A: It became TV for losers. I realized this when I was channel surfing one day and stopped to watch a show called "12 Guys It's Okay to Hate" (or something similar) on G4TV. I don't know why I watched it other than a morbid sense of curiosity. I can honestly say that anybody who hates the people on the list is a genuine loser. Most of the people on their list were only there because they were successful (mostly celebrities). So much for geeky and offbeat TV programming; the geekiest shows on TV these days are probably Mythbusters and Good Eats.
Re:Not practical or profitable to develop for Linu
on
Cedega and Linux Games
·
· Score: 1
Gaming companies don't develop for Linux because it's not pratical to support properly.
I'm a Linux gamer. Know how may times I've called tech support for a Linux game? 0, as in Z-E-R-O, none, nada, zip. Us Linux users tend to take care of things on our own.
There are too many Linux distributions, none of which have a big enough of the Linux market to be considered the de facto standard Linux distribution to develop for and build a customer service department to support.
Ah, that other kind of "support". Look, there is a standard, which most Linux distributions hew to; it's called the LSB. Write your games to work on that, and they will work.
Windows is pretty standard with DirectX.
Is that why every time I install a game under Windows it has to install it's own version of DirectX? Why can't you just do that with games under Linux? Ever hear of statically linking binaries?
On Linux you don't know what's going to work; the very philosophy of choice with Linux translates to everyone's machine is just different enough in a way that makes developing a game for Linux a real frustration.
I'm sorry, but there *is* a standard for games on Linux, it's called OpenGL and SDL. Hell, OpenGL/SDL even work on MacOS and Windows so your porting would be that much easier!
Shipping source code to your customers and expecting them to build it every time they upgrade their machine or switch distributions isn't a solution.
And griping about the sorry state of Linux gaming on slashdot will solve it how . . . ? I'm sorry, but all of this just seems like lame excuses. Why don't you just admit the real reason you don't want to port games to Linux is because the market isn't big enough for you? There's nothing wrong with that, just means that some of us (like me) won't be buying your games.
RE: "God given rights" - they aren't god given. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but people fought and died to give us those rights, specifically leaving any deity out of the constitution and finally recognizing in the declaration of independence that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Definitely not from god.
First off, let me say, I admire you. You are one of the most reasonable and well informed posters to slashdot I have ever seen. I am curious to know where you practice law so that I might hire you if I ever need to. But that's for another time . . .
Anyway, MPAA is an organization representing its members. If Sony or Disney didn't want MPAA to do this, then they would do it themselves. But they're happy to have MPAA deal with these issues for them. So your point is irrelevant.
I think the original poster didn't make his point very well. I think what he meant is that the artists, the ones who actually compose and perform their works, are not the ones being represented here. This is generally viewed as being not only unfair and disingenous, but against the spirit of copyright. This problem is not necessarily a problem of copyright, but is compounded by the fact that copy rights are transferable. One of the solutions I have seen that I would favor would be to reverse the ruling that corporations are people, and make copyrights only ownable by individuals, and non-transferable. That way the power is shifted towards the actual creators, and more closely respects the original intent of copyright (IMO).
Another thing, kind of off-topic to this post, but relevant to others of yours, is that court is prohibitively expensive, and one is not allowed to represent oneself in anything but small claims and criminal court. This to me seems unfair, but at the same time there are many factors to take into consideration, and I would value your answers to some of these issues:
Is going to court expensive so that it discourages people wasting the court's time and instead encourages outside settlements wherever possible?
Are the laws too complex for the layman to understand, and therefore they must hire a highly trained (and highly expensive) expert to assist them in their cause?
Should the laws be made simpler to allow citizens to more easily understand and follow them, or is the case history so complex because each and every case must be considered to avoid punishing well meaning but infringing people?
Thanks in advance for any answers you may proffer.
Please stop supporting them, and actually vote your values.
