And don't forget Tipper who is one of the most socially conservative (and successful, note the "Parental Advisory" labels now imposed on music) members of any political party. Trouble is, it's a Hobson's choice, censors in one party and censors in the party. I would love to see either of the two major parties stand up for the constitution, but I see little chance with the current leadership of both.
The AFA were also responsible for an attempt to ban N.Y.P.D. Blue before it ever came on the air. I was sickened when my church handed out the Reverend Wildmon's little cards (in a Catholic church, no less) and sent a letter to ABC supporting their decision to air the show.
Interestingly, airing N.Y.P.D. Blue turned out to be a good decision for ABC as it is a fairly popular, critically acclaimed show.
I'm not sure they ever were I think it was a nice lie they used to get a Republican congress elected. They certainly are not now, they are fascist leaning, and believe that the government must protect its serfs from "immoral" images and utterances. The truth is conservative is a fairly loaded term, but its meaning is fairly obscure. Wildmon is one of the most evil figures in modern American government, and he would certainly be considered conservative. But he's not interested in things like capitalism, he's only interested in forcing his fundamentalist dogma on as many people as possible through whatever means are possible. It was inevitable, I suppose, that an old style book-burner like Wildmon would be able to use the public's Internet hysteria to attack the American Library Association.
If you want to find people who support the First Amendment, you will rarely find them among conservatives. This is why I don't consider Libertarians conservative, we brook no attacks on the Bill of Rights, no matter what the reason the tyrant pushing them gives.
Hmm, you know there was a good article in Next Generation online magazine (before they ruined it by combining it with Daily Radar) about the fact there were a disproportianate number of transgendered people in the game design industry. Probably the best known example of this is Dani (formerly Dan) Bunten, the designer of the great, classic game M.U.L.E. It wasn't judgemental or negative it was just commenting on a fact. I wish I could point you to the article, but like I said, they ruined the magazine by combining it with Daily Radar so I can't find older articles. It would seem to me that if this is an accurate article that people in this part of the computer industry would be more accepting of transexual people.
At any rate, I've always considered Dani Bunten to be a giant in the gaming industry and I was sorry when she died. So, if you ever need a positive role-model to show people who "don't get it" you might point them to Dani Bunten (though, of course, her games are less well known today than they were in "the good old days," sadly. I keep wishing they'd bring back M.U.L.E. I loved that game.)
Well, I'll admit, from the structure of the sentence it seemed to me that the anti-unionism and the libertarianism were being put together by her. I could be misinterpreting the sentence, but I wonder how libertarianism fits into that sentence then. I also assumed that from the title of her book, she saw Libertarianism as being about nothing but rampant, unfettered capitalism which is not a correct interpretation of Libertarian ideals which relate to the Bill of Rights far more than to capitalism. The only reason capitalism comes up is that regulating and controlling the economy is often one of the excuses government uses to impose tyranny and undermine people's rights. I think if a big company were using its position to assault the Bill of Rights, Libertarians will stand up against them strongly as well.
COYOTE is a pretty strong political lobby for prostitutes, but I don't think it is actually what I'd call a union. (Tough to say actually, I don't know enough about it.) I think that's what she meant by union, and that the existence of COYOTE makes it harder to prosecute prostitutes in San Francisco.
You aren't good enough to have a physical relationship with me. I like you but I don't respect you or else you don't turn me on.
There are plenty of situations where this can happen, it doesn't mean that the person saying it is evil (though I think it is a very insensitive thing to say). It usually means the other person is waiting around for an ideal person, whatever he/she may be, and you just don't measure up. I think its particularly insulting and that it changes the woman saying it from "potential wife material" to "woman repellant" (i.e. when women see you hanging out with your woman friend, they'll figure you are together.) So, the best thing to do when you hear this line, if you are interested in having a physical relationship some day, is to drop the person who says it like a hot brick. (Just like women need to drop men who are only interested in using them for sex but don't really care about them.) It is, of course, a really tough thing to do when you are lonely and socially awkward.
