Ah, I see. I didn't think to check the forums. Yep, it looks like you're right:
These polls are only 34 out of the 64 games. We've already got 30 games on the list that will be revealed on Monday. A lot of the stuff that people keep saying we missed are already in the tournament.
Okay, so that's one thing I can't bitch about (until Monday anyway--Monday's a good day for bitching:), but my other point still stands: The best part of the GameSpy contest will be found on Penny Arcade. Until then, I guess I'll just have to get riled down again.
Quick, everybody, which was a better game, River City Ransom or Civilization? Fallout or Quake? Castlevania or Dance Dance Revolution? Apparently the people at GameSpy don't agree with me, but I don't really think that a meaningful comparison can be made between many of the games.
GameSpy readers seem to be no brighter than the editors. For example, in the text adventure category (which Nethack does not belong in, btw), Adventure is miles ahead of Planetfall right now. A plotless game with a verb-noun parser outshining one of the best stories in all of video gaming. Nice.
And there are so many missing games! Where's Wasteland? What about Master of Orion? Rampage? Metal Slug? What about that little-known series from Nintendo, Metroid? How can anyone hold a "Best Game Ever" contest that's missing so many games, and still keep a straight face? By being GameSpy, I guess.
I suppose it shouldn't be much of a surprise to me: GameSpy sucks. Maybe it'll be good for a laugh when it's all done with. I can't wait to read the inevitable Penny Arcade strip that mocks this travesty.
At WWII we had to make much larger sacrifices to save the free world and democracy.
I agree, we had to do all that we could during WWII to support the war effort. Some civil liberties simply had to be suspended. Did we cry and whine about freedom? No! We swore to never forget the horrifying events of February 27th, 1933, and supported the Reichstag Fire Decree like any true patriots would. The decree itself should sound familiar to you:
The articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the constitution are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights to personal freedom [meaning habeas corpus], freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of letters, mail, telegraphs and telephones, order searches and confiscations and restrict property, even if this is not otherwise provided for by present law.
It was a bold step for the government, but such measures are necessary to prevent terrorism. Law-abiding citizens had nothing to fear, of course, and terrorist activities were made a thing of the past. I'm proud and happy to see the United States following the example that the Fatherland has provided. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and America has learned so very well.
Maybe you just haven't noticed that it's unnature and goes against the grain of everything that is right in the world.
Actually, if you do a bit of research, you'll find out that there are plenty of queer animals around. Homosexuality is a perfectly natural occurrence in every sexually reproducing species in the world. If you take nature as an example, the only thing unnatural about human homosexuality is our reaction to it.
Maybe it's just the fact those homophobics people hold marriage secared and thinks a child should be raised knowing a mother and a father.
If marriage is so sacred, then why are there more divorcees than married people? Why are there so many children with only one parent? I think it would be interesting to see how many gay marriages last as opposed to straight marriages, but we'd have to allow homosexuals to marry each other for that.
Maybe they think being gay spread diease at a higher rate.
Yeah, those fucking gays, givin' me the flu all the time. It's even affecting my grammar! Or maybe you're talking about sexually transmitted diseases? Well, if you don't want to catch an STD from one of those gays, then don't fuck any of them. It's as easy as that.
Maybe it's the image of two males having sex which is so vourger that they would rather think about it.
What? What do you mean by "vourger"? Seeing as we're talking about homophobes here, I'm going to venture a guess as to the definition of "vourger": So incredibly erotic that it causes onlookers to question their sexuality. Really, now, if you find images of two males having sex to be so offensive, then why are you looking at them? Wash your hands off before you respond.
Maybe they are homophobic because they would rather live their lives without someone sexuiaty throw in thier face all the fucking time.
Now this one I can agree with. Those homos do seem to be rather aggressive about promoting and defending their sexuality, don't they? Maybe they wouldn't be so defensive about their sexual preferences if they weren't always under attack. You don't see any Straight Pride Parades, do you? That's because being straight isn't taboo; straight folks don't need to clamour and shout for acceptance in society. I've got some sad news for you, Mister AC: These people aren't going away, and they're going to be throwing their sexuality in your face, over and over again, until you grow up and stop treating it like such a big deal.