As a followup to this, I would like to clarify that I am *NOT* urging republicans to vote democrat; on the contrary, I would encourage more conservatives, especially those concerned with where the current government is going, to go out and vote republican. Especially in the republican primaries. Why? When I think of all the other republican candidates that would have been so much better than Bush (eg, McCain), I weep that more people don't vote in primaries. I've been tempted myself to register republican just so I can vote in the primaries, but to me that feels dishonest, and I'm not sure if the end of getting a better president could justify the means of lying about my party allegiance (ie, none).
As much as we all hate ads, someone has to pay for the TV broadcast.
Really? Cause I could have sworn I've already paid for that broadcast. If not, then what are my $80/month going towards? Hookers and blow? I'm sorry, but I paid for cable to get entertainment without advertising. The day I start paying to be advertised to is the day I put a sawed off shotgun in my mouth and pull the trigger (ie, never).
How could someone who considers him/herself to be a true conservative support such a radical attrition of civil rights? . . . No true conservative could defend these trends.
I keep trying to tell people, the people in power are *not* conservatives. Not that I'm a conservative (I belong to no party), but when people like John Dean are calling your administration corrupt, it's time to look at what these people seriously represent. And if you don't exactly trust the former counsel to the last most corrupt president we've ever had (understandable), try looking up William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater, and see what they have to say about the current administration and their tactics. If there's any more proof that the "neoconservatives" are nothing more than fascist wankers, you don't have to look any further than the people who founded and shaped modern conservatism.
Please, please, please, understand, I am not attacking traditional conservative values; I'm trying to help conservatives recognize that their party has been taken over by a group of scoundrels who are against everything conservatives believe in. These people picked your party because of the unquestioning loyalty which makes it possible for them to do these horrible things and still have support. The conservative party is successful because of their "united we stand" loyalty. Please stop supporting them, and actually vote your values.
Well, you obviously haven't had pronogrpahy ruin your life then. But it sure has mine, so I consider it proof positive. Not any "claim" but real actual experience.
How, pray tell, has pornography, an inanimate thing, ruined your life?
What's wrong with Ruby, as a replacement for a very ugly language called Perl?
What's wrong with Perl, as a very powerful and flexible replacement for C?
Seriously, Perl can be ugly, but that's mostly the language revealing the real programmer inside, and being flexible enough to be ugly or pretty. I think it's also informative to try and compare languages another way: what do they fix?
You think geeks are killing gaming? Well, excuse me, but fuck you. Geeks made gaming and are still making it. There wouldn't be computer games without geeks. And all those involved, 100 hour, 12 button mashfests you complain about? We wouldn't make them if they didn't sell. No, your gripe should be directed towards the two groups who ruin just about any type of media: apathetics and zealots.
The apathetics come in many forms: drunken frat boys who would be just as happy tipping cows as playing games, teenagers with too much time on their hands, etc. They actually have a lot in common with you, because they don't want to have to remember anything like 12 button combos to play a game. On the other hand, they don't want to have to remember complicated things such as plot or character. This results in dumbed down games with no substance and very pretty shiny graphics. The only reason they are a market force is because there are so many of them.
The zealots are what you are really complaining about. They aren't geeks (except in the loosest sense of the word), they aren't creators, they are consumers. They buy many games a month and probably spend as much time playing them as a full time job. They can finish games in incredibly short time spans and master even the most convoluted controls. Even though they are few, they drive the gaming industry because they spend so much on it.
What you may want to look at is the Nintendo Wii. From all accounts, it's geared toward the casual gamer, which is what you sound like. As for variety in games, stop shopping at Best Buy, dammit! Try looking online at independent developers, maybe even try some open source games.
In user interfaces, we basically assume that the computer interacts with one person at a tim But real world scenarios, two or more people can work on the same thing at the same time, or on different parts of the same thing, or on different things in the same space then put them together. But it's not possible to do this naturally on a single computer.
Really? I've heard of computers that can be used by more than one person at a time; they're called servers. Also, CVS and other change management systems allow two people to be working on different parts of the same thing, or different things and then put them together.
