Texas law gives open season on anyone on your property for any reason? I find it a bit hard to believe that some additional justification isn't needed.
Of course they have a reason - trespassing!
In the example discussed here, the homeowner has every right to protect what's his, including life and property.
I should rephrase. There's a difference between self defense and simple revenge. Have you seen American History X? There's a good example in that movie. Some men are trying to rob a guys truck during the night, and the guy comes downstairs with his pistol. The guy comes out and opens fire without warning. Perfectly justified imo as at least one of the robbers obvioulsy is carrying a gun. After that one of the robbers is dead, one of them is trying to get away in the stolen truck, and the last is down in the street with a couple of bullets in him. The guy then goes over to the one in the street and proceeds to curb him.
Self defence is shooting somebody because you're afraid for yourself or others. Revenge is taking somebodies life for taking your tv because you can.
But there's a difference between being legitimately afraid for your life and thinking its hunting season. Specifically I was thinking of a foreign college student who was foolish enough to try asking for directions to a party. Some redneck shot him, and of course got off because its legal to shoot trespassers in Texas.
When was the last time you heard of a guy being stalked?
David Letterman had a long time stalker. Why don't you go look up some statistics on the percentage of murder victums, men compared to women, then get back to us.
I pointed this out in another thread...this jacket seems to take advantage of such lies that "1 in 4 women will be raped" etc, while men are just as likely to be the victums of domestic violence as women, and are more likely to be murdered than women.
but you can't keep making copies of copies of a cassette without some serious quality degredation. You can copy an mp3 a billion times and it'll still be exactly the same as the origional. Or you could really go gung ho and use lossless compression.:)
So no matter how many times you, personally, try to narrowly define what "theft" means, it's not going to work.
How is wanting to call something exactly what it is, as opposed to something its not, "narrowly defining" something? You must be an RIAA exec, because they are trying to widen the definition of theft to include copyright infringment.
Dude, stop it, okay? Just stop it. Everybody here "grasps" the "gulf" between infringement and theft. It's just that we "grasp" it in a way that's (1) different from yours, and (b) based on simple definitions of common words. Your whole "I'm smarter than you" schtick isn't going to get you anywhere.
First you argued on definitions, and I shot you down there. Now your trying to argue some "more common defintion". Who's? You get this from www.riaa.com/gullible/propoganda.html?
Read it yourself: theft is the act of stealing. (Cross-reference "stealing" to see what that means, to wit, "To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another." Nothing in there about deprivation or material possessions, is there?
Now who's cherry picking? Fine, lets ask the average Joe about this. I break into Joe's house while he's away and copy his entire dvd collection. You try to tell Joe that I've stolen stuff from him, to which he replies: "but everythings still there!" I've trespassed on his property, probably guilty of breaking and entering, but I haven't stolen anything from him. Bam! You lose sucka.
You've got an agenda to push here, and that agenda includes the obliteration of the notion of property.
Pfft. My only agenda is to get people to call things by their proper names and not fall for the **AA propogada. If Vader can come back from the dark side, why can't you? And what we need to do is avoid this idiotic "intellectual property" bs and get back to what it actually, histrically is: a social contract for exclusivity, enforced by law. Thats why none of this is theft, because you are INFRINGING on that right of exclusivity.
When you copy that book without paying for it, you take money RIGHT OUT OF HIS POCKET.
... How did you come up with that assertion? Maybe you're in the possession of a matter transmitting device, but sadly I am not.
Scud: 4, AC 0
BTW I'm leaving for the weekend. Why don't you take that time to read up on what copyrights and patents actually are.
Oh, boy. Not THIS again. This horse has been well and truly beaten already.
True that. Some people, no matter how much logic and evidence you throw at them, insist that the earth is flat, Elvis is alive and copyright infringment is a form of theft. The litmus test is, has there been a loss of property to some other individual? No loss of property, no theft.
the crime known as "copyright infringement" is a special class of the general activity known as "theft."