And why should it be such a big deal? Really, there are countless thousands of guys out there, buggering each other, right now. How does that affect you at all? Why do you care so much about what goes on in other people's bedrooms?
I think the reason is this: When a person states an opinion or belief, there are inevitably other people who will take it to be a statement of fact.
Consider the following statements:
1) Windows sucks. Linux is the best.
2) Linux sucks. Windows is the best.
If we take these statements to be opinions, then they can co-exist peacefully. Two different preferences have been presented, and no contradiction has occurred, as it would be mad to assume that people do not have different preferences from one another.
However, if we take the statements to be facts, then there is a conflict. The two are mutually exclusive; both cannot be true. One must be argued, modded, or shouted down, so that only the other remains. Hence, troll moddings, arguments, flaming, and holy wars erupt, instead of rational discourse and discussion.
It's sad, but seems to be true: Most people believe their own opinions to be facts, and would rather be proven right than learn something about the other side of the argument. You can find ample evidence of this on any message board online. The reason that people make statements such as:
...Mods - mod as troll all you want. I am not trolling, though - these are the facts. Windows really sucks...
...is probably because they've confused opinion and fact, or because they're afraid that others who have confused opinion and fact will cost them "points". Replacing the phrase, "these are the facts", with "these are my opinions" would have probably earned the poster a better score than his or her current -1.
When you write/make something in a particular form, you choose the form that can best portray your message to the viewer. Trying to repeat that in a different form is bound for failure.
Yet Fight Club itself is a movie based on a book, and it's a damn good movie. The Aliens TC mod for Doom was one of the scariest games I ever played. Blade Runner is an excellent film, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is an excellent book. I hear that the new Lord of the Rings movies aren't too bad, either.
I agree that a lot of video games based on movies suck, but I don't think it's just because the story was translated into a new medium. Whether or not the translation sucks depends more on the abilities and motivations of the translators. "I'd like to pay homage to the most badass movie I ever watched" is probably more likely to produce a good game than "Hey, let's milk a few more bucks outta Fight Club." There's also the question of whether or not a story can even be translated into a particular medium. Aliens is pretty easy subject material for a video game. Fight Club sure as hell isn't.
I'm glad you liked it. As for the book of video game "poems", I'm so happy that I've grown old enough to realize that "random carriage returns" does not necessarily equal "free verse".
You're right that good spelling disqualifies the haiku as gaming fare. I'll have to try to be more l33t. This one goes out to all my Enemy Territory homies gettin' camped at the Railgun:
You make some very good points, but seem to have missed some parts of mine. So I'll try to clarify my position a bit.
My complaint wasn't directed toward the natural distinctions between the various races, but rather toward the artificial ones. You say that these are self-imposed, but however they were imposed, and with whatever intentions, they serve more as barriers between the races than bridges. The artificial differences we impose cause us to tiptoe around the natural differences, trying our best to ignore them rather than to understand and embrace them.
I can't argue too well about current television and music, as I don't watch TV or listen to much music (the PC term for someone like me is "Pop-culturally challenged":), so I'll just concede most of those points to you. Entertainment is driven by the preferences of those entertained by it, and so that's probably a natural difference there. I will say this, however: Black television shows don't seem to be required to include a "token white guy" in their main cast.
You say that political correctness is really about treating people the same way you want to be treated. This is true of its intent, but not of its effect. Sometimes common sense doesn't produce good solutions, especially when dealing with an issue as hideously complicated as racial relations. People want simple solutions, and making certain things taboo is simple enough in its implementation, but certainly not in its ramifications.
My view of the Haitians' qualms with Vice City: It was immediately apparent to me that the game's shallow depiction of a gang of Haitian thugs could not possibly represent Haitian people and their culture as a whole, any more than the main character represents the whole of Italian American culture. In the mission in question, the main character was not killing Haitians in general, but cardboard representations of a tiny subset of the Haitian people. Not all Italians work for the Mafia, not all Hatians are gang members, and no one in a video game is real. I don't really see the reason in taking offense. Other people obviously don't see it that way.
Race is always going to be an instantaneous means of identifying someone, I don't deny that. What I would like to see eradicated is all the negative baggage that goes along with that instantaneous identification. It's not wrong to note that the person next to me on the train is black, but the list of unacceptable behaviour that comes with noting that, and the tension and unease that it causes, is most certainly wrong. I agree with you completely, differences can (and should!) be celebrated, but it's hard to dance when you're too scared of stepping on someone's toes.
