You hear this crap all the time from whiney game reviewers who get all their swag for free. They bitch and moan and write essays about how long it takes to finish games these days, all because they they have to get through it to finish their review in time for that deadline.
Nothing is more moronic than someone like this trying to convince us that we need to shell out more and more money for shorter and shorter games.
He obviously doesn't get reality. You know what I do with an expensive game that takes 5 hours to complete? I pirate it. (I'm looking at you Max Payne 2!) On the other hand, I'm first in line to buy a game that gives you your money's worth.
The PSP is one nice looking piece of hardware, but what are you going to play on it? The same kind of crap games you can get on the DS. Neither company is going to get my money until they release a decent game worth playing. Re-hashes of racing games and Tetris on steriods does not cut it folks. Neither does half-baked dating simulators and kiddie-poo games for the DS.
but your comic sort of sucks. I actually read through them all and only about 2 or 3 were actually fairly humorous.
I think your problem might be that people just aren't interested. Unless you are one hell of a salesman, you are going to have a tough time selling a product no one is interested in.
No one is pointing out the obvious fact that if the US government decides they can just take a patent from a drug company whenever they feel like it, drug companies won't bother spending the R&D money to develop drugs that are likely candidates.
Why spend the billions and billions of dollars to develop an AIDS vaccine if it will most certainly be taken from you the moment you do?
Who benefits from that?
I know that it's a suprise to the slashdot crowd here, but the drug industry isn't a big charity. It costs a *massive* amount of money to develop and test a drug, much of that caused by FDA regulation, good or bad and no company is going to put time, effort and resources behind a product that they can not pay for the R&D cost nor make a profit on.
For the sake of argument, why shouldn't the government be allowed to take the Windows source code from Microsoft and release it as OSS for the public good? Imagine the benefit to humanity!
"It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."
I don't quite understand what you are getting at and it seems that you really didn't fully read my comment, nor did you read it with any context.
My point was in reply to a previous message that wikipedia should be free to everyone, period. I say that's a short-sighted and immature way of looking at the issue. The author of the message that I was responding to did not understand the difference between free speech and free beer.
I don't care if Google, or a state government for that matter, could afford the operational costs.. it still does not entitle anyone the right to have wikipedia available to them at no cost. You have no legal right to free beer. Period.
Sure, the information should be free, but who is going to pay for the webservers to host it? Or the bandwidth to deliver it?
You may erroneously think that your local library is free, but in fact it's not. You pay taxes that fund the library. The government doesn't have some magic pot of gold that it pays for that stuff you know... it's most certainly *not* free.
Such a petulent child. Of course, you think your 10 cent piece of candy is most important, but here's the kick in the pants... it's not. You are just a child and your wants are unimportant.
Why the hell does a journalist have special rights that I don't have? Because some pointy headed academic elite waved his magic diploma wand and gave him the title?
The sky is falling the sky is falling. Where would we all be without all the idiots who think the world is on the verge of Armageddon? This decade has been the most peaceful time in the last recorded 100 years.
Where is our BUSH lead versions of the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, WWII, Spanish Civil War, Korea, Vietnam/Indo-china war, 6 day war, Cold War, Iran-Iraq War, Nicaraguan Civil War, Philippino War, Soviet and Afagan War, Somalia, Bosnia, Grenada, Haiti, Desert Storm, and the entire damned continent of Africa imbroiled in civil war? And those are just some of the larger ones and doesn't count active terrorism.
Despite people like you who can only see the negative in the things around them, it's getting better.
This "scientist" is a fool. He obviously can't be serious because there were no cars 5000+ years ago. Everyone knows that our planet is heading for a huge climate change because of American automobiles and SUVs. How can anyone take him seriously?
And another rant I have, people who think that natural phenonenom like volcanos and the Sun(tm) might help to warm our planet are just morons.
"The number of people who actually had bought HL2 and used the CD key cheat was VERY small. VERY small."
Even if it was one person, I hope they are sued in court for this. These types of asshole software developers who think it's ok to force legitimate users to have to have the f**king CD in the drive to play their damned game need to be taken to court, and be made to stop this type of anti-consumer garbage. This is ridiculous. What's next? Valve will require that Doom 3 not be installed to play on Steam? Just because their ninja EULA agreements say we can't do something doesn't mean we can automatically waive our rights in this country. Dammit.. something has to be done about this!
P.S. Gabe Newell is a fat fuck lying sack of sheep shit...
