Like one or two of the readers of this site, I'm not an X-box fanboy, and I had NFI what this article was about from the headline or first line of the summary:
Elite Won't Replace Premium or Core Skus
and
As the day has progressed, more information about the 'Elite' has become available.
Assumptions:
- everyone knows what a "sku" is (an open-source implementation of a ski? a pygmy skunk?)
- everyone knows that the word "Elite" refers only to a particular version of a particular game console released by Microsoft
- everyone knows that Microsoft's other current marketing cliches for its X-Box 360 console are "Premium" and "Core"
- everyone is sitting with baited breath with all the details of what is going on, just waiting for this vital piece of information ("As the day has progressed...")
Zonk, you've done it again. Acronyms, lack of context, assumed knowledge. Slashdot: news for people who already know what we're reporting about.
...someone will tag the story with "defectivebydesign" and someone else will tag it with "no".
And you should have added "Those of us who think there is room in the world for both Windows, OSX and Linux will remain on the sidelines while another round of the holy wars is inconclusively decided."
I am rather looking forward to the comments from Apple users, though, and particularly whether they can best their own record for self-righteous indignation and incredulity.
Try actually reading the website - it's supposed to be helping MS people to identify and understand Linux people. That list is merely a list of characteristics of that type of Linux user, not a list of 'problems with Linux' or 'reasons to use MS.'
In fact I think the open source movement should be waaaay more worried about this type of thing than the usual rantings from Redmond - this has the hallmarks of a well researched strategy, with good identification of the reasons people might be using Linux. That will allow much more carefully planned attacks on Linux market share.
Emotiv Systems plans to target the Chinese pigeon market first, as many of the birds have already had the necessary equipment jammed through their craniums.
Release titles include "GTA: Bread Crust", "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2007: Parked Lexus Alley", and of course the much anticipated "The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Hideous Chinese Biolab Bay".
Thanks for reminding me of the section - without knowing too much about the details of the case, it would indeed be good for them to have a crack under s 202 of the Act, which allows one to put nonsense claims under the microscope. The problem with that section is that it in effect invites the person making the allegation to bring on their claim for infringement for hearing. Naturally people don't find the idea of going directly to court (and not passing go) against large and wealthy opponents all that inviting...
Personally I would like to see much stiffer penalties for the lodgment of unmeritorious notices, or those brought for impropoper purposes. Presumably the ordinary powers of a court in relation to such litigation still apply, but only once you get to trial one way or another (or arguably, s 202 covers the field in that area I suppose). It would also seem fairer to have a public body investigate, rather than requiring the accused infringer to bear the costs/risk of bringing unmeritorious claims to book.
Correct, from what I can see. IAAL, and what's more IAAAL (I am an Australian lawyer).
It's a shame that they don't fight this. The courts in Australia are generally reasonably sympathetic to the victims of unmeritorious litigation, and wouldn't hesitate to give summary judgment and a significant costs order if it came down to it. The mining industry's lawyers would be well aware of this and would probably settle the thing out of court.
Meanwhile, the whole 'presumption of infringement' attitude encouraged by our laws with respect to ISPs is just pathetic.
"a man's freedom" exists in time. So when you ask whether "a man's freedom" is worth something else, you have to indicate time. Is one day of a man's freedom worth leading a huge piracy operation? Perhaps. Interesting point. I would agree if prison amounted to nothing more than a temporary deprivation of liberty.
But do you think that you would feel like that the day after you'd been in prison? A period of incarceration of any length at all has a huge, and permanent, effect on your ability to do many things, both in an institutionalised sense and in an informal, socially driven sense. And that is without adding in a demonstrably large chance of exposing you to rape, violence, other dehumanising experiences, drugs and disease.
but because the end result _is_ the same I take your overall point, but I strongly disagree that the end result is the same. Copyright infringement and other IP 'crimes' arguably destroy the incentive to create new works by removing the economic incentive to innovate/create. However, in this context a copyright infringer merely makes the overall environment a tiny, tiny fraction less conducive to innovation for the hypothetical individual who is considering whether to pursue the development of new works (which I would argue is a fundamentally flawed connection to draw, but that's another argument).
