Kevin & Adrian owned over 50% of the company, so yes, the company wanted to do something else, regardless of how many employees wanted to do Doom 3. A) The quote from Carmack doesn't indicate a vote. It indicates an ultimatim, essentially blackmail. B) You don't get to vote on what a company does unless you have a controlling interest.
I don't recall Carmack ever saying that the game would be the be-all and end-all of game engines
Maybe not. But he did say this:
[Carmack]:I am spending a huge amount of graphics horsepower to allow the engine to be flexible in ways that game engines have never been before. It is a little scary to drop down from the ultra-high frame rates we are used to with Q3, but I firmly believe that the power of the new engine will enable a whole new level of game content.
But then, Carmack isn't a pretentious little dick...
No, he's just insisted on working on Doom 3 when the company wanted to do something else:
[Carmack]:An ultimatum was issued to Kevin and Adrian, who control 50 percent of the company: we are working on DOOM for the next project unless you fire us
And a lot of FPS fans are going to find Doom 3 plenty of "fun", but I doubt too many of them spent the day of Far Cry's release bitching about how shitty they thought the game was
Far Cry had a demo before it was released, so people could be exposed to the gameplay and if they didn't like it they didn't have to buy it to find out. You have to wonder why Doom 3 didn't. The original Doom gave you one third of the game as a demo because they knew at the time it was so innovative that people would go out and buy the rest. I imagine that the tide is going to turn against this game and as word of mouth gets out, beyond pre-orders and people who MUST own the game right away (myself sadly included) sales are going to plummet.
Personally I feel betrayed. Id has a long history of producing games with fun gameplay. Yes, I loved the original Doom because it was the most fun you could have AT THE TIME. Doom 3 feels like they took a giant crap in my face. But you know, crap with real time shading and bump mapping.
It truly warms my heart that every person who responded and agreed with me did so in a well thought out way, and every person who disagrees with me resorts to personal attacks and gets modded down as a troll. You're not making me feel bad. You're making yourself out to be a spastic idiot.
I hope you're still enjoying the game so much when it rolls around to november that you don't make it out to vote.
You know people keep replying to me like I didn't make this point in my original post. I said very clearly that if what you wanted was 'Doom' with better graphics, then you're all set. I also wanted to make clear to all the others who may have been expecting, like myself, that they might have invested more into the gameplay.
You're comparison to Titanic is more apt than you realize. 80% of the story in that movie is a love story that just happens to take place on a boat destined to sink. It wouldn't have been nearly as entertaining if it has just been 2 hours of special effects detailing the iceberg, the ship, and the iceberg meeting the ship. Which is what metaphorically Doom 3 is.
Do yourself a favor, stop backing down from the challenges.
Oh, I see... if only I tried harder I'd enjoy the game? Like I said, there have been plenty of other recent games that were interesting (and challenging) enough for me to play through to the end without cheat codes. I'm sorry, but when I am compelled to use a cheat code or stop playing its because the game has failed to hold my interest. It would be the exact same thing if I felt compelled to fast forward to the end of a movie, or stop watching it completely. Is that my failing, or is it the movie's?
Boy the fanboys are out in force. Far Cry isn't any more realistic than your average action movie. The point isn't 'realistic', its 'fun'. Carrying the action movie analogy further, Far Cry is like 'Die Hard'. Great action with tense moments and interesting storyline and characters. Doom 3 is like the scene in Die Hard where McClain is stuck in the duct. Over and over and over and over again.
I hope it continuously scares the shit out of me when I'm not oohing and aahing at the polished design.
That's great. And as I said in the first post..."If what you want in a game is basically Doom with shiny surfaces, then you're fine."
So you're all set. For those of us, and I'm not claiming its all of us or even a majority, who want a little more out of our gameplay, well this just doesn't fit the bill. Just because its a remake of a previous game doesn't mean it should be constrained to do ONLY what the original game did.
What does Far Cry have that Doom 3 doesn't, good or bad?
Vehicles (land and water). A sniper rifle. Wide open maps where vehicles and sniper rifles come in handy. Good multiplayer modes. Diverse level design. Indoor and outdoor regions (sorry, 30 seconds in some crater on mars going from airlock a to airlock b while suffering apoxia doesn't count).
