Yes, the best and the brightest are more likely men. (Of course, so are the dumbest, but feminists don't complain about under-representation of women in the homeless and destitute demographics).
And really, it all comes back down to one bitch of a fundamental truth decided by mother nature: You don't waste your reproductive potential on environment testing.
"Deserving it" means you are not entitled to any recourse under any normal sense of justice.
Then that is where our semantics differ, because I don't use that definition of "Deserving it," and I don't feel the common usage does either.
"I don't deserve this" roughly equates to "this should not have happened to me." Should is a probability prediction. If you engage in behavior that makes the result more likely, than you do deserve the outcome.
Well, there is the other use of the word "should" which is a desire to control the uncontrollable, but that usage is invalid by definition and therefore has no meaning.
What if you park your car in a secure area without bills on the dash?
Oh, and to answer the direct question. Then I deserve the result that my vehicle is much much less likely to be broken into than the person who leave their vehicle in a bad location with bills on the dash.
If you wanted a situation with zero risk, you won't find it in life.
If she dresses in a manner to incite sexual arousal (like a slut), gets drunk around random untrustworthy men, flirts heavily, and then gets raped...
Did she deserve it? Yes. Her poor choices lead to the result.
Was the event still a crime? Yes. The rapists did violate her rights.
Just because someone deserves the result does not remove the fact that it was a crime worthy of punishment.
"Blaming the victim" is a valid thing. Until they change their behavior, their results are unlikely to change.
Life is a series of calculated risks. Just because you take precautions does not ensure that bad things will not happen to you. It is up to you to decide what level of personal cost you are willing to pay in order to reduce your risks to a level you find acceptable.
And yes, you reap what you sew, good or bad. Start taking responsibility for your own life rather than laying the responsibility for your experiences at the feet of others. You care about yourself and your results much more than they do.
If you should have known something, you deserve what you get for not knowing it.
Will you still feel this way when your car gets broken into? Remember that the bad guy is the criminal (EA) not the victim. (Customer)
When I park my car in a crime ridden area with a stack of bills on the dash... yep, I deserved it. When I take the risk of not installing a security system on my car... yep, I deserved it.
My life, my choices, my responsibility. Doesn't mean that the criminal doesn't deserve punishment, but does mean I should change my behaviors if I don't want it to happen again
Never said it was right. What I did say is that they deserve that which resulted from their lack of foresight/planning.
Just because it isn't right doesn't mean that they didn't deserve it. You get what you deserve and you deserve what you get. Why? Because you made the choices that put you in that situation.
The company has a history, you ignored that history and purchased their game anyways.
Or you didn't properly research the history and you purchased their game.
You got what you deserved.
Doesn't mean that what you got doesn't suck, however. But as long as people keep supporting this behavior by supporting EA through purchasing their games, this behavior will continue.
However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030.
Thank Steamboat Willie and Sonny Bono.
I know that it's not ExPostFacto, but it's a similar legal meme.
The copyright laws that existed at the time of initial publication are the ones which apply. You cannot retroactively change the terms of the agreement for the contract between the creator and the public.
a small percentage of really slutty women are taking up the slack for the rest of them.
Not even close to true.
There was a study in NY that was looking at herpes rates. I'm sure you've heard the "1 in 5" rate for herpes, but in NY it's 1 in 4. But don't be mislead that there are the same odds across the board. What you'll find is that a minority of men have herpes, while a majority of women do. Yes, I'm sure some "genius" is going to come here saying that women catch STDs easier than men do, but women still can't catch herpes unless they have sex with someone who has herpes!
So that either means that women are going lesbian all over the place, or the "myth" that 80% of women sleep with 20% of men has gained some statistical backing. I'm leaning towards the latter. (FYI, the herpes rates for black women and black men was 80% and 25%, respectively).
It's marketing. You're changing the terms of your argument.
Marketing is the work being done.
Why no, I haven't. Kindly cite one or two. (I assume you're already aware of the persistent wage differential between men and women who are doing identical work.)
Really, doing *identical* work? You'd have to cite that, because that's BS. The wage gap exists because men and women don't do identical work.
I mean, honestly, if I could pay a woman 75% of what a man earns and get identical work, would I ever hire a man again?
As for the studies: I'll have to get back to you on that. I don't have any more time to spend looking for where I found them. Funny thing was that it was a study "proving" that women are discriminated against because as more women enter the field the job goes down, but instead it simply proved that women force the job to become more cushy.
