FWIW, I am not anti-copyright at all, I am pro-fair use, and while I agree that Apple's DRM has had positive effects -- allowing people to purchase music online they otherwise would have been unable to; helping to curb the illegal sharing and put well-deserved money back into the pockets of the people who own the copyright; helping to legitimize online music distribution -- there have been negative effects as well, and in the end, if we don't stem the tide of anti-consumer copyright "protections" for copyright owners, we will soon lose pretty much all the few fair use rights we have left.
Preventing people from getting access to information is inherently anti-democratic. That seems kinda odd for people who appear to be supporting the Democratic party. But not odd when you consider they are most likely really stupid.
Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
That's not quite true. The Patriot Act made a lot of changes to how law enforcement works, only some of which had to do with terrorism. For those portions relating to terrorism, you're correct. But much of the Act was things like "the FBI can have roving wiretaps on cell phones in addition to landline phones," which is not specific to terrorism.
The problem is that the story says "a provision of the USA Patriot Act" but doesn't say which one, and we don't know if it was one relating to terrorism, or not. So there's really nothing intelligent we can say about what happened, since we don't have enough information.
We should give a negative "bonus" to people who write at a ninth-grade level or somesuch. Long words and long sentences mean higher "grades" and, usually, poor writing.
This would be funny if it wasn't stupid. Try this instead:
"I guess that makes me a professional barber because when I ran down the stairs with a pair of scissors and slipped, they impaled my skull and removed a few strands of hair."
But still, the question is whether or not someone paid you to do it.
Being fired upon by US citizens is not grounds for war under any legal definition
The problem is that wars are fought when laws fail. The American Revolution was "illegal" too. BFD. It doesn't really matter how it began or if it was legal when both sides are fighting each other, especially since the South was illegally seceding and fired the first shot. I agree that it was unfortunate, but both sides violated the law and came to it. To say the North violated the law is ridiculous.
This is what I mean when I say that Lincoln cast aside Constitutional limits on executive power, effectively shredding the document.
Your hyperbole weakens your argument. He does one thing you think is wrong and it shreds the whole document? FDR did more to damage the Constitution, setting it aside regularly, than any other President in history. BFD.
Very little of the president's current authority is actually invested in him by the Constitution; the presidency is, supposedly, a weak office with few direct powers.
Yes. I wish it would return to such.
How often do people refer to the president as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces?
I do all the time.
Did you know that FDR was the last such Commander?
If you mean the last one referred to often as such, you're wrong. If you mean the last one who officially had that title, you're wrong. I am not sure what you mean. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." That's a position he holds, period.
According to the Contitution, that power is contingent upon a declaration of war by the Congress
No, it's not. Perhaps you are confused with the clause "when called into the actual Service of the United States"? This modifies the circumstances in which he is the Commander in Chief "of the Militia of the several States," not of the Army and Naby of the United States.
it is not a part of the normal job responsibilities of the presidency
Yes, it is. You're just wrong. Now, it is debatable whether he can send the armed forces into action in his role as Commander in Chief, without the consent of Congress, but he has that role, that set of responsibilities, with or without such actions. It's like saying the VP is the President of the Senate, having all the powers that implies, even when not actually presiding over the Senate at the time.
The president does not have the authority to utilise the US armed forces in time of peace, hence Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, etc., were illegal wars.
Nothing in the Constitution requires a formal declaration of war for the use of the armed forces. Even if you believe Congress must approve the use of the armed forces -- which courts consistently find to be not the case -- there's no requirement for war to be declared. Congress approved the use of force in Iraq, so it was therefore legal. Sorry, you're just wrong.
Truth is one defense of libel, but since you've not proven it's true, the charge would still stand. Further, truth is not necessarily a defense of libel. Technically, it is written defamation, and defamation does not require falsehood. However, in this case, since West is not only a public figure but also the one who made the initial statement, then yes, chances are proof of truth would dismiss a libel charge.
The usage was correct: Slander means he (Jerry) lied about the developers' work, saying something negative.
No, he didn't lie about the developers' work. He -- if it is as you say -- lied about the circumstances of his lack of inclusion. He criticized the developers' work (i.e., the content of the game), but didn't say anything false about . He just gave his opinion.
Does this mean parents assume anyhting sold with a "g" label is what they consider appropriate?
Of course, the parents here -- who complained about the content of the games after their kids have been playing them for some time -- have been negligient. That's without question.
Anyone who lets there 10 year old kid play a game they have never even seen before shouldnt have them:)
Absolutely. But does that negate the responsibility of the ESRB to grant reasonable ratings? If so, what's the point of having ratings at all?
I am not even blaming any children's behavior on games. I am just saying the rating is indefensible. Hell, even without the implied prostitution, it is indefensible. That kind of selfish, materialistic bullshit is NOT appropriate for everyone, and only somethine with a corrupted soul themselves could think otherwise.