What Far Cry doesn't have is:
The same level over and over again. A need for monsters to CONSTANTLY pop out of hidden rooms. A fixation with hell imagery that most of us grew out of after junior high.
But then again, Doom 3 doesn't have enemies that run out in the open into a hail of bullets like idiots in Far Cry do.
What bizarre alternate world are you living in? The grunts in Doom 3 ran directly into my shotgun all the time. Even the ones armed with guns themselves. And in Far Cry, I'd frequently curse the AI enemies for not showing themselves long enough for me to take a shot. Since the AI in Far Cry can auto balance maybe they were particularly stupid just for you. No offense.
Disclaimer: I didn't play the full game in normal mode. I couldn't bear it. After an hour I turned on all weapons. Another hour and I turned on god mode. Later I just turned on noclip and wandered through the game. I imagine some people are going to fault me for not playing the real game experience. My point is that I'm faulting Id for making me not want to. If a game can't hold my attention enough for me not to do this then its not a good game. If I hadn't been able to do this I wouldn't have bothered finishing. Half-Life, Far Cry, Splinter Cell, GTA, these are all games that made gameplay interesting enough that I didn't feel like "Enough already, take me to the end".
If what you want in a game is basically Doom with shiny surfaces, then you're fine. If you want something new, or even something with a refreshing twist, then aside from the rendering engine you're basically out of luck.
The game is well produced. The voice acting is good. The facial animation is decent. The textures are all very detailed, but you know, the 'fun' bottleneck is no longer in the graphics. Its in the gameplay.
So the big news is the latest rendering engine from Id, the people who brought us the first widely released FPS. Well, I'm sorry to say that from what I've seen the rendering engine is about on par with the Source (Half Life 2), Crytek (Far Cry) and Unreal 3 (upcoming America's Army and Unreal releases) engines. There are probably purists out there that will say I'm insane for this and that Doom 3 does X that none of those others do, or do as well. Well, if I don't notice it when I'm playing it doesn't really matter does it? The most impressive things I saw were the distortions glass caused in anything beyond the glass, and the 'heat distortion' you could see in items that were extremely hot. The glass distortion was interesting for about 5 seconds the first time I saw it, and then distracting the rest of the time. The heat haze was interesting in one level, and almost completely obscured with smoke effects the rest of the time. Yes, the lighting was very nice, but since its mostly used to create vast areas of darkness to 'freak you out', I began to hate the lighting.
Gameplay was tedious. If you're a huge fan of haunted houses, maybe this will appeal. If you're not, this is just going to drive home why you typically don't see haunted houses year round. It seems like every corridor is filled with false panels. It also seems like hell's minions have absolutely nothing better to do than to go wait behind one of those panels, wait for you to walk past and then pop out behind you. This kind of mechanism should be used at most once or twice in a game. Here it shows up every 5 minutes or so.
Level design is repetitive. Carmack talks about how many levels use up to half a gig of textures. Yet the game comes on 3 CDs. Well the easy explanation for this is that the game has about 4 levels. It has the mars base level repeated ad naseum, the underground caverns level (seen for about 2 levels), Hell (seen in one level and basically the end game) and mars base being overrun by hell (1 level) which really isn't original at all but uses a mixture of textures and design from previous levels. All in all, there are maybe 2 really 'Wow' moments when you're looking around you. This isn't bad, except that the rest of the time, for me anyway, it wasn't so much a lack of 'Wow' but a 'Oh god not this again' feeling.
Sound is well used in the game, but then its only used to try to freak you out.
Overall this is the problem. THe game wants to freak you out. And not just a couple of really good scares, but rather it wants you constantly edgy and terrefied. This isn't really what I want in a game, or at least not what I want the entire game to be about. Think about the most suspenseful movie you've ever watched. Now think about the most suspensful 5 minutes of that movie. Now watch that 5 minutes over and over again. Either you're going to get bored or you're going to need
This sort of ending can be acceptable in a short story where the author wishes to bring attention to an issue, but is completely unacceptable in a novel.