It's just as hostile to men who want to be treated as men (instead of woman-slaves) to have to constantly dance around women's sensitivities rather than getting real work done
Umm... since when is getting a lap dance "real work?"
Lapdances, like booth babes, draw eyeballs and attention to the event. Seriously, haven't you women figured out that having the world revolve around you isn't a great idea after prohibition? But no... everything has to be done according to your standards, doesn't it?
I mean, it's delightfully inflammatory for you to claim that all these awful female sensitivities are getting in the way of Progress,
You haven't read the reports that as more women enter a job field, the status of the field goes down and the pay decreases? Women want different things than men do. Men, on average, want jobs with higher pay (sacrificing working conditions) women, on average, want working conditions (sacrificing higher pay). Once women enter a job field, they force the field to have better working conditions via lawsuits and other legal pressure, and the pay goes down for all workers. Women attempt to turn whatever job they are in into a cushy job. That's definitely in the way of Progress.
Yes, it's inflammatory, but truth that politically incorrect often is.
Men (try talking to real men sometime) are widely offended at the whole phenomenon of women demanding that the entire organization conform to their standards, and actually get away with it. The difference is the law unfortunately supports these women rather than telling them the logical truth: their emotions are their responsibility.
It's just as hostile to men who want to be treated as men (instead of woman-slaves) to have to constantly dance around women's sensitivities rather than getting real work done, but that won't make the papers.
A long time ago I was doing consulting work and had the misfortune of being selected for jury duty. As I would not be fully-compensated for my time (I was my own employer), I wanted to get out of that case as fast as possible. I figured I wouldn't even get selected, so I'd just lose that one day.
In Jury selection in my county, everyone is called into a holding area (cafeteria) and then groups of 30 or so are selected to sit in the courtroom for the jury selection. I was selected for a group, and then selected to sit in the jury box as one of the initial 12. I was going to be on the case.
Initial arguments was the case was about a guy fighting Carrying concealed without a permit charges. The 12 of us in the box were asked individually "is there anything that would prevent us from ruling on this case in accordance to the laws?"
I didn't have the time to sit on the case, so I replied "I'm a Constitutionalist and I know what Jury Nullification means."
Oh, I was released alright; SO WAS EVERY PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN THE ROOM!!!!
30 of us got out of jury duty because I said the magic words. The State is that afraid of people knowing they have power over them.
The experience greatly influenced my view of government.
What a lot of people in the whole "it's sexism" camp forget is that there are only two types of people:
Those who are sexist Those who are idiots.
See, the whole problem with "reducing sexism" means that you have to be an idiot. There is no definition of sexism that allows for someone to be a non-idiot and not be sexist at the same time.
See, to be non-sexist we have to do one of two things: 1. Ignore that there are difference between men and women: Wow, I guess men do get pregnant!!
2. We can recognize that there are differences, but we must willfully ignore them. Well if I want kids I'll have just as much luck sleeping with Tom as I would with Betty.
These two are "no-duh" examples, but that's the point. Either you are sexist, or you are an idiot.
Really, I mean, comon! The whole "sexism" debate is all about saying men and women are interchangeable, which is patently false. Men and women are different, **ON A BIOLOGICAL LEVEL**, and the sooner Feminists realize this then they can stop trying to solve a "problem" which can't be solved.
What's the rating for Half Life 2? In any case, my daughter (4 at the time) has her first frags already. Since someone is going to ask the "why?" question, let me go ahead and answer:
It's a video game! She's watched me play it multiplayer vs. my friend quite often and has noticed me having a blast at it. When she wanted to crawl into my lap to help, I explained to her that it is a game, it wasn't real, and that, hey!, the guy I just slaughtered was having a good enough time to come back for more. Admitidly, I'd have less of an OK time with her playing games where the dead don't come back for more.
The conversation, tho, was priceless: me- Zealot, I regret to inform you that you just got fraged by my 4 year old daugher (on mouse) Naris - Dude, you must be proud! Me- I havn't been this proud since she took her first steps!;) Freeman- Isn't this game kinda violent? Naris- These are Demon's kids.. they already have the psychopath gene;) Me- Hehe.. ya, her favorite movies are Gladiator and Black Hawk Down (pause at least 30 seconds) Zealot- um... can I go cry now?
"The whole giving up thousands of years of kicking the shit out of whoever for our benefit whether they are a threat or not and replacing it with cooperative effort."