You also liken it to 'stealing' or vandalism, but I don't think that's right. Those crimes have victims who suffer directly, and more importantly, are deprived of the enjoyment of their property in respect of any possible use of it, whether in relation to the person committing the offence or any other person. If I smash your shop window, your shop is closed to me and to anyone else who might have come in that day. Copyright infringement is fundamentally different in that it deprives the copyright holder only of enjoyment of their property insofar as the infringement leads someone who would have paid to use the copyright to use an infringing copy free of charge. But it does not prevent the copyright holder from selling licenses to other potential users of their work. In other words, the effect of the 'crime' is heavily diluted, and there is no direct deprivation of enjoyment.
Society has a way of dealing with these types of 'crimes', in which an individual's behaviour is detrimental but only in a very diluted way. Parking fines come to mind. Speeding fines. Fines for failing to pay car registration. Civil offences, in other words.
I prefer to think of copyright as a mandatory, many-to-one contractual arrangement. If I create something original and subject to copyright, you and the rest of the world has an automatic contract not to exploit it in certain ways without my consent, and that contract expires after a certain amount of time (about 20000 years thanks to Disney and co). If you breach the contract, I think I should be able to pursue you on a civil law basis, but I do not think the cops should be throwing you in prison.
I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I sincerely hope this becomes the next great./ meme, I have noticed it appearing with increasing frequency and hilarity.
As for running for office, not likely. But you're welcome to come and feel marginalised and unrepresented with me on my blog.
Is a man's freedom itself really only of equivalent value to the artificially created rights in a creative work?
It's time that copyright infringement, and all intellectual property offences, returned to the purely civil arena. Pecuniary penalties are one thing: bankrupt them with fines and damages, by all means. To do so is consistent with the justifications for having intellectual property rights in the first place, which are either related to innovation, commerce, or artistic integrity depending on where you come from historically.
But no-one should be imprisoned for copying information.
Australia banned the region coding crap, didn't they? Alas no. Australia is, in many respects, second only to the United States in terms of intellectual property idiocy. It only very recently became legal to move music from an audio CD to an iPod, for example. And our industry associations are just the bastard offspring of the US ones.
I take your point, but I would argue that 'action' adventure is a natural evolution. As game worlds become more immersive it is logical that players be given more freedom of action. As such, whereas in an old style point-and-click adventure there might be one single way to solve a given problem (i.e. solving a 'puzzle'), in more modern games it is possible to give the player the freedom to solve the problem as though it were real. One way of solving it might involve violence, but another might involve traditional adventure game-style puzzle solving.
For instance, it is possible to complete Deus Ex by killing few, if any, of the hundreds of potential enemies. Virtually every problem in the game has a non-violent solution if the player chooses to pursue it.
Perhaps what will 'save' adventure gaming is games like DX and Oblivion, but ones in which weapons are not absolutely ubiquitous and in which violence has realistic and immediate consequences. As such the limitations on violent problem solving would reflect those found in reality, but the player would not be artificially constrained in their choices as they would be in an old-school adventure game.
(PS - I am playing devil's advocate to a certain extent, I miss the golden era of LucasArts and co as much as anyone).
Hmm, are you familiar with a language called 'English'? I'm pretty sure that if you look it up you'll find that the definition of "adventure" is probably apt to describe a story in which the protagonist escapes from prison, meets a king, commences a sacred mission, rescues a prince, becomes a great and famed warrior and magician and attempts to banish evil from a magical land (Oblivion), or a story in which a man with no past gradually unravels a massive government conspiracy and the secrets of his own creation as he travels around a dystopian future (Deus Ex).
You are talking about the outdated concept of a point-and-click adventure. I am saying that gaming has evolved, and 'adventure' games are no longer restricted to this archaic style of interface.
the question isn't if but when adventure titles begin appearing on the system Ummm... Zelda?
I am starting to wonder if the whole 'adventure gaming is dead' notion comes from a failure to recognise that games like Zelda, Oblivion, Deus Ex and so on are, in effect, adventure games. You freely explore a large environment solving problems, frequently involving puzzles, the need to talk to characters in the world, or the need to acquire specific objects, all within the framework of a larger story. Just because it doesn't involve 2D sprites and some hand-painted backgrounds doesn't mean that what is often called an 'RPG' isn't a traditional adventure game.
However, it is a reasonable assertion that the Wiimote does offer the possibility that mouse-driven adventure games could finally work well on a console.