Can I please have a copy of your 'novel rules'? They sound most interesting. Please also include information about when and how they replaced the first ammendment.
Authors can put any damn thing they want in novels. People are free to enjoy or not enjoy them as they wish.
In point of fact, novels can serve to bring attention to issues just as well as short stories, perhaps better. Be they non-fiction or fiction.
What kind of lessons are we teaching our children if their literature tells them that there is no hope?
A book where there is no hope for the characters does not mean there is no hope for the reader. In fact, willful ignorance of possible futures that may seem hopeless is one of the better ways of ending up living in them, while trying to imagine nightmare scenarios is a good way of figuring out ways of not ending up in them.
So on the one hand PC's are made more cheaply than macs, but on the other AppleCare has paid for $1K in parts for your laptop, which had both its LCD and hard drive fail in some manner?
I've just seen alot more dead PCs than I have Macs.
I'd argue that that's because there are more PC's out there. Not neccessarily because they're more prone to failure.
Replacing hardware is replacing hardware.
A CPU or motherboard failure on a PC means a trip to the store for a new motherboard or CPU. Last time I was at Fry's they didn't stock Apple motherboards or G5 processors. OK, I'll grant you that if you have a spare G4 laying around you can swap out the motherboard, as you can with any PC, but I know from personal experience that swapping parts out from a PC is easier than doing it on a Mac, much less one of the clever form factor Macs
I recommend taking a look at http://macvspc.info/
And that proves exactly what to me? Like 5 minutes on google wouldn't produce a dozen sites that make the assertion about TCO either way
No need to be a smartass.
You don't know me. For all you know in my religion, this is the Ramadan of smart-assedness.
Thanks, I know what TCO means. As for parts failing, if you've got an installation of 100 computers, some of them are going to have components fail in the short term. And most universities have far more than 100 installed workstations.
It's the same thing with Macs
It completely isn't. I have both a Mac and a PC on my desktop at this very moment and there is no single component for my PC that could fail and cost more than $200 to fix. While there are components in my G4 that could fail and be replaced cheaply, there are also components that could fail and essentially make it a large paperweight. And that's with my powermac. If we're talking an iMac or an eMac, its even worse. My whole original point is not that you should throw out any computer when a component fails, but that part of the TCO equation is that component failures on Macs are on average more expensive than component failures on PC's.
You can't talk about TCO in one paragraph and then talk about e-macs in the next. If a CS department gets 100 PC's for use they can get 2 or 3 spares which will last a long time. Because when a component fails on the live machine, they get the one out of one of the spares and that's it. If they buy 100 emacs and the monitor fails on one, they're out the cost of an emac. Large installtations like hardware you can cannibalize (PCs) because it reduces TCO.
only teams like them can offer something new and innovative
Starting up a cancled TV show from the 60s is not innovative. Its obsessive and possibly unhealthy.
If you ask the average trekkie why they are so into the show, they typically come up with drivel along the lines of 'the ideals of the federation'. But there are no federation ideals. Being a franchise owned by a major media conglomerate means that the only ideals you can count on from anything or anyone in the show are those which are most likely to make money.
Bullshit. If it's on my hard drive, which is a physical platter that I purchased at retail, then it's a physical thing that exists in the real world and it's mine. You're telling me my hard drive is mine but its contents aren't? I don't buy that for a second, whatever some RIAA lackey wants to say to convince me. If it somehow found a way (legally) into my house and onto my hard drive, it belongs to nobody else but me, and as long as I keep it for myself, I'm allowed to do whatever I damn well please with it.
No, you're not. Just like you're not allowed to do 'whatever you want' to a rental car just because its in your garage. Granted, there are major differences between physical property and data. The law is supposed to be based around providing benefit to the public, and that includes incentives for artists to create. If we all subscribed to your 'finders-keepers' mentality, or if that were the law then there would be much less financial incentive for musicians, game makers, virtually everyone who creates information for a living. Something doesn't belong to you just because you have a copy, legal or otherwise. Dumbass.
