If the defense is raising the defenses of insanity, self-defense or necessity, then yes, that balance is essential, regardless of how bloodthirsty the public is.
I think we can now say that hardcore gamers really aren't that importat, based on the "hardcore"-only adoption of the 360, and its simultaneous, spectacular flop.
Because Nintendo doesn't want them to use it that way. Because no one actually uses their system for that, since they all have DVD players. Because people who don't want to use the system for that don't want to pay extra for a useless feature.
People are overreacting to this. It may be a dumb name, but the majority of the population isn't going to instantly think "wee" and giggle, or worry about jokes on a playground. If anything, it'll get kids talking about it, and all publicity is good publicity. But the whining about the loss of the revolution name is a bit silly, people alternately saying that the masses are sheep for buying marketing while simultaneously talking about how they won't buy it because the name is so silly.
Very clever idea, but I'm not sure that it's the best choice of name, exactly. Wii is just a strange name, and has homonyms with bad connotations. Plus, get ready to cue the british pisstakes "Hey, that smells of wii!"
So, after finally getting around to watching "Tooth and Claw" (Doctor Who 28x2), I am reminded of Gregg Easterbrook's discussion of (someone's, I forget whose) theory of the sci-fi "idiot plot," a plot which can only carry on forward motion if everyone involved is an idiot. BSG has been full of them, especially of late, with fantastic "should we ask him if he still has that bomb we know was ours yet is the only one unaccounted for? Naaaaaah."-related activities.
Why do I mention Doctor Who? Because it, quite simply, is not that. Star Trek (at least TNG) likewise rarely ran into this problem, so it's not just an american thing. But why do we buy into these plots? They're ridiculous on their face, yet we keep watching more sci-fi full of them. Are we that impressed by apocalyptic stories and high technology that we ignore the whole reason we're watching the show?
That law was invalidated by a completely different court. And it was a completely different law. Just because two laws have the same purpose doesn't mean they are both either consitutional or unconstitutional. The Michigan law, for instance, was not struck down because of its purpose, but because it was overbroad.
And even then, that wasn't even an appellate decision. Far too much stock is being put in a lower court decision that will doubtlessly be appealed (and since it's a first amendment question, be reviewed de novo).
The Enix half is alive and well, thank you very much. Star Ocean III (with Tri-Ace) and Dragon Quest VIII are two such examples of absolutely fantastic modern games.
Star Ocean 1, 2 and 3- future of galaxy which is actually a computer simulation in 5D space, with a smattering of undeveloped planets Phantasy Star, Xenosaga- high technology in alien worlds Kingdom Hearts- pretty much everything
There is a LOT of variation that people gloss over because they've only played Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy and simply assume that everything is the same. You get the same thing as far as plots go: people reduce the plots to absurdity to further whatever point they want to make.
au contraire, the minigames were the only part of FFVII I liked. Well, Yuffie and her story were pretty cool. But aside from that, I found it incredibly trite and needlessly convoluted story-wise. That, along with static and cliched characters and the emphasis on Cloud to the exclusion of everyone else ruined it for me.
Bit of faulty logic- the idea that "more titles = more chances to have a great title" assumes that each title has roughly the same chance of being great, which is far from true.
This ruling only covers public employees in New York state. The vast majority of private employees are employed "at will," and can therefore be fired for anything. This isn't generally applicable.
In my experience, though, most of the worthwhile news bloggers are journalists already, and have just found a new medium to put their journalistic... uh... stuff to work.
I like how, at the end of the article, he goes on about how awesome the citizen-driven media is! No one would have normally noticed this! Only the bloggers have the power to fix our horribly corrupt blah blah blah.
This horrible, horrible error might have only been noticed by a few bloggers because maybe, just maybe, no one gives a crap. It's about an ad that few see for a game few want on a system few own.
You want to fix game media? Ditch "new games journalism," stop playing the stupid "everyone is a hater" card regarding violent games, stop trying to provide media exclusively through press releases and for God's sake, dissociate yourselves from the companies whom your job is to critique!
