And who do you suppose ended up in the #1 position on that list? Who do the 'intellectually gifted' among us look up to as a hero? Who, above everyone else, does the Mensa community place on a pedestal? None other than George W. Bush, of course.
What that means it that Mensa members are selfish. Intelligent people are more likely to make money, which makes them more likely to vote for Bush.
Wikipedia isn't an example of information wanting to be free, it's an example of groupthink spinning out of control. Has it changed dramatically in the last few months? I may return if it has, but if not it's just another example of a failed ideology.
I think it's much more of an example of people not wanting to write a full anything anymore.
Not that there's anything wrong with being lazy, just sayin.
Not only that, they'll take all your computer stuff for a few years as evidence for their investigation. Just being accused of a crime is enough of a problem to worry about.
But they only do that to people who are not me. This is a non-issue until I see it on the local news.
I don't know about that. I've spent countless hours playing GTA, zooming in with the sniper rifle and shooting heads off, but on a TV show like CSI, if they have a scene with a dead body, I have to turn away or I'd probably throw up. If a game was too realistic, I wouldn't be able to play it. I imagine most people are the same.
That's what I said. In videogames.
I've destroyed the whole world in Civilization many times, yet I can't take the sight of blood, and a corpse?
I'm sorry, I don't understand people who think that you can expose yourself to hours and hours and hours of violence and not become, at least, desensitized to it or, at worst, enticed to it.
And this is why kids shouldn't play Violent Video games.
Yet they should still exist for Adults to play freely.
You never pay a late fee. You simply own the movie. They say no late fees. They mean no late fees. It doesn't say anything about other fees.
I've decided to start a new political party. We pledge that if we get power, we will ABOLISH TAXES. You heard me right - we will operate a ZERO TAX POLICY. You will never have to pay tax again for as long as we are in power.
I take it I can count on your vote?
(We may, from time to time, at our discretion, charge Residence Fees of up to 100% of your annual income. We believe that the advantage of living in a TAX-FREE society will more than make up for you simply being forced to give all your money to the government.)
Get the point?
That you think lying is okay, and we should all just happily accept it?
I mean if people today are so dumb that they think Blockbuster's commercials meant they could just keep rental movies forever then we have reached a new level of stupidity not equaled in quite a while.
Because of course it's okay to lie as long as everyone knows your lying.
Yes, 40:1 ratio for windows sounds a bit pessimistic. But so does 400:1 for Linux. I have seen installations with 10 times as many users per sysadmin both in the windows and the Linux case.
And who knows more about Cisco's usage patterns, and needs?
Gee, they only have the information for the new service at the counter. It clearly says in FAQ format that if you keep the movie for 8 days past the due date that you have purchased the movie. If you're too irresponsible to return a movie before 8 days are up, you should get into their Freedom Pass which will be cheaper in the long run than buy every movie you decided to view but didn't have time to actually view.
Cool, fair arguement. Just don't mislead me in an advertisement.
I have to drive down there to learn that there really are late fees? That's not fair.
Regardless of how silly it may be to expect to keep a movie for 6 months without issue.
If you lie in an advertisement, you should face stiff penalty.
Like, not being able to advertise for a year. That'd be sweet.
Criticism and comparison -- even those that make one product look inferior to another -- need not be defamation, nor is it necessarily unfair. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
But it can be defamation and often is.
Which is why French companies are scared to use it, knowing that French people don't like it, because it's normally used for defimation.
Coors Light, Bud Light is a very clear as day picture of this.
You stated that if you follow just the facts, the commercial is fine. If you state helpful safety facts it's almost a public service.
Okay. You're right, what is your point?
It's used for a mostly self serving and sensational purpose.
Do these sorts of suits strike anyone else as utterly ridiculous ?
Absolutely not. I think it's utterly ridiculous to think these suits are utterly ridiculous, so there's a start.
I mean has anyone seen any pepsi/coke ads lately ? They feature their competitors unabashedly.
They do not feature their competitors unabashedly. They insult their competitors to coerce people into buying their product. There's no truth, just BUY US, NOT THEM, THEY SUCK.
It's wrong.
"No one should hear about the competitor's products when ours are mentioned".
That's not what this is about. This is about a company paying to have an advertisement when someone looks for your product.
And the only way to counter? To buy advertising yourself?