He's almost certainly talking about the algorithmic complexity of routing packets and NOT the raw speed change introduced by simply having larger headers on packet.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
That's such bullshit. If you believe that abortion is wrong, if you believe that abortion is murder, then why in the fuck would you think it's OK for other people to do it?
If you shoot your grandmother, everyone agrees its murder. But if my wife has an abortion, some people think its murder, some people think it isn't. It doesn't matter how strongly people who think its murder believe their right. Some people think its not murder. At any rate, murder is the unlawful killing of people. Abortion is legal, so legally its not murder. Anything beyond that is murky religious values and judgement calls.
I have more respect for people who don't think that there is anything wrong with abortion.
In point of fact, I don't believe there's anything wrong with abortion. I can't see a single valid non-religious based argument against it in fact.
Well, at least your arguing instead of just saying feminism is over, or complaining about my spelling. But you're not arguing too well. Lets take a look.
Their issues page is here. You linked specifically to their 'fighting the right' page, which easily makes them look more like a left wing fringe group. But fighting the right is important, because if you don't believe there are far right wing religious groups who want to roll women's rights back 100 years, you're deluding yourself.
Your statement about single mothers is irrelevant. Do the hardships of single mothers make it OK for religious groups to pressure women into marriage, or for those groups to receive government funding? If so, well I just disagree.
NOW opposes forced joint custody. You left that word out, but its an important one so you should look it up.
John Ashcroft is the Attorney General. As such he should be promoting the rule of law and the importance of the government and the constitution, over and above the rules of any particular god he happens to favor. If that's beyond his ability he shouldn't be the fucking Attorney General. His statement essentially says that he believes that freedom is a gift from god and doesn't have to do with the will of the people or the constitution. That's pretty god damned scary.
NOW has a pages detailing their positions on both Anita Hill and Paula Jones. Of particular interest is this letter which contains the following...
We urge everyone to check our web site at www.now.org to read our statements directly. As one correspondent wrote by email, "My first five minutes browsing your website made it clear that your position and attitude towards this case and others have been gravely misrepresented...I pledge that I will never believe another thing that I hear about NOW or Patricia Ireland, until I cross check it against your excellent website. " We urge your reporters and readers to do the same.
So, 0 for 4, but you're trying. Keep it up.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I'm sick of being told that I'm "anti-woman" because I think abortion is wrong
Well I think it depends on how you implement your opposition to abortion. If you simply never plan to have an abortion, fine. If you think others shouldn't be allowed to, well then there could be a case for calling you 'anti-woman'. Personally I wouldn't because I think that's inflamatory. I'd try to find out exactly what you believe and why and debate those points.
And in my opinion its virtually impossible to be alarmist over John Ashcroft. His policies and beliefs are mind-boggling to a lot of people on the left.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
First of all, you're proving the article's point.
The point of the article is that some ideas can't even be debated. I suggested you start participating in the actual debate about women's rights, as opposed to trying to shut it down by declaring victory for the feminists.
So I'll just ignore your views on a topic you can't spell right even when you see it spelled right...
Well it certainly must be easier to ignore someone based on a technicality than to come up with a reasoned response. For your benefit however....
Now feminist dogma is that men are evil, that every "macho" characteristic are bad
This is a straw man argument. You're painting the whole of the feminist movement with a brush dipped in the fringe element. Why don't you go to N.O.W. [now.org] and read what a mainstream feminist organization has to say and then debate that.
The problem with 'feminism' is not feminists, but assholes who try their best to make the word synonymous with 'pushy castrating bitch' instead of 'person who believes in equal rights for women'. And its done with posts like yours.
But since feminism reached its goals
What gives you the right to both determine what feminist goals are and then to say they've been reached? Are you a feminist? Are you a woman? Even if you consider yourself both, have you participated in the debate and struggle for achieving the rights you think women should have? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the answer is no. Many women AND men believe there is a long way to go before women really have the same chance as men to succeed. To tell feminists to pack up and go home because the battle is over, well, just because you don't care, doesn't mean no one else does.
Spelling fixed asshole. Now either join the reasoned debate or maybe you should pack it up and go home.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
If you aren't a user or dealer of illegal drugs, you shouldn't have a problem.
