I sort of see this like an exercise bike. Everyone thinks it will change the way they live, that they'll become more fit, and that they'll have no excuse not to exercise due to weather/time/transportation/whatever. Instead of thinking "I can just ride my stationary bike while I watch my favorite shows," it's "I can exercise while playing games." (And we already have the latter -- they're called sports.) Anyway, these are all potentially true, but when it comes down to it, most people will play with it for a week and then forget about it.
People are either motivated to undertake physical activity, or they're not. I don't think video games will change this long-term in any meaningful way. At best, it will perhaps provide some sort of competitive mechanism for people who enjoy physical competition in the first place, and go on to be ignored by most people for the same reason most people don't go to the gym -- we're fucking lazy.
this is one of those big leap concepts that even if the initial device doesn't do what it should, it can still revolutionize a stagnant part of the industry. The mouse and keyboard/gamepad hasn't really changed much in years. This could change all that.
You seem to be confused. Sony is the mfr. that removes features to lower costs. MS removes your ability to access software-driven features like multiplayer, Facebook, and Netflix unless you pay for a subscription. True, this is a bit like arguing over who's the fattest kid at fat camp, but there it is.
The new country would only know if I told them, and honestly, most countries don't care enough to do an investigation.
And to address your sibling poster, just pick a country without US treaties and a relatively high standard of living.
Alternatively, you could request political asylum, which you just might get from a country without ridiculous IP laws.
Nonetheless, in a country where people can and do get away with not paying child support every day despite all the penalties supposedly in place to prevent just that, the idea that civil judgments are truly enforceable for someone determined not to pay them is laughable.
At least noticed the irony of using a joke where I inserted my own content into existing, even if they didn't fully appreciate it. I would have preferred another pre-existing structure altered to address my reponse to keep the irony rolling, but I'll take what I can get.
We tried this with telephone lines already with regards to DSL. While I saw no reason to abolish it by redefining an ISP as the FCC did under the previous administration, I'm pretty sure it wasn't really solving the problem to begin with. All we had were bankrupt DSL providers who couldn't compete with the "separate" ISP side taking a loss in return for the gains on the line owner side. The result was massive consolidation which essentially returned us to square one, even before the FCC recatagorization.
My condo association is largely run by idiots who signed a contract with Comcast to get service.
HOAs should be illegal, but unless/until they are, they should at least be using their power to negotiate lower rates/higher performance in exchange for exclusivity, along with a requirement for availability and prompt resolution of service-related issues, the violation of which would be grounds to void the contract.
Uh yeah.. I think I'd just move to another country and start a new life -- it's not like failing to pay a civil penalty is an extradition-worthy offense -- but hey.. that's just me.
I think you really just reinforced the OPs point. Hitler gave a bad name to atheists, not unlike how Crusaders and Al Qaeda gave a bad name to their respective religions. All of their methods were justified by twisted, if plausible, interpretations of their respective philosophies. It's not religion that starts wars; it's ideology. It just so happens that religion has been the dominant ideology for quite some time. Similarly Windows as the dominant OS has helped to spread multitudes of viruses and malware, but I don't think anyone could, with a straight face, Richard Stallman excepted, claim that abolishing Windows would rid the world of viruses and malware. Therein lies the flaw in Dawkins argument. Religion is but a symptom of the human condition, not the cause.
Negative. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI expressly forbids this, as does the 14th Amendment.
Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
What about Obscenity, Fighting words, Defamation (includes libel, slander), Child pornography, Perjury, Blackmail, Incitement to imminent lawless action, True threats, and Solicitations to commit crimes?
They're local here and known by many people as Crapital One
Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. Crapital One. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference, reference that outside Comcrap before. Because that's what they call it right? Isn't it? Comcrap. And, and yet you've taken that and used it out of context to insult Capital One. God what a clever, smart community you must have, to come up with a joke like that all by yourselves. That's so fresh too. Any, any Ma Bell jokes you want to throw at me too, as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity?
modern (recent) laws have done nothign to 'help people live better or safer'.
Really? Clean air and water is not important to you? Higher standards for vehicle efficiency? Reigning in outlandish revolving credit interest rate hikes without notice?
The counter-argument is that the market would eventually fix those problems, and maybe it would. That still ignores the fact that it's cheaper to prevent a problem than to fix it after the fact.