Don't people see that this sort of action is PROMOTING racism?
They don't. Most people take the opposite view: that enforcing artificial distinctions between ethnic groups will somehow bring these groups together instead of keeping them separated. It's okay to use this word to describe these people, but not to use this other word to describe these other people; it's okay to run over or gun down people in a video game, but not if they're of this background; this TV show should appeal to people of this ethnicity, whereas this other TV show is for the other folks; and don't you dare offer any fried chicken to that guy over there, he'll get offended!
We don't have separate drinking fountains anymore, and only the handicapped and the elderly have seats reserved at the front of the bus. But we have separate television shows, separate music styles, separate styles of clothing, separate vocabularies, and now separate mission objectives in Grand Theft Auto. Segregation never went away; it just got sneakier. The rifts between the races have become more semantic and less physical, but that doesn't mean that they've not there. And now they're being pushed under the label of "Political Correctness".
You better watch what you say, and especially who you say it to. Don't you dare look at someone else and think, "Oh, another human being." You'd better make sure you categorize that person properly first, and think of the differences between you, long before you think of the common heritage that we all share as human beings.
Gravity's Rainbow is one of my favorite books of all time. I mean, it's got rocket science, calculus, drug abuse, World War II, Qabalah, musical interludes, philosophy, poetry, religion, more wanton depravity than a stack of Hustlers this tall... there's something for everyone, you know? It makes me sad that most people put it down after twenty pages and go looking for some aspirin, but I can understand where they're coming from--it's not exactly light reading. It works for me, though.
That's a good point, though I don't think the people who lived in London at the time saw it the same way. It's too bad that this guy got shut down, because he was going to give his gift directly to mankind without blowing up half of London (for QA purposes) first. Or so he said. I don't really blame the New Zealand government for playing things on the safe side.
Yes, that's true. But if I had the resources to just build weapons in the backyard, I'd build a V2; they're way cooler. Also, I've been reading Gravity's Rainbow again, so the V2 was the first thing to pop into my head.
Why is this guy acting all suprised about it? From the article:
The New Zealand government has moved aggressively to shut down this project -- and by using quite unscrupulous methods which appear to be in breach of the law.
Oh, wow, really? Even though it's not technically illegal, I wouldn't be too shocked to find out that the authorities wanted to have a word or two with me if I was building a V2 in my backyard:
"Oh, no, officer, this rocket is for humanitarian purposes only! And as a gift to all mankind, I've posted the plans online so that other humanitarians can build rockets of their own! What could be wrong with that?"
It was a really cool project, but come on. Who didn't see this coming?
Re:Online mentions in IBM filing
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
(And of course, all of this assumes SCO's "stolen" code is real. I see no more or less reason to take such an idea seriously than I see a reason to believe the works of H.P. Lovecraft are actually true.)
Maybe that's why they won't show anyone the infringing code! It's in there, but if Darl and Co. showed it to you, it would devour your mind! Yaaaaaah!
I mean, I bought it. It's a Honda, and I thought I could do what ever I wanted with it! right???
Of course you can. The big difference here is that it's impossible to just clone off fifty Hondas and give them away to all your friends (wouldn't that be neat?). If this suddenly became possible, we'd see a similar amount of panic from Honda as we do from our friendly neighborhood content providers.
I should be able to back up my DVD's for my own purpouse.
Well, from a consumer's point of view, that's perfectly reasonable, but not from the content provider's point of view. Imagine you could back up your Honda for your own purposes, and take a copy of it on a road trip, saving wear and tear on the original. Do you think Honda would want you to do that? Of course not! You'd be able to keep driving the same car for the rest of your life, and they'd never see another penny from you again. The copyright owners want you to lose your DVD on the plane, they want it getting chewed up by the dog or the kids, whatever it takes to get the price of that DVD from you again.
Best of all for the content providers would be charging you every time you watch that DVD, but they can't do that--yet. I think that the laws should reflect a compromise between the wants of the providers and the wants of the consumers. Unfortunately, the consumers don't have the financial and legal resources required to pull the laws back to their side, and the content providers don't have the insight to realize that screwing their customers is the quickest way to lost profits. I don't think the pendulum can swing one way forever, though. It'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Longhorn is so far from being finished right now, I don't know why anyone would want a leaked copy of it. Why not go with a pirated copy of XP or something instead?
