I thought only America was in the World Series. When did they start letting other countries participate?
There we go, fixed it for you.
Since you asked, it was in 1969. However it wasn't until 1992 that a clearly superior team from another country was allowed to win.
They then won again in 1993, and the 1994 World Series was canceled when it looked like a foreign team was going to win for the third time in a row and the US teams refused to play unless the rules were changed in their favour.
Indeed. I believe the practice started with the 1936 Berlin Olympics when the German newsreels showed only negatives of all of the track and field events, so that a white Jesse Owens could be seen beating the pants off of all the black athletes.
And, if you had been sold an $18 billion login system that was absolutely guaranteed to be unbreakable to anyone who wasn't directly issued the original login and password, then you might be a little surprised at how easy that was.
Which brings us back to the FA. We're not talking about a $10 lock from the hardware store here, these are "high security" locks that are supposed to have keys that cannot ever be copied unless you have the original key codes that were used to key the lock.
Yes, but "We give you a telephone number where you can wait on hold before being transferred to a call centre run by the company which bought the company which bought the company which made this product where all of the people you will speak to only know how to support our new competing product which we would really rather you buy instead of continuing to use what you already have and if you don't like it you can go screw yourself" isn't always what I want "supported" to mean.
I prefer that "supported" mean that new versions and security updates are produced in a timely manner and tested with each new release of the operating system. I'm funny that way.
One would think that "The easiest way to do it" would be to install Winbind, LDAP or Kerberos and use those to authenticate against AD.
The advantage here is that you're dealing with free software, included and supported by default in most Linux-based operating systems, and in many cases integrated so tightly that you only need to run one command and tick a few check boxes to make it work.
What does this third party solution add to that besides the $250 per seat price tag?
Unless they have spent the last ten years working on the ELKS project and know that porting Linux to anything less than an 8088 could lead to total protonic reversal.
Then they would consider it to be quite a challenge, and would now wait for someone else to make one.
"Alright!" bawled Vroomfondel banging on an nearby desk. "I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!"
"No we don't!" exclaimed Majikthise in irritation. "That is precisely what we don't demand!"
Scarcely pausing for breath, Vroomfondel shouted, "We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!"
"But who the devil are you?" exclaimed an outraged Fook.
"We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers."
"Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the programmers.
"Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!"
"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.
"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"
"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the problem!"
"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?"
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Which is it? If it is a trademark then the DMCA does not apply. The 'C' doesn't stand for 'Trademark'. And if they are claiming that this is a copyright violation then they are on pretty thin legal ice as there isn't a lot about the game which is copyrightable.
So which is it? Copyright or trademark? Has Hasbro engaged in perjury by issuing a DMCA takedown notice over a trademark dispute, or are they pursuing an unwinnable copyright case?
And when you say stuff like "gamers today just don't have the patience for it" you sound like the worst nostalgia-infected grandpa ever.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what calling someone who doesn't agree with you "grampa" and espousing the virtues of X-Box Live as a source of games makes you sound like.
Colon, right parenthesis.
compare the experience to playing something like Mass Effect or Oblivion. I think you'll find the newer game is plain more fun than the older.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "different from", not "more fun". And that's really the whole point of the discussion: Games have changed, and subtle puzzle-based games are giving way to simpler, more upfront games designed with shorter attention spans in mind.
Because you are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. The clue is staring you right in the face. To solve the puzzle, you have to do something to make the passages different.
Don't they teach kids logic in those schools nowadays?
Slashdot Mirror
While it's nice to see you supporting my statement, if you can find any factual errors then feel free to point them out.
Since you asked, it was in 1969. However it wasn't until 1992 that a clearly superior team from another country was allowed to win.
They then won again in 1993, and the 1994 World Series was canceled when it looked like a foreign team was going to win for the third time in a row and the US teams refused to play unless the rules were changed in their favour.
Now you know.
Indeed. I believe the practice started with the 1936 Berlin Olympics when the German newsreels showed only negatives of all of the track and field events, so that a white Jesse Owens could be seen beating the pants off of all the black athletes.
And, if you had been sold an $18 billion login system that was absolutely guaranteed to be unbreakable to anyone who wasn't directly issued the original login and password, then you might be a little surprised at how easy that was.