I'm not defending *all* laws in the past 20 years by any stretch, but it's either disingenuous or woefully misinformed to claim that they've provided no benefit whatsoever.
in reality it only drives the cost up for people who try to do the right thing and buy insurance before they get sick.
As opposed to uninsured people who get treated but can't/don't pay the bill? Those costs just magically disappear, right? We certainly don't make up for them in higher medical costs or insurance rates.
Buying insurance after the fact may be less than ideal, but it's still an improvement over the way things were.
being forced to buy over-priced insurance or have the IRS fine me $2000 is not what I or most people had in mind.
Really? Yet you're forced to buy car insurance if you drive on the roads. I don't hear anyone complaining about that. If anything, people complain about uninsured driers, and rightly so.
We all use the healthcare system (with a few minor radical exceptions who wouldn't actually have a choice if they were incapacitated), so shouldn't we all have to pay into it? Granted, it would be more efficient if we cut out the middleman of for-profit insurance companies and just pay directly through taxes, but God forbid we touch anything that could be described as socialist.
Hmm.. In some respects, I agree with your observations. I think electing Nancy Pelosi as speaker was a huge mistake in '06. Her rhetoric, shallow partisan talking points, ignorance (in the literal meaning of the word), and contempt for the opposition are rivaled perhaps only by Sarah Palin. (On a side note, I have no objection to females in office, but partisan hacks are partisan hacks, male or female, and to be fair, Barney Frank is a close third here.)
At the same time, trying to justify one's bad behavior by pointing to another's is schoolyard foolishness, and I get enough of it from my children. It should have no place in any respectable political discourse, let alone forefront in the media where it's been. I know, I know, I must be new here.
Slashdot Mirror
I sort of see this like an exercise bike. Everyone thinks it will change the way they live, that they'll become more fit, and that they'll have no excuse not to exercise due to weather/time/transportation/whatever. Instead of thinking "I can just ride my stationary bike while I watch my favorite shows," it's "I can exercise while playing games." (And we already have the latter -- they're called sports.) Anyway, these are all potentially true, but when it comes down to it, most people will play with it for a week and then forget about it.
People are either motivated to undertake physical activity, or they're not. I don't think video games will change this long-term in any meaningful way. At best, it will perhaps provide some sort of competitive mechanism for people who enjoy physical competition in the first place, and go on to be ignored by most people for the same reason most people don't go to the gym -- we're fucking lazy.
this is one of those big leap concepts that even if the initial device doesn't do what it should, it can still revolutionize a stagnant part of the industry. The mouse and keyboard/gamepad hasn't really changed much in years. This could change all that.
Say hello to my little friend.
You seem to be confused. Sony is the mfr. that removes features to lower costs. MS removes your ability to access software-driven features like multiplayer, Facebook, and Netflix unless you pay for a subscription. True, this is a bit like arguing over who's the fattest kid at fat camp, but there it is.
I've received one of these transplants, and I can categorically state that they cause no brain damage amage amage amage amage whatsoever.
The new country would only know if I told them, and honestly, most countries don't care enough to do an investigation.
And to address your sibling poster, just pick a country without US treaties and a relatively high standard of living.
Alternatively, you could request political asylum, which you just might get from a country without ridiculous IP laws.
Nonetheless, in a country where people can and do get away with not paying child support every day despite all the penalties supposedly in place to prevent just that, the idea that civil judgments are truly enforceable for someone determined not to pay them is laughable.
At least noticed the irony of using a joke where I inserted my own content into existing, even if they didn't fully appreciate it. I would have preferred another pre-existing structure altered to address my reponse to keep the irony rolling, but I'll take what I can get.
We tried this with telephone lines already with regards to DSL. While I saw no reason to abolish it by redefining an ISP as the FCC did under the previous administration, I'm pretty sure it wasn't really solving the problem to begin with. All we had were bankrupt DSL providers who couldn't compete with the "separate" ISP side taking a loss in return for the gains on the line owner side. The result was massive consolidation which essentially returned us to square one, even before the FCC recatagorization.
My condo association is largely run by idiots who signed a contract with Comcast to get service.
