in the article suggesting it was likely to pass. Don't get discouraged yet, in other words, gear up for a fight.
What was wrong with DOOM? If you went into a movie based on DOOM and expected more of a plot than "Evil aliens! Shoot em!!!" then that was really on you.
The FPS sequence was pretty much perfect. Again, for what it was. The best way to ensure you made a terrible DOOM movie would be trying to make it not be simple dumb violent action, since that was exactly what DOOM is.
What's the motivation behind games workshop doing this? I'm guessing they're not trying to get money here. So which is more likely, that their legal department simply sends out takedown requests and threats to any hits on google that aren't theirs, their legal department is intentionally wasting billable hours, or they're actually trying to assert control over any e-books with space marines?
What reputation? This guy is living in more denial than the GOP if he thinks his reputation is positive. This is like throwing a bucket of water after the house has already burned down, the embers have cooled and been cleared away and there's a McDonalds built where it used to be.
Had we not been talking about a product expo, where the point is to get attention, yes. If Lex included pictures from his car outside the guy's house, that would be over the line.
It said he was interested in the product initially. At some point he probably was more interested in how weird the spectacle was going. Then at some point he realized it was a scam and he could prevent at least some people on kickstarter from wasting their money.
But again, it sounds like you're putting the blame on the wrong party. That's kickstarter users that were the problem there. Was Ouya starting a campaign to convince everyone on kickstarter to only fund games that would be ouya compatible?
Having people who have terrible people skills represent your interests usually ends badly.
Sounds like that was only the start of their problems. The fact that what they were lying about what they were selling and how they were selling it is probably a bigger problem.
This seems like an even flimsier scam than the phantom console. It boggles the mind that these people get anyone to give them money or have money long enough to pay for the booth. They evidently hadn't even gone to kickstarter yet. Seems like anyone can get a little money from kickstarter.
These people have chosen to be enemies of the USA.
So says the government that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.
To add what I think is an important part to that "So says the government that is constantly making mistakes that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.
For me, the scary part isn't that the government is killing people. It's that said people don't get a chance to respond to the charges and get things straight. They put Ted Kennedy on a no-fly list. The senator. Transparency is important because they're terrible at their jobs.
Government: "We have eyewitness testimony that you're a terrorist operative!"
Bob:"What?!?"
Government: "Yeah, Joe said you were building a dirty bomb you were going to detonate in a crowded area."
Bob: "Joe is just mad because I stole his girlfriend."
Government" "... Oh... well, dick move, but we're not going to kill you for it. I guess we probably should have asked Joe why he reported you. Or taken that facebook status update where he says 'going to report Bob to homeland security for stealing Staci' into consideration."
Oh, and if you believe this, I have a bridge or two I can sell you....
Hey sounds really good! I've been meaning to.... waitaminute... "Fake them out by offering to sell them a bridge, then when their back is turned, push them off of it" is number three on this list!
Having this information for sale can easily be used for such obvious purposes as rejecting a job candidate because their past salary is "too high"
So it's not just that they have our information without asking us, it's also that they're using it for really stupid purposes. Rejecting people for earning too much, or not being employed, rather than past performance or qualifications sounds like going to great lengths to avoid actually doing the job. Sure, it may be a fast way to eliminate a lot of applicants, but why not just flip a coin on each resume? Seems like it will be very nearly as effective at hiring good workers, plus you don't have to buy a report on each candidate, you just have to get change!
In MY honest opinion, consumer-side action is also the right approach to never change the problem. Even less likely at working than facing a well-funded legal team. Consumers are morons who can be counted on making foolish choices. I have yet to see an example of many consumers working together to make a change on anything short of "Baby food SHOULDN'T be randomly laced with poison."
Please tell me you were deliberately missing the point here. Do you have a job? Would you have that job if you didn't know how to use a computer? Can you think of many decent jobs where knowing how to use a computer is not an advantage?
I'd submit that the ditch diggers should be people who prove themselves unable to do anything more useful for society. Not just people whose parents couldn't afford better education certifications or internet service.
Oh, crap, I've outed myself as a crazy socialist. Nevermind. Clearly the free market will sort out the best and brightest in the most efficient way possible. Clearly those without good internet access or good educations were always going to be useless, while every trust-fund kid was destined for great things, capitalism in education is THAT good that it goes back in time. If those people didn't want to be poor, they should have been born to more privileged families.
Sure, business interests opposed to change will always rally against it. And they'll always find receptive legislators. But they won't always succeed in keeping things the same, which is why I've bought a car and not a horse and buggy. This specific proposal? Maybe it's wildly optimistic, but lets not act like the telecom lobbyists are gods. It's possible.
