What parts are wrong? For instance, the poster in the thread seems to refute the claim that the whip-and-hold move is in Castlevania games to this day, the most recent being Portrait of Ruin. Particularly, the downward whip move. I have the game, and it's in there. What's the problem exactly?
Are you actually trying to argue that games like Metroid, Zelda, and Super Mario aren't fundamental to gaming? God, Super Mario Bros. alone set so many precedents still followed today...I'm just going to pretend you didn't post that.
They didn't scrap all the original work. They restarted from a more modular codebase and ported in their in-progress existing technology in a more manageable way. It's not like they just rewrote Avalon all over again from scratch in summer of 2004.
Huh? The bill explicitly states that it applies to those who reach 500 or more members by describing that anyone with fewer than that number of readers are not affected by the bill.
In fact, if you read further, you find out that the big corporate lobbyists are exempted from the bill.
The bill mentions absolutely nothing about "astroturfing" nor does it mention a "$100,000" salary. The minimum salary isn't even defined, nor is payment itself. If someone sent a box of political bumper stickers, that might be considered "payment." Because payment is not defined, the only specific requirement is the 500 or more readership, and everything else could be quibbled over by opponents who want to harass a blog or other grassroots organization they don't like. Please, read the bill.
Well, if the ACLU was libertarian, it would be pro-gun, but its past behavior does not support that conclusion.
The reason the ACLU is labeled "liberal" is not because it's an insult to be liberal but because the ACLU doesn't advertise that it is liberal despite how obvious it is, so conservatives feel the need to let people know upfront. Penn & Teller did an episode of "Bullshit!" that mentioned this phenomena, where people give their groups innocuous names to hide their political agendas. "American Civil Liberties Union" sounds fantastic by itself--who would be opposed to civil liberties, right?
The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is not specifically defined in the bill; however, it is specifically defined that the bill does not affect blogs with less than 500 readers. This means you simply have to be a blog with 500 or more readers. Contrary to your little list, there is no minimum defined payment amount in the bill.
You also conveniently left out that large lobby groups who don't rely on public communication are exempted! This means large corporations who spend millions on lobbying aren't even covered by the bill.
To quote the American Family Association's statement:
Under Senate Bill 1, AFA would have to report the issues, employees, contractors and dollars spent in what is called "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" (that phrase is not defined). This reporting requirement is triggered by two actions: (1) a lobbying "contact" - a personal or written communication with an individual in the executive or legislative branch of the federal government concerning public policy issues, from legislation to nominations; and (2) communications with grassroots (that's you) that "influence" them to contact the executive or legislative branches ("influence" is not defined, but it apparently doesn't even have to include a specific "call to action.") There is no minimum dollar spending requirement that triggers the reporting requirement by AFA for our efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.
Why do liberals use the word "neo?" Is that supposed to be insulting or something? I've never understood it.
[How many of you know about the neo-GOP marching orders not to use the proper adjectival form for the Democratic Party?] Of course it's difficult to penetrate the veil of secrecy around the neo-GOP, but all of them going one way on any real issue clearly says that directions came from on high.
Hell, how many of you know about the marching orders to deflect any mention of Barak Obama's heavy smoking by referencing Mark Foley? We could go all day with this.
Why? Well, first guess time. How many bloggers could you hire for a million bucks? Hey, a million bucks here, a million bucks there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money a la neo-GOP-style campaigning--the only asset the neo-GOP has left now that McCain has joined (and chucked his principles) and Colin Powell has basically defected (apparently wedged by his).
Haha, after all, Dems never hire anyone or have millions to spend (hello, liberal Hollywood)...anyway, this bill was an attempt by Democrats to stifle criticism of incumbents going into 2008. They know they're already on shaky ground--all the new Democrats are conservative anti-abortion, pro-gun Democrats--and they wanted to require bloggers with 500 or more readers to register. It's a restriction of free speech.
Since you probably haven't even read it, here's section 220. The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is conveniently not defined in the bill.
What about that part in the bill requiring people who reached 500 or more members of the public to register, and that was enough to constitute payment?
It wasn't about astroturfing. If you communicated to 500 or more members of the public, you had to register or face jail time. It was an attempt to minimize incumbent criticism and bolster a shaky Democratic party going into 2008.
It boils down to them not wanting unrestricted Internet criticism of incumbents. Essentially, Democrats are worried about 2008. The election of so many conservative Democrats, the so-called "Blue Dog" caucus, has split the party, and the more liberal leadership is worried about alienating their base.
Consider it a little education. Your assumption that Republicans are somehow more idiotic and stifling than Democrats was wrong in the first place. If anything, Democrats are the folks who want the government to regulate everything--there is actually a draft bill in California make spanking your child a misdemeanor. You can't even smoke cigarettes in your own home anymore (better tell Barak Obama, a heavy smoker!).
Payment wasn't defined as getting money; it was defined as communications to 500 or more readers. The bill was essentially an extension of McCain-Feingold to try to distinguish critical dissent against incumbent politicians. I'm shocked that the Democrats were for it, and it's one more disappointment of the "first 100 hours." Perhaps you should actually read about the bill:
"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.
This is pretty much proof that it's business as usual with the new Congress, and that Democrats are going to be even more idiotic than the last guys. And no, before you read my sig and think I'm a Republican, I'm a libertarian who just dislikes the left more than the right.
Agree with him or disagree with him, Rush Limbaugh spends four hours every day bloviating about why he thinks the way he does. Just today he played audio clips from prominent Democratic leaders like Pelosi and Clinton voicing support for a troop surge and then changing their minds after Bush brought it up. He provides supporting evidence, you see.
Liberals are the ones who calmly and rationally try to explain their side of things.
