Wow, so you're one of those "the government didn't take their money which is the same as giving it to them" people. Well you sir should just shut up then because thats an asinine position to take.
I don't think that really matters though. Overhead is part of the efficiency of a system. Just because it completely ignores some of the energy doesn't mean we should pretend the energy isn't there.
Ah, hold on here. I have the right to try to buy a sandwich, and a right to try to sell a sandwich, and a right to try to squash my competitors. This is similar to having the right to free speech, but not having the right to be listened to. If I had the right to sell a sandwich, that means somebody else would have to buy it for me to exercise it. If somebody has to buy it, that infringes on their right to not purchase food they don't want or need.
Honestly is that how people read the summary? I didn't even begin to think the summary was being paranoid or anti-microsoft. I thought it was just using descriptions for exactly what it does.
A rational marketplace operates on supply and demand, not on interpersonal attractions or ignorant cultural prejudices. It is not in society's interest (or your business interest) to exclude anyone, especially an entire demographic, from freely participating in the marketplace. Or the internet.
It is not the business of the government to enforce rationality. I do not accept that I have a right to buy a sandwich, but this paragraph shows that discrimination is a negative force on the discriminator. Legality and morality aren't equivalent, and the moral consequences should deal with things like discrimination as opposed to legal consequences. I'm just looking forward to the day when the moral consequences are enough that we don't feel we need the legal consequences. To me the laws are bad laws, though at one point (maybe even still) they were needed. The laws actually also can have the opposite effect they hope for. Instead of lessening discrimination based on race, it can sometimes cause discrimination against another.
And an excellent rebuttal. Damn, this is a good thread. So you're contending that the right to trial by jury is really the right to not be sentenced for a crime without a trial by jury. Therefore you don't have a right to those other people's time so much as if the other's people time is not surrendered, the court can not infringe your right of fair trial so there is no trial and with no trial there is no punishment. Very interesting stuff.
What if they're in the Klan, vote Republican, what if I'm a member of the discrimination class? See, thats the thing about anti-discrimination, somebody always loses in that fight so I can't accept it as a right. If I'm a racist, you're forcing me to associate with people I don't want to. What if I'm genuinely uncomfortable and frightened of working with a white person? The fact that you think its wrong shouldn't matter, you aren't me. We either have freedom of association or not. You can't say "You're free to associate with whomever you wish, unless your reason to not associate with somebody is X Y or Z". Thats like saying you have freedom of speech unless you are going to say something offensive.
Having said that I see the practicality in a lot of laws relating to race. Institutionalized racism can keep people down, and we brought them here with nothing, and gave them nothing. Our particular wrong doing in that situation justifies the limiting of our right to associate in an effort to make it right. However, I think we're getting past the point where we need laws to protect African-Americans in that way and we can start letting people be their old racist selves if they want to take on the wrath of their peers and community.
I disagree. I think we have the right to discriminate and it is a natural right. If I'm not allowed to decide who I like and who I don't like and base my business dealings on that, then do I even have any power in my life? If some jackass I hate wants to buy a sandwich from me, I shouldn't have to sell it to him. The government doesn't have the right to discriminate but individuals do, too bad that right is curtailed by all kinds of terrible laws that were created for great reasons and probably needed to be created. At some point it'd be nice if I didn't have to hire people I don't want to hire in the same way I don't have to date people I don't want to date, and deal with the social consequences of it. I wonder if we'll ever get to the point where we could handle that.
Really if you pay attention, the demographic that Facebook was built on has pretty much outgrown it. Look at the people in their mid to late 20s. Most of them have gotten away from it. Sure, they might still have accounts that they "use" but its not the same level of use. At least in my experience people in that age range have stopped updating statuses multiple times a day, stopped only sending invitations through it, and generally don't know everything that has been on facebook like they used to. I think the popularity has radiated out from that group of people who were in college when Facebook hit, to older and younger crowds. If the core is getting tired of it, it won't be long until the follow-up demographics get tired of it too. You're exactly right when you said it's just teenagers and middle aged women.