Actually I think you're wrong: in France, comparing your product with another (like "Coke sux" in a Pepsi ad) is allowed but has NEVER been used (until recently when the new phone companies said the main phone operator was too f***ing expensive). I think it's more a cultural problem than a legal one: America has a long history of freedom of competition and capitalism, when European companies are scared of each other.
Freedom of competition has little to do with this.
It's the idea of searching for a trademark, and getting someone elses advertisement. Someone is looking for your product, and you show listings of counter products.
I don't know if that's right or wrong, but where does freedom of competition come in?
Saying another product sucks, because it's not yours certainly isn't freedom of competition. It's a way to convince people that your product is better, when most likely both products are about the same, and determined by personal opinion.
Why should companies attack other companies?
Can't you just state why your product is better, and leave it at that? Why defame others?
Slashdot Mirror
And who do you suppose ended up in the #1 position on that list? Who do the 'intellectually gifted' among us look up to as a hero? Who, above everyone else, does the Mensa community place on a pedestal? None other than George W. Bush, of course.
What that means it that Mensa members are selfish. Intelligent people are more likely to make money, which makes them more likely to vote for Bush.
Wikipedia isn't an example of information wanting to be free, it's an example of groupthink spinning out of control. Has it changed dramatically in the last few months? I may return if it has, but if not it's just another example of a failed ideology.
I think it's much more of an example of people not wanting to write a full anything anymore.
Not that there's anything wrong with being lazy, just sayin.
Not only that, they'll take all your computer stuff for a few years as evidence for their investigation.
Just being accused of a crime is enough of a problem to worry about.
But they only do that to people who are not me. This is a non-issue until I see it on the local news.
Apparently it's impossible to average more than 24 hours online a day.
Thankfully we aren't still using BBSs, paying with credits/per hour.
We would have never wasted so much of our lives stareing into a bright light displaying images.
I don't know about that. I've spent countless hours playing GTA, zooming in with the sniper rifle and shooting heads off, but on a TV show like CSI, if they have a scene with a dead body, I have to turn away or I'd probably throw up. If a game was too realistic, I wouldn't be able to play it. I imagine most people are the same.
That's what I said. In videogames.
I've destroyed the whole world in Civilization many times, yet I can't take the sight of blood, and a corpse?
Ack! I don't even watch those CSI shows.
s/violents/violence
and probably some more if I read it again.
-1 terrible spelling plz.
I'm sorry, I don't understand people who think that you can expose yourself to hours and hours and hours of violence and not become, at least, desensitized to it or, at worst, enticed to it.
And this is why kids shouldn't play Violent Video games.
Yet they should still exist for Adults to play freely.
Agreed.
These people are retarded. If they want to stop violence then they should just ban killing people instead.
Or the Government should stop killing people to make an example of it.
Violence must be caused by video games. There was no murder or violent crime before Grand Theft Auto came out and tainted all of the children!!
What violent video games did Hitler have in his Xbox?
(A twisted around Chris Rock reference.)
Video games are literally "murder simulators" teaching our kids how to kill.
If you are going to use a term like literally then you need to include accurate statements.
Video games have nothing to do with murder. Violent video games might.
Violent video games, do not teach kids how to kill, only to be more used to violents.
Grand Theft Auto never taught me how to kill someone with a chainsaw, only that it was possible. As if I needed to realize that.
I think that it makes children less sensitive towards violence, in video games.
What effect it has outside I bet is largely determined by the teachings of the parents.
Yup, that is what I meant. :)
There's information in the first publication of Made on how to do this at home.
Don't know if it's the same guy, as I just glanced through the section so far.
Not to be rude, but doesn't a headmouse work just like a normal mouse?
And if so, wouldn't games like Civilization be good?
You said it yourself.
"This lets you keep the rental for a couple of days extra, just to allow you extra time."
A Couple days, not an entire fraking month.
Then don't say "The end of late fees" and there's no problem.
Personal Responsibility also means realizing that if you lie, you are going to get hammered.
Company or Individual.
You never pay a late fee. You simply own the movie.
They say no late fees. They mean no late fees. It doesn't say anything about other fees.
I've decided to start a new political party. We pledge that if we get power, we will ABOLISH TAXES. You heard me right - we will operate a ZERO TAX POLICY. You will never have to pay tax again for as long as we are in power.
