Sheesh, and all I was doing was commenting on the laughably poor semantics of the title... which said the REVIEWS were looking good, not the game itself.
This company is staffed by some pretty entrepreneurial people, obviously. They're playing both ends against each other and profiting from both. Frankly, too many telecom companies, like my own Pacific Bell/SBC/AT&T, have been profiting ENORMOUSLY as well from a feature that costs them virtually nothing to provide in a digital network... kinda like text messaging, eh?
No one who voluntarily chooses to call me has any right to anonymity. If I have a right to "face my accuser" in court, I damned well have a right to know who's calling me. Would you choose to answer the door if the person knocking was wearing a mask or a burlap sack over his head? Why should the telephone paradigm be treated any differently than that, merely because the technology allows it?
Caller ID *should* have been mandatory for all callers and FREE, right from the start. Had that been the case, this company wouldn't even exist to profit from our stupid choices about it.
Good luck trying to use that tiny thumbnail of an unnatural expression to break into my laptop. Are you actually proud of yourself for finding things I wasn't trying to hide, and which any seven-year-old is capable of finding? Keep it up... I like it when other people find supporting evidence for my arguments so that I don't even have to bother.
Just don't ever let them take pictures of you, that's all. Your family photos will look a bit weird with you scissored out of all of them, but your wife will never be able to get you hauled up on charges for all that kiddie porn you've been hiding on yer laptop. You know, the one you don't use a laptop cooler with because you actually LIKE the warm and fuzzy feeling it gives you down there when you're ogling.
I haven't. There's other things identity thieves might do with a high-quality digital image, so I don't take chances. Did I mention I predicted the Millenium Bug almost 20 years in advance?
I'm a virtual socialist, but McCain doesn't make me shudder any more violently than does Obama. They're both bad leaders. I don't trust either of them. I trust people like Kucinich and McDermott.
I dunno about you, but nobody has ever had a reason to turn that kinda telephoto lens on me. For anyone who has motivated that, I'd wager they've got bigger problems than somebody wanting to peek at their laptop....
Ummm... balaclava the headwear, not baklava the tasty Greek pastry! I guess you can still wear bakclava for your wife, if that will help, but maybe not in public.
Exactly how is someone going to get photo of you of sufficient quality to fool the recognition system without you knowing about it? You'll see the person taking the photo, and thus be able to deal with the potential breach before it ever happens.
As far as friends/wives trying to snap shots of you for later misuse, I'd suggest you wear a bakclava all the time, or a burlap sack if you're ugly enough. Or find yourself friends/wife you can actually trust not to screw you over.
Exactly how is that HIS legacy? BUSH signed it into law, and John McCain was also involved. It passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate, so even the usual partisan bickering didn't apply. That all happened in 2006! Even the follow-up to it also had John McCain's name on it as well as others. That was truly a community effort, not something for which His Highness Obama can take unilateral credit.
Sorry, pal, but your counter really really sounds delusional.
Have you not noticed or already blanked-out the fact that it was Obama's new administration that placed these RIAA lawyers in the DOJ in the first place? A Slashdot reminder of that fact was linked right in the article above.
... why not give them to somebody else who can use them? Why not sell them on Craigslist or eBay or, if you're in a really giving mood, give them away on a local freecycle group? You could also donate them to some charitable cause that needs some computing power, then take the donation as a tax write-off... which it sounds like you might be needing down the road a bit.
I don't get it... how can the same commission that calls for doubling copyright to a ridiculous 95 years also recommend a good-for-the-rest-of-us standard like this? It seems like this commission has some rather conflicted or confused goals and motivations.
That theory might hold true sometimes but, from what I've seen of this company's continued tactics, it isn't true in this instance. They like to use it as a marketing gimmick and it means little else, from what I can tell.
Get real. The drugs at issue here aren't antibiotics: they're the sexy current ones that are still covered by active patents, drugs which are typically poisons at anything but minute doses that the liver/kidneys can defuse... the equivalent of chemo-therapy without actually being called that.
The question here is not one of economics, the question is one of ethics: they're not investing in the future and well-being of the whole species, rather they're investing in the financial well-being of their management and investors and shareholders, and doing so often enough at the expense of the well-being of the whole species. It's Big Tobacco all over again in a different outfit.
Quite possibly the worst social crime committed by Big Pharma is the redirection of research efforts: they have diverted research away from long-term permanent cures that benefit society, in favor of research focused on short-term fixes that benefit their shareholders and management. Prescription drugs are not cures, they are lifetime subscription contracts that benefit the supplier.
They want to ensure that doctors and patients in those countries become as dependent upon them as those in countries they have already infiltrated... starting with free samples given to doctors and handed out to patients. Can you hear them respond? "It's okay when WE do that, even though street corner drug pushers do the same thing, because we have only your health and wellness at heart."
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh, and all I was doing was commenting on the laughably poor semantics of the title... which said the REVIEWS were looking good, not the game itself.
Errr... I was actually commenting on the careless lack of articulation in the title.
This company is staffed by some pretty entrepreneurial people, obviously. They're playing both ends against each other and profiting from both. Frankly, too many telecom companies, like my own Pacific Bell/SBC/AT&T, have been profiting ENORMOUSLY as well from a feature that costs them virtually nothing to provide in a digital network... kinda like text messaging, eh?