Jobs disfunctional (according to the movie) sex life was a big part of Pirates of Silicon Valley which wasn't a big motion picture but was pretty big in terms of made-for-cable movies. The truth is everyone is talking about the "Internet" whatever that may be, obscure computer coding errors have become the subject of NBC made-for-tv movies (Y2K:The Movie) and pop-news culture is obsessed with computer people. Since pop-news culture is also obsessed with sex (especially if it is kinky, and especially if it's Salon doing the story. I mean, am I the only one reading the latest installments of Nancy Chan when they come out?) it makes sense to try to relate the two. Of course, if the stuff about people being rich on not having any kind of relationships (healthy or not) with the opposite sex is true, I have to laugh at those people. I mean, what are we trying to be, Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, twisted misers living empty lives in our huge mansions, all alone? To me success is measured not by having huge piles of gold and no life, what are all these material things really worth if you never have any fun?
And just as sexuality reflects the larger society in which it is embedded, the libertarianism and union-loathing rife throughout the valley seem to have been reflected in the fact that sex workers in the valley aren't =organized=, as they are in San Francisco through COYOTE (Cast Out Your Old Tired Ethic), the long-standing sex workers' political organization, and the Cyprian Guild -- a support group/professional cadre for sex workers. So close, yet so far away.
Ok, here's my problem, as far as I know Libertarianism is one of the few political philosophies in this country that favors legalized prostitution. The Republicans and Democrats certainly don't have the decriminalization of this activity between consenting adults as part of their respective political platforms. Yet, this article actively accuses silicon valleys libertarianism as being part of why prostitution is so actively suppressed in the valley. I'm sorry, but if that's true then my position is "What Libertarianism?" If Libertarianism were really a force to be reckoned with in Silicon Valley (as it is in Nevada) prostitution would be legal there. It strikes me that the author of this article just doesn't like Libertarianism (she considers it conservative and purely money-oriented) and is twisting the facts as a method of attacking it.
Besides, are Libertarians really anti-union? It seems to me that Libertarianism is an assault on the power of government, which in the wrong hands has been used to destroy unions (look at the Air Traffic Controllers). Being pro-government is not the same thing as being pro-union. Libertarianism is strong support for getting the government off of our backs, and the real problem prostitutes are having, according to this article, is government control and interference. In my opinion, this undermines her whole arguement in the article. I would expect the Libertarian party to show strong support for any union who's constitutional rights of free speech or assembly were under assault by agents of the government.
Well, to be fair it is remotely possible that this merger will end up destroying both companies (or diminishing them to the point where they won't have much power any more.) Why do I say that? Look at the Atari monopoly:
1. Atari was the biggest and most influential video game company in the world. They had minor competition, but they were in control of the industry.
2. Time/Warner saw Atari and said, "Look, a vast expanse of gold as far as the eye can see! Let's aquire them."
3. Through bizarre and grotesque mismanagement, Time/Warner managed to utterly kill off the video game industry for a time. Huge quantities of truly crummy content (the E. T. game, for example) were buried in landfills.
4. The video game industry was resurrected by Nintendo, who are still pretty big though overshadowed by Sony. We certainly don't think of Time/Warner/Atari as a player in the video game industry
So, mergers like this don't inevitably lead to domination of the industry, but they can be awful for consumers. (Try playing Atari 2600 Pac-Man for an example.) AOL is troubling to me for this reason, and I don't like the fact that they aquired one of their major competitors, Road Runner for this reason.