It's kind of like this early release of the Half Life 3 source:
Sounds like you're a little afraid to have your "opinions" questioned.
Nope, not at all. Go ahead and question them. I don't even have to post anonymously. Constructive criticism is always good to have.
The point is that the law should be equal for all.
That's my point, too, but in a different way:
The RIAA doesn't get to break the law, and the citizen doesn't get to break the law. Simple as that.
The citizen doesn't get to buy the laws, and the RIAA doesn't get to buy the laws. Simple.
Hold onto that cynicism. Your going to be needing it for the next decade.
Aaah, good. At last it will be useful.
Big clue for you. This mess didn't start with this generation. Not even close to it. Try going back to around the 30's.
Okay. So tell me about the 30s, then. How did this mess begin, exactly?
The problem's that's happening isn't just "one" company. or even a handful. It's pervasive throughout a large part of the business community.
Yes. I know this. My point was that it's not pervasive throughout the *entire* business community.
Throwing "righteous anger pills" isn't going to cure a damn thing.
Then quit pelting me with them. If you've got something constructive to say, say it! You're hogging the whole bottle of "informed clue pills", apparently. Throw some of them around instead. Maybe they'll cure something.
So tell me again Mr "Checks and Balance" citizen. Were were you when all this was happening (The only legitimate excuses are; I wasn't born, or I'm dead, you insensitive clod!)?
I was speaking my mind. I was pointing out the bullshit. I was boycotting the companies whose business practices piss me off. I was doing my part to stop all this from happening. Where were you? Off trolling?
And yet there's a couple "exempt citizen's" posts sitting around on Slashdot, advocating the downloading of copyrighted material. Don't you just love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning?
Exempting citizens from certain aspects of copyright law benefits everyone at the expense of a few. Exempting the *AAs from antitrust law benefits a few at the expense of everyone else. Do you see the difference there?
Your still a citizen. Use that "vote" you got when you turned 18. 2004 is your year.
I plan to. What makes you think that I wouldn't? It's a shame that I can't attach a check to the ballot, though, as that seems to be the only way to get a politician's attention anymore. 1776 might be a better year than 2004 to look to for inspiration.
Now go have a conversation with the previous generation. Say thanks for sticking up for their principles.
I have. It's too bad that the current generation values their egos and their conveniences over their principles.
And yet we go to work every day for these "overlords". Everytime we have a "were's the jobs?" story. People want these "overlords" to stop exporting jobs, and start hiring them.
The company I work for every day makes its money the old-fashioned way: by earning it. We don't own one legislator, and we haven't purchased one law. When our profits aren't what we'd like them to be, we work harder, instead of bribing Congress. There *are* companies left that aren't abusive monopolies. And when the "where are the jobs?" stories come up, I don't see too many Slashdotters crying for jobs with the RIAA.
Get over yourselves...they're within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works.
The RIAA has no right to act as enforcers of laws. That's what the police and the courts are for. Unlike the RIAA, these bodies are subject to checks and balances, not only from other branches of government, but from the citizens of the United States.
The RIAA has no right to be exempt from antitrust laws. They have no right to be exempt from any law, for that matter.
The RIAA has no right to expect twenty dollars from me every time they release a new album. I don't want it; I won't buy it, I won't steal it. They can't get people to hand over their money voluntarily anymore, so now they want to legislate it out of them.
The RIAA is within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works, but this goes far, far beyond that. How far do they have to go before people see that this isn't about piracy, or theft, or any of the terms the RIAA uses to distract us while they buy our freedom out from under us? How much of the government do they have to own before people stop calling me a hippie and a thief for standing up for my right not to give these assholes any money? What's next, a monthly bill for everyone in the country, whether or not they listened to any music?
I don't advocate music piracy. What I advocate is my government protecting *my* rights, not the rights of corporations. Look at that Constitution. It says "We the People", not "We the Shareholders". As long as we keep on saying "STFU pirate" and ignoring the real issues, they'll keep on taking our country from us, one purchased bill at a time.