Mr "+5 Insightful" said:
To paraphrase: A branch of the government, especially a non-elected one, should *never* regulate ITSELF. That actually makes a good deal of sense, don't you think? ...as opposed to the way that Congress sets its own ethical rules, and the President signs a little memorandum explaining what his version of the laws he signs off on is and purports to exercise direct legislative power under the guise of the 'war' on terror?
At some point each arm of government has a degree of autonomy. Separation of powers means that each arm may not usurp the others, NOT that each arm may not regulate its own activities insofar as they are within the scope of its power.
Oh, and "especially a non-elected one" - you mean one that actually has an incentive to set up favourable rules and regulations to ensure re-election..?
With your attitude I'd never hire you and if I did by accident hire you I'd sack you the first time you treated me with contempt. Your implication that anyone who requires your help is somehow at fault is just plain reprehensible. You work in a profession that encourages this sort of behaviour. There are good lawyers and doctors around, but it's despite their professions not as a result of them. Way to completely miss my point. My point was not that it's the client's 'fault' that they need a lawyer (although you will find that, for some mysterious reason, in about half the cases that go to trial this turns out to be the case...). My point was that there is an underlying suggestion that lawyers somehow generate work out of thin air in order to rob the unsuspecting townsfolk, and it is simply not true. Or, to put it another way, I was trying to suggest that if you really want to avoid lawyers, the best approach is to resolve your differences amicably and stay the hell out of court.
Despite your admirable ability to judge my character based on a single comment on a public discussion board I can tell you that I have never treated a client with 'contempt' or with anything other than the respect I would accord to any human being and would like to be accorded to me.
IAAL. If you don't like it, you have a few options other than bitching about lawyers:
educate yourself about the law and represent yourself if you think it's such a low-value service
act politically to get the laws simplified
act politically to develop mechanisms to resolve disputes in a non-litigious manner
act politically to get the state to provide substantially more assistance for litigants who aren't wealthy
go back to stabbing each other with pointed sticks to resolve disputes (this might be quite effective for class actions)
modify human behaviour so that people no longer fight with each other
Note that if you consider these options unfeasible, 1 is caused by your own lack of ability, time or skill, 2, 3 and 4 are political problems which are in your own hands as much as they're in anyone's, and 5 and 6 are wired into us by evolution (or God/magical pixies if you're from the bible belt).
Otherwise perhaps you should consider that litigation is an extremely complex, difficult and time consuming activity requiring a very high level of expertise to conduct with any degree of competence. Large law firms do not make vastly more money than collectives of doctors, engineering consultancies, other groups of professionals, or large corporations.
In my view there is a tendency to regard lawyers as a rip-off simply because of the nature of the service, fighting it out to establish one's rights in circumstances which are frequently viewed as unfair or unnecessary, rather than the much more palatable "help me doctor, I'm sick/dying" or "help me, engineer, I need to build X".
The lawyers didn't create your dispute. You and the other litigant did.
They have a legal responsibility to act in the manner directed to them by the majority of voting shareholders That is actually incorrect.
Directors must act in the best interests of the company as a whole. They are in some circumstances actually in breach of their duties if they act according to the will of the majority but to the detriment of the minority of shareholders, or to the detriment of the company as an independent entity. To act blindly according to directions of the majority would (depending on the nature of the decision) amount to an impermissible fettering of discretion. This is one of the reasons companies have directors at all, rather than managers who obey 51% of the shareholders and merely administrate the company according to directions.
For example, if the majority of shareholders instructed the directors to favour human rights over profits, but the directors were of the view that this would create a real risk of the company becoming insolvent in the future, then they would be in breach of their fiduciary duties to obey the directive.
Wouldn't widespread use of geothermal energy mean that we would be effectively pumping heat directly from subterranean rock into the atmosphere? In other words, all this would achieve in the end would be to cut out the middle-man of the greenhouse effect and heat the atmosphere directly, rather than indirectly?
For the time being, it's surely a good thing if two extremely wealthy companies pour resources into creating ultra-high capacity facilities such as these, particularly as Google's business model is based around providing services which are nominally 'free' (in terms of dollars) and as such these resources are in a sense an investment in our common infrastructure. If we're really lucky Google and Microsoft will hugely over-invest, and one day find themselves with a large overcapacity which third parties might be able to use for their own work.
However, longer term things may not be so appealing. Both companies have a nasty habit of collecting and storing as much personal data as possible (Google in particular), and both are pushing towards 'lock out' where you are prevented from using your own computer without their participation via connection to their networks. And of course the software industry has a history of producing only one winner in the end, meaning the benefits of this kind of head-to-head competition are unlikely to last...