Oh, it seems I failed to relate this to my Libertarian ideals, well that's simple. I don't think the AOL purchase of Time/Warner is a good thing, but I have a strong distrust of government. I would expect rather than attempting to stop this, the government will do what it can to make life easier for AOL/Time/Warner. I oppose what Adam Smith called, "the wretched spirit of monopoly," and I should note that my attraction to the Libertarian Party is based on its devotion to the Bill of Rights, and not a personal love of unfettered capitolism. However, I tend to think that all economies ultimately concentrate economic power in the hands of a small minority, the difference only being whether private citizens or government officials have control of the wealth (the people who control the wealth will still have the nicest cars and best houses, whether it is because they are the leaders of the KGB or of Micros~1. The difference is that I can complain about Micros~1, but if I complained about the KGB in Soviet Russia it might mean an ice pick to the brain or a firing squad). That being the case, I worry more about strong government than large evil corporations, but I worry about both. (My biggest fear is of a mega-corp using its power to subvert the Bill of Rights for its own ends by taking control of the government though graft and corruption. I think that as citizens we must be watchful toward such things and do what we can to prevent them.)
My last car was a Volkswagon and my current car is a Honda, but I don't speak Japanese or German so I guess I'm out of luck if I don't like the "big three" media conglomerates, eh? I don't think what happened with the American automakers was good for American consumers, American workers, or Americans in general. I think it caused the quality of cars to go way down, I think that people only by foriegn products when the domestic goods aren't up to snuff and I think having uncompetitive near monopolies were what caused the decline in quality of American automobiles.
Interesting, my professor for Computer Ethics assigned our first paper on this subject (the DVD encryption controversy) today. He gave out an article which referenced Slashdot, but in a negative way and of course took the side of the DVD people, "Oh, how evil to post this information on Slashdot, it will lead to nothing but piracy." I've decided to take the tack in my paper that "life is complicated when you have an industry, computer software, which is dominated by an illegal monopoly which has been shown to use thug-like tactics in the past to maintain and extend their monopoly" and note that the purpose of cracking DVD was not to encourage piracy (which, after all, is covered by the law) but to allow people to use DVDs under their OS of choice and not one created by an illegal monopoly operating out of Redmond, WA.
Of course, I'm not sure what the legal ruling will be on this, I think the main problem is that this is not a case of reverse engineering but involves some proprietary code, and thus is the difference between Bleem! and Virtual GameStation. I think if it had been true reverse engineering, the case wouldn't stand up in court, but because it involved looking at patented materials, it may be a problem. I still don't think Slashdot can be held accountable though, all they did was provide an open forum for people to express themselves on an issue.
Here is the problem, free speech is only an issue when someone objects to it. In the case of the Communications Decency Act the free speech objected to, specifically, was what is called pornography. The CDA wasn't created to combat pages on Doom for example (Columbine hadn't happened yet) it was created specifically to stop sexually oriented material. The CDA was blatantly unconstitutional, and physically unenforcable without the existence of a world government or extremely intrusive measures in this country. Because of this, I find your arguements to be disingenuous "you can be anti-porn and pro-free speech." I sincerely believe that if someone is a true anti-porn zealot, they are going to try to curtail free-speech. I think they know enough to understand that only by making laws against porn will porn disappear (or, rather, become the province of racketeers like prostitution and narcotics), and I think they are mostly comfortable with the potential damage to the First Amendment which may result. I think that it is unlikely that there is a "pro-porn, anti-free speech" contingent in the US (it may be different in Holland or Brazil, where their sexual mores are different. Indeed, free speech does not seem to exist in Brazil but porn is in no danger of disappearing from that country), because porn is always going to be the first thing to be suppressed in this country, when free-speech goes porn will be the very first thing to go along with it.
Politically, it is reactionary crusaders and some feminists who make an issue of porn, and these people have been notably comfortable with the idea of diminished Liberty if it would lead to the elimination of porn. However, it is true that these people will often start speeches with, "I'm a first amendment absolutist but we still need to ban porn" or words to that effect. However, I haven't been brainwashed enough to accept such doublethink yet. I'm sorry, but if people want to show a commitment to the US Bill of Rights, they don't do it by passing unconstitutional laws like the CDA. Porn as a moral issue may have nothing to do with free speech, but Jon Katz is talking about a political issue. As a political issue, pornography is all about freedom of speech, so I agree with Jon's perspective here.