And by approving the concept, the ESRB is showing its own obsolescence. And tastefulness relative to average modern school students is not a measurement I'd be proud of.
I couldn't care less what kind of racial comments Bird is making
The word is not racial, it is racist. Racial means "of or pertaining to race." Saying Michael Jordan is black is racial. Saying black people suck is racist. Racial is neutral, racist is negative.
FWIW, Bird made no racist comments. He said that basketball is a black man's game, and blacks are -- in regard to basketball -- better athletes. That's not racist, that's being minimally observant.
And again, I am not saying the game shouldn't be made. I think the idea is kinda lame, but I hate that part of the NBA culture, so I am not the target audience. I just think it an E rating for it is clearly disingenuous and stupid.
But Jerry West -- who has been a part of the NBA for 41 years and whose silhouette is used in the league's official logo -- was supposed to be one of the "NBA legends" featured in NBA Ballers. When he learned what was in it, he insisted upon being removed.
"The only thing that a player has is, to some degree, his reputation and his integrity," West says. "I think all of us would like to feel like that's important to us."
I had heard this originally when ESPN (both ABC and ESPN are owned by the same company) ran the same story weeks ago, except the link between his asking to be removed because of the content seems, to my memory, to have been more overt. Regardless, we can't know who's telling the truth, I guess, but I'd put my money on the guy who isn't trying to defend his product, and who has a long history of being trustworthy, and nothing to prove or gain by lying.:-)
You're conflating the sporting event with the people who participate in it. I can go to movies without knowing or caring about the lives of the actors. And, in fact, I do.
Anyway, since when does the fact that something really happens justify its inclusion in entertainment? Saying it happens in real life is a non sequitur.
Further, the things you speak of are not endorsed by (e.g.) the NBA, but the NBA does endorse this game.
And besides.. IT IS A FUCKING GAME.
A game that is rated E for Everyone, and contains prostitution. This is really more about the rating of the game than anything else. If it were rated M for Mature (not that I think it deserves such a rating), there would be far less of an outcry.
Personally, I think the ESRB has a big gap between T and M. M is a bit of a stigma and implies explicit content, whereas IMO suggestivity, as exists in Ballers, is not appropriate for T and not explicit enough to warrant an M. Regardless, an E rating for this game is just stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
FWIW, I am not anti-copyright at all, I am pro-fair use, and while I agree that Apple's DRM has had positive effects -- allowing people to purchase music online they otherwise would have been unable to; helping to curb the illegal sharing and put well-deserved money back into the pockets of the people who own the copyright; helping to legitimize online music distribution -- there have been negative effects as well, and in the end, if we don't stem the tide of anti-consumer copyright "protections" for copyright owners, we will soon lose pretty much all the few fair use rights we have left.
Preventing people from getting access to information is inherently anti-democratic. That seems kinda odd for people who appear to be supporting the Democratic party. But not odd when you consider they are most likely really stupid.
Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
That's not quite true. The Patriot Act made a lot of changes to how law enforcement works, only some of which had to do with terrorism. For those portions relating to terrorism, you're correct. But much of the Act was things like "the FBI can have roving wiretaps on cell phones in addition to landline phones," which is not specific to terrorism.
The problem is that the story says "a provision of the USA Patriot Act" but doesn't say which one, and we don't know if it was one relating to terrorism, or not. So there's really nothing intelligent we can say about what happened, since we don't have enough information.
We should give a negative "bonus" to people who write at a ninth-grade level or somesuch. Long words and long sentences mean higher "grades" and, usually, poor writing.
This would be funny if it wasn't stupid. Try this instead:
"I guess that makes me a professional barber because when I ran down the stairs with a pair of scissors and slipped, they impaled my skull and removed a few strands of hair."
But still, the question is whether or not someone paid you to do it.
Being fired upon by US citizens is not grounds for war under any legal definition
The problem is that wars are fought when laws fail. The American Revolution was "illegal" too. BFD. It doesn't really matter how it began or if it was legal when both sides are fighting each other, especially since the South was illegally seceding and fired the first shot. I agree that it was unfortunate, but both sides violated the law and came to it. To say the North violated the law is ridiculous.
This is what I mean when I say that Lincoln cast aside Constitutional limits on executive power, effectively shredding the document.
Your hyperbole weakens your argument. He does one thing you think is wrong and it shreds the whole document? FDR did more to damage the Constitution, setting it aside regularly, than any other President in history. BFD.
Very little of the president's current authority is actually invested in him by the Constitution; the presidency is, supposedly, a weak office with few direct powers.
Yes. I wish it would return to such.
How often do people refer to the president as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces?
I do all the time.
Did you know that FDR was the last such Commander?
If you mean the last one referred to often as such, you're wrong. If you mean the last one who officially had that title, you're wrong. I am not sure what you mean. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." That's a position he holds, period.