The shared computer is an important evolutionary step, but there are going to be a lot of missteps created by excessive literalism, until the fundamental transformation takes place in peoples' heads.
This is right on the money, and it's insightful comments like these that convince me to put you on my friends list;) That being said, I think the problem is that we have been held back by the desktop metaphor that was developed perhaps too early. I mean, a server with SSH does shared computing perfectly; a desktop with a GUI, not so much, mainly because when the desktop metaphor was designed, you could only have one mouse and one keyboard.
My ultimate point is, I'm glad to see this happening, and I'm not surprised to see it come from the OSS/UNIX world. We've had multi-user text shells mastered for a while now, it's only natural to move onto GUIs/desktops. Windows and Mac have always focused on the "mememe" single egotistical user, and their interfaces (not to mention security) have suffered because of it. Now, here we have true innovation, yet again from the open source world. To all those naysayers who say that open source merely copies Windows and Mac, I say "how many users can your desktop support?".
You know, morality; that thing that used to exist in the majority of people instead of the minority.
Oh boy, here we go with the "back in my day, things were better" rant.
How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.
If you think sex scenes are what cause teenage pregnancy, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Seriously, the only thing that causes teenage pregnancy is unprotected teenage sex. Since you're not going to stop teenagers from having sex, then they should be educated about it and have protections available to them. So many people talk about "protecting the children" yet when it comes to something as simple as a millimeter thick piece of rubber, everyone claps their hands over their ears (and the children's ears) and starts shouting "lalalala, I can't here you!"
And why is it screwed...because mommy and daddy let their kids watch sex scenes in movies at age 10 and their kids wanted to do it as soon as they could.
Proof please? I've yet to see a scientific study that shows even a *correlation* (which we know does not imply causation) between children watching sex scenes and children having sex.
A good action film is still entertaining to watch without hearing the 'F' word every 5 seconds.
Oh, and it's okay for children to see a person getting ripped to shreds or shot through the head as long as the people on screen aren't saying shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker or tits?
Look, I respect the right of every parent to raise his or her child as he or she sees fit. But when people start making up bullshit it just annoys me, and I'm sure others.
BTW, I am of the mind set that I determine what my kids see.
I must apologize for the insult I made to those who censor their own input; I tend to get a little emotional about these things, and unfortunately I let my feelings get the better of me. Needless to say, I fully support anyone who filters their input (video, music, etc), and that of their children instead of relying on others to do it. It takes much effort to do so (I know because I filter ads), and is commendable for taking responsibility for oneself and those in their charge (eg, children). Just don't force others to do your censoring for you; and please don't ask the creators to do it. I'm sure they meant no offense in the first place, and to reiterate, it's slightly insulting to ask them to change what they have already worked long and hard on to perfect. Not that insults are illegal (free speech being what it is), but civility is essential to a frank and productive discussion.
Tell that to all the people whos lives have been ruined by alcohol. Both drinkers and non drinkers.
I have to take issue with this; alcohol doesn't ruin peoples' lives, people do. There are probably literally billions of people who consume alcohol and never have a car accident, never beat their children, or yell at their wives or husbands, or any of the other horrendous things that are blamed on alcohol. Are there people more susceptible to having bad experiences with alcohol? Sure, just as there are some people who should never do drugs or handle a weapon because they would hurt themselves and others. I'm a big fan of "hate the sin, not the sinner", but at the same time alcohol is not a sin. It's a thing which many people enjoy responsibly and should not be punished for using properly.
But if they really want a sanatized version, then video/music producers should be pushed to provide such. Keep mind that the DVD can actually have several version on there. One can be G (or more likely PG) and the other can be R. Easy enough to do.
I'm going to have to take issue with this.