I seriously can't put up there with education. Internet access, while really cool and fun, is still in the category of luxury item. You can get by just fine without it. You won't starve, you won't go into convulsions, you won't die without it.
Same with electricity, yet that's actually quite important for society. You can't convince me that a kid who doesn't know how to use the internet is prepared to do anything more than wait tables. The internet is absolutely critical for being competitive.
They don't threaten to invade the US, but there are a good number of other ways they can threaten the US or Israel. The US and Israel are unreasonably sensitive to comments from Iran, and to be sure, the US and Israel are more interested in starting a war with Iran than vice versa. So again, not saying Iran is in the wrong here, but Iran does push Israel and US buttons. "Israel will be destroyed in fire" in a speech by the president and all that. There's bullshit like that on both sides. I'm only saying that the Iran side could be considered foolish given military strength. Again, explicitly not making a moral or "should" statement here.
Slashdot Mirror
But the express subway to hell is bad intentions. Or maybe the rails are the bad intentions...
I'm bad with analogies and metaphors. My point is that greed, ACTA, big content, that will infringe on your rights much more substantially and more rapidly than this will. Fight both of course, but I hate that saying basically. Seems like many people on the internet view hypocrisy as the worst thing ever, that people on moral crusades like this are the worst of the worst, and the saying fits into that. I always have found the RIAA/MPAA etc much more loathsome than anyone who actually thinks they need to clean up society. Both are scum, but the moral crusaders are usually too deluded to do much damage to my rights.
Again, both need to be countered of course. Sorry for the tangent.
Yes. It was a good reference to the source material, but it would have been quite boring to watch for much longer. Any longer and I would have wondered why I was watching someone act out doom when I could just play it.
I suspect that if we limit ourselves to boycotting, we're going to lose. Most people don't remember the sony rootkit thing. In fact, I'm betting most of them didn't know it while it was a story. The word "spyware" is probably not something most consumers know about.
I also don't see a real potential for them to hurt themselves with this. Doesn't any EULA already grant them the "consent" they'd need to install spyware?
I think you're calling it while it's still in the air though. These groups are lobbying for it. Of course they are: it's in their interests. Lobbying groups always ask for things that are in their interests, often at the expense of everyone else's. As always, the rest of us must oppose it. I saw nothing in the article suggesting it was likely to pass. Don't get discouraged yet, in other words, gear up for a fight.
What was wrong with DOOM? If you went into a movie based on DOOM and expected more of a plot than "Evil aliens! Shoot em!!!" then that was really on you.
The FPS sequence was pretty much perfect. Again, for what it was. The best way to ensure you made a terrible DOOM movie would be trying to make it not be simple dumb violent action, since that was exactly what DOOM is.
What's the motivation behind games workshop doing this? I'm guessing they're not trying to get money here. So which is more likely, that their legal department simply sends out takedown requests and threats to any hits on google that aren't theirs, their legal department is intentionally wasting billable hours, or they're actually trying to assert control over any e-books with space marines?
and some because their philosophy is that the federal government can't possibly do anything useful so the USPS must be by definition useless.
There is a certain elegance in stupidity, isn't there?
What reputation? This guy is living in more denial than the GOP if he thinks his reputation is positive. This is like throwing a bucket of water after the house has already burned down, the embers have cooled and been cleared away and there's a McDonalds built where it used to be.
But these days, he would have been a full time scientist rather than a friar, and would hopefully have better funding and more support.
Yes, you'll be sued into poverty and then watch as some rich bastard takes your beautiful invention and ruins it.
I know it's cool to be cynical on slashdot, but seriously? Drink some coffee.
Had we not been talking about a product expo, where the point is to get attention, yes. If Lex included pictures from his car outside the guy's house, that would be over the line.
It said he was interested in the product initially. At some point he probably was more interested in how weird the spectacle was going. Then at some point he realized it was a scam and he could prevent at least some people on kickstarter from wasting their money.
But again, it sounds like you're putting the blame on the wrong party. That's kickstarter users that were the problem there. Was Ouya starting a campaign to convince everyone on kickstarter to only fund games that would be ouya compatible?
Having people who have terrible people skills represent your interests usually ends badly.
Sounds like that was only the start of their problems. The fact that what they were lying about what they were selling and how they were selling it is probably a bigger problem.