Hrm... cooperative effort... you mean the threat of kicking the shit out of whoever?
And yes, the US did subscribe to economic scantions... and they didn't work. Should you continue on a coruse of action that doesn't work so you can save face?
Since you use the term "Better" you really need to define it. You seem to view the world as some sort of popularity contest. It isn't. Better really is about having more guns, bigger guns, and a stronger military.
Yes, I have a radically different viewpoint than most on this topic. The reasoning behind that is I am ex-military. I was the one who provided violence, or the threat thereof, for those who wouldn't or couldn't. It has tought me two very important lessons.
1) War will exist as long as someone belives in something strongly enough to kill for it. If they are willing to die for it, war is inevitable.
2) The main crux of our difference of opinion is thus: There are no such things as inaliable human rights. If there were, then the situations such as Bosnia, Ruwanda, Somilia, and the other ethnic clensings wouldn't exist/of existed. The only "rights" we have as humans exist because our goverments/some other collection of people (and therefore force) are willing to inflict violence on others to protect them for us. Normally the threat of that violence is enough, but when situation 1 happens, they need to actually inflict it.
What would happen if we were all happy and all just got along? Than the first person with a rifle/good sword arm who decided that he didn't like the status quo would rule us all.
More likely, it is because you were bought up in a civllized society where you can expect "someone else" to take care of the problem for you, i.e. police or goverment. It has nothing to do with 'better than them' it simply has to do with someone else doing the dirty work of presenting cohersive force/violence for you.
Now, step outside of your own world for a second and look at it a slight bit closer to how it actually happened. Let's say someone from the next city/village over attempted to kill your father/boss/friend and YOU are the one with the capability to do anything about it... nobody else has firearms/you are the one in control of the local militia. The 'other city/village' has no effective law enforcement, so you can never expect the perps to see justice. Your only options are to remove them, or have them attempt to strike again.
Why the fuck wouldn't you firebomb them? Do you enjoy yourself and those you care about being the targets of potshots? Appleasement? Then the next time they want something from you they'll go after your wife/son/daughter.
Never forget that violence, either inflicted or the threat of it, is what makes the world go round. The only difference that 'civilized society' has is we let the police and goverment do it for us, rather than having to do it ourselves.
My question, however, is if it will play in a normal CD player, why wouldn't it play under Mac or Linux? Is this another copy protection scheme to be disabled with sharpies once again?
Oh.. it's been done. I've read a few stories on the net about it after my own experience with it. There was one guy in our gaming group who played remote.. hadn't been to one of our LAN parties yet. The guy got endless headshots. We swore he was cheating. At one point we told him he was wasn't allowed to play till he came to the next LAN party so we could see WTF was going on.
Well, we never expeted him to show up, but he did. We paired him up vs. me (I'm resident champion) for some 1 on 1 action. Boom, headshot on me. WTF? The people watching him are laughing. I turn around to see him tapping the screen to shoot my dead body:P
Ends up the guy worked IT at a bank. When they replaced their old touchscreen display for some information kiosk to get a bigger one, he swiped the old one. Told us that they unfortunatly run a few grand for one, even the 15" CRT he had. That was a few years ago tho, and I'm sure the LCD models that exist now are cheaper.
End result? We outlawed them. We still allow a few hardware mods tho, like the center dot on a screen for an un-scoped sniper rifle;) Oh, and the guy who uses a trackball has some amazing accuracy as well.
Open up iTunes and connect yer pod, then click on the iPod properties icon (somewhere in the bottom right corner). I'm not sure what tab it's under, but there is a choice to use your iPod as an external harddrive.
When I got my pod I intentonally got the 60GB over the 30GB because I knew I'd kick myself later if I didn't. Currently, I've only got around 2k songs, but I've got so many files (a lot of ISOs, mostly) that there is only 15GB left on the drive.
But ya, I also wish I could just drag and drop MP3 files to add them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the best and the brightest are more likely men. (Of course, so are the dumbest, but feminists don't complain about under-representation of women in the homeless and destitute demographics).
And really, it all comes back down to one bitch of a fundamental truth decided by mother nature:
You don't waste your reproductive potential on environment testing.
"Blaming the victim" is a valid thing. Until they change their behavior, their results are unlikely to change.
LoL, posting idiotic shit on the internet... You deserve to be shot... No one deserves to be raped or murdered dumbass...