Don't think of it as "throwing your vote away" think of it as, "not being a willing participant in my own destruction." The way I see it the reason why this country maintains a two party system is because the two parties have convinced everyone that voting outside of the two party system is futile. So people may say, "I hate his position on Internet censorship but I like his position on taxes, so I'll vote for him."
Hopefully the two party establishment will eventually get shaken up, if not, we'll end up with an essentially one party system in which agreement on the major issues is essential to gain public office, and only matters of the degree of regulation will provide fodder for debate. There isn't any need for it to be a two party system, it isn't a constitutional requirement.
He is referring to executions in the state of Texas during GWBs tenure. Of course, whether you equate execution with murder depends on your position on the death penalty, but that's what he's referring to.
The Playstation II isn't just a game console, though. It is also a DVD player, and that's why Sony feels justified with a price that is higher than would normally be expected for such a machine. The goal here is to get people to buy a PS2 instead of a DVD player, because after all it can play games (sad really, the people from NUON had the same idea a long time ago.)
So, since it can play audio CDs, DVD Movies and video games, it may be that they intend this to be their ultimate home media player.
I think that what Scott Kurtz is really annoyed at, here, is that there are certain arrogant people in the computer community who enjoy sneering down their noses at other people and belittling them for a lack of knowledge which is not something you are born with.
I do find there to be a problem with his analysis of User Friendly/Dilbert et al., though. These strips make fun of the fact that sometimes people who are incapable of doing the work are the ones who get to make the decisions as to how the work ought to be done. That is a problem because it can lead to disasters. To take a game related disaster let us look at the events that lead up to the American video game industry collapsing. The key event in this was, in my opinion, Atari's aquisition by Warner Brothers. After the aquisition, Nolan Bushnell was forced out, and people who didn't give a damn about the technical or creative requirements of making games but were more interested in maximizing profits took over the industry. Game designers were exploited and forced to create badly designed, rushed out code by people in the upper echelons who just didn't get video games. (Hence, Pac-Man for the 2600, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and other abominations.) When I read the story of the downfall of the American video game industry, I laugh a bitter little laugh. It's not a "fun" laugh it is a sardonic laugh at a terrible folly. The final joke on these executives was they way they tried to convince everyone that console gaming was just a fad that had burned itself out. (This was later proved not to be the case;-) It would've been better, though, if people had been laughing at the way the industry was being run before it collapsed, though. It might have made some of those suits think, "Hey, look at the way they mocked us in the latest insert strip name here, maybe we'd better make some changes, I don't want to look like a fool."
So, mocking people who call tech support, may be a cheap shot. Mocking Dilbert's Boss when he is easily convinced an Etch-A-Sketch is a laptop isn't a cheap shot, however, it is perfectly sound satire. I'm hoping the message people will take away from that is, "Well, I guess if I'm going to be running a computer company, I might consider trying to make an effort to learn something about computers instead of spending all my time on golf. Otherwise, I might look stupid like the pointy haired boss in Dilbert."
Besides, there is plenty of comedy that is based on cruelty, anyway, it is part of the nature of comedy. Heck, just watch any episode of Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python or even lowbrow fare like The Three Stooges to see the point.
This is not the first time this happened to Nintendo. A while ago they made a game called Donkey Kong and Universal tried to sue them for big bucks over the game's similarity to the movie King Kong (mostly based on the name). By the end of that case, not only did Nintendo not have to pay Universal any money, but Universal had been legally proven to have no legal rights to the name "King Kong" and Nintendo was awarded 1.8 million dollars from Universal for their counter suit. Sometimes it isn't smart to mess with companies like Nintendo...
Well, don't worry, I'll be voting for Harry Browne. I'm going to try to vote a straight Libertarian ticket (if no Libertarians are running for some of the seats I'll be voting for, I'm not sure who to vote for. I'll make the decision as it gets closer to November.)