What about people who are accused of drug dealing, and have their belongings confiscated, then have to prove their innocence to get them back? What about the people who get killed when the cops get a tip about a crack house and bust down the wrong door? What about the disproportionate sentencing laws that say if you use cocaine (mostly white people) you get a slap on the wrist but if you an equivalent amount of crack (mostly black people) you go to jail for 10 years?
For the record, this last point is what most people are talking about when they refer to genocide. The war on drugs essentially amounts to a war on poor black people.
What if you just think the law is wrong? Doesn't that make all of the above abuses even more egregious?
Slashdot Mirror
Kevin & Adrian owned over 50% of the company, so yes, the company wanted to do something else, regardless of how many employees wanted to do Doom 3. A) The quote from Carmack doesn't indicate a vote. It indicates an ultimatim, essentially blackmail. B) You don't get to vote on what a company does unless you have a controlling interest.
Maybe not. But he did say this:
No, he's just insisted on working on Doom 3 when the company wanted to do something else:
Far Cry had a demo before it was released, so people could be exposed to the gameplay and if they didn't like it they didn't have to buy it to find out. You have to wonder why Doom 3 didn't. The original Doom gave you one third of the game as a demo because they knew at the time it was so innovative that people would go out and buy the rest. I imagine that the tide is going to turn against this game and as word of mouth gets out, beyond pre-orders and people who MUST own the game right away (myself sadly included) sales are going to plummet.
Personally I feel betrayed. Id has a long history of producing games with fun gameplay. Yes, I loved the original Doom because it was the most fun you could have AT THE TIME. Doom 3 feels like they took a giant crap in my face. But you know, crap with real time shading and bump mapping.
I hope you're still enjoying the game so much when it rolls around to november that you don't make it out to vote.
You're comparison to Titanic is more apt than you realize. 80% of the story in that movie is a love story that just happens to take place on a boat destined to sink. It wouldn't have been nearly as entertaining if it has just been 2 hours of special effects detailing the iceberg, the ship, and the iceberg meeting the ship. Which is what metaphorically Doom 3 is.
Oh, I see... if only I tried harder I'd enjoy the game? Like I said, there have been plenty of other recent games that were interesting (and challenging) enough for me to play through to the end without cheat codes. I'm sorry, but when I am compelled to use a cheat code or stop playing its because the game has failed to hold my interest. It would be the exact same thing if I felt compelled to fast forward to the end of a movie, or stop watching it completely. Is that my failing, or is it the movie's?
Boy the fanboys are out in force. Far Cry isn't any more realistic than your average action movie. The point isn't 'realistic', its 'fun'. Carrying the action movie analogy further, Far Cry is like 'Die Hard'. Great action with tense moments and interesting storyline and characters. Doom 3 is like the scene in Die Hard where McClain is stuck in the duct. Over and over and over and over again.
Rated M for Mature
So you're all set. For those of us, and I'm not claiming its all of us or even a majority, who want a little more out of our gameplay, well this just doesn't fit the bill. Just because its a remake of a previous game doesn't mean it should be constrained to do ONLY what the original game did.
OK, in what way is a lengthy comment on the shortcomings of a game, in an article about that game, 'Trolling'? Holy crap people piss me off sometimes.
Vehicles (land and water). A sniper rifle. Wide open maps where vehicles and sniper rifles come in handy. Good multiplayer modes. Diverse level design. Indoor and outdoor regions (sorry, 30 seconds in some crater on mars going from airlock a to airlock b while suffering apoxia doesn't count).
What Far Cry doesn't have is:
The same level over and over again. A need for monsters to CONSTANTLY pop out of hidden rooms. A fixation with hell imagery that most of us grew out of after junior high.
What bizarre alternate world are you living in? The grunts in Doom 3 ran directly into my shotgun all the time. Even the ones armed with guns themselves. And in Far Cry, I'd frequently curse the AI enemies for not showing themselves long enough for me to take a shot. Since the AI in Far Cry can auto balance maybe they were particularly stupid just for you. No offense.
If what you want in a game is basically Doom with shiny surfaces, then you're fine. If you want something new, or even something with a refreshing twist, then aside from the rendering engine you're basically out of luck.