You see this trend all the time, especially on the web. lolcats were funny for a while but were mostly a nerd thing, then it slowly spread out, so by the time my less-nerdy friends (or the population at large) started to come up with "hilarious" cat pictures it was already old hat. Its called going mainstream. Facebook had a much longer lifespan for its novelty than cat pictures, so naturally the core demographic was still interested when it went mainstream. Now its losing steam and may be around for a while to come, but of course its a fad. Its not really useful at all, and there are a billion ways to do it better that don't make Zuckerberg a fist full of cash (so Facebook CAN'T compete with upcoming offerings). We just need to wait for a while. The technology that obsoletes Facebook is around, we just need to standardize it and get a couple of big players to support it. Google, Microsoft, Mozilla and the W3C will crush Facebook in the same way broadband crushed AOL.
Well I'm glad you played the demo and didn't like it from a brief encounter with a prostitute. The controls seem a little difficult at first but I got used to it pretty quickly. I also loved Indigo Prophecy. At one point in Heavy Rain I had my gun pointed at some guy who was losing his shit, saying in my head over and over "don't shoot him, don't shoot him, don't shoot him", the guy moved a little quickly and I accidentally shot him in panic. Its so immersive, its hard to fight back natural reactions. At one point I got so tense over some piece of context that I searched my entire house carefully, expecting something around every corner only to find out everything was ok. On a replay, this didn't even begin to happen as things triggered in a different order which made it much less tense (and the creepy music wasn't playing, and it was daylight). I've never been pulled in to a game quite like that. It actually duplicated the feeling of being creeped out alone in your house at night. Moments like this are scattered all over the place and two players will have completely different experiences. It may not be a great "game" as the mechanics are simple, but its a hell of a way to tell a story.
Just pointing out whether its true or not (it probably is true) it doesn't matter one way or the other. It has nothing to do with a justification of Sony's actions or the overall validity of modding your box.
Dude, you're a complete dipshit asshole. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to tell you the truth here. When I was in Algebra with my first graphing calculator I wrote all kinds of games for it, not because the hardware was real advanced or because I could get good performance out of it, but because it was there and the platform was neat. I made something fun on a calculator that I can take everywhere and send to other people. How cool is that? Of course I could have written something much faster with color on a PC, but who gives a shit?
Now I write a lot of XNA stuff, not because the Xbox is faster or more suitable for anything but because I want to write a game on the XBox, its a cool platform. Sure, it also runs on windows when I do that, but I only test on Windows before pushing to the 360, and often have to tweak things that worked on windows but not on the 360. Its not about how close to the hardware I am, or using PPC or the gamepad even. Its a platform, I want to know how to use it. Just because you aren't interested in it doesn't mean anything. Its cool to do something like that on a game console.
I wrote stuff for my Droid when I first got it too. I wrote a little app that pulled the list of videos from my computer and I could play or queue them up to be played on the PC and it also had basic remote-like functionality (Stop, pause, rewind, fast forward). I have never, ever used it beyond testing. So why do it? Because I fucking wanted to and it was mine and it was interesting and it was an end unto itself. Nobody gives a shit what you think about homebrew or anything else they want to do with their property. Its their property so fuck Sony and fuck you. Have you ever considered the brewing itself is the reward? Clearly you don't do any development, or you're a pretty shitty one if you don't get that.
Dude, PSN should be very easy to make hacker free if Sony gave a shit about really doing it. Its called banning for cheating. Ban enough people fast enough and it will dry up almost immediately. Tell me, what has this lawsuit really done for PSN?
I don't see what any of this has to do with Hotz, or the people who bought the console for OtherOS. You're not the only person in the world, no matter how much you paid for your system. Sony fucked the dog on this one by removing OtherOS, Hotz restored his PS3 to the way he wanted to use it, sorry his work around broke what you wanted but Sony did it. And all the bitching in the world won't make it otherwise.
Hey everybody on the internet, stop trying to make every wrong equal to every other wrong. Massive counterfeiting operations run by the Chinese government are totally not the same as standard political games you see everywhere. It may not be worse, it may not be better, but the point is they're unrelated. So stop being a turd.
They got that way by a genetic mutation not by a smart "this seems like a good idea" change in their DNA. Gee, some mutations might not kill of a whole species even though it puts them worse off than before. I'm shocked.
Your logic skills are fucking awful. Its hilarious that you're standing up for science while being a complete jackshit retard when it comes to basic logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, so you're one of those "the government didn't take their money which is the same as giving it to them" people. Well you sir should just shut up then because thats an asinine position to take.
I don't think that really matters though. Overhead is part of the efficiency of a system. Just because it completely ignores some of the energy doesn't mean we should pretend the energy isn't there.