Haven't you heard? Taking money from us isn't a *privilege* the corporations have, it's a *right.* Supporting them with your money isn't your choice, it's your duty. If you don't like it, too bad. They have enough resources to buy whatever legislation it takes to get you to comply.
This proposal is like someone who asks to fuck you before they've bought you flowers or even kissed you.
No it isn't. When someone asks for a quickie, you can say no. You don't have an option here. You're a consumer, not a citizen. You're a source of revenue, not a human being. So bend over already! And don't forget to buy some flowers this time.
Slashdot Mirror
These polls are only 34 out of the 64 games. We've already got 30 games on the list that will be revealed on Monday. A lot of the stuff that people keep saying we missed are already in the tournament.
Okay, so that's one thing I can't bitch about (until Monday anyway--Monday's a good day for bitching :), but my other point still stands: The best part of the GameSpy contest will be found on Penny Arcade. Until then, I guess I'll just have to get riled down again.
GameSpy readers seem to be no brighter than the editors. For example, in the text adventure category (which Nethack does not belong in, btw), Adventure is miles ahead of Planetfall right now. A plotless game with a verb-noun parser outshining one of the best stories in all of video gaming. Nice.
And there are so many missing games! Where's Wasteland? What about Master of Orion? Rampage? Metal Slug? What about that little-known series from Nintendo, Metroid? How can anyone hold a "Best Game Ever" contest that's missing so many games, and still keep a straight face? By being GameSpy, I guess.
I suppose it shouldn't be much of a surprise to me: GameSpy sucks. Maybe it'll be good for a laugh when it's all done with. I can't wait to read the inevitable Penny Arcade strip that mocks this travesty.
I agree, we had to do all that we could during WWII to support the war effort. Some civil liberties simply had to be suspended. Did we cry and whine about freedom? No! We swore to never forget the horrifying events of February 27th, 1933, and supported the Reichstag Fire Decree like any true patriots would. The decree itself should sound familiar to you:
It was a bold step for the government, but such measures are necessary to prevent terrorism. Law-abiding citizens had nothing to fear, of course, and terrorist activities were made a thing of the past. I'm proud and happy to see the United States following the example that the Fatherland has provided. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and America has learned so very well.Actually, if you do a bit of research, you'll find out that there are plenty of queer animals around. Homosexuality is a perfectly natural occurrence in every sexually reproducing species in the world. If you take nature as an example, the only thing unnatural about human homosexuality is our reaction to it.
Maybe it's just the fact those homophobics people hold marriage secared and thinks a child should be raised knowing a mother and a father.
If marriage is so sacred, then why are there more divorcees than married people? Why are there so many children with only one parent? I think it would be interesting to see how many gay marriages last as opposed to straight marriages, but we'd have to allow homosexuals to marry each other for that.
Maybe they think being gay spread diease at a higher rate.
Yeah, those fucking gays, givin' me the flu all the time. It's even affecting my grammar! Or maybe you're talking about sexually transmitted diseases? Well, if you don't want to catch an STD from one of those gays, then don't fuck any of them. It's as easy as that.
Maybe it's the image of two males having sex which is so vourger that they would rather think about it.
What? What do you mean by "vourger"? Seeing as we're talking about homophobes here, I'm going to venture a guess as to the definition of "vourger": So incredibly erotic that it causes onlookers to question their sexuality. Really, now, if you find images of two males having sex to be so offensive, then why are you looking at them? Wash your hands off before you respond.
Maybe they are homophobic because they would rather live their lives without someone sexuiaty throw in thier face all the fucking time.
Now this one I can agree with. Those homos do seem to be rather aggressive about promoting and defending their sexuality, don't they? Maybe they wouldn't be so defensive about their sexual preferences if they weren't always under attack. You don't see any Straight Pride Parades, do you? That's because being straight isn't taboo; straight folks don't need to clamour and shout for acceptance in society. I've got some sad news for you, Mister AC: These people aren't going away, and they're going to be throwing their sexuality in your face, over and over again, until you grow up and stop treating it like such a big deal.
And why should it be such a big deal? Really, there are countless thousands of guys out there, buggering each other, right now. How does that affect you at all? Why do you care so much about what goes on in other people's bedrooms?
Consider the following statements:
1) Windows sucks. Linux is the best.