Sure, if they are the average joe music/video producer just trying to make a living, they should make a "sanitized" version to gain bigger market share. It makes sense. But I'd like to see you argue that true artists and visionaries such as Stanely Kubrick should "clean up" "A Clockwork Orange" or even "The Shining". Some of these people do this stuff because they are driven to, and asking them to coddle people who can't stand the occasional "fuck" or fuck-scene is not only insulting, but a waste of their time and talent. If fundies don't want to see something "obscene", they should just change the bloody channel. Or buy a copy from a third party that "cleans" the movies for them. Note that I am *not* against self-censure, or people filtering what they watch; I'm against forcing people who make "offensive material" censor themselves.
I'm going to start a company which sells DVDs containing *only* the naughty bits from movies... it'll be called Holy Donut Entertainment. I mean, sometimes you just don't have the time to fast forward through the boring bits, right?
Interesting little thought: a previous post pointed out that if a "cut the naughty bits" business became sucessful, it would argue in favor of a lot of stuff from Hollywood being "obscene" and therefore censorable by the government. My thought is, if you really did start Holy Donut Entertainment, and it was very sucessful, wouldn't this argue in the other direction? ie, that these movies aren't really obscene? I would personally love to see that, but then I'm one of those wacko anarcho-libertarian types that think that any restriction on speech is not Free Speech.
Had he not been so greedy and obsessed, a much broader spectrum of people in the software business might have become wealthy or affluent, and we would undoubtedly have had a more interesting marketplace ecology in the personal computing business over the past 15 years. But I doubt that the incremental contributions to charity would have had nearly the same impact that Gates and Buffett are making now.
Thanks to Bill, we will never know. I'll say it again to make sure nobody jerks their knee like simple minded cretins are wont to do: I am not against charity. But the ends rarely justify the means. Some damage can't be undone, no matter how much money you have.
Look, I don't have *anything* against charity. Charity is always a good thing. I'm glad that Bill Gates is spending his money (and soon, time) on helping others. Kudos to him! But as with all things, the whole story should be told, and you are willfully ignorant of it:
A regular man
Bill Gates is by no means a regular man. He was born a millionare, and his *business* acumen and incredible *good luck* lead his company to success.
creates possibly the most important industry in our history
Microsoft has never created much of anything besides profit for itself. Is this bad? No. But ignoring the numerous other players who have contributed to the advancement of computing and chalking it all up to one company who *buys* all of their "original" ideas is absurd.
and donates nearly all the profit he makes
And sure, if I was as rich as him, I wouldn't feel that "missing" money in the slightest either.
What more can he do?
Not use underhanded, predatory, anti-competitive, and illegal business tactics to garner that profit.
You're angry that he didn't take all directions in computing you wish he did?
No, many of us are angry that Microsoft has *interfered* in the business of others to such a degree as to *hamper* the progress of the computer industry, limit customer choices and then they have the gall to tell us that they know better than us (which they obviously don't) and they are doing it for our own good (which they obviously aren't).
You're fucking insane
Who's more insane, the one who ignores part of reality or those that own up to all of it?
When you buy a Microsoft product, you are supporting advances in technology, jobs for thousands of people, and the well being of mankind
No, when you buy a Microsoft product, you are supporting a convicted monopolist, who makes shoddy, freedom limiting software by overworking and ignoring the advice of some of the most brilliant people on the planet who would otherwise be contributing something of worth back to society.
I can think of no other human being who has/is going to change the world in such a positive way as Bill Gates.
Ah, I see how it is now. It's so much easier for you to handle it and think about it when one person wields all the power and is doing good with it, instead of considering how all those obscene amounts of money would have been spent on a smaller scale, more spread, localized and optimized on charities closer to home because people didn't have to pay $300 for an office suite. I'll bet you're one of those people who only sees things in "black and white" or "good vs evil" too.
With the focus in the past few decades on feelings, emotions, and our complete obsession with "our inner child." It's not surprising at all, it's been a while since we cared about some responsibility.
So what you are saying is that the liberals' touchy-feely policies are responsible for the conservatives faith-based policies? Oh, the irony!