No. Just because something is a crime doesn't mean its theft. If I burn down your house, is that committing theft? After all, I have deprived you of your worldy possessions. But wait, its not theft because neither you nor I have possession of your property because it has been destroyed. That's why we call it arson, because it has vital charachteristics that make it a completely different crime than stealing. If I copy your research paper behind your back and pass it off as my own, thats called plagerism. If I bring a 20 dollar bill down to the copy shop and xerox a few for some extra cash, its not theft. Its forgery. It's highly illegal and I'll be scrwed if the Secret Service catches me, but just because something is illegal doesn't mean its theft. If you are an artist and I make copies of your music and give them to my friends without paying you, thats copyright infringment, because you still have possession of all of your property. Again, no loss of property, no theft.
take: to get into one's possession
Nice that you left out the relevant explanation of that definition:
1 To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
b. To seize with authority; confiscate.
If I capture, seize, or confiscate your property, I have control and possession of your property while you lose it. That is the point you cannot see. If I don't take, or remove your property there is no theft. There might be copyright infringment, forgery or plagerism, but there is no theft without a transfer of possession.
Butifthat'snotgoodenoughforyou, perhapseyou'dlikeafewmore. While you're noting the complete absence of any copying of so called "intellectual property" from any of those, check out how many specifically say "taking and removing". Thats because theft is concrete. I've either stolen your car from your garage or I haven't. I've either removed some stereos after breaking into Radio Shack or I haven't. That doesn't apply to downloading a copy of Office XP without paying for it, because there is no guarantee that I would have bought it in the first place. And even if it was guaranteed, MS has only "lo
Thats why there's this wonderful innovation known as the taskbar, and a wonderful consol app called screen. Or are you also using screen on those 11 xterms?:)
They will have lost their exclusivity. They will have lost the opportunity to sell you your own copies of the CD's. They will have lost the scarcity that supports the entertainment economy.
Thats all theoretical. Theft is concrete. If I download an album off the net rather than buying it, there is no guarantee I would have bought it at any point in the future. Whereas with theft, I either stole a car from the auto dealership or I didn't. There's no "maybe" about it.
Jesus. You are SO fucking stupid it makes my head hurt.
Hey its nobody's fault but you're own that you continue to insist that 1 + 1 = 3 despite any and all reason, logic and evidence that proves you are completely wrong.
How many dictionaries did you look through before you found one with a sufficiently narrow definition to suit your purposes?
About 3 seconds. Hmm, www.dictionary.com, pretty obscure reference. Having it show what a stubborn dumbass you are was just a bonus.
Try this one on for size:
I did read all the definitions, including the one's you posted, and they further backed up my point that there is no theft without transfer of posession. Theft is the act of taking, but with copying, you are just....drum roll....copying!
You ought to take tours to anti abortion groups, definitively proving that some fetusus should never have been carried to term. Have a nice day!
Some of us are better at keeping our mice under control than others.
Some of us aren't acerbic shmucks who like leaving their mouse pointer wherever they like rather than being forced to leave it on the window you're working in.
Uh, sure, until you bump the mouse and your focus goes flying. How is the clicking of one mouse button such a great inconvienience? Mouse focus is right up there with 'personalized menus' for Worst UI Element Ever.
You are funny. In the same sad, pathetic way as someone who insists that apples and oranges must be the exact same thing because they have a few things in common.
To drill this into your small little mind, why don't you give me your home address. Next week I'll break into your house with a laptop and rip your entire cd collection to mp3, leaving your cd's there. Your collection is still there in its entriety, complete and umdamaged. You haven't LOST anything so there has been no theft. Trespassing yes, copyright infringment maybe, theft no.
The week after that I'll break into your house again, this time taking all your cds with me. At that point you'd see that the difference between having your orgional item and not having it is a pretty fucking big one. Now do you see the difference, or is your head still lodged too far up your ass?
You are free to take words and do whatever you want with them, like those tv execs who claim that skipping ads is 'stealing', but to communicate with the rest of the world you should make like Billy Madison and go back to kindergarden to learn what theft really is:
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
2. The thing stolen. [R.]
If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, . . . he shall restore double. --Ex. xxii. 4.
Bwhaahahah! You got ownzored AC! Now go back to gobbling some nice fat cock and spare us from your stupidity.
Where do you get that idea? I mean, seriously. Were you raised in a barn or something?