2) Linux sucks. Windows is the best.
If we take these statements to be opinions, then they can co-exist peacefully. Two different preferences have been presented, and no contradiction has occurred, as it would be mad to assume that people do not have different preferences from one another.
However, if we take the statements to be facts, then there is a conflict. The two are mutually exclusive; both cannot be true. One must be argued, modded, or shouted down, so that only the other remains. Hence, troll moddings, arguments, flaming, and holy wars erupt, instead of rational discourse and discussion.
It's sad, but seems to be true: Most people believe their own opinions to be facts, and would rather be proven right than learn something about the other side of the argument. You can find ample evidence of this on any message board online. The reason that people make statements such as:
Yet Fight Club itself is a movie based on a book, and it's a damn good movie. The Aliens TC mod for Doom was one of the scariest games I ever played. Blade Runner is an excellent film, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is an excellent book. I hear that the new Lord of the Rings movies aren't too bad, either.
I agree that a lot of video games based on movies suck, but I don't think it's just because the story was translated into a new medium. Whether or not the translation sucks depends more on the abilities and motivations of the translators. "I'd like to pay homage to the most badass movie I ever watched" is probably more likely to produce a good game than "Hey, let's milk a few more bucks outta Fight Club." There's also the question of whether or not a story can even be translated into a particular medium. Aliens is pretty easy subject material for a video game. Fight Club sure as hell isn't.
My NES: Dusty, old,
Suffering bit-rot. What now?
FCE Ultra.
You're right that good spelling disqualifies the haiku as gaming fare. I'll have to try to be more l33t. This one goes out to all my Enemy Territory homies gettin' camped at the Railgun:
4rtY s7R|K3 t3h 5P4w|\|
A><i5 B17C|-|3z c4N7 d0 5H1T
OmG, pWnZ0r3d
Rounding the corner
A head shot, unexpected
Damn you, camping fag
My complaint wasn't directed toward the natural distinctions between the various races, but rather toward the artificial ones. You say that these are self-imposed, but however they were imposed, and with whatever intentions, they serve more as barriers between the races than bridges. The artificial differences we impose cause us to tiptoe around the natural differences, trying our best to ignore them rather than to understand and embrace them.
I can't argue too well about current television and music, as I don't watch TV or listen to much music (the PC term for someone like me is "Pop-culturally challenged" :), so I'll just concede most of those points to you. Entertainment is driven by the preferences of those entertained by it, and so that's probably a natural difference there. I will say this, however: Black television shows don't seem to be required to include a "token white guy" in their main cast.
You say that political correctness is really about treating people the same way you want to be treated. This is true of its intent, but not of its effect. Sometimes common sense doesn't produce good solutions, especially when dealing with an issue as hideously complicated as racial relations. People want simple solutions, and making certain things taboo is simple enough in its implementation, but certainly not in its ramifications.
My view of the Haitians' qualms with Vice City: It was immediately apparent to me that the game's shallow depiction of a gang of Haitian thugs could not possibly represent Haitian people and their culture as a whole, any more than the main character represents the whole of Italian American culture. In the mission in question, the main character was not killing Haitians in general, but cardboard representations of a tiny subset of the Haitian people. Not all Italians work for the Mafia, not all Hatians are gang members, and no one in a video game is real. I don't really see the reason in taking offense. Other people obviously don't see it that way.
Race is always going to be an instantaneous means of identifying someone, I don't deny that. What I would like to see eradicated is all the negative baggage that goes along with that instantaneous identification. It's not wrong to note that the person next to me on the train is black, but the list of unacceptable behaviour that comes with noting that, and the tension and unease that it causes, is most certainly wrong. I agree with you completely, differences can (and should!) be celebrated, but it's hard to dance when you're too scared of stepping on someone's toes.
They don't. Most people take the opposite view: that enforcing artificial distinctions between ethnic groups will somehow bring these groups together instead of keeping them separated. It's okay to use this word to describe these people, but not to use this other word to describe these other people; it's okay to run over or gun down people in a video game, but not if they're of this background; this TV show should appeal to people of this ethnicity, whereas this other TV show is for the other folks; and don't you dare offer any fried chicken to that guy over there, he'll get offended!