Well they certainly aren't getting more than their investment back from the US, so I would say Google is investing in this.
Ah, hold on here. I have the right to try to buy a sandwich, and a right to try to sell a sandwich, and a right to try to squash my competitors. This is similar to having the right to free speech, but not having the right to be listened to. If I had the right to sell a sandwich, that means somebody else would have to buy it for me to exercise it. If somebody has to buy it, that infringes on their right to not purchase food they don't want or need.
Honestly is that how people read the summary? I didn't even begin to think the summary was being paranoid or anti-microsoft. I thought it was just using descriptions for exactly what it does.
A rational marketplace operates on supply and demand, not on interpersonal attractions or ignorant cultural prejudices. It is not in society's interest (or your business interest) to exclude anyone, especially an entire demographic, from freely participating in the marketplace. Or the internet.
It is not the business of the government to enforce rationality. I do not accept that I have a right to buy a sandwich, but this paragraph shows that discrimination is a negative force on the discriminator. Legality and morality aren't equivalent, and the moral consequences should deal with things like discrimination as opposed to legal consequences. I'm just looking forward to the day when the moral consequences are enough that we don't feel we need the legal consequences. To me the laws are bad laws, though at one point (maybe even still) they were needed. The laws actually also can have the opposite effect they hope for. Instead of lessening discrimination based on race, it can sometimes cause discrimination against another.
And an excellent rebuttal. Damn, this is a good thread. So you're contending that the right to trial by jury is really the right to not be sentenced for a crime without a trial by jury. Therefore you don't have a right to those other people's time so much as if the other's people time is not surrendered, the court can not infringe your right of fair trial so there is no trial and with no trial there is no punishment. Very interesting stuff.
What if they're in the Klan, vote Republican, what if I'm a member of the discrimination class? See, thats the thing about anti-discrimination, somebody always loses in that fight so I can't accept it as a right. If I'm a racist, you're forcing me to associate with people I don't want to. What if I'm genuinely uncomfortable and frightened of working with a white person? The fact that you think its wrong shouldn't matter, you aren't me. We either have freedom of association or not. You can't say "You're free to associate with whomever you wish, unless your reason to not associate with somebody is X Y or Z". Thats like saying you have freedom of speech unless you are going to say something offensive.
Having said that I see the practicality in a lot of laws relating to race. Institutionalized racism can keep people down, and we brought them here with nothing, and gave them nothing. Our particular wrong doing in that situation justifies the limiting of our right to associate in an effort to make it right. However, I think we're getting past the point where we need laws to protect African-Americans in that way and we can start letting people be their old racist selves if they want to take on the wrath of their peers and community.
God damn that was a good argument. Holy crap, way to go AC.
I disagree. I think we have the right to discriminate and it is a natural right. If I'm not allowed to decide who I like and who I don't like and base my business dealings on that, then do I even have any power in my life? If some jackass I hate wants to buy a sandwich from me, I shouldn't have to sell it to him. The government doesn't have the right to discriminate but individuals do, too bad that right is curtailed by all kinds of terrible laws that were created for great reasons and probably needed to be created. At some point it'd be nice if I didn't have to hire people I don't want to hire in the same way I don't have to date people I don't want to date, and deal with the social consequences of it. I wonder if we'll ever get to the point where we could handle that.
Really if you pay attention, the demographic that Facebook was built on has pretty much outgrown it. Look at the people in their mid to late 20s. Most of them have gotten away from it. Sure, they might still have accounts that they "use" but its not the same level of use. At least in my experience people in that age range have stopped updating statuses multiple times a day, stopped only sending invitations through it, and generally don't know everything that has been on facebook like they used to. I think the popularity has radiated out from that group of people who were in college when Facebook hit, to older and younger crowds. If the core is getting tired of it, it won't be long until the follow-up demographics get tired of it too. You're exactly right when you said it's just teenagers and middle aged women.
You see this trend all the time, especially on the web. lolcats were funny for a while but were mostly a nerd thing, then it slowly spread out, so by the time my less-nerdy friends (or the population at large) started to come up with "hilarious" cat pictures it was already old hat. Its called going mainstream. Facebook had a much longer lifespan for its novelty than cat pictures, so naturally the core demographic was still interested when it went mainstream. Now its losing steam and may be around for a while to come, but of course its a fad. Its not really useful at all, and there are a billion ways to do it better that don't make Zuckerberg a fist full of cash (so Facebook CAN'T compete with upcoming offerings). We just need to wait for a while. The technology that obsoletes Facebook is around, we just need to standardize it and get a couple of big players to support it. Google, Microsoft, Mozilla and the W3C will crush Facebook in the same way broadband crushed AOL.