Did you have the same reaction when your elementary school teacher tried to explain that the world is round?
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we have some 700,000 words in the English language to differentiate things that are totally different from eachother. Apples and oranges. Cars and trucks. Arson and murder. Theft and copyright infringment.
If you want a perfect example, look at the vandals looting from museums in Iraq. Once the vandal takes something from the museum - are you ready for this? - its not in the museum any more. He has it, the museum does not, therefore he has stolen it.
However, if said looter copied it, the origional item would still be in the museum. Now say there was an RIAA four thousand years ago and had copyrighted that item for all eternity. The worth of the origional has been degraded because there is a copy floating around - but the origional is still intact and still in the owners posession.
That is the key difference that you are either missing or ignoring. If there is no transfer of posession, there is no theft. Period. Deal with it. That's not to say its not legally or morally wrong, but arson and murder aren't the same things just because they are legally and morally wrong. Thats why we have terms like copyright, patent and trademark infringment: for things that aren't stolen but are copied without permission.
Have you never heard of the phrase "theft of service?"
Mostly irrelevant. Terms like "identity theft" are a misnomer, because until such time as you can erase a person's memory, its impossible to make a transfer of posession. We have perfectly good words that perfectly fit that sort of crime: fraud and forgery. But that doesn't sound as flashy as 'theft', so thats what the media uses, and what the RIAA is trying to use rather than 'copyright infringment'.
No. Stealing is the act of removing something from your possesion and placing it in mine. If there is no transfer of possesion, there is no theft, period.
Yeah he got sued for that, which makes him a bigger hypocrite than Metallica by a hair. Lars and James where huge tape traders back in the day, yet they all ended up suing Napster for infringment.
There's another word for that kind of so called polish: feature creep, and it kills games. Rather than focusing on important things like the plot, level design, the gameplay (how well you move, interact with the environment, enemies etc) and the AI they get drug down into "hey this would be neat lets add it to the game".
Feature creep killed Diakatana. Its kept Duke Nukem Forever in development for what five years now? Six? There's liking polish and then there's being anal retentive, and saying you wont be happy until somebody has acurate newspaper piling physics frimly falls into the latter.
I've been using DVDPro media and so far have been similarily satisfied. I am using it for achiving, but I'm planning ahead in case the disks go bad by using par files. If you don't know what par files are, they work in the same fashion as a raid array: you can loose as many files as you have redundant files for. Gods gift to newsgroups. Anyway, I'll burn about 18 dvd's of divx movies or dr who episodes, then burn 3 disks with par files. So I can loose 2-3 disks out of the set of 18 and will still be able to recover.
Maybe I'd get archival media if it weren't so expensive. If you spent the same amount of money on each kind, you could burn 4-5 copies on the cheap stuff as opposed to the "archival quality" stuff.
I just don't want to even have a slight chance that I'll be mistaken for a totally devoted, 100% Apple-marketing-brainwashed, totally subjective Apple fanboy.
Yeah, heaven forbid you like a product because its vastly superior to other options. Size is the killer app when it comes to mp3 players for many people, and while there are smaller players than the iPod, none of those come close to its capacity.
I will be impressed when the newspapers blowing around on the street don't blow under a building, but pile up in corners for example.
Would piling newspapers add anything to the plot? No. Gameplay? No. Replayability? No. Its just something that you look at and think "hmm, thats neat" for approximatly.00005 seconds, then ignore. Why should the programmers waste a week implementing your blowing newspaper physics, when they could spend that time improving the AI or other parts of the game that actually matter?
My roomate is similarily misguided. He wants big environments like in GTA, but he wants to be able to blow a wall in any building and walk through it. Again its like playing with power windows in a car for the first time: its cool for the first couple minutes but after that its pointless.
Somebody should make a game for you guys, where everything is highly interactive the enivornment is totally maleable. Of course your game would only have one (small) level, with no storyline, but then you could stop complaining that game xx doesn't have usless feature yy. But then this company would only sell about 50 copies to these few highly retentive people and go bankrupt./end rant:)
Slashdot Mirror
I remember that one. There was also the person who gave us pay-before-you-pump gas stations.
that would be copyright/trademark infringment, not stealing.