We don't have separate drinking fountains anymore, and only the handicapped and the elderly have seats reserved at the front of the bus. But we have separate television shows, separate music styles, separate styles of clothing, separate vocabularies, and now separate mission objectives in Grand Theft Auto. Segregation never went away; it just got sneakier. The rifts between the races have become more semantic and less physical, but that doesn't mean that they've not there. And now they're being pushed under the label of "Political Correctness".
You better watch what you say, and especially who you say it to. Don't you dare look at someone else and think, "Oh, another human being." You'd better make sure you categorize that person properly first, and think of the differences between you, long before you think of the common heritage that we all share as human beings.
After all, you wouldn't want to offend anyone.
3) I'm doing it by choice.
Gravity's Rainbow is one of my favorite books of all time. I mean, it's got rocket science, calculus, drug abuse, World War II, Qabalah, musical interludes, philosophy, poetry, religion, more wanton depravity than a stack of Hustlers this tall... there's something for everyone, you know? It makes me sad that most people put it down after twenty pages and go looking for some aspirin, but I can understand where they're coming from--it's not exactly light reading. It works for me, though.
That's a good point, though I don't think the people who lived in London at the time saw it the same way. It's too bad that this guy got shut down, because he was going to give his gift directly to mankind without blowing up half of London (for QA purposes) first. Or so he said. I don't really blame the New Zealand government for playing things on the safe side.
Yes, that's true. But if I had the resources to just build weapons in the backyard, I'd build a V2; they're way cooler. Also, I've been reading Gravity's Rainbow again, so the V2 was the first thing to pop into my head.
The New Zealand government has moved aggressively to shut down this project -- and by using quite unscrupulous methods which appear to be in breach of the law.
Oh, wow, really? Even though it's not technically illegal, I wouldn't be too shocked to find out that the authorities wanted to have a word or two with me if I was building a V2 in my backyard:
"Oh, no, officer, this rocket is for humanitarian purposes only! And as a gift to all mankind, I've posted the plans online so that other humanitarians can build rockets of their own! What could be wrong with that?"
It was a really cool project, but come on. Who didn't see this coming?
Maybe that's why they won't show anyone the infringing code! It's in there, but if Darl and Co. showed it to you, it would devour your mind! Yaaaaaah!
No, but if I did, I would want one for a pet.
Maybe whoever is behind this was just trying to provide that "push"...
I mean, I bought it. It's a Honda, and I thought I could do what ever I wanted with it! right???
Of course you can. The big difference here is that it's impossible to just clone off fifty Hondas and give them away to all your friends (wouldn't that be neat?). If this suddenly became possible, we'd see a similar amount of panic from Honda as we do from our friendly neighborhood content providers.
I should be able to back up my DVD's for my own purpouse.
Well, from a consumer's point of view, that's perfectly reasonable, but not from the content provider's point of view. Imagine you could back up your Honda for your own purposes, and take a copy of it on a road trip, saving wear and tear on the original. Do you think Honda would want you to do that? Of course not! You'd be able to keep driving the same car for the rest of your life, and they'd never see another penny from you again. The copyright owners want you to lose your DVD on the plane, they want it getting chewed up by the dog or the kids, whatever it takes to get the price of that DVD from you again.
Best of all for the content providers would be charging you every time you watch that DVD, but they can't do that--yet. I think that the laws should reflect a compromise between the wants of the providers and the wants of the consumers. Unfortunately, the consumers don't have the financial and legal resources required to pull the laws back to their side, and the content providers don't have the insight to realize that screwing their customers is the quickest way to lost profits. I don't think the pendulum can swing one way forever, though. It'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Longhorn is so far from being finished right now, I don't know why anyone would want a leaked copy of it. Why not go with a pirated copy of XP or something instead?
It's kind of like this early release of the Half Life 3 source:
int main() { return 0; }
It's not quite done yet, but don't you feel l33t?
Actually, I found the product placement in Blade Runner to be particularly effective.
Especially that ad about emigrating off-world...
Sounds like you're a little afraid to have your "opinions" questioned.
Nope, not at all. Go ahead and question them. I don't even have to post anonymously. Constructive criticism is always good to have.
The point is that the law should be equal for all.
That's my point, too, but in a different way:
The RIAA doesn't get to break the law, and the citizen doesn't get to break the law. Simple as that.