Is this when they're throwing pies or rushing college stages? Is it when they're saying "screw them" to dead U.S. soldiers like at Daily Kos? Is it after they refer to everybody they don't like as Nazis and Hitlers, or accusing people of being stupid because they don't believe in abortion or raising taxes?
Think about Al Franken, everything he says is backed up by research, and he never calls people who disagree with him a traitor.
That's not even true. Franken's books have been found to be riddled with falsehoods, and he calls people names all the time.
Newsweek just referred to the popular show 24 as a "neocon sex fantasy" simply because a nuke went off. This is the level of intellectual discourse you get from liberals who are terrified of the idea that someone might disagree with them. They don't know how to argue--they only know how to rely on emotions and call you names.
Of course the RIAA doesn't profit from mixtapes. They're simply a representative lobby group for the record labels. The record labels have ownership rights to the music this "Pro Artist" was pirating. The summary assumes no artists were complaining simply because the article doesn't mention any, which is a poor assumption that's likely to be incorrect.
This is nothing more than yet another anti-RIAA propaganda hitpiece on Slashdot, intended to make pirates feel all warm and fuzzy inside for pirating music. "I'm not stealing from the artists. I'm stealing from the RIAA! Slashdot tells me they're bad, so it's justice! Artists who?"
What's confusing about it? It's illegal to copy music owned by someone else. I don't get the "confusion" here except for yet another anti-RIAA article posted by Slashdot to distract everyone from their guilty conscience and make them feel better about pirating.
The biggest reason for me not to install it on my Boot Camp Partition is that Vista noticeably runs games slower than XP. Microsoft quietly admitted an average 10% slowdown in games under Vista. No thanks. Not to mention the absolutely broken 64-bit effort on the part of Microsoft. 64-bit Leopard will happily run all 32-bit drivers and apps, and won't require separate 64-bit executables, thanks to Universal Binaries. Apple's 64-bit efforts are technically superior to Microsoft's, and I'd rather just stick with 32-bit XP for the next few years.
But the Mac versions don't have "Windows" prefixed on them so that your Start menu is polluted with a neverending series of items like Windows Mail, Windows Calendar, Windows Media Player, Windows Internet Explorer, Windows Picture Gallery, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Live Messenger, and so forth. How could such pervasive branding be wrong? Buy Windows Vista Home Premium Edition today! BUY THE BRAND!
Not really. Microsoft will do what it did for XP and not release consumer sales statistics. Instead, they'll cite sales to retailers. This will be to inflate the numbers and hide the muted interest in Vista that XP also experienced.
Well, the year after, 10.2 came out, which was a huge hit and was so successful that everyone knew its codename, Jaguar. The point Mossberg was making is that OS X already had the features Vista is trying to tout six years later. So it was not "completely false."
I still think it's funny that it took over half a decade for Microsoft to implement hardware compositing for the window manager, so they could get in on all those fancy transparencies and real-time video previews on the Dock that Apple was marketing six years ago. Sheesh.
Re:Not this crap again
on
Who won?
·
· Score: -1, Troll
I didn't make up any numbers. The 750,000 figure comes from the U.N.
Slashdot Mirror
What parts are wrong? For instance, the poster in the thread seems to refute the claim that the whip-and-hold move is in Castlevania games to this day, the most recent being Portrait of Ruin. Particularly, the downward whip move. I have the game, and it's in there. What's the problem exactly?
Are you actually trying to argue that games like Metroid, Zelda, and Super Mario aren't fundamental to gaming? God, Super Mario Bros. alone set so many precedents still followed today...I'm just going to pretend you didn't post that.
They didn't scrap all the original work. They restarted from a more modular codebase and ported in their in-progress existing technology in a more manageable way. It's not like they just rewrote Avalon all over again from scratch in summer of 2004.
It's a really stupid argument. It's like claiming Britney Spears is a better musician because her albums sell more than Mozart concert recordings do.
Huh? The bill explicitly states that it applies to those who reach 500 or more members by describing that anyone with fewer than that number of readers are not affected by the bill.
In fact, if you read further, you find out that the big corporate lobbyists are exempted from the bill.
The bill mentions absolutely nothing about "astroturfing" nor does it mention a "$100,000" salary. The minimum salary isn't even defined, nor is payment itself. If someone sent a box of political bumper stickers, that might be considered "payment." Because payment is not defined, the only specific requirement is the 500 or more readership, and everything else could be quibbled over by opponents who want to harass a blog or other grassroots organization they don't like. Please, read the bill.
Well, if the ACLU was libertarian, it would be pro-gun, but its past behavior does not support that conclusion.
The reason the ACLU is labeled "liberal" is not because it's an insult to be liberal but because the ACLU doesn't advertise that it is liberal despite how obvious it is, so conservatives feel the need to let people know upfront. Penn & Teller did an episode of "Bullshit!" that mentioned this phenomena, where people give their groups innocuous names to hide their political agendas. "American Civil Liberties Union" sounds fantastic by itself--who would be opposed to civil liberties, right?
I was merely responding to the poster's insinuation that it was strictly a Republican issue instead of a free speech issue. But you knew that.
If you guys need proof of how crazy this was, even the ACLU sided with the Republicans on this one. Ouch!
The ACLU was against the bill. Are the ACLU a group of Republicans?
The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is not specifically defined in the bill; however, it is specifically defined that the bill does not affect blogs with less than 500 readers. This means you simply have to be a blog with 500 or more readers. Contrary to your little list, there is no minimum defined payment amount in the bill.
You also conveniently left out that large lobby groups who don't rely on public communication are exempted! This means large corporations who spend millions on lobbying aren't even covered by the bill.
To quote