By that logic, movies would be better if they were 24 hours long, and novels should be 100,000 pages.
You're exaggerating; by your exaggerations, games would be 1,000 hours long
I love movies, and books, and games. That means I actually want to experience many of them, not buy one book and spend the next 5 months reading it, or reading it over and over again.
Must suck to be you then, what with the ADD and all. Some of us *like* books that take more than a week to read. Why do you think there are so many series of books out there? Some of us also like our games to be a bit more involved and more attention spanning than "shoot this bad guy, complete this quest, level grind, a winner is you!" which seems to be the norm these days.
When I hear that some RPG has "100 hours of gameplay" I usually suspect that's bullshit and is padded out with half-assed reasons to replay the game.
I don't know what games you've been playing that pull this padding bullshit, but the last games I played with 60+ hour playtimes actually justified this by having a plot and very large and detailed worlds to explore (FF7 and NWN for examples), no replay required. It sounds like what you are really against is not long games, but shitty game quality which will show up in longer and shorter games no matter what. In shorter games, it's just easier to hide or gloss over over.
It sounds more like a bunch of people are going to be calling up and harassing people. If you don't like their policies, DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC!
It's not that simple. You see, these people are trying to twist OUR laws and OUR government into something that serves only them. While it is doubtful that calling them and letting them know that we do not approve will change anything, it is the polite thing to do, after all.
You don't need to explain why you're not buying it since you're not doing business with them anymore.
Perhaps, but in a professional, proactive business relationship, attempts should be made to clarify where things went wrong and what can be done to rectify the problems
You're acting like a kid who says he's not going to talk to you anymore and then spends the next 2 hours trying to get you to ask him why he's not talking to you anymore.
What's more childish: the person who says "I don't like what you are doing and I'm not going to tell you what you are doing wrong or why I don't like it" or the person who says "I don't like what you are doing and here is what you are doing wrong and why I don't like it"?
You know what? They don't care!
Maybe. If they truly don't care, then we can put them on the record as saying so, and use it as evidence of their selfishness in what they do and why their proposed laws that favor only them should be ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
A: It became TV for losers. I realized this when I was channel surfing one day and stopped to watch a show called "12 Guys It's Okay to Hate" (or something similar) on G4TV. I don't know why I watched it other than a morbid sense of curiosity. I can honestly say that anybody who hates the people on the list is a genuine loser. Most of the people on their list were only there because they were successful (mostly celebrities). So much for geeky and offbeat TV programming; the geekiest shows on TV these days are probably Mythbusters and Good Eats.
I'm a Linux gamer. Know how may times I've called tech support for a Linux game? 0, as in Z-E-R-O, none, nada, zip. Us Linux users tend to take care of things on our own.
Ah, that other kind of "support". Look, there is a standard, which most Linux distributions hew to; it's called the LSB. Write your games to work on that, and they will work.
Is that why every time I install a game under Windows it has to install it's own version of DirectX? Why can't you just do that with games under Linux? Ever hear of statically linking binaries?
I'm sorry, but there *is* a standard for games on Linux, it's called OpenGL and SDL. Hell, OpenGL/SDL even work on MacOS and Windows so your porting would be that much easier!
And griping about the sorry state of Linux gaming on slashdot will solve it how . . . ? I'm sorry, but all of this just seems like lame excuses. Why don't you just admit the real reason you don't want to port games to Linux is because the market isn't big enough for you? There's nothing wrong with that, just means that some of us (like me) won't be buying your games.
RE: "God given rights" - they aren't god given. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but people fought and died to give us those rights, specifically leaving any deity out of the constitution and finally recognizing in the declaration of independence that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Definitely not from god.
First off, let me say, I admire you. You are one of the most reasonable and well informed posters to slashdot I have ever seen. I am curious to know where you practice law so that I might hire you if I ever need to. But that's for another time . . .