This seems like an even flimsier scam than the phantom console. It boggles the mind that these people get anyone to give them money or have money long enough to pay for the booth. They evidently hadn't even gone to kickstarter yet. Seems like anyone can get a little money from kickstarter.
Worse, the whole "we will support Ouya" thing became a plague on every single game related kickstarter afterward.
Not really Ouya's fault, and doesn't really change anything about the finished product though.
These people have chosen to be enemies of the USA.
So says the government that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.
To add what I think is an important part to that "So says the government that is constantly making mistakes that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.
For me, the scary part isn't that the government is killing people. It's that said people don't get a chance to respond to the charges and get things straight. They put Ted Kennedy on a no-fly list. The senator. Transparency is important because they're terrible at their jobs.
Government: "We have eyewitness testimony that you're a terrorist operative!"
Bob:"What?!?"
Government: "Yeah, Joe said you were building a dirty bomb you were going to detonate in a crowded area."
Bob: "Joe is just mad because I stole his girlfriend."
Government" "... Oh... well, dick move, but we're not going to kill you for it. I guess we probably should have asked Joe why he reported you. Or taken that facebook status update where he says 'going to report Bob to homeland security for stealing Staci' into consideration."
No, it's worse than that. It's "OMG WE LIVE IN A TYRANNICAL SOCIETY AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THUS! DESPAIR, SHEEPLE! DESPAIR!!!!"
AC evidently sees the world in black and white, free or oppressed. "Try breaking a law, and see how much freedom you have," is particularly precious.
Oh, and if you believe this, I have a bridge or two I can sell you....
Hey sounds really good! I've been meaning to.... waitaminute... "Fake them out by offering to sell them a bridge, then when their back is turned, push them off of it" is number three on this list!
If a potential employer wants to run a credit check on me, they'll need to ask for my permission before they can see my credit file.
Wouldn't they just not hire you? Checking your salary seems like such a scummy move, I can't imagine they'd say "Well played, sir, welcome aboard."
Having this information for sale can easily be used for such obvious purposes as rejecting a job candidate because their past salary is "too high"
So it's not just that they have our information without asking us, it's also that they're using it for really stupid purposes. Rejecting people for earning too much, or not being employed, rather than past performance or qualifications sounds like going to great lengths to avoid actually doing the job. Sure, it may be a fast way to eliminate a lot of applicants, but why not just flip a coin on each resume? Seems like it will be very nearly as effective at hiring good workers, plus you don't have to buy a report on each candidate, you just have to get change!
In MY honest opinion, consumer-side action is also the right approach to never change the problem. Even less likely at working than facing a well-funded legal team. Consumers are morons who can be counted on making foolish choices. I have yet to see an example of many consumers working together to make a change on anything short of "Baby food SHOULDN'T be randomly laced with poison."
Please tell me you were deliberately missing the point here. Do you have a job? Would you have that job if you didn't know how to use a computer? Can you think of many decent jobs where knowing how to use a computer is not an advantage?
I'd submit that the ditch diggers should be people who prove themselves unable to do anything more useful for society. Not just people whose parents couldn't afford better education certifications or internet service.
Oh, crap, I've outed myself as a crazy socialist. Nevermind. Clearly the free market will sort out the best and brightest in the most efficient way possible. Clearly those without good internet access or good educations were always going to be useless, while every trust-fund kid was destined for great things, capitalism in education is THAT good that it goes back in time. If those people didn't want to be poor, they should have been born to more privileged families.
Sure, business interests opposed to change will always rally against it. And they'll always find receptive legislators. But they won't always succeed in keeping things the same, which is why I've bought a car and not a horse and buggy. This specific proposal? Maybe it's wildly optimistic, but lets not act like the telecom lobbyists are gods. It's possible.
I seriously can't put up there with education. Internet access, while really cool and fun, is still in the category of luxury item. You can get by just fine without it. You won't starve, you won't go into convulsions, you won't die without it.
Same with electricity, yet that's actually quite important for society. You can't convince me that a kid who doesn't know how to use the internet is prepared to do anything more than wait tables. The internet is absolutely critical for being competitive.
They don't threaten to invade the US, but there are a good number of other ways they can threaten the US or Israel. The US and Israel are unreasonably sensitive to comments from Iran, and to be sure, the US and Israel are more interested in starting a war with Iran than vice versa. So again, not saying Iran is in the wrong here, but Iran does push Israel and US buttons. "Israel will be destroyed in fire" in a speech by the president and all that. There's bullshit like that on both sides. I'm only saying that the Iran side could be considered foolish given military strength. Again, explicitly not making a moral or "should" statement here.