Texas law gives open season on anyone on your property for any reason? I find it a bit hard to believe that some additional justification isn't needed.
Of course they have a reason - trespassing!
In the example discussed here, the homeowner has every right to protect what's his, including life and property.
I should rephrase. There's a difference between self defense and simple revenge. Have you seen American History X? There's a good example in that movie. Some men are trying to rob a guys truck during the night, and the guy comes downstairs with his pistol. The guy comes out and opens fire without warning. Perfectly justified imo as at least one of the robbers obvioulsy is carrying a gun. After that one of the robbers is dead, one of them is trying to get away in the stolen truck, and the last is down in the street with a couple of bullets in him. The guy then goes over to the one in the street and proceeds to curb him.
Self defence is shooting somebody because you're afraid for yourself or others. Revenge is taking somebodies life for taking your tv because you can.
I wouldn't say panic, but "crisis", at least as far as feminazies and busy body hypocritical moralists go.
But there's a difference between being legitimately afraid for your life and thinking its hunting season. Specifically I was thinking of a foreign college student who was foolish enough to try asking for directions to a party. Some redneck shot him, and of course got off because its legal to shoot trespassers in Texas.
When was the last time you heard of a guy being stalked?
David Letterman had a long time stalker. Why don't you go look up some statistics on the percentage of murder victums, men compared to women, then get back to us.
I pointed this out in another thread...this jacket seems to take advantage of such lies that "1 in 4 women will be raped" etc, while men are just as likely to be the victums of domestic violence as women, and are more likely to be murdered than women.
where's the version for guys, as most of the victums of assault and murder are men?
but you can't keep making copies of copies of a cassette without some serious quality degredation. You can copy an mp3 a billion times and it'll still be exactly the same as the origional. Or you could really go gung ho and use lossless compression. :)
If I keep repeating it maybe it'll sink in.
So no matter how many times you, personally, try to narrowly define what "theft" means, it's not going to work.
How is wanting to call something exactly what it is, as opposed to something its not, "narrowly defining" something? You must be an RIAA exec, because they are trying to widen the definition of theft to include copyright infringment.
Dude, stop it, okay? Just stop it. Everybody here "grasps" the "gulf" between infringement and theft. It's just that we "grasp" it in a way that's (1) different from yours, and (b) based on simple definitions of common words. Your whole "I'm smarter than you" schtick isn't going to get you anywhere.
First you argued on definitions, and I shot you down there. Now your trying to argue some "more common defintion". Who's? You get this from www.riaa.com/gullible/propoganda.html?
Read it yourself: theft is the act of stealing. (Cross-reference "stealing" to see what that means, to wit, "To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another." Nothing in there about deprivation or material possessions, is there?
Now who's cherry picking? Fine, lets ask the average Joe about this. I break into Joe's house while he's away and copy his entire dvd collection. You try to tell Joe that I've stolen stuff from him, to which he replies: "but everythings still there!" I've trespassed on his property, probably guilty of breaking and entering, but I haven't stolen anything from him. Bam! You lose sucka.
You've got an agenda to push here, and that agenda includes the obliteration of the notion of property.
Pfft. My only agenda is to get people to call things by their proper names and not fall for the **AA propogada. If Vader can come back from the dark side, why can't you? And what we need to do is avoid this idiotic "intellectual property" bs and get back to what it actually, histrically is: a social contract for exclusivity, enforced by law. Thats why none of this is theft, because you are INFRINGING on that right of exclusivity.
When you copy that book without paying for it, you take money RIGHT OUT OF HIS POCKET.
Scud: 4, AC 0
BTW I'm leaving for the weekend. Why don't you take that time to read up on what copyrights and patents actually are.
True that. Some people, no matter how much logic and evidence you throw at them, insist that the earth is flat, Elvis is alive and copyright infringment is a form of theft. The litmus test is, has there been a loss of property to some other individual? No loss of property, no theft.
the crime known as "copyright infringement" is a special class of the general activity known as "theft."