I think the original poster didn't make his point very well. I think what he meant is that the artists, the ones who actually compose and perform their works, are not the ones being represented here. This is generally viewed as being not only unfair and disingenous, but against the spirit of copyright. This problem is not necessarily a problem of copyright, but is compounded by the fact that copy rights are transferable. One of the solutions I have seen that I would favor would be to reverse the ruling that corporations are people, and make copyrights only ownable by individuals, and non-transferable. That way the power is shifted towards the actual creators, and more closely respects the original intent of copyright (IMO).
Another thing, kind of off-topic to this post, but relevant to others of yours, is that court is prohibitively expensive, and one is not allowed to represent oneself in anything but small claims and criminal court. This to me seems unfair, but at the same time there are many factors to take into consideration, and I would value your answers to some of these issues:
Thanks in advance for any answers you may proffer.
As a followup to this, I would like to clarify that I am *NOT* urging republicans to vote democrat; on the contrary, I would encourage more conservatives, especially those concerned with where the current government is going, to go out and vote republican. Especially in the republican primaries. Why? When I think of all the other republican candidates that would have been so much better than Bush (eg, McCain), I weep that more people don't vote in primaries. I've been tempted myself to register republican just so I can vote in the primaries, but to me that feels dishonest, and I'm not sure if the end of getting a better president could justify the means of lying about my party allegiance (ie, none).
Oh well, no one is probably even reading this.
Really? Cause I could have sworn I've already paid for that broadcast. If not, then what are my $80/month going towards? Hookers and blow? I'm sorry, but I paid for cable to get entertainment without advertising. The day I start paying to be advertised to is the day I put a sawed off shotgun in my mouth and pull the trigger (ie, never).
I keep trying to tell people, the people in power are *not* conservatives. Not that I'm a conservative (I belong to no party), but when people like John Dean are calling your administration corrupt, it's time to look at what these people seriously represent. And if you don't exactly trust the former counsel to the last most corrupt president we've ever had (understandable), try looking up William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater, and see what they have to say about the current administration and their tactics. If there's any more proof that the "neoconservatives" are nothing more than fascist wankers, you don't have to look any further than the people who founded and shaped modern conservatism.
Please, please, please, understand, I am not attacking traditional conservative values; I'm trying to help conservatives recognize that their party has been taken over by a group of scoundrels who are against everything conservatives believe in. These people picked your party because of the unquestioning loyalty which makes it possible for them to do these horrible things and still have support. The conservative party is successful because of their "united we stand" loyalty. Please stop supporting them, and actually vote your values.
How, pray tell, has pornography, an inanimate thing, ruined your life?
What's wrong with Perl, as a very powerful and flexible replacement for C?
Seriously, Perl can be ugly, but that's mostly the language revealing the real programmer inside, and being flexible enough to be ugly or pretty. I think it's also informative to try and compare languages another way: what do they fix?
You think geeks are killing gaming? Well, excuse me, but fuck you. Geeks made gaming and are still making it. There wouldn't be computer games without geeks. And all those involved, 100 hour, 12 button mashfests you complain about? We wouldn't make them if they didn't sell. No, your gripe should be directed towards the two groups who ruin just about any type of media: apathetics and zealots.
The apathetics come in many forms: drunken frat boys who would be just as happy tipping cows as playing games, teenagers with too much time on their hands, etc. They actually have a lot in common with you, because they don't want to have to remember anything like 12 button combos to play a game. On the other hand, they don't want to have to remember complicated things such as plot or character. This results in dumbed down games with no substance and very pretty shiny graphics. The only reason they are a market force is because there are so many of them.
The zealots are what you are really complaining about. They aren't geeks (except in the loosest sense of the word), they aren't creators, they are consumers. They buy many games a month and probably spend as much time playing them as a full time job. They can finish games in incredibly short time spans and master even the most convoluted controls. Even though they are few, they drive the gaming industry because they spend so much on it.
What you may want to look at is the Nintendo Wii. From all accounts, it's geared toward the casual gamer, which is what you sound like. As for variety in games, stop shopping at Best Buy, dammit! Try looking online at independent developers, maybe even try some open source games.