HOAs should be illegal, but unless/until they are, they should at least be using their power to negotiate lower rates/higher performance in exchange for exclusivity, along with a requirement for availability and prompt resolution of service-related issues, the violation of which would be grounds to void the contract.
If a news source has marketed itself as a source with a...conservative bias (Fox News)
You're joking, right? Fox News is fair and balanced!
Uh yeah.. I think I'd just move to another country and start a new life -- it's not like failing to pay a civil penalty is an extradition-worthy offense -- but hey.. that's just me.
it's called ad hominem. It's also a debate tactic used to implement tribalism/partisanism/racism/sexism/prejudice
I do believe you just made an ad hominem attack on ad hominem arguments!
I think you really just reinforced the OPs point. Hitler gave a bad name to atheists, not unlike how Crusaders and Al Qaeda gave a bad name to their respective religions. All of their methods were justified by twisted, if plausible, interpretations of their respective philosophies. It's not religion that starts wars; it's ideology. It just so happens that religion has been the dominant ideology for quite some time. Similarly Windows as the dominant OS has helped to spread multitudes of viruses and malware, but I don't think anyone could, with a straight face, Richard Stallman excepted, claim that abolishing Windows would rid the world of viruses and malware. Therein lies the flaw in Dawkins argument. Religion is but a symptom of the human condition, not the cause.
Negative. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI expressly forbids this, as does the 14th Amendment.
Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
What about Obscenity, Fighting words, Defamation (includes libel, slander), Child pornography, Perjury, Blackmail, Incitement to imminent lawless action, True threats, and Solicitations to commit crimes?
"You shut your whore mouth when TJ is talking." - Thomas Jefferson
n/t
They're local here and known by many people as Crapital One
Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. Crapital One. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference, reference that outside Comcrap before. Because that's what they call it right? Isn't it? Comcrap. And, and yet you've taken that and used it out of context to insult Capital One. God what a clever, smart community you must have, to come up with a joke like that all by yourselves. That's so fresh too. Any, any Ma Bell jokes you want to throw at me too, as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity?
...and we're spent.
Fixed that for you. You had me at Boobies.
He was just being silly, pretending to add information while not actually saying anything different at all. Who's on first.
modern (recent) laws have done nothign to 'help people live better or safer'.
Really? Clean air and water is not important to you? Higher standards for vehicle efficiency? Reigning in outlandish revolving credit interest rate hikes without notice?
The counter-argument is that the market would eventually fix those problems, and maybe it would. That still ignores the fact that it's cheaper to prevent a problem than to fix it after the fact.
I'm not defending *all* laws in the past 20 years by any stretch, but it's either disingenuous or woefully misinformed to claim that they've provided no benefit whatsoever.
in reality it only drives the cost up for people who try to do the right thing and buy insurance before they get sick.
As opposed to uninsured people who get treated but can't/don't pay the bill? Those costs just magically disappear, right? We certainly don't make up for them in higher medical costs or insurance rates.
Buying insurance after the fact may be less than ideal, but it's still an improvement over the way things were.
being forced to buy over-priced insurance or have the IRS fine me $2000 is not what I or most people had in mind.
Really? Yet you're forced to buy car insurance if you drive on the roads. I don't hear anyone complaining about that. If anything, people complain about uninsured driers, and rightly so.
We all use the healthcare system (with a few minor radical exceptions who wouldn't actually have a choice if they were incapacitated), so shouldn't we all have to pay into it? Granted, it would be more efficient if we cut out the middleman of for-profit insurance companies and just pay directly through taxes, but God forbid we touch anything that could be described as socialist.
Hmm.. In some respects, I agree with your observations. I think electing Nancy Pelosi as speaker was a huge mistake in '06. Her rhetoric, shallow partisan talking points, ignorance (in the literal meaning of the word), and contempt for the opposition are rivaled perhaps only by Sarah Palin. (On a side note, I have no objection to females in office, but partisan hacks are partisan hacks, male or female, and to be fair, Barney Frank is a close third here.)
At the same time, trying to justify one's bad behavior by pointing to another's is schoolyard foolishness, and I get enough of it from my children. It should have no place in any respectable political discourse, let alone forefront in the media where it's been. I know, I know, I must be new here.
Which is just a convoluted way of saying no, he will not work with Obama.
Until they got hungry.