No. Just because something is a crime doesn't mean its theft. If I burn down your house, is that committing theft? After all, I have deprived you of your worldy possessions. But wait, its not theft because neither you nor I have possession of your property because it has been destroyed. That's why we call it arson, because it has vital charachteristics that make it a completely different crime than stealing. If I copy your research paper behind your back and pass it off as my own, thats called plagerism. If I bring a 20 dollar bill down to the copy shop and xerox a few for some extra cash, its not theft. Its forgery. It's highly illegal and I'll be scrwed if the Secret Service catches me, but just because something is illegal doesn't mean its theft. If you are an artist and I make copies of your music and give them to my friends without paying you, thats copyright infringment, because you still have possession of all of your property. Again, no loss of property, no theft.
take: to get into one's possession
Nice that you left out the relevant explanation of that definition:
a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
b. To seize with authority; confiscate.
If I capture, seize, or confiscate your property, I have control and possession of your property while you lose it. That is the point you cannot see. If I don't take, or remove your property there is no theft. There might be copyright infringment, forgery or plagerism, but there is no theft without a transfer of possession.
But if that's not good enough for you, perhapse you'd like a few more. While you're noting the complete absence of any copying of so called "intellectual property" from any of those, check out how many specifically say "taking and removing". Thats because theft is concrete. I've either stolen your car from your garage or I haven't. I've either removed some stereos after breaking into Radio Shack or I haven't. That doesn't apply to downloading a copy of Office XP without paying for it, because there is no guarantee that I would have bought it in the first place. And even if it was guaranteed, MS has only "lo
Thats why there's this wonderful innovation known as the taskbar, and a wonderful consol app called screen. Or are you also using screen on those 11 xterms? :)
They will have lost their exclusivity. They will have lost the opportunity to sell you your own copies of the CD's. They will have lost the scarcity that supports the entertainment economy.
Thats all theoretical. Theft is concrete. If I download an album off the net rather than buying it, there is no guarantee I would have bought it at any point in the future. Whereas with theft, I either stole a car from the auto dealership or I didn't. There's no "maybe" about it.
Jesus. You are SO fucking stupid it makes my head hurt.
Hey its nobody's fault but you're own that you continue to insist that 1 + 1 = 3 despite any and all reason, logic and evidence that proves you are completely wrong.
How many dictionaries did you look through before you found one with a sufficiently narrow definition to suit your purposes?
About 3 seconds. Hmm, www.dictionary.com, pretty obscure reference. Having it show what a stubborn dumbass you are was just a bonus.
Try this one on for size:
I did read all the definitions, including the one's you posted, and they further backed up my point that there is no theft without transfer of posession. Theft is the act of taking, but with copying, you are just....drum roll....copying!
You ought to take tours to anti abortion groups, definitively proving that some fetusus should never have been carried to term. Have a nice day!
Some of us are better at keeping our mice under control than others.
Some of us aren't acerbic shmucks who like leaving their mouse pointer wherever they like rather than being forced to leave it on the window you're working in.
Uh, sure, until you bump the mouse and your focus goes flying. How is the clicking of one mouse button such a great inconvienience? Mouse focus is right up there with 'personalized menus' for Worst UI Element Ever.
To drill this into your small little mind, why don't you give me your home address. Next week I'll break into your house with a laptop and rip your entire cd collection to mp3, leaving your cd's there. Your collection is still there in its entriety, complete and umdamaged. You haven't LOST anything so there has been no theft. Trespassing yes, copyright infringment maybe, theft no.
The week after that I'll break into your house again, this time taking all your cds with me. At that point you'd see that the difference between having your orgional item and not having it is a pretty fucking big one. Now do you see the difference, or is your head still lodged too far up your ass?
You are free to take words and do whatever you want with them, like those tv execs who claim that skipping ads is 'stealing', but to communicate with the rest of the world you should make like Billy Madison and go back to kindergarden to learn what theft really is:
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
2. The thing stolen. [R.]
If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, . . . he shall restore double. --Ex. xxii. 4.
Bwhaahahah! You got ownzored AC! Now go back to gobbling some nice fat cock and spare us from your stupidity.
Where do you get that idea? I mean, seriously. Were you raised in a barn or something?