Pointing out relatively minor transgressions and fraud present in almost every venue while shouting how awesome blogs are from the rooftops solves nothing.
You generally don't catch mobsters through breaking cryptography. You generally get the group's peons, threaten them with jail and/or search the house of everyone they know (who you also know is in the mob, these things are more public than people assume), and then eventually smack people around with RICO.
This guy put about as much thought into data (rather than operational) security as I think would be worth it.
How well GH has sold. I actually have no idea, and while everyone seems to be talking about it, people tend to mistake popularity with their group as popularity across the board. Look at Katamari Damacy, for instance.
Just wondering if it's nearly as successful as everyone thinks it is.
Because if you don't explicitly say "talking on your cell phone is illegal" people aren't going to realize that they can't talk on the phone. Remember, no one actually read the laws, so they don't know what "due care and attention" means. But when you say "we're passing an anti-cell phone law," people will actually understand that they can no longer use their cell phones.
Just become something is explicitly legal in a jurisdiction doesn't mean a party can't contract out of that right. This is incredibly common, even, and shows up often in covenants not to compete and thousands of other venues. Similarly, practicability of enforcement doesn't negate any terms or conditions in a contract.
You say that contracts of adhesion are just inequity of bargaining position, but it is very hard for a court to find a "take it or leave it" type of disparity in bargaining position when the purchaser has a separate, bona fide option for what they are attempting to contract for. As a result, you do not see courts calling adhesion contracts illegal unless there is a real question of unconcionability or the parties make up a bilateral monopoly.
You can still repudiate sale- so long as you read the EULA and reject it in a reasonable time, you may return it to the vendor or publisher. Sales don't end at purchase, as far as contracts go.
Slashdot Mirror
With the short production time Halo 3 will likely have, not likely.
Most of them are a) annonymous and b) not in the US. Jurisdiction's a bitch.
Past performance does not indicate future returns.
Just that the idea is there, and there's a big market, makes it prudent to get ready for whatever we can reasonably see coming at us.
If the defense is raising the defenses of insanity, self-defense or necessity, then yes, that balance is essential, regardless of how bloodthirsty the public is.
I think we can now say that hardcore gamers really aren't that importat, based on the "hardcore"-only adoption of the 360, and its simultaneous, spectacular flop.
Because Nintendo doesn't want them to use it that way. Because no one actually uses their system for that, since they all have DVD players. Because people who don't want to use the system for that don't want to pay extra for a useless feature.
The list goes on and on.
Not necessarily. The DVD player could well simply be a small software dongle. A HDD requires certain shapes and spaces.
I could definitely see an external HDD using the USB ports, however.
People are overreacting to this. It may be a dumb name, but the majority of the population isn't going to instantly think "wee" and giggle, or worry about jokes on a playground. If anything, it'll get kids talking about it, and all publicity is good publicity. But the whining about the loss of the revolution name is a bit silly, people alternately saying that the masses are sheep for buying marketing while simultaneously talking about how they won't buy it because the name is so silly.
Actual reaction will doubtlessly be in between.
Very clever idea, but I'm not sure that it's the best choice of name, exactly. Wii is just a strange name, and has homonyms with bad connotations. Plus, get ready to cue the british pisstakes "Hey, that smells of wii!"
So, after finally getting around to watching "Tooth and Claw" (Doctor Who 28x2), I am reminded of Gregg Easterbrook's discussion of (someone's, I forget whose) theory of the sci-fi "idiot plot," a plot which can only carry on forward motion if everyone involved is an idiot. BSG has been full of them, especially of late, with fantastic "should we ask him if he still has that bomb we know was ours yet is the only one unaccounted for? Naaaaaah."-related activities.
Why do I mention Doctor Who? Because it, quite simply, is not that. Star Trek (at least TNG) likewise rarely ran into this problem, so it's not just an american thing. But why do we buy into these plots? They're ridiculous on their face, yet we keep watching more sci-fi full of them. Are we that impressed by apocalyptic stories and high technology that we ignore the whole reason we're watching the show?
I just don't get it.