I take it I can count on your vote?
(We may, from time to time, at our discretion, charge Residence Fees of up to 100% of your annual income. We believe that the advantage of living in a TAX-FREE society will more than make up for you simply being forced to give all your money to the government.)
Get the point?
That you think lying is okay, and we should all just happily accept it?
I mean if people today are so dumb that they think Blockbuster's commercials meant they could just keep rental movies forever then we have reached a new level of stupidity not equaled in quite a while.
Because of course it's okay to lie as long as everyone knows your lying.
Like politicians.
Yes, 40:1 ratio for windows sounds a bit pessimistic. But so does 400:1 for Linux. I have seen installations with 10 times as many users per sysadmin both in the windows and the Linux case.
And who knows more about Cisco's usage patterns, and needs?
Cisco or you?
Gee, they only have the information for the new service at the counter. It clearly says in FAQ format that if you keep the movie for 8 days past the due date that you have purchased the movie. If you're too irresponsible to return a movie before 8 days are up, you should get into their Freedom Pass which will be cheaper in the long run than buy every movie you decided to view but didn't have time to actually view.
Cool, fair arguement. Just don't mislead me in an advertisement.
I have to drive down there to learn that there really are late fees? That's not fair.
Regardless of how silly it may be to expect to keep a movie for 6 months without issue.
If you lie in an advertisement, you should face stiff penalty.
Like, not being able to advertise for a year. That'd be sweet.
Criticism and comparison -- even those that make one product look inferior to another -- need not be defamation, nor is it necessarily unfair. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
But it can be defamation and often is.
Which is why French companies are scared to use it, knowing that French people don't like it, because it's normally used for defimation.
Coors Light, Bud Light is a very clear as day picture of this.
You stated that if you follow just the facts, the commercial is fine. If you state helpful safety facts it's almost a public service.
Okay. You're right, what is your point?
It's used for a mostly self serving and sensational purpose.
when google takes them out of their search results. After all why risk another lawsuit when someone else will gladly take those hits.
Good. Do that. That's Google's choice.
Is this hard to understand?
If you don't like the laws in a country, it's your choice to do something about it or not. Follow the laws, don't and be sued, or get out of the game.
They are NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING.
It's in France and this is an American company. They hate the players and the game in France.
They only hate the players because they are doing something they feel is wrong. They only hate the game because they beileve the game is wrong.
If it's unfair, don't sell your products or allow French companies to use your search engine.
There's no reason you are entitled to sell advertising when someone searches for another product.
Do these sorts of suits strike anyone else as utterly ridiculous ?
Absolutely not. I think it's utterly ridiculous to think these suits are utterly ridiculous, so there's a start.
I mean has anyone seen any pepsi/coke ads lately ? They feature their competitors unabashedly.
They do not feature their competitors unabashedly. They insult their competitors to coerce people into buying their product. There's no truth, just BUY US, NOT THEM, THEY SUCK.
It's wrong.
"No one should hear about the competitor's products when ours are mentioned".
That's not what this is about. This is about a company paying to have an advertisement when someone looks for your product.
And the only way to counter? To buy advertising yourself?
Great money making plan, if nothing else.
Actually I think you're wrong: in France, comparing your product with another (like "Coke sux" in a Pepsi ad) is allowed but has NEVER been used (until recently when the new phone companies said the main phone operator was too f***ing expensive). I think it's more a cultural problem than a legal one: America has a long history of freedom of competition and capitalism, when European companies are scared of each other.
Freedom of competition has little to do with this.
It's the idea of searching for a trademark, and getting someone elses advertisement. Someone is looking for your product, and you show listings of counter products.
I don't know if that's right or wrong, but where does freedom of competition come in?
Saying another product sucks, because it's not yours certainly isn't freedom of competition. It's a way to convince people that your product is better, when most likely both products are about the same, and determined by personal opinion.
Why should companies attack other companies?
Can't you just state why your product is better, and leave it at that? Why defame others?
Then you are an idiot.
This is up to debate. There are differing opinions. Hell, I don't know what the answer is. If this ir right, or if this is wrong.
I don't really know.
But it's not Frivolous.
Bill Gates was somewhat indirectly involved.
I never questioned that Bill Gates was involved.
and I think you give him a little too much credit for market factors.
Eh.