Speaking of posting idiotic shit, you just contradicted yourself, no?
"Deserving it" means you are not entitled to any recourse under any normal sense of justice.
Then that is where our semantics differ, because I don't use that definition of "Deserving it," and I don't feel the common usage does either.
"I don't deserve this" roughly equates to "this should not have happened to me." Should is a probability prediction. If you engage in behavior that makes the result more likely, than you do deserve the outcome.
Well, there is the other use of the word "should" which is a desire to control the uncontrollable, but that usage is invalid by definition and therefore has no meaning.
What if you park your car in a secure area without bills on the dash?
Oh, and to answer the direct question. Then I deserve the result that my vehicle is much much less likely to be broken into than the person who leave their vehicle in a bad location with bills on the dash.
If you wanted a situation with zero risk, you won't find it in life.
If she dresses in a manner to incite sexual arousal (like a slut), gets drunk around random untrustworthy men, flirts heavily, and then gets raped...
Did she deserve it? Yes. Her poor choices lead to the result.
Was the event still a crime? Yes. The rapists did violate her rights.
Just because someone deserves the result does not remove the fact that it was a crime worthy of punishment.
"Blaming the victim" is a valid thing. Until they change their behavior, their results are unlikely to change.
Life is a series of calculated risks. Just because you take precautions does not ensure that bad things will not happen to you. It is up to you to decide what level of personal cost you are willing to pay in order to reduce your risks to a level you find acceptable.
And yes, you reap what you sew, good or bad. Start taking responsibility for your own life rather than laying the responsibility for your experiences at the feet of others. You care about yourself and your results much more than they do.
If you should have known something, you deserve what you get for not knowing it.
Will you still feel this way when your car gets broken into? Remember that the bad guy is the criminal (EA) not the victim. (Customer)
When I park my car in a crime ridden area with a stack of bills on the dash... yep, I deserved it.
When I take the risk of not installing a security system on my car... yep, I deserved it.
My life, my choices, my responsibility. Doesn't mean that the criminal doesn't deserve punishment, but does mean I should change my behaviors if I don't want it to happen again
Never said it was right. What I did say is that they deserve that which resulted from their lack of foresight/planning.
Just because it isn't right doesn't mean that they didn't deserve it. You get what you deserve and you deserve what you get. Why? Because you made the choices that put you in that situation.
Why would you deserve better?
The company has a history, you ignored that history and purchased their game anyways.
Or you didn't properly research the history and you purchased their game.
You got what you deserved.
Doesn't mean that what you got doesn't suck, however. But as long as people keep supporting this behavior by supporting EA through purchasing their games, this behavior will continue.
Perhaps the writer overlooked this one little fact: Since when did we have a right to electricity? We don't. His argument is a non-starter.
She violated the law. She goes to jail. It's that simple. The laws as written leave no room for intent.
Hopefully someone on the Jury will understand the meaning and intent of Jury Nullification. Then she won't go to jail.
However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030.
Thank Steamboat Willie and Sonny Bono.
I know that it's not ExPostFacto, but it's a similar legal meme.
The copyright laws that existed at the time of initial publication are the ones which apply. You cannot retroactively change the terms of the agreement for the contract between the creator and the public.
a small percentage of really slutty women are taking up the slack for the rest of them.
Not even close to true.
There was a study in NY that was looking at herpes rates. I'm sure you've heard the "1 in 5" rate for herpes, but in NY it's 1 in 4. But don't be mislead that there are the same odds across the board. What you'll find is that a minority of men have herpes, while a majority of women do. Yes, I'm sure some "genius" is going to come here saying that women catch STDs easier than men do, but women still can't catch herpes unless they have sex with someone who has herpes!
So that either means that women are going lesbian all over the place, or the "myth" that 80% of women sleep with 20% of men has gained some statistical backing. I'm leaning towards the latter. (FYI, the herpes rates for black women and black men was 80% and 25%, respectively).
It's marketing. You're changing the terms of your argument.
Marketing is the work being done.
Why no, I haven't. Kindly cite one or two. (I assume you're already aware of the persistent wage differential between men and women who are doing identical work.)
Really, doing *identical* work? You'd have to cite that, because that's BS. The wage gap exists because men and women don't do identical work.
I mean, honestly, if I could pay a woman 75% of what a man earns and get identical work, would I ever hire a man again?