According to the Contitution, that power is contingent upon a declaration of war by the Congress
No, it's not. Perhaps you are confused with the clause "when called into the actual Service of the United States"? This modifies the circumstances in which he is the Commander in Chief "of the Militia of the several States," not of the Army and Naby of the United States.
it is not a part of the normal job responsibilities of the presidency
Yes, it is. You're just wrong. Now, it is debatable whether he can send the armed forces into action in his role as Commander in Chief, without the consent of Congress, but he has that role, that set of responsibilities, with or without such actions. It's like saying the VP is the President of the Senate, having all the powers that implies, even when not actually presiding over the Senate at the time.
The president does not have the authority to utilise the US armed forces in time of peace, hence Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, etc., were illegal wars.
Nothing in the Constitution requires a formal declaration of war for the use of the armed forces. Even if you believe Congress must approve the use of the armed forces -- which courts consistently find to be not the case -- there's no requirement for war to be declared. Congress approved the use of force in Iraq, so it was therefore legal. Sorry, you're just wrong.
Shhhh, you'll blow my cover.
Truth is one defense of libel, but since you've not proven it's true, the charge would still stand. Further, truth is not necessarily a defense of libel. Technically, it is written defamation, and defamation does not require falsehood. However, in this case, since West is not only a public figure but also the one who made the initial statement, then yes, chances are proof of truth would dismiss a libel charge.
If this isn't your intention, then state it more clearly.
I honestly wish I could give a damn about what you think enough to bother spelling it out for you.
Rock!
You are saying that making money and then spending it in a game makes it unsuitable for children.
OK, so you don't understand it either. Cheers!
it's possible both stories are true
Hey, don't tell me that. I was just reporting what ESPN reported, and then someone from Midway started calling West a liar.
So you believe you're Jerry West.
Huh? So you don't know what libel means, either?
The usage was correct: Slander means he (Jerry) lied about the developers' work, saying something negative.
No, he didn't lie about the developers' work. He -- if it is as you say -- lied about the circumstances of his lack of inclusion. He criticized the developers' work (i.e., the content of the game), but didn't say anything false about . He just gave his opinion.
And your libel is that you called him a liar.
Please play the game before you make this kind of comment.
Please understand my criticism before you respond to it.
No, Midway would not want to go on the record as officially calling West a liar because it doesn't benefit the company.
Yet, you did, on their behalf. I am wondering why you did, if your company would not wish you to. Is this question unfair?
The developers may well personally object to his slander however.
I think you don't know what "slander" means. I slandered no one. You libeled West.
Does this mean parents assume anyhting sold with a "g" label is what they consider appropriate?
:)
Of course, the parents here -- who complained about the content of the games after their kids have been playing them for some time -- have been negligient. That's without question.
Anyone who lets there 10 year old kid play a game they have never even seen before shouldnt have them
Absolutely. But does that negate the responsibility of the ESRB to grant reasonable ratings? If so, what's the point of having ratings at all?
I am not even blaming any children's behavior on games. I am just saying the rating is indefensible. Hell, even without the implied prostitution, it is indefensible. That kind of selfish, materialistic bullshit is NOT appropriate for everyone, and only somethine with a corrupted soul themselves could think otherwise.
Do you think Midway would appreciate you calling Jerry West a liar, on their behalf?
And by approving the concept, the ESRB is showing its own obsolescence. And tastefulness relative to average modern school students is not a measurement I'd be proud of.
Yes, since you didn't know what Bird was talking about, I wasn't criticizing you, just clarifying for your sake. :-) Cheers,
I couldn't care less what kind of racial comments Bird is making
The word is not racial, it is racist. Racial means "of or pertaining to race." Saying Michael Jordan is black is racial. Saying black people suck is racist. Racial is neutral, racist is negative.
FWIW, Bird made no racist comments. He said that basketball is a black man's game, and blacks are -- in regard to basketball -- better athletes. That's not racist, that's being minimally observant.
So you're saying Jerry West is lying?
And again, I am not saying the game shouldn't be made. I think the idea is kinda lame, but I hate that part of the NBA culture, so I am not the target audience. I just think it an E rating for it is clearly disingenuous and stupid.
You mean Bird and the somewhat racial comments he's making now?
What's wrong with being sexy?
You're conflating the sporting event with the people who participate in it. I can go to movies without knowing or caring about the lives of the actors. And, in fact, I do.
Anyway, since when does the fact that something really happens justify its inclusion in entertainment? Saying it happens in real life is a non sequitur.
Further, the things you speak of are not endorsed by (e.g.) the NBA, but the NBA does endorse this game.
And besides.. IT IS A FUCKING GAME.
A game that is rated E for Everyone, and contains prostitution. This is really more about the rating of the game than anything else. If it were rated M for Mature (not that I think it deserves such a rating), there would be far less of an outcry.
Personally, I think the ESRB has a big gap between T and M. M is a bit of a stigma and implies explicit content, whereas IMO suggestivity, as exists in Ballers, is not appropriate for T and not explicit enough to warrant an M. Regardless, an E rating for this game is just stupid.