Amen, it's stupid to compare a computerized aircraft control system to a similar system for a land based vehicle. A plane that comes as close as the cars do in the other lane of a highway is called a near miss for a reason.
Doom 3 looks great, but really isn't all that fun. It's mindless and repetitive and didn't really turn out to be a great game after all. It was some awesome eye candy, but so is porn and it's cheaper.
You misinterpret what I said and have taken it out of context. I said that you can't cannot fight Terrorism with military action.
I don't believe I took you out of context. Your original statement was more than just the words "military action":
>You cannot fight terrorism with military action! It's akin to destroying jello with a baseball bat. It takes social change and understanding. Good foreign policy is at the hear of this!
I specifically addressed the idea that social change and interaction was not enough to effect change in terrorism and asked for any historical or present day examples of this actually working as you think it would. That said, your later mention of other non-military actions such as freezing bank accounts, arrests and other methods, I can agree with. Perhaps you should have said that you can not fight with military action alone?
Let's use Palestine as an example: Israel had the backing of the USA. They fight Palestine with rockets and tanks and helicopter, lobbing gernades and missles.... Suicide bombs are the artillary and weaponry of Palestine, because they lack the tanks and rockets of Israel. But we call them Terrorists. Why? If it's all you have left to fight with, wouldn't you do the same?
Here is the difference. In a normal military conflict, you have two sides who are fighting each other. Whether they fight with bombs or rocks, both sides are trying to destroy the other side's ability to make war. Generally speaking, one military attacks another, civilians are affected, although rarely targeted specifically unless they are in or near a facility that allows that side to continue to make war.
Israel targets specific Hamas leadership and targets, attempting to destroy them. Palestinian suicide bombers just blow up the largest number of people they can for the largest shock effect. They rarely attack military targets, or better said, Israel's ability to make war. There lies the major difference. Israel attacks cars with Hamas members in them and Palestinians attack buses full of school children.
I think the problem here is that you don't recognize what terrorism is. Terrorism isn't a rebel group of underdogs fighting for what they believe in or an ill-funded military fighting the only way they can.
Terrorist are a group of people who are willing to directly target and kill innocents hoping to scare, intimidate or effect the psycological well being of a group of people. Inflicting so much physical and mental trauma that their victims are willing to bow to their demands, just to stop the horrific killing and terror.
But if we were to push for social change and understanding, rationality and compromise, we would stand a better chance at changing the perceptions of the Palestine people, and they would see a different alternative to their suicide bombs. When a terrorist attacks, ask why they did it. Then try to discover what else they might not be seeing. Because sometimes, as scary as it is, the terrorists are right.
We have already attempted to push for social change and understanding. Clinton tried very, very hard to make this a reality and it never worked. When it comes down to it, the Palestinians hate the Jewish people and they have publicly and frequently stated that they will not be happy until Israel is wiped off the face of the Earth. Can you reason with that sort of hate and irrational thought process?
While I agree with you that it's possible that Terrorist might have legitimate claims and problems, the legitimacy goes out the door the second they kill innocent people for the reasons I stated above. You may be willing to overlook the death of a lot of innocent people just to satisfy some erudite idea of "understanding", but to me, the means does not justify the ends.
And in all fairness to Clinton's "ballyhooed' peace process, that was how many years ago? and what has the current administration done to facilitate t
You cannot fight terrorism with military action! It's akin to destroying jello with a baseball bat. It takes social change and understanding. Good foreign policy is at the hear of this! And Bush doesn't have it! That will help ease the threat of terrorism. It will never fully go away, there will always be people who hate us.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you that you can not fight terrorism with force. At no time in the history of the world has social change or good foreign policy been effective at combating terrorism (or aggression in a broader sense). A great example that comes to mind is Israel and Palestinian Authority. Clinton's much balleyhooed peace process between the two is going well, is it not?
What do you base this opinion of yours on? What historical or factual information leads you to believe that terrorism can be defeated by good will or words?
Slashdot Mirror
OMFG, this is one of the best and most hilarious posts I've seen in such a long time here at slashdot.
I was listening until you said something stupid about Krispy Kreme.
You sir, are either trolling, or a fool.
You hear this crap all the time from whiney game reviewers who get all their swag for free. They bitch and moan and write essays about how long it takes to finish games these days, all because they they have to get through it to finish their review in time for that deadline.
Nothing is more moronic than someone like this trying to convince us that we need to shell out more and more money for shorter and shorter games.