Really? I've heard of computers that can be used by more than one person at a time; they're called servers. Also, CVS and other change management systems allow two people to be working on different parts of the same thing, or different things and then put them together.
This is right on the money, and it's insightful comments like these that convince me to put you on my friends list ;) That being said, I think the problem is that we have been held back by the desktop metaphor that was developed perhaps too early. I mean, a server with SSH does shared computing perfectly; a desktop with a GUI, not so much, mainly because when the desktop metaphor was designed, you could only have one mouse and one keyboard.
My ultimate point is, I'm glad to see this happening, and I'm not surprised to see it come from the OSS/UNIX world. We've had multi-user text shells mastered for a while now, it's only natural to move onto GUIs/desktops. Windows and Mac have always focused on the "mememe" single egotistical user, and their interfaces (not to mention security) have suffered because of it. Now, here we have true innovation, yet again from the open source world. To all those naysayers who say that open source merely copies Windows and Mac, I say "how many users can your desktop support?".
And despite claims, there has never been any evidence that pornography can, or does, ruin some lives.
Oh boy, here we go with the "back in my day, things were better" rant.
If you think sex scenes are what cause teenage pregnancy, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Seriously, the only thing that causes teenage pregnancy is unprotected teenage sex. Since you're not going to stop teenagers from having sex, then they should be educated about it and have protections available to them. So many people talk about "protecting the children" yet when it comes to something as simple as a millimeter thick piece of rubber, everyone claps their hands over their ears (and the children's ears) and starts shouting "lalalala, I can't here you!"
Proof please? I've yet to see a scientific study that shows even a *correlation* (which we know does not imply causation) between children watching sex scenes and children having sex.
Oh, and it's okay for children to see a person getting ripped to shreds or shot through the head as long as the people on screen aren't saying shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker or tits?
Look, I respect the right of every parent to raise his or her child as he or she sees fit. But when people start making up bullshit it just annoys me, and I'm sure others.
I must apologize for the insult I made to those who censor their own input; I tend to get a little emotional about these things, and unfortunately I let my feelings get the better of me. Needless to say, I fully support anyone who filters their input (video, music, etc), and that of their children instead of relying on others to do it. It takes much effort to do so (I know because I filter ads), and is commendable for taking responsibility for oneself and those in their charge (eg, children). Just don't force others to do your censoring for you; and please don't ask the creators to do it. I'm sure they meant no offense in the first place, and to reiterate, it's slightly insulting to ask them to change what they have already worked long and hard on to perfect. Not that insults are illegal (free speech being what it is), but civility is essential to a frank and productive discussion.
I have to take issue with this; alcohol doesn't ruin peoples' lives, people do. There are probably literally billions of people who consume alcohol and never have a car accident, never beat their children, or yell at their wives or husbands, or any of the other horrendous things that are blamed on alcohol. Are there people more susceptible to having bad experiences with alcohol? Sure, just as there are some people who should never do drugs or handle a weapon because they would hurt themselves and others. I'm a big fan of "hate the sin, not the sinner", but at the same time alcohol is not a sin. It's a thing which many people enjoy responsibly and should not be punished for using properly.
I'm going to have to take issue with this.
Sure, if they are the average joe music/video producer just trying to make a living, they should make a "sanitized" version to gain bigger market share. It makes sense. But I'd like to see you argue that true artists and visionaries such as Stanely Kubrick should "clean up" "A Clockwork Orange" or even "The Shining". Some of these people do this stuff because they are driven to, and asking them to coddle people who can't stand the occasional "fuck" or fuck-scene is not only insulting, but a waste of their time and talent. If fundies don't want to see something "obscene", they should just change the bloody channel. Or buy a copy from a third party that "cleans" the movies for them. Note that I am *not* against self-censure, or people filtering what they watch; I'm against forcing people who make "offensive material" censor themselves.