The game is well produced. The voice acting is good. The facial animation is decent. The textures are all very detailed, but you know, the 'fun' bottleneck is no longer in the graphics. Its in the gameplay.
So the big news is the latest rendering engine from Id, the people who brought us the first widely released FPS. Well, I'm sorry to say that from what I've seen the rendering engine is about on par with the Source (Half Life 2), Crytek (Far Cry) and Unreal 3 (upcoming America's Army and Unreal releases) engines. There are probably purists out there that will say I'm insane for this and that Doom 3 does X that none of those others do, or do as well. Well, if I don't notice it when I'm playing it doesn't really matter does it? The most impressive things I saw were the distortions glass caused in anything beyond the glass, and the 'heat distortion' you could see in items that were extremely hot. The glass distortion was interesting for about 5 seconds the first time I saw it, and then distracting the rest of the time. The heat haze was interesting in one level, and almost completely obscured with smoke effects the rest of the time. Yes, the lighting was very nice, but since its mostly used to create vast areas of darkness to 'freak you out', I began to hate the lighting.
Gameplay was tedious. If you're a huge fan of haunted houses, maybe this will appeal. If you're not, this is just going to drive home why you typically don't see haunted houses year round. It seems like every corridor is filled with false panels. It also seems like hell's minions have absolutely nothing better to do than to go wait behind one of those panels, wait for you to walk past and then pop out behind you. This kind of mechanism should be used at most once or twice in a game. Here it shows up every 5 minutes or so.
Level design is repetitive. Carmack talks about how many levels use up to half a gig of textures. Yet the game comes on 3 CDs. Well the easy explanation for this is that the game has about 4 levels. It has the mars base level repeated ad naseum, the underground caverns level (seen for about 2 levels), Hell (seen in one level and basically the end game) and mars base being overrun by hell (1 level) which really isn't original at all but uses a mixture of textures and design from previous levels. All in all, there are maybe 2 really 'Wow' moments when you're looking around you. This isn't bad, except that the rest of the time, for me anyway, it wasn't so much a lack of 'Wow' but a 'Oh god not this again' feeling.
Sound is well used in the game, but then its only used to try to freak you out.
Overall this is the problem. THe game wants to freak you out. And not just a couple of really good scares, but rather it wants you constantly edgy and terrefied. This isn't really what I want in a game, or at least not what I want the entire game to be about. Think about the most suspenseful movie you've ever watched. Now think about the most suspensful 5 minutes of that movie. Now watch that 5 minutes over and over again. Either you're going to get bored or you're going to need
Can I please have a copy of your 'novel rules'? They sound most interesting. Please also include information about when and how they replaced the first ammendment.
Authors can put any damn thing they want in novels. People are free to enjoy or not enjoy them as they wish.
In point of fact, novels can serve to bring attention to issues just as well as short stories, perhaps better. Be they non-fiction or fiction.
A book where there is no hope for the characters does not mean there is no hope for the reader. In fact, willful ignorance of possible futures that may seem hopeless is one of the better ways of ending up living in them, while trying to imagine nightmare scenarios is a good way of figuring out ways of not ending up in them.
I've just seen alot more dead PCs than I have Macs.
I'd argue that that's because there are more PC's out there. Not neccessarily because they're more prone to failure.
Replacing hardware is replacing hardware.
A CPU or motherboard failure on a PC means a trip to the store for a new motherboard or CPU. Last time I was at Fry's they didn't stock Apple motherboards or G5 processors. OK, I'll grant you that if you have a spare G4 laying around you can swap out the motherboard, as you can with any PC, but I know from personal experience that swapping parts out from a PC is easier than doing it on a Mac, much less one of the clever form factor Macs
I recommend taking a look at http://macvspc.info/
And that proves exactly what to me? Like 5 minutes on google wouldn't produce a dozen sites that make the assertion about TCO either way
No need to be a smartass.
You don't know me. For all you know in my religion, this is the Ramadan of smart-assedness.