When you refuse to put your penis away.
You seriously clicked on the link pointing to the nig.gr domain?
Well I'm glad you played the demo and didn't like it from a brief encounter with a prostitute. The controls seem a little difficult at first but I got used to it pretty quickly. I also loved Indigo Prophecy. At one point in Heavy Rain I had my gun pointed at some guy who was losing his shit, saying in my head over and over "don't shoot him, don't shoot him, don't shoot him", the guy moved a little quickly and I accidentally shot him in panic. Its so immersive, its hard to fight back natural reactions. At one point I got so tense over some piece of context that I searched my entire house carefully, expecting something around every corner only to find out everything was ok. On a replay, this didn't even begin to happen as things triggered in a different order which made it much less tense (and the creepy music wasn't playing, and it was daylight). I've never been pulled in to a game quite like that. It actually duplicated the feeling of being creeped out alone in your house at night. Moments like this are scattered all over the place and two players will have completely different experiences. It may not be a great "game" as the mechanics are simple, but its a hell of a way to tell a story.
Heavy fuckin' Rain. Great movie that plays like a game.
Just pointing out whether its true or not (it probably is true) it doesn't matter one way or the other. It has nothing to do with a justification of Sony's actions or the overall validity of modding your box.
Dude, you're a complete dipshit asshole. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to tell you the truth here. When I was in Algebra with my first graphing calculator I wrote all kinds of games for it, not because the hardware was real advanced or because I could get good performance out of it, but because it was there and the platform was neat. I made something fun on a calculator that I can take everywhere and send to other people. How cool is that? Of course I could have written something much faster with color on a PC, but who gives a shit?
Now I write a lot of XNA stuff, not because the Xbox is faster or more suitable for anything but because I want to write a game on the XBox, its a cool platform. Sure, it also runs on windows when I do that, but I only test on Windows before pushing to the 360, and often have to tweak things that worked on windows but not on the 360. Its not about how close to the hardware I am, or using PPC or the gamepad even. Its a platform, I want to know how to use it. Just because you aren't interested in it doesn't mean anything. Its cool to do something like that on a game console.
I wrote stuff for my Droid when I first got it too. I wrote a little app that pulled the list of videos from my computer and I could play or queue them up to be played on the PC and it also had basic remote-like functionality (Stop, pause, rewind, fast forward). I have never, ever used it beyond testing. So why do it? Because I fucking wanted to and it was mine and it was interesting and it was an end unto itself. Nobody gives a shit what you think about homebrew or anything else they want to do with their property. Its their property so fuck Sony and fuck you. Have you ever considered the brewing itself is the reward? Clearly you don't do any development, or you're a pretty shitty one if you don't get that.
Dude, PSN should be very easy to make hacker free if Sony gave a shit about really doing it. Its called banning for cheating. Ban enough people fast enough and it will dry up almost immediately. Tell me, what has this lawsuit really done for PSN?
He doesn't need to prove it, it doesn't matter. The case wasn't Sony v. Most People.
I don't see what any of this has to do with Hotz, or the people who bought the console for OtherOS. You're not the only person in the world, no matter how much you paid for your system. Sony fucked the dog on this one by removing OtherOS, Hotz restored his PS3 to the way he wanted to use it, sorry his work around broke what you wanted but Sony did it. And all the bitching in the world won't make it otherwise.
Hey everybody on the internet, stop trying to make every wrong equal to every other wrong. Massive counterfeiting operations run by the Chinese government are totally not the same as standard political games you see everywhere. It may not be worse, it may not be better, but the point is they're unrelated. So stop being a turd.
Are you an idiot? It is being weeded out. That's why they're endangered.
They got that way by a genetic mutation not by a smart "this seems like a good idea" change in their DNA. Gee, some mutations might not kill of a whole species even though it puts them worse off than before. I'm shocked.
I am and I can. Please start with the forced mating.
Your logic skills are fucking awful. Its hilarious that you're standing up for science while being a complete jackshit retard when it comes to basic logic.