Did you have the same reaction when your elementary school teacher tried to explain that the world is round?
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we have some 700,000 words in the English language to differentiate things that are totally different from eachother. Apples and oranges. Cars and trucks. Arson and murder. Theft and copyright infringment.
If you want a perfect example, look at the vandals looting from museums in Iraq. Once the vandal takes something from the museum - are you ready for this? - its not in the museum any more. He has it, the museum does not, therefore he has stolen it.
However, if said looter copied it, the origional item would still be in the museum. Now say there was an RIAA four thousand years ago and had copyrighted that item for all eternity. The worth of the origional has been degraded because there is a copy floating around - but the origional is still intact and still in the owners posession.
That is the key difference that you are either missing or ignoring. If there is no transfer of posession, there is no theft. Period. Deal with it. That's not to say its not legally or morally wrong, but arson and murder aren't the same things just because they are legally and morally wrong. Thats why we have terms like copyright, patent and trademark infringment: for things that aren't stolen but are copied without permission.
Have you never heard of the phrase "theft of service?"
Mostly irrelevant. Terms like "identity theft" are a misnomer, because until such time as you can erase a person's memory, its impossible to make a transfer of posession. We have perfectly good words that perfectly fit that sort of crime: fraud and forgery. But that doesn't sound as flashy as 'theft', so thats what the media uses, and what the RIAA is trying to use rather than 'copyright infringment'.
No. Stealing is the act of removing something from your possesion and placing it in mine. If there is no transfer of possesion, there is no theft, period.
Of course recording streams is stealing
actually that would be copyright infringment, not stealing.
Yeah he got sued for that, which makes him a bigger hypocrite than Metallica by a hair. Lars and James where huge tape traders back in the day, yet they all ended up suing Napster for infringment.
There's another word for that kind of so called polish: feature creep, and it kills games. Rather than focusing on important things like the plot, level design, the gameplay (how well you move, interact with the environment, enemies etc) and the AI they get drug down into "hey this would be neat lets add it to the game".
Feature creep killed Diakatana. Its kept Duke Nukem Forever in development for what five years now? Six? There's liking polish and then there's being anal retentive, and saying you wont be happy until somebody has acurate newspaper piling physics frimly falls into the latter.
Sure, whatever. :)
I've been using DVDPro media and so far have been similarily satisfied. I am using it for achiving, but I'm planning ahead in case the disks go bad by using par files. If you don't know what par files are, they work in the same fashion as a raid array: you can loose as many files as you have redundant files for. Gods gift to newsgroups. Anyway, I'll burn about 18 dvd's of divx movies or dr who episodes, then burn 3 disks with par files. So I can loose 2-3 disks out of the set of 18 and will still be able to recover.
Maybe I'd get archival media if it weren't so expensive. If you spent the same amount of money on each kind, you could burn 4-5 copies on the cheap stuff as opposed to the "archival quality" stuff.
I just don't want to even have a slight chance that I'll be mistaken for a totally devoted, 100% Apple-marketing-brainwashed, totally subjective Apple fanboy.
Yeah, heaven forbid you like a product because its vastly superior to other options. Size is the killer app when it comes to mp3 players for many people, and while there are smaller players than the iPod, none of those come close to its capacity.
I will be impressed when the newspapers blowing around on the street don't blow under a building, but pile up in corners for example.
.00005 seconds, then ignore. Why should the programmers waste a week implementing your blowing newspaper physics, when they could spend that time improving the AI or other parts of the game that actually matter?
/end rant :)
Would piling newspapers add anything to the plot? No. Gameplay? No. Replayability? No. Its just something that you look at and think "hmm, thats neat" for approximatly
My roomate is similarily misguided. He wants big environments like in GTA, but he wants to be able to blow a wall in any building and walk through it. Again its like playing with power windows in a car for the first time: its cool for the first couple minutes but after that its pointless.
Somebody should make a game for you guys, where everything is highly interactive the enivornment is totally maleable. Of course your game would only have one (small) level, with no storyline, but then you could stop complaining that game xx doesn't have usless feature yy. But then this company would only sell about 50 copies to these few highly retentive people and go bankrupt.