I'll also be voting against all those who voted for H.R.2036 , even if there are no Libertarians running in those races. (My feeling is that such a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment needs to be pubished.)
I think campaign promises have been proven meaningless, as long as the US is run by a two party system, our rights will be eroded by cynical politicians. Shake up the establishment, vote Libertarian in 2000!
Joint Canadian & Japanese production, but fair to both sides, I thought. (Others, undoubtedly, will disagree.) Reminded me of Tora! Tora! Tora! in structure, though.
I know, they'd need a few things down there if they were serious:
1. A fertility doctor.
2. A sperm bank.
3. An egg bank.
However, I doubt that they are expecting a *real* Apocalypse, this is just for kicks. (Honestly, isn't it a little late for this to make a TV series? How many episodes can they get out of it?)
Hey at least it's a bunker and not some less menacing sounding thing like "Biosphere 3" or something.
Slashdot Mirror
The American Family Association: new heights of stupidity!
And don't forget Tipper who is one of the most socially conservative (and successful, note the "Parental Advisory" labels now imposed on music) members of any political party. Trouble is, it's a Hobson's choice, censors in one party and censors in the party. I would love to see either of the two major parties stand up for the constitution, but I see little chance with the current leadership of both.
Interestingly, airing N.Y.P.D. Blue turned out to be a good decision for ABC as it is a fairly popular, critically acclaimed show.
If you want to find people who support the First Amendment, you will rarely find them among conservatives. This is why I don't consider Libertarians conservative, we brook no attacks on the Bill of Rights, no matter what the reason the tyrant pushing them gives.
At any rate, I've always considered Dani Bunten to be a giant in the gaming industry and I was sorry when she died. So, if you ever need a positive role-model to show people who "don't get it" you might point them to Dani Bunten (though, of course, her games are less well known today than they were in "the good old days," sadly. I keep wishing they'd bring back M.U.L.E. I loved that game.)
COYOTE is a pretty strong political lobby for prostitutes, but I don't think it is actually what I'd call a union. (Tough to say actually, I don't know enough about it.) I think that's what she meant by union, and that the existence of COYOTE makes it harder to prosecute prostitutes in San Francisco.
You aren't good enough to have a physical relationship with me. I like you but I don't respect you or else you don't turn me on.
There are plenty of situations where this can happen, it doesn't mean that the person saying it is evil (though I think it is a very insensitive thing to say). It usually means the other person is waiting around for an ideal person, whatever he/she may be, and you just don't measure up. I think its particularly insulting and that it changes the woman saying it from "potential wife material" to "woman repellant" (i.e. when women see you hanging out with your woman friend, they'll figure you are together.) So, the best thing to do when you hear this line, if you are interested in having a physical relationship some day, is to drop the person who says it like a hot brick. (Just like women need to drop men who are only interested in using them for sex but don't really care about them.) It is, of course, a really tough thing to do when you are lonely and socially awkward.
Jobs disfunctional (according to the movie) sex life was a big part of Pirates of Silicon Valley which wasn't a big motion picture but was pretty big in terms of made-for-cable movies. The truth is everyone is talking about the "Internet" whatever that may be, obscure computer coding errors have become the subject of NBC made-for-tv movies (Y2K:The Movie) and pop-news culture is obsessed with computer people. Since pop-news culture is also obsessed with sex (especially if it is kinky, and especially if it's Salon doing the story. I mean, am I the only one reading the latest installments of Nancy Chan when they come out?) it makes sense to try to relate the two. Of course, if the stuff about people being rich on not having any kind of relationships (healthy or not) with the opposite sex is true, I have to laugh at those people. I mean, what are we trying to be, Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, twisted misers living empty lives in our huge mansions, all alone? To me success is measured not by having huge piles of gold and no life, what are all these material things really worth if you never have any fun?