Which is not that the OP couldn't find the meaning of 'VT', but that it's a basic writing skill to define any acronyms or abbreviations the first time you use them.
I'm sure they know what Wikipedia is, they were merely pointing out an obvious problem with the story.
I would have thought that a correct use of the prefix 'nano' would involve an object, device or effect, the WHOLE of which is on a nanometre scale. So for example, a 'nanobattery' would be a battery the WHOLE of which is on a nanometre scale.
I'm obviously not alone is being heartily sick of anything involving components parts which are on an atomic scale (e.g.... uh, CHEMICALS) being referred to as 'nano'-whatever. For instance a while back we had this idiotic story about 'lead compounds' producing 'nanocrystals' and being used by the ancient Egyptians.
Next on slashdot: scientists develop nanobreathing technology using a nanogas mixture containing nanoparticles only an few atoms wide! Revolutionary nanopower technique delivers charged nanoparticles to electrical devices through ordinary wire! Nanolightbulbs emitting nanophotons found to have been in use since the 18th century! Nanocar constructed entirely from nanoparticles of metal, plastic and glass runs entirely on nano-fuel only a few carbon atoms long!
Slashdot Mirror
and
Assumptions:
- everyone knows what a "sku" is (an open-source implementation of a ski? a pygmy skunk?)
- everyone knows that the word "Elite" refers only to a particular version of a particular game console released by Microsoft
- everyone knows that Microsoft's other current marketing cliches for its X-Box 360 console are "Premium" and "Core"
- everyone is sitting with baited breath with all the details of what is going on, just waiting for this vital piece of information ("As the day has progressed...")
Zonk, you've done it again. Acronyms, lack of context, assumed knowledge. Slashdot: news for people who already know what we're reporting about.
...someone will tag the story with "defectivebydesign" and someone else will tag it with "no".
And you should have added "Those of us who think there is room in the world for both Windows, OSX and Linux will remain on the sidelines while another round of the holy wars is inconclusively decided."
I am rather looking forward to the comments from Apple users, though, and particularly whether they can best their own record for self-righteous indignation and incredulity.
Try actually reading the website - it's supposed to be helping MS people to identify and understand Linux people. That list is merely a list of characteristics of that type of Linux user, not a list of 'problems with Linux' or 'reasons to use MS.'
In fact I think the open source movement should be waaaay more worried about this type of thing than the usual rantings from Redmond - this has the hallmarks of a well researched strategy, with good identification of the reasons people might be using Linux. That will allow much more carefully planned attacks on Linux market share.
Emotiv Systems plans to target the Chinese pigeon market first, as many of the birds have already had the necessary equipment jammed through their craniums.
Release titles include "GTA: Bread Crust", "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2007: Parked Lexus Alley", and of course the much anticipated "The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Hideous Chinese Biolab Bay".
Yes, but are you AAIPL? ;)
Indeed, IAAAIPL...Thanks for reminding me of the section - without knowing too much about the details of the case, it would indeed be good for them to have a crack under s 202 of the Act, which allows one to put nonsense claims under the microscope. The problem with that section is that it in effect invites the person making the allegation to bring on their claim for infringement for hearing. Naturally people don't find the idea of going directly to court (and not passing go) against large and wealthy opponents all that inviting...
Personally I would like to see much stiffer penalties for the lodgment of unmeritorious notices, or those brought for impropoper purposes. Presumably the ordinary powers of a court in relation to such litigation still apply, but only once you get to trial one way or another (or arguably, s 202 covers the field in that area I suppose). It would also seem fairer to have a public body investigate, rather than requiring the accused infringer to bear the costs/risk of bringing unmeritorious claims to book.
Correct, from what I can see. IAAL, and what's more IAAAL (I am an Australian lawyer).
It's a shame that they don't fight this. The courts in Australia are generally reasonably sympathetic to the victims of unmeritorious litigation, and wouldn't hesitate to give summary judgment and a significant costs order if it came down to it. The mining industry's lawyers would be well aware of this and would probably settle the thing out of court.
Meanwhile, the whole 'presumption of infringement' attitude encouraged by our laws with respect to ISPs is just pathetic.