It's the same thing with Macs
It completely isn't. I have both a Mac and a PC on my desktop at this very moment and there is no single component for my PC that could fail and cost more than $200 to fix. While there are components in my G4 that could fail and be replaced cheaply, there are also components that could fail and essentially make it a large paperweight. And that's with my powermac. If we're talking an iMac or an eMac, its even worse. My whole original point is not that you should throw out any computer when a component fails, but that part of the TCO equation is that component failures on Macs are on average more expensive than component failures on PC's.
You can't talk about TCO in one paragraph and then talk about e-macs in the next. If a CS department gets 100 PC's for use they can get 2 or 3 spares which will last a long time. Because when a component fails on the live machine, they get the one out of one of the spares and that's it. If they buy 100 emacs and the monitor fails on one, they're out the cost of an emac. Large installtations like hardware you can cannibalize (PCs) because it reduces TCO.
Starting up a cancled TV show from the 60s is not innovative. Its obsessive and possibly unhealthy.
If you ask the average trekkie why they are so into the show, they typically come up with drivel along the lines of 'the ideals of the federation'. But there are no federation ideals. Being a franchise owned by a major media conglomerate means that the only ideals you can count on from anything or anyone in the show are those which are most likely to make money.
No, you're not. Just like you're not allowed to do 'whatever you want' to a rental car just because its in your garage. Granted, there are major differences between physical property and data. The law is supposed to be based around providing benefit to the public, and that includes incentives for artists to create. If we all subscribed to your 'finders-keepers' mentality, or if that were the law then there would be much less financial incentive for musicians, game makers, virtually everyone who creates information for a living. Something doesn't belong to you just because you have a copy, legal or otherwise. Dumbass.
He's almost certainly talking about the algorithmic complexity of routing packets and NOT the raw speed change introduced by simply having larger headers on packet.
Their issues page is here. You linked specifically to their 'fighting the right' page, which easily makes them look more like a left wing fringe group. But fighting the right is important, because if you don't believe there are far right wing religious groups who want to roll women's rights back 100 years, you're deluding yourself.
Your statement about single mothers is irrelevant. Do the hardships of single mothers make it OK for religious groups to pressure women into marriage, or for those groups to receive government funding? If so, well I just disagree.
NOW opposes forced joint custody. You left that word out, but its an important one so you should look it up.
John Ashcroft is the Attorney General. As such he should be promoting the rule of law and the importance of the government and the constitution, over and above the rules of any particular god he happens to favor. If that's beyond his ability he shouldn't be the fucking Attorney General. His statement essentially says that he believes that freedom is a gift from god and doesn't have to do with the will of the people or the constitution. That's pretty god damned scary.
NOW has a pages detailing their positions on both Anita Hill and Paula Jones. Of particular interest is this letter which contains the following...
So, 0 for 4, but you're trying. Keep it up.Well I think it depends on how you implement your opposition to abortion. If you simply never plan to have an abortion, fine. If you think others shouldn't be allowed to, well then there could be a case for calling you 'anti-woman'. Personally I wouldn't because I think that's inflamatory. I'd try to find out exactly what you believe and why and debate those points.
And in my opinion its virtually impossible to be alarmist over John Ashcroft. His policies and beliefs are mind-boggling to a lot of people on the left.
The point of the article is that some ideas can't even be debated. I suggested you start participating in the actual debate about women's rights, as opposed to trying to shut it down by declaring victory for the feminists.
So I'll just ignore your views on a topic you can't spell right even when you see it spelled right...
Well it certainly must be easier to ignore someone based on a technicality than to come up with a reasoned response. For your benefit however....
Spelling fixed asshole. Now either join the reasoned debate or maybe you should pack it up and go home.What about people who are accused of drug dealing, and have their belongings confiscated, then have to prove their innocence to get them back? What about the people who get killed when the cops get a tip about a crack house and bust down the wrong door? What about the disproportionate sentencing laws that say if you use cocaine (mostly white people) you get a slap on the wrist but if you an equivalent amount of crack (mostly black people) you go to jail for 10 years?
For the record, this last point is what most people are talking about when they refer to genocide. The war on drugs essentially amounts to a war on poor black people.
What if you just think the law is wrong? Doesn't that make all of the above abuses even more egregious?