Besides, are Libertarians really anti-union? It seems to me that Libertarianism is an assault on the power of government, which in the wrong hands has been used to destroy unions (look at the Air Traffic Controllers). Being pro-government is not the same thing as being pro-union. Libertarianism is strong support for getting the government off of our backs, and the real problem prostitutes are having, according to this article, is government control and interference. In my opinion, this undermines her whole arguement in the article. I would expect the Libertarian party to show strong support for any union who's constitutional rights of free speech or assembly were under assault by agents of the government.
Just kidding. ^_^
1. Atari was the biggest and most influential video game company in the world. They had minor competition, but they were in control of the industry.
2. Time/Warner saw Atari and said, "Look, a vast expanse of gold as far as the eye can see! Let's aquire them."
3. Through bizarre and grotesque mismanagement, Time/Warner managed to utterly kill off the video game industry for a time. Huge quantities of truly crummy content (the E. T. game, for example) were buried in landfills.
4. The video game industry was resurrected by Nintendo, who are still pretty big though overshadowed by Sony. We certainly don't think of Time/Warner/Atari as a player in the video game industry
So, mergers like this don't inevitably lead to domination of the industry, but they can be awful for consumers. (Try playing Atari 2600 Pac-Man for an example.) AOL is troubling to me for this reason, and I don't like the fact that they aquired one of their major competitors, Road Runner for this reason.
Oh, it seems I failed to relate this to my Libertarian ideals, well that's simple. I don't think the AOL purchase of Time/Warner is a good thing, but I have a strong distrust of government. I would expect rather than attempting to stop this, the government will do what it can to make life easier for AOL/Time/Warner. I oppose what Adam Smith called, "the wretched spirit of monopoly," and I should note that my attraction to the Libertarian Party is based on its devotion to the Bill of Rights, and not a personal love of unfettered capitolism. However, I tend to think that all economies ultimately concentrate economic power in the hands of a small minority, the difference only being whether private citizens or government officials have control of the wealth (the people who control the wealth will still have the nicest cars and best houses, whether it is because they are the leaders of the KGB or of Micros~1. The difference is that I can complain about Micros~1, but if I complained about the KGB in Soviet Russia it might mean an ice pick to the brain or a firing squad). That being the case, I worry more about strong government than large evil corporations, but I worry about both. (My biggest fear is of a mega-corp using its power to subvert the Bill of Rights for its own ends by taking control of the government though graft and corruption. I think that as citizens we must be watchful toward such things and do what we can to prevent them.)
My last car was a Volkswagon and my current car is a Honda, but I don't speak Japanese or German so I guess I'm out of luck if I don't like the "big three" media conglomerates, eh? I don't think what happened with the American automakers was good for American consumers, American workers, or Americans in general. I think it caused the quality of cars to go way down, I think that people only by foriegn products when the domestic goods aren't up to snuff and I think having uncompetitive near monopolies were what caused the decline in quality of American automobiles.
Of course, I'm not sure what the legal ruling will be on this, I think the main problem is that this is not a case of reverse engineering but involves some proprietary code, and thus is the difference between Bleem! and Virtual GameStation. I think if it had been true reverse engineering, the case wouldn't stand up in court, but because it involved looking at patented materials, it may be a problem. I still don't think Slashdot can be held accountable though, all they did was provide an open forum for people to express themselves on an issue.
Politically, it is reactionary crusaders and some feminists who make an issue of porn, and these people have been notably comfortable with the idea of diminished Liberty if it would lead to the elimination of porn. However, it is true that these people will often start speeches with, "I'm a first amendment absolutist but we still need to ban porn" or words to that effect. However, I haven't been brainwashed enough to accept such doublethink yet. I'm sorry, but if people want to show a commitment to the US Bill of Rights, they don't do it by passing unconstitutional laws like the CDA. Porn as a moral issue may have nothing to do with free speech, but Jon Katz is talking about a political issue. As a political issue, pornography is all about freedom of speech, so I agree with Jon's perspective here.