No one who voluntarily chooses to call me has any right to anonymity. If I have a right to "face my accuser" in court, I damned well have a right to know who's calling me. Would you choose to answer the door if the person knocking was wearing a mask or a burlap sack over his head? Why should the telephone paradigm be treated any differently than that, merely because the technology allows it?
Caller ID *should* have been mandatory for all callers and FREE, right from the start. Had that been the case, this company wouldn't even exist to profit from our stupid choices about it.
So the reviews are looking good, but the game sucks?
Good luck trying to use that tiny thumbnail of an unnatural expression to break into my laptop. Are you actually proud of yourself for finding things I wasn't trying to hide, and which any seven-year-old is capable of finding? Keep it up... I like it when other people find supporting evidence for my arguments so that I don't even have to bother.
Well if the shoe fits.... *shrug*
No rubbing, honest, my hands are tied behind me (like most Americans). I think we both live in countries overdue for revolutions.
X-ray telephoto is it, then? Enjoy the view. Sorry I haven't managed to lose more weight and have that third nipple removed.
I'm just hoping that Kucinich runs again in four years.
Just don't ever let them take pictures of you, that's all. Your family photos will look a bit weird with you scissored out of all of them, but your wife will never be able to get you hauled up on charges for all that kiddie porn you've been hiding on yer laptop. You know, the one you don't use a laptop cooler with because you actually LIKE the warm and fuzzy feeling it gives you down there when you're ogling.
I haven't. There's other things identity thieves might do with a high-quality digital image, so I don't take chances. Did I mention I predicted the Millenium Bug almost 20 years in advance?
Assuming that's the ONLY place you're wearing it, that is.
I'm a virtual socialist, but McCain doesn't make me shudder any more violently than does Obama. They're both bad leaders. I don't trust either of them. I trust people like Kucinich and McDermott.
I dunno about you, but nobody has ever had a reason to turn that kinda telephoto lens on me. For anyone who has motivated that, I'd wager they've got bigger problems than somebody wanting to peek at their laptop....
We just all need to re-learn how to be camera-shy?
Hey, I wear baklava all the time. It's a great way to make friends.
Ummm... balaclava the headwear, not baklava the tasty Greek pastry! I guess you can still wear bakclava for your wife, if that will help, but maybe not in public.
Exactly how is someone going to get photo of you of sufficient quality to fool the recognition system without you knowing about it? You'll see the person taking the photo, and thus be able to deal with the potential breach before it ever happens.
As far as friends/wives trying to snap shots of you for later misuse, I'd suggest you wear a bakclava all the time, or a burlap sack if you're ugly enough. Or find yourself friends/wife you can actually trust not to screw you over.
Exactly how is that HIS legacy? BUSH signed it into law, and John McCain was also involved. It passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate, so even the usual partisan bickering didn't apply. That all happened in 2006! Even the follow-up to it also had John McCain's name on it as well as others. That was truly a community effort, not something for which His Highness Obama can take unilateral credit.
Sorry, pal, but your counter really really sounds delusional.
Have you not noticed or already blanked-out the fact that it was Obama's new administration that placed these RIAA lawyers in the DOJ in the first place? A Slashdot reminder of that fact was linked right in the article above.
You call it "optimism", but I call it "delusion".
Oh Lord, I wasted my vote.
I told you it would be like this, but you weren't listening. You chose to follow the Pied Piper.
... why not give them to somebody else who can use them? Why not sell them on Craigslist or eBay or, if you're in a really giving mood, give them away on a local freecycle group? You could also donate them to some charitable cause that needs some computing power, then take the donation as a tax write-off... which it sounds like you might be needing down the road a bit.
I don't get it... how can the same commission that calls for doubling copyright to a ridiculous 95 years also recommend a good-for-the-rest-of-us standard like this? It seems like this commission has some rather conflicted or confused goals and motivations.
That theory might hold true sometimes but, from what I've seen of this company's continued tactics, it isn't true in this instance. They like to use it as a marketing gimmick and it means little else, from what I can tell.
Get real. The drugs at issue here aren't antibiotics: they're the sexy current ones that are still covered by active patents, drugs which are typically poisons at anything but minute doses that the liver/kidneys can defuse... the equivalent of chemo-therapy without actually being called that.
The question here is not one of economics, the question is one of ethics: they're not investing in the future and well-being of the whole species, rather they're investing in the financial well-being of their management and investors and shareholders, and doing so often enough at the expense of the well-being of the whole species. It's Big Tobacco all over again in a different outfit.
Quite possibly the worst social crime committed by Big Pharma is the redirection of research efforts: they have diverted research away from long-term permanent cures that benefit society, in favor of research focused on short-term fixes that benefit their shareholders and management. Prescription drugs are not cures, they are lifetime subscription contracts that benefit the supplier.
They want to ensure that doctors and patients in those countries become as dependent upon them as those in countries they have already infiltrated... starting with free samples given to doctors and handed out to patients. Can you hear them respond? "It's okay when WE do that, even though street corner drug pushers do the same thing, because we have only your health and wellness at heart."