He obviously doesn't get reality. You know what I do with an expensive game that takes 5 hours to complete? I pirate it. (I'm looking at you Max Payne 2!) On the other hand, I'm first in line to buy a game that gives you your money's worth.
The PSP is one nice looking piece of hardware, but what are you going to play on it? The same kind of crap games you can get on the DS. Neither company is going to get my money until they release a decent game worth playing. Re-hashes of racing games and Tetris on steriods does not cut it folks. Neither does half-baked dating simulators and kiddie-poo games for the DS.
but your comic sort of sucks. I actually read through them all and only about 2 or 3 were actually fairly humorous.
I think your problem might be that people just aren't interested. Unless you are one hell of a salesman, you are going to have a tough time selling a product no one is interested in.
Them's the breaks, kid. Don't quit your day job.
No one is pointing out the obvious fact that if the US government decides they can just take a patent from a drug company whenever they feel like it, drug companies won't bother spending the R&D money to develop drugs that are likely candidates.
Why spend the billions and billions of dollars to develop an AIDS vaccine if it will most certainly be taken from you the moment you do?
Who benefits from that?
I know that it's a suprise to the slashdot crowd here, but the drug industry isn't a big charity. It costs a *massive* amount of money to develop and test a drug, much of that caused by FDA regulation, good or bad and no company is going to put time, effort and resources behind a product that they can not pay for the R&D cost nor make a profit on.
For the sake of argument, why shouldn't the government be allowed to take the Windows source code from Microsoft and release it as OSS for the public good? Imagine the benefit to humanity!
The myth is just that.. a myth:
From Myth of the Flat Earth:
"It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."
I don't quite understand what you are getting at and it seems that you really didn't fully read my comment, nor did you read it with any context.
My point was in reply to a previous message that wikipedia should be free to everyone, period. I say that's a short-sighted and immature way of looking at the issue. The author of the message that I was responding to did not understand the difference between free speech and free beer.
I don't care if Google, or a state government for that matter, could afford the operational costs.. it still does not entitle anyone the right to have wikipedia available to them at no cost. You have no legal right to free beer. Period.
Sure, the information should be free, but who is going to pay for the webservers to host it? Or the bandwidth to deliver it?
You may erroneously think that your local library is free, but in fact it's not. You pay taxes that fund the library. The government doesn't have some magic pot of gold that it pays for that stuff you know... it's most certainly *not* free.
There is no better way to disagree with someone, other than attacking their spelling, is there?
you = teh win
Such a petulent child. Of course, you think your 10 cent piece of candy is most important, but here's the kick in the pants... it's not. You are just a child and your wants are unimportant.
Your brief example was pretty piss poor in conveying any sort of information as to how this person was devoted only to corporate interests.
Why the hell does a journalist have special rights that I don't have? Because some pointy headed academic elite waved his magic diploma wand and gave him the title?
No one cares. Or if they do, they have to be part of a very tiny minority.
People just want their camera to take good pictures and be easy to use. Does it matter if they can ssh from their camera to their laptop? No.
The sky is falling the sky is falling. Where would we all be without all the idiots who think the world is on the verge of Armageddon? This decade has been the most peaceful time in the last recorded 100 years.
Where is our BUSH lead versions of the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, WWII, Spanish Civil War, Korea, Vietnam/Indo-china war, 6 day war, Cold War, Iran-Iraq War, Nicaraguan Civil War, Philippino War, Soviet and Afagan War, Somalia, Bosnia, Grenada, Haiti, Desert Storm, and the entire damned continent of Africa imbroiled in civil war? And those are just some of the larger ones and doesn't count active terrorism.
Despite people like you who can only see the negative in the things around them, it's getting better.
Were you trying to be funny?
I recommend the above book.
There... are you happy? You twit.
Try Rapid Application Development with Mozilla by Nigel McFarlane, published by Prentice Hall.
It goes pretty in depth and covers a lot of ground about a lot of the parts of XUL: XBL, XPCOM, XML, etc.
I would recommend it highly.
I haven't RTFA'ed yet, but I put $20 on the author mentioning Matt Drudge before the end it.
This "scientist" is a fool. He obviously can't be serious because there were no cars 5000+ years ago. Everyone knows that our planet is heading for a huge climate change because of American automobiles and SUVs. How can anyone take him seriously?
And another rant I have, people who think that natural phenonenom like volcanos and the Sun(tm) might help to warm our planet are just morons.
"The number of people who actually had bought HL2 and used the CD key cheat was VERY small. VERY small."