The Imperial March
Hopefully the two party establishment will eventually get shaken up, if not, we'll end up with an essentially one party system in which agreement on the major issues is essential to gain public office, and only matters of the degree of regulation will provide fodder for debate. There isn't any need for it to be a two party system, it isn't a constitutional requirement.
He is referring to executions in the state of Texas during GWBs tenure. Of course, whether you equate execution with murder depends on your position on the death penalty, but that's what he's referring to.
So, since it can play audio CDs, DVD Movies and video games, it may be that they intend this to be their ultimate home media player.
I do find there to be a problem with his analysis of User Friendly/Dilbert et al., though. These strips make fun of the fact that sometimes people who are incapable of doing the work are the ones who get to make the decisions as to how the work ought to be done. That is a problem because it can lead to disasters. To take a game related disaster let us look at the events that lead up to the American video game industry collapsing. The key event in this was, in my opinion, Atari's aquisition by Warner Brothers. After the aquisition, Nolan Bushnell was forced out, and people who didn't give a damn about the technical or creative requirements of making games but were more interested in maximizing profits took over the industry. Game designers were exploited and forced to create badly designed, rushed out code by people in the upper echelons who just didn't get video games. (Hence, Pac-Man for the 2600, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and other abominations.) When I read the story of the downfall of the American video game industry, I laugh a bitter little laugh. It's not a "fun" laugh it is a sardonic laugh at a terrible folly. The final joke on these executives was they way they tried to convince everyone that console gaming was just a fad that had burned itself out. (This was later proved not to be the case ;-) It would've been better, though, if people had been laughing at the way the industry was being run before it collapsed, though. It might have made some of those suits think, "Hey, look at the way they mocked us in the latest insert strip name here, maybe we'd better make some changes, I don't want to look like a fool."
So, mocking people who call tech support, may be a cheap shot. Mocking Dilbert's Boss when he is easily convinced an Etch-A-Sketch is a laptop isn't a cheap shot, however, it is perfectly sound satire. I'm hoping the message people will take away from that is, "Well, I guess if I'm going to be running a computer company, I might consider trying to make an effort to learn something about computers instead of spending all my time on golf. Otherwise, I might look stupid like the pointy haired boss in Dilbert."
Besides, there is plenty of comedy that is based on cruelty, anyway, it is part of the nature of comedy. Heck, just watch any episode of Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python or even lowbrow fare like The Three Stooges to see the point.
This is not the first time this happened to Nintendo. A while ago they made a game called Donkey Kong and Universal tried to sue them for big bucks over the game's similarity to the movie King Kong (mostly based on the name). By the end of that case, not only did Nintendo not have to pay Universal any money, but Universal had been legally proven to have no legal rights to the name "King Kong" and Nintendo was awarded 1.8 million dollars from Universal for their counter suit. Sometimes it isn't smart to mess with companies like Nintendo...
I'll also be voting against all those who voted for H.R.2036 , even if there are no Libertarians running in those races. (My feeling is that such a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment needs to be pubished.)
I think campaign promises have been proven meaningless, as long as the US is run by a two party system, our rights will be eroded by cynical politicians. Shake up the establishment, vote Libertarian in 2000!
Joint Canadian & Japanese production, but fair to both sides, I thought. (Others, undoubtedly, will disagree.) Reminded me of Tora! Tora! Tora! in structure, though.
I like Hiroshima too, another joint US & Japanese production, this one about the events surrounding the end of the war in both countries.
http://animemania.net/~f.m artinertesta/robotica/hhri.htm
It walks down stairs, alone or in pairs!
Probably outside your price range though... You may have known about this one, but any chance to link to it, I take. I want one!!!
Not much like a Dalek, but could be a Cyberman if they ever update the design...
1. A fertility doctor.
2. A sperm bank.
3. An egg bank.
However, I doubt that they are expecting a *real* Apocalypse, this is just for kicks. (Honestly, isn't it a little late for this to make a TV series? How many episodes can they get out of it?)
Hey at least it's a bunker and not some less menacing sounding thing like "Biosphere 3" or something.