But do you think that you would feel like that the day after you'd been in prison? A period of incarceration of any length at all has a huge, and permanent, effect on your ability to do many things, both in an institutionalised sense and in an informal, socially driven sense. And that is without adding in a demonstrably large chance of exposing you to rape, violence, other dehumanising experiences, drugs and disease.
You also liken it to 'stealing' or vandalism, but I don't think that's right. Those crimes have victims who suffer directly, and more importantly, are deprived of the enjoyment of their property in respect of any possible use of it, whether in relation to the person committing the offence or any other person. If I smash your shop window, your shop is closed to me and to anyone else who might have come in that day. Copyright infringement is fundamentally different in that it deprives the copyright holder only of enjoyment of their property insofar as the infringement leads someone who would have paid to use the copyright to use an infringing copy free of charge. But it does not prevent the copyright holder from selling licenses to other potential users of their work. In other words, the effect of the 'crime' is heavily diluted, and there is no direct deprivation of enjoyment.
Society has a way of dealing with these types of 'crimes', in which an individual's behaviour is detrimental but only in a very diluted way. Parking fines come to mind. Speeding fines. Fines for failing to pay car registration. Civil offences, in other words.
I prefer to think of copyright as a mandatory, many-to-one contractual arrangement. If I create something original and subject to copyright, you and the rest of the world has an automatic contract not to exploit it in certain ways without my consent, and that contract expires after a certain amount of time (about 20000 years thanks to Disney and co). If you breach the contract, I think I should be able to pursue you on a civil law basis, but I do not think the cops should be throwing you in prison.
As for running for office, not likely. But you're welcome to come and feel marginalised and unrepresented with me on my blog.
Is a man's freedom itself really only of equivalent value to the artificially created rights in a creative work?
It's time that copyright infringement, and all intellectual property offences, returned to the purely civil arena. Pecuniary penalties are one thing: bankrupt them with fines and damages, by all means. To do so is consistent with the justifications for having intellectual property rights in the first place, which are either related to innovation, commerce, or artistic integrity depending on where you come from historically.
But no-one should be imprisoned for copying information.
I take your point, but I would argue that 'action' adventure is a natural evolution. As game worlds become more immersive it is logical that players be given more freedom of action. As such, whereas in an old style point-and-click adventure there might be one single way to solve a given problem (i.e. solving a 'puzzle'), in more modern games it is possible to give the player the freedom to solve the problem as though it were real. One way of solving it might involve violence, but another might involve traditional adventure game-style puzzle solving.
For instance, it is possible to complete Deus Ex by killing few, if any, of the hundreds of potential enemies. Virtually every problem in the game has a non-violent solution if the player chooses to pursue it.
Perhaps what will 'save' adventure gaming is games like DX and Oblivion, but ones in which weapons are not absolutely ubiquitous and in which violence has realistic and immediate consequences. As such the limitations on violent problem solving would reflect those found in reality, but the player would not be artificially constrained in their choices as they would be in an old-school adventure game.
(PS - I am playing devil's advocate to a certain extent, I miss the golden era of LucasArts and co as much as anyone).
Hmm, are you familiar with a language called 'English'? I'm pretty sure that if you look it up you'll find that the definition of "adventure" is probably apt to describe a story in which the protagonist escapes from prison, meets a king, commences a sacred mission, rescues a prince, becomes a great and famed warrior and magician and attempts to banish evil from a magical land (Oblivion), or a story in which a man with no past gradually unravels a massive government conspiracy and the secrets of his own creation as he travels around a dystopian future (Deus Ex).
You are talking about the outdated concept of a point-and-click adventure. I am saying that gaming has evolved, and 'adventure' games are no longer restricted to this archaic style of interface.
I am starting to wonder if the whole 'adventure gaming is dead' notion comes from a failure to recognise that games like Zelda, Oblivion, Deus Ex and so on are, in effect, adventure games. You freely explore a large environment solving problems, frequently involving puzzles, the need to talk to characters in the world, or the need to acquire specific objects, all within the framework of a larger story. Just because it doesn't involve 2D sprites and some hand-painted backgrounds doesn't mean that what is often called an 'RPG' isn't a traditional adventure game.
However, it is a reasonable assertion that the Wiimote does offer the possibility that mouse-driven adventure games could finally work well on a console.
At some point each arm of government has a degree of autonomy. Separation of powers means that each arm may not usurp the others, NOT that each arm may not regulate its own activities insofar as they are within the scope of its power.