Even if it was one person, I hope they are sued in court for this. These types of asshole software developers who think it's ok to force legitimate users to have to have the f**king CD in the drive to play their damned game need to be taken to court, and be made to stop this type of anti-consumer garbage. This is ridiculous. What's next? Valve will require that Doom 3 not be installed to play on Steam? Just because their ninja EULA agreements say we can't do something doesn't mean we can automatically waive our rights in this country. Dammit.. something has to be done about this!
P.S. Gabe Newell is a fat fuck lying sack of sheep shit...
Amen, it's stupid to compare a computerized aircraft control system to a similar system for a land based vehicle. A plane that comes as close as the cars do in the other lane of a highway is called a near miss for a reason.
Doom 3 looks great, but really isn't all that fun. It's mindless and repetitive and didn't really turn out to be a great game after all. It was some awesome eye candy, but so is porn and it's cheaper.
You misinterpret what I said and have taken it out of context. I said that you can't cannot fight Terrorism with military action.
... Suicide bombs are the artillary and weaponry of Palestine, because they lack the tanks and rockets of Israel. But we call them Terrorists. Why? If it's all you have left to fight with, wouldn't you do the same?
I don't believe I took you out of context. Your original statement was more than just the words "military action":
>You cannot fight terrorism with military action! It's akin to destroying jello with a baseball bat. It takes social change and understanding. Good foreign policy is at the hear of this!
I specifically addressed the idea that social change and interaction was not enough to effect change in terrorism and asked for any historical or present day examples of this actually working as you think it would. That said, your later mention of other non-military actions such as freezing bank accounts, arrests and other methods, I can agree with. Perhaps you should have said that you can not fight with military action alone?
Let's use Palestine as an example: Israel had the backing of the USA. They fight Palestine with rockets and tanks and helicopter, lobbing gernades and missles.
Here is the difference. In a normal military conflict, you have two sides who are fighting each other. Whether they fight with bombs or rocks, both sides are trying to destroy the other side's ability to make war. Generally speaking, one military attacks another, civilians are affected, although rarely targeted specifically unless they are in or near a facility that allows that side to continue to make war.
Israel targets specific Hamas leadership and targets, attempting to destroy them. Palestinian suicide bombers just blow up the largest number of people they can for the largest shock effect. They rarely attack military targets, or better said, Israel's ability to make war. There lies the major difference. Israel attacks cars with Hamas members in them and Palestinians attack buses full of school children.
I think the problem here is that you don't recognize what terrorism is. Terrorism isn't a rebel group of underdogs fighting for what they believe in or an ill-funded military fighting the only way they can.
Terrorist are a group of people who are willing to directly target and kill innocents hoping to scare, intimidate or effect the psycological well being of a group of people. Inflicting so much physical and mental trauma that their victims are willing to bow to their demands, just to stop the horrific killing and terror.
But if we were to push for social change and understanding, rationality and compromise, we would stand a better chance at changing the perceptions of the Palestine people, and they would see a different alternative to their suicide bombs. When a terrorist attacks, ask why they did it. Then try to discover what else they might not be seeing. Because sometimes, as scary as it is, the terrorists are right.
We have already attempted to push for social change and understanding. Clinton tried very, very hard to make this a reality and it never worked. When it comes down to it, the Palestinians hate the Jewish people and they have publicly and frequently stated that they will not be happy until Israel is wiped off the face of the Earth. Can you reason with that sort of hate and irrational thought process?
While I agree with you that it's possible that Terrorist might have legitimate claims and problems, the legitimacy goes out the door the second they kill innocent people for the reasons I stated above. You may be willing to overlook the death of a lot of innocent people just to satisfy some erudite idea of "understanding", but to me, the means does not justify the ends.
And in all fairness to Clinton's "ballyhooed' peace process, that was how many years ago? and what has the current administration done to facilitate t
You cannot fight terrorism with military action! It's akin to destroying jello with a baseball bat. It takes social change and understanding. Good foreign policy is at the hear of this! And Bush doesn't have it! That will help ease the threat of terrorism. It will never fully go away, there will always be people who hate us.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you that you can not fight terrorism with force. At no time in the history of the world has social change or good foreign policy been effective at combating terrorism (or aggression in a broader sense). A great example that comes to mind is Israel and Palestinian Authority. Clinton's much balleyhooed peace process between the two is going well, is it not?
What do you base this opinion of yours on? What historical or factual information leads you to believe that terrorism can be defeated by good will or words?