That law was invalidated by a completely different court. And it was a completely different law. Just because two laws have the same purpose doesn't mean they are both either consitutional or unconstitutional. The Michigan law, for instance, was not struck down because of its purpose, but because it was overbroad.
And even then, that wasn't even an appellate decision. Far too much stock is being put in a lower court decision that will doubtlessly be appealed (and since it's a first amendment question, be reviewed de novo).
The Enix half is alive and well, thank you very much. Star Ocean III (with Tri-Ace) and Dragon Quest VIII are two such examples of absolutely fantastic modern games.
Star Ocean 1, 2 and 3- future of galaxy which is actually a computer simulation in 5D space, with a smattering of undeveloped planets
Phantasy Star, Xenosaga- high technology in alien worlds
Kingdom Hearts- pretty much everything
There is a LOT of variation that people gloss over because they've only played Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy and simply assume that everything is the same. You get the same thing as far as plots go: people reduce the plots to absurdity to further whatever point they want to make.
au contraire, the minigames were the only part of FFVII I liked. Well, Yuffie and her story were pretty cool. But aside from that, I found it incredibly trite and needlessly convoluted story-wise. That, along with static and cliched characters and the emphasis on Cloud to the exclusion of everyone else ruined it for me.
Bit of faulty logic- the idea that "more titles = more chances to have a great title" assumes that each title has roughly the same chance of being great, which is far from true.
This ruling only covers public employees in New York state. The vast majority of private employees are employed "at will," and can therefore be fired for anything. This isn't generally applicable.
>cat /etc/motd
Benden Weyr: Now with 200% more Space Elf-related program activity!
Technology and gaming shows don't pull in enough viewers to support a network? Holy crap!
In my experience, though, most of the worthwhile news bloggers are journalists already, and have just found a new medium to put their journalistic... uh... stuff to work.
I like how, at the end of the article, he goes on about how awesome the citizen-driven media is! No one would have normally noticed this! Only the bloggers have the power to fix our horribly corrupt blah blah blah.
This horrible, horrible error might have only been noticed by a few bloggers because maybe, just maybe, no one gives a crap. It's about an ad that few see for a game few want on a system few own.
You want to fix game media? Ditch "new games journalism," stop playing the stupid "everyone is a hater" card regarding violent games, stop trying to provide media exclusively through press releases and for God's sake, dissociate yourselves from the companies whom your job is to critique!
Pointing out relatively minor transgressions and fraud present in almost every venue while shouting how awesome blogs are from the rooftops solves nothing.
You generally don't catch mobsters through breaking cryptography. You generally get the group's peons, threaten them with jail and/or search the house of everyone they know (who you also know is in the mob, these things are more public than people assume), and then eventually smack people around with RICO.
This guy put about as much thought into data (rather than operational) security as I think would be worth it.
How well GH has sold. I actually have no idea, and while everyone seems to be talking about it, people tend to mistake popularity with their group as popularity across the board. Look at Katamari Damacy, for instance.
Just wondering if it's nearly as successful as everyone thinks it is.
Because if you don't explicitly say "talking on your cell phone is illegal" people aren't going to realize that they can't talk on the phone. Remember, no one actually read the laws, so they don't know what "due care and attention" means. But when you say "we're passing an anti-cell phone law," people will actually understand that they can no longer use their cell phones.
Just become something is explicitly legal in a jurisdiction doesn't mean a party can't contract out of that right. This is incredibly common, even, and shows up often in covenants not to compete and thousands of other venues. Similarly, practicability of enforcement doesn't negate any terms or conditions in a contract.
You say that contracts of adhesion are just inequity of bargaining position, but it is very hard for a court to find a "take it or leave it" type of disparity in bargaining position when the purchaser has a separate, bona fide option for what they are attempting to contract for. As a result, you do not see courts calling adhesion contracts illegal unless there is a real question of unconcionability or the parties make up a bilateral monopoly.
You can still repudiate sale- so long as you read the EULA and reject it in a reasonable time, you may return it to the vendor or publisher. Sales don't end at purchase, as far as contracts go.