Interesting little thought: a previous post pointed out that if a "cut the naughty bits" business became sucessful, it would argue in favor of a lot of stuff from Hollywood being "obscene" and therefore censorable by the government. My thought is, if you really did start Holy Donut Entertainment, and it was very sucessful, wouldn't this argue in the other direction? ie, that these movies aren't really obscene? I would personally love to see that, but then I'm one of those wacko anarcho-libertarian types that think that any restriction on speech is not Free Speech.
In my day, we didn't have timers! You'd be lucky if you got halfway down the street before debris started raining down on you!
So that's where gods come from!
There, I fixed that for you.
Thanks to Bill, we will never know. I'll say it again to make sure nobody jerks their knee like simple minded cretins are wont to do: I am not against charity. But the ends rarely justify the means. Some damage can't be undone, no matter how much money you have.
Look, I don't have *anything* against charity. Charity is always a good thing. I'm glad that Bill Gates is spending his money (and soon, time) on helping others. Kudos to him! But as with all things, the whole story should be told, and you are willfully ignorant of it:
Bill Gates is by no means a regular man. He was born a millionare, and his *business* acumen and incredible *good luck* lead his company to success.
Microsoft has never created much of anything besides profit for itself. Is this bad? No. But ignoring the numerous other players who have contributed to the advancement of computing and chalking it all up to one company who *buys* all of their "original" ideas is absurd.
And sure, if I was as rich as him, I wouldn't feel that "missing" money in the slightest either.
Not use underhanded, predatory, anti-competitive, and illegal business tactics to garner that profit.
No, many of us are angry that Microsoft has *interfered* in the business of others to such a degree as to *hamper* the progress of the computer industry, limit customer choices and then they have the gall to tell us that they know better than us (which they obviously don't) and they are doing it for our own good (which they obviously aren't).
Who's more insane, the one who ignores part of reality or those that own up to all of it?
No, when you buy a Microsoft product, you are supporting a convicted monopolist, who makes shoddy, freedom limiting software by overworking and ignoring the advice of some of the most brilliant people on the planet who would otherwise be contributing something of worth back to society.
Ah, I see how it is now. It's so much easier for you to handle it and think about it when one person wields all the power and is doing good with it, instead of considering how all those obscene amounts of money would have been spent on a smaller scale, more spread, localized and optimized on charities closer to home because people didn't have to pay $300 for an office suite. I'll bet you're one of those people who only sees things in "black and white" or "good vs evil" too.
So what you are saying is that the liberals' touchy-feely policies are responsible for the conservatives faith-based policies? Oh, the irony!
You're exaggerating; by your exaggerations, games would be 1,000 hours long
Must suck to be you then, what with the ADD and all. Some of us *like* books that take more than a week to read. Why do you think there are so many series of books out there? Some of us also like our games to be a bit more involved and more attention spanning than "shoot this bad guy, complete this quest, level grind, a winner is you!" which seems to be the norm these days.
I don't know what games you've been playing that pull this padding bullshit, but the last games I played with 60+ hour playtimes actually justified this by having a plot and very large and detailed worlds to explore (FF7 and NWN for examples), no replay required. It sounds like what you are really against is not long games, but shitty game quality which will show up in longer and shorter games no matter what. In shorter games, it's just easier to hide or gloss over over.
It's not that simple. You see, these people are trying to twist OUR laws and OUR government into something that serves only them. While it is doubtful that calling them and letting them know that we do not approve will change anything, it is the polite thing to do, after all.
Perhaps, but in a professional, proactive business relationship, attempts should be made to clarify where things went wrong and what can be done to rectify the problems
What's more childish: the person who says "I don't like what you are doing and I'm not going to tell you what you are doing wrong or why I don't like it" or the person who says "I don't like what you are doing and here is what you are doing wrong and why I don't like it"?
Maybe. If they truly don't care, then we can put them on the record as saying so, and use it as evidence of their selfishness in what they do and why their proposed laws that favor only them should be ignored.