As for the studies: I'll have to get back to you on that. I don't have any more time to spend looking for where I found them. Funny thing was that it was a study "proving" that women are discriminated against because as more women enter the field the job goes down, but instead it simply proved that women force the job to become more cushy.
It's just as hostile to men who want to be treated as men (instead of woman-slaves) to have to constantly dance around women's sensitivities rather than getting real work done
Umm... since when is getting a lap dance "real work?"
Lapdances, like booth babes, draw eyeballs and attention to the event. Seriously, haven't you women figured out that having the world revolve around you isn't a great idea after prohibition? But no... everything has to be done according to your standards, doesn't it?
I mean, it's delightfully inflammatory for you to claim that all these awful female sensitivities are getting in the way of Progress,
You haven't read the reports that as more women enter a job field, the status of the field goes down and the pay decreases? Women want different things than men do. Men, on average, want jobs with higher pay (sacrificing working conditions) women, on average, want working conditions (sacrificing higher pay). Once women enter a job field, they force the field to have better working conditions via lawsuits and other legal pressure, and the pay goes down for all workers. Women attempt to turn whatever job they are in into a cushy job. That's definitely in the way of Progress.
Yes, it's inflammatory, but truth that politically incorrect often is.
Men (try talking to real men sometime) are widely offended at the whole phenomenon of women demanding that the entire organization conform to their standards, and actually get away with it. The difference is the law unfortunately supports these women rather than telling them the logical truth: their emotions are their responsibility.
It's just as hostile to men who want to be treated as men (instead of woman-slaves) to have to constantly dance around women's sensitivities rather than getting real work done, but that won't make the papers.
A long time ago I was doing consulting work and had the misfortune of being selected for jury duty. As I would not be fully-compensated for my time (I was my own employer), I wanted to get out of that case as fast as possible. I figured I wouldn't even get selected, so I'd just lose that one day.
In Jury selection in my county, everyone is called into a holding area (cafeteria) and then groups of 30 or so are selected to sit in the courtroom for the jury selection. I was selected for a group, and then selected to sit in the jury box as one of the initial 12. I was going to be on the case.
Initial arguments was the case was about a guy fighting Carrying concealed without a permit charges. The 12 of us in the box were asked individually "is there anything that would prevent us from ruling on this case in accordance to the laws?"
I didn't have the time to sit on the case, so I replied "I'm a Constitutionalist and I know what Jury Nullification means."
Oh, I was released alright; SO WAS EVERY PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN THE ROOM!!!!
30 of us got out of jury duty because I said the magic words. The State is that afraid of people knowing they have power over them.
The experience greatly influenced my view of government.
So the alternative is to say "Girl up, men!" and drive men away instead?
What a lot of people in the whole "it's sexism" camp forget is that there are only two types of people:
Those who are sexist
Those who are idiots.
See, the whole problem with "reducing sexism" means that you have to be an idiot. There is no definition of sexism that allows for someone to be a non-idiot and not be sexist at the same time.
See, to be non-sexist we have to do one of two things:
1. Ignore that there are difference between men and women:
Wow, I guess men do get pregnant!!
2. We can recognize that there are differences, but we must willfully ignore them.
Well if I want kids I'll have just as much luck sleeping with Tom as I would with Betty.
These two are "no-duh" examples, but that's the point. Either you are sexist, or you are an idiot.
Really, I mean, comon! The whole "sexism" debate is all about saying men and women are interchangeable, which is patently false. Men and women are different, **ON A BIOLOGICAL LEVEL**, and the sooner Feminists realize this then they can stop trying to solve a "problem" which can't be solved.
What's the rating for Half Life 2? In any case, my daughter (4 at the time) has her first frags already. Since someone is going to ask the "why?" question, let me go ahead and answer:
;) ;)
It's a video game! She's watched me play it multiplayer vs. my friend quite often and has noticed me having a blast at it. When she wanted to crawl into my lap to help, I explained to her that it is a game, it wasn't real, and that, hey!, the guy I just slaughtered was having a good enough time to come back for more. Admitidly, I'd have less of an OK time with her playing games where the dead don't come back for more.
The conversation, tho, was priceless:
me- Zealot, I regret to inform you that you just got fraged by my 4 year old daugher (on mouse)
Naris - Dude, you must be proud!
Me- I havn't been this proud since she took her first steps!
Freeman- Isn't this game kinda violent?