Which brings us back to the FA. We're not talking about a $10 lock from the hardware store here, these are "high security" locks that are supposed to have keys that cannot ever be copied unless you have the original key codes that were used to key the lock.
You're right. If only people would switch to MacOS they would never have to worry about these kind of problems.
Yes, but "We give you a telephone number where you can wait on hold before being transferred to a call centre run by the company which bought the company which bought the company which made this product where all of the people you will speak to only know how to support our new competing product which we would really rather you buy instead of continuing to use what you already have and if you don't like it you can go screw yourself" isn't always what I want "supported" to mean.
I prefer that "supported" mean that new versions and security updates are produced in a timely manner and tested with each new release of the operating system. I'm funny that way.
One would think that "The easiest way to do it" would be to install Winbind, LDAP or Kerberos and use those to authenticate against AD.
The advantage here is that you're dealing with free software, included and supported by default in most Linux-based operating systems, and in many cases integrated so tightly that you only need to run one command and tick a few check boxes to make it work.
What does this third party solution add to that besides the $250 per seat price tag?
I thought that the brown one was the "I click on links without checking where they go" app.
Libertarians yank it too, they just don't agree with the government telling them to wash their hands afterwards.
Then who are the "Jimmy Hat"s?
I think the question is how did you make it through childhood without having already read that.
Unless they have spent the last ten years working on the ELKS project and know that porting Linux to anything less than an 8088 could lead to total protonic reversal.
Then they would consider it to be quite a challenge, and would now wait for someone else to make one.
A great philosopher described that best:
"Alright!" bawled Vroomfondel banging on an nearby desk. "I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!"
"No we don't!" exclaimed Majikthise in irritation. "That is precisely what we don't demand!"
Scarcely pausing for breath, Vroomfondel shouted, "We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!"
"But who the devil are you?" exclaimed an outraged Fook.
"We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers."
"Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the programmers.
"Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!"
"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.
"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"
"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the problem!"
"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?"
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
The _concept_ and _practice_ of "wardialing" was around long before "Wargames". The name was adopted as a reference to the movie.
Anyone who tells you differently is just trying to promote their book.
The argument is a horse, and it was dead before we even brought it out for another beating.
Do you honestly believe that calling me an asshole somehow helps you?
Likewise, as the ghost of Joe Strummer is waiting outside with a lead pipe.
Yeah. Green Day was so much better back in the early nineties when they invented punk rock.
I think you misspelled "incoherent". Just goes to show that you shouldn't always rely on the spell chequer for everything.
And that is why the first Monday of August is celebrated as "Gwen Jacob Day" in Ontario.
Okay, let's do it your way. Over its original release, starting in 1941, "Citizen Kane" made $990,000 in the US.
That was the same year that the otherwise forgettable "A Yank in the RAF" grossed over $3,000,000 in the same market. I'll let you do the math there.
Has the poor horse had enough yet?
When "Citizen Kane" was rereleased in 1991 it grossed something like one million dollars.
A few years later Uwe Boll's magnum opus "BloodRayne" took in 2.4 million.
By that logic, I guess that means that BloodRayne was twice as good as Citizen Kane.
And yet that darn pesky article seems to think otherwise.
Hasbro also asked Facebook to remove the game for violating copyright law under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Which is it? If it is a trademark then the DMCA does not apply. The 'C' doesn't stand for 'Trademark'. And if they are claiming that this is a copyright violation then they are on pretty thin legal ice as there isn't a lot about the game which is copyrightable.
So which is it? Copyright or trademark? Has Hasbro engaged in perjury by issuing a DMCA takedown notice over a trademark dispute, or are they pursuing an unwinnable copyright case?
So instead they chose to punish people who played their game. That's brilliant!
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what calling someone who doesn't agree with you "grampa" and espousing the virtues of X-Box Live as a source of games makes you sound like.
Colon, right parenthesis.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "different from", not "more fun". And that's really the whole point of the discussion: Games have changed, and subtle puzzle-based games are giving way to simpler, more upfront games designed with shorter attention spans in mind.
Don't they teach kids logic in those schools nowadays?