The citizen doesn't get to buy the laws, and the RIAA doesn't get to buy the laws. Simple.
Hold onto that cynicism. Your going to be needing it for the next decade.
Aaah, good. At last it will be useful.
Big clue for you. This mess didn't start with this generation. Not even close to it. Try going back to around the 30's.
Okay. So tell me about the 30s, then. How did this mess begin, exactly?
The problem's that's happening isn't just "one" company. or even a handful. It's pervasive throughout a large part of the business community.
Yes. I know this. My point was that it's not pervasive throughout the *entire* business community.
Throwing "righteous anger pills" isn't going to cure a damn thing.
Then quit pelting me with them. If you've got something constructive to say, say it! You're hogging the whole bottle of "informed clue pills", apparently. Throw some of them around instead. Maybe they'll cure something.
So tell me again Mr "Checks and Balance" citizen. Were were you when all this was happening (The only legitimate excuses are; I wasn't born, or I'm dead, you insensitive clod!)?
I was speaking my mind. I was pointing out the bullshit. I was boycotting the companies whose business practices piss me off. I was doing my part to stop all this from happening. Where were you? Off trolling?
And yet there's a couple "exempt citizen's" posts sitting around on Slashdot, advocating the downloading of copyrighted material. Don't you just love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning?
Exempting citizens from certain aspects of copyright law benefits everyone at the expense of a few. Exempting the *AAs from antitrust law benefits a few at the expense of everyone else. Do you see the difference there?
Your still a citizen. Use that "vote" you got when you turned 18. 2004 is your year.
I plan to. What makes you think that I wouldn't? It's a shame that I can't attach a check to the ballot, though, as that seems to be the only way to get a politician's attention anymore. 1776 might be a better year than 2004 to look to for inspiration.
Now go have a conversation with the previous generation. Say thanks for sticking up for their principles.
I have. It's too bad that the current generation values their egos and their conveniences over their principles.
And yet we go to work every day for these "overlords". Everytime we have a "were's the jobs?" story. People want these "overlords" to stop exporting jobs, and start hiring them.
The company I work for every day makes its money the old-fashioned way: by earning it. We don't own one legislator, and we haven't purchased one law. When our profits aren't what we'd like them to be, we work harder, instead of bribing Congress. There *are* companies left that aren't abusive monopolies. And when the "where are the jobs?" stories come up, I don't see too many Slashdotters crying for jobs with the RIAA.
Get over yourselves...they're within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works.
The RIAA has no right to act as enforcers of laws. That's what the police and the courts are for. Unlike the RIAA, these bodies are subject to checks and balances, not only from other branches of government, but from the citizens of the United States.
The RIAA has no right to be exempt from antitrust laws. They have no right to be exempt from any law, for that matter.
The RIAA has no right to expect twenty dollars from me every time they release a new album. I don't want it; I won't buy it, I won't steal it. They can't get people to hand over their money voluntarily anymore, so now they want to legislate it out of them.
The RIAA is within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works, but this goes far, far beyond that. How far do they have to go before people see that this isn't about piracy, or theft, or any of the terms the RIAA uses to distract us while they buy our freedom out from under us? How much of the government do they have to own before people stop calling me a hippie and a thief for standing up for my right not to give these assholes any money? What's next, a monthly bill for everyone in the country, whether or not they listened to any music?
I don't advocate music piracy. What I advocate is my government protecting *my* rights, not the rights of corporations. Look at that Constitution. It says "We the People", not "We the Shareholders". As long as we keep on saying "STFU pirate" and ignoring the real issues, they'll keep on taking our country from us, one purchased bill at a time.
I am a citizen, not a consumer.
I am a human being, not a revenue source.
I, for one, reject our new overlords.
Haven't you heard? Taking money from us isn't a *privilege* the corporations have, it's a *right.* Supporting them with your money isn't your choice, it's your duty. If you don't like it, too bad. They have enough resources to buy whatever legislation it takes to get you to comply.
This proposal is like someone who asks to fuck you before they've bought you flowers or even kissed you.
No it isn't. When someone asks for a quickie, you can say no. You don't have an option here. You're a consumer, not a citizen. You're a source of revenue, not a human being. So bend over already! And don't forget to buy some flowers this time.