Naris- These are Demon's kids.. they already have the psychopath gene
Me- Hehe.. ya, her favorite movies are Gladiator and Black Hawk Down
(pause at least 30 seconds)
Zealot- um... can I go cry now?
"The whole giving up thousands of years of kicking the shit out of whoever for our benefit whether they are a threat or not and replacing it with cooperative effort."
Hrm... cooperative effort... you mean the threat of kicking the shit out of whoever?
And yes, the US did subscribe to economic scantions... and they didn't work. Should you continue on a coruse of action that doesn't work so you can save face?
Since you use the term "Better" you really need to define it. You seem to view the world as some sort of popularity contest. It isn't. Better really is about having more guns, bigger guns, and a stronger military.
Yes, I have a radically different viewpoint than most on this topic. The reasoning behind that is I am ex-military. I was the one who provided violence, or the threat thereof, for those who wouldn't or couldn't. It has tought me two very important lessons.
1) War will exist as long as someone belives in something strongly enough to kill for it. If they are willing to die for it, war is inevitable.
2) The main crux of our difference of opinion is thus: There are no such things as inaliable human rights. If there were, then the situations such as Bosnia, Ruwanda, Somilia, and the other ethnic clensings wouldn't exist/of existed. The only "rights" we have as humans exist because our goverments/some other collection of people (and therefore force) are willing to inflict violence on others to protect them for us. Normally the threat of that violence is enough, but when situation 1 happens, they need to actually inflict it.
What would happen if we were all happy and all just got along? Than the first person with a rifle/good sword arm who decided that he didn't like the status quo would rule us all.
--Demonspawn
You would need to explain how, as I have not extensively studied the christian religon.
--Demonspawn
More likely, it is because you were bought up in a civllized society where you can expect "someone else" to take care of the problem for you, i.e. police or goverment. It has nothing to do with 'better than them' it simply has to do with someone else doing the dirty work of presenting cohersive force/violence for you.
Now, step outside of your own world for a second and look at it a slight bit closer to how it actually happened. Let's say someone from the next city/village over attempted to kill your father/boss/friend and YOU are the one with the capability to do anything about it... nobody else has firearms/you are the one in control of the local militia. The 'other city/village' has no effective law enforcement, so you can never expect the perps to see justice. Your only options are to remove them, or have them attempt to strike again.
Why the fuck wouldn't you firebomb them? Do you enjoy yourself and those you care about being the targets of potshots? Appleasement? Then the next time they want something from you they'll go after your wife/son/daughter.
Never forget that violence, either inflicted or the threat of it, is what makes the world go round. The only difference that 'civilized society' has is we let the police and goverment do it for us, rather than having to do it ourselves.
--Demonspawn
Ahh.. the joys of disabling autorun :)
My question, however, is if it will play in a normal CD player, why wouldn't it play under Mac or Linux? Is this another copy protection scheme to be disabled with sharpies once again?
--Demonspawn
Oh.. it's been done. I've read a few stories on the net about it after my own experience with it. There was one guy in our gaming group who played remote.. hadn't been to one of our LAN parties yet. The guy got endless headshots. We swore he was cheating. At one point we told him he was wasn't allowed to play till he came to the next LAN party so we could see WTF was going on.
:P
;) Oh, and the guy who uses a trackball has some amazing accuracy as well.
Well, we never expeted him to show up, but he did. We paired him up vs. me (I'm resident champion) for some 1 on 1 action. Boom, headshot on me. WTF? The people watching him are laughing. I turn around to see him tapping the screen to shoot my dead body
Ends up the guy worked IT at a bank. When they replaced their old touchscreen display for some information kiosk to get a bigger one, he swiped the old one. Told us that they unfortunatly run a few grand for one, even the 15" CRT he had. That was a few years ago tho, and I'm sure the LCD models that exist now are cheaper.
End result? We outlawed them. We still allow a few hardware mods tho, like the center dot on a screen for an un-scoped sniper rifle
--Demonspawn
Open up iTunes and connect yer pod, then click on the iPod properties icon (somewhere in the bottom right corner). I'm not sure what tab it's under, but there is a choice to use your iPod as an external harddrive.
When I got my pod I intentonally got the 60GB over the 30GB because I knew I'd kick myself later if I didn't. Currently, I've only got around 2k songs, but I've got so many files (a lot of ISOs, mostly) that there is only 15GB left on the drive.
But ya, I also wish I could just drag and drop MP3 files to add them.
--Demonspawn