Oh, and "especially a non-elected one" - you mean one that actually has an incentive to set up favourable rules and regulations to ensure re-election..?
Despite your admirable ability to judge my character based on a single comment on a public discussion board I can tell you that I have never treated a client with 'contempt' or with anything other than the respect I would accord to any human being and would like to be accorded to me.
Note that if you consider these options unfeasible, 1 is caused by your own lack of ability, time or skill, 2, 3 and 4 are political problems which are in your own hands as much as they're in anyone's, and 5 and 6 are wired into us by evolution (or God/magical pixies if you're from the bible belt).
Otherwise perhaps you should consider that litigation is an extremely complex, difficult and time consuming activity requiring a very high level of expertise to conduct with any degree of competence. Large law firms do not make vastly more money than collectives of doctors, engineering consultancies, other groups of professionals, or large corporations.
In my view there is a tendency to regard lawyers as a rip-off simply because of the nature of the service, fighting it out to establish one's rights in circumstances which are frequently viewed as unfair or unnecessary, rather than the much more palatable "help me doctor, I'm sick/dying" or "help me, engineer, I need to build X".
The lawyers didn't create your dispute. You and the other litigant did.
Directors must act in the best interests of the company as a whole. They are in some circumstances actually in breach of their duties if they act according to the will of the majority but to the detriment of the minority of shareholders, or to the detriment of the company as an independent entity. To act blindly according to directions of the majority would (depending on the nature of the decision) amount to an impermissible fettering of discretion. This is one of the reasons companies have directors at all, rather than managers who obey 51% of the shareholders and merely administrate the company according to directions.
For example, if the majority of shareholders instructed the directors to favour human rights over profits, but the directors were of the view that this would create a real risk of the company becoming insolvent in the future, then they would be in breach of their fiduciary duties to obey the directive.
Wouldn't widespread use of geothermal energy mean that we would be effectively pumping heat directly from subterranean rock into the atmosphere? In other words, all this would achieve in the end would be to cut out the middle-man of the greenhouse effect and heat the atmosphere directly, rather than indirectly?
Otherwise, sounds great...
For the time being, it's surely a good thing if two extremely wealthy companies pour resources into creating ultra-high capacity facilities such as these, particularly as Google's business model is based around providing services which are nominally 'free' (in terms of dollars) and as such these resources are in a sense an investment in our common infrastructure. If we're really lucky Google and Microsoft will hugely over-invest, and one day find themselves with a large overcapacity which third parties might be able to use for their own work.
However, longer term things may not be so appealing. Both companies have a nasty habit of collecting and storing as much personal data as possible (Google in particular), and both are pushing towards 'lock out' where you are prevented from using your own computer without their participation via connection to their networks. And of course the software industry has a history of producing only one winner in the end, meaning the benefits of this kind of head-to-head competition are unlikely to last...
Which is not that the OP couldn't find the meaning of 'VT', but that it's a basic writing skill to define any acronyms or abbreviations the first time you use them.
I'm sure they know what Wikipedia is, they were merely pointing out an obvious problem with the story.
I would have thought that a correct use of the prefix 'nano' would involve an object, device or effect, the WHOLE of which is on a nanometre scale. So for example, a 'nanobattery' would be a battery the WHOLE of which is on a nanometre scale.
I'm obviously not alone is being heartily sick of anything involving components parts which are on an atomic scale (e.g.... uh, CHEMICALS) being referred to as 'nano'-whatever. For instance a while back we had this idiotic story about 'lead compounds' producing 'nanocrystals' and being used by the ancient Egyptians.
Next on slashdot: scientists develop nanobreathing technology using a nanogas mixture containing nanoparticles only an few atoms wide! Revolutionary nanopower technique delivers charged nanoparticles to electrical devices through ordinary wire! Nanolightbulbs emitting nanophotons found to have been in use since the 18th century! Nanocar constructed entirely from nanoparticles of metal, plastic and glass runs entirely on nano-fuel only a few carbon atoms long!
...as opposed to mere virtual representations of actual retards.
What about pictures of the Earth, though?
I prefer the beautiful blue and white orb version to the "Eat at KFC!!!" version, myself. Quite a lot, actually.
ATF should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Your sig is instructive as to your notion of what a 'society' is and how it should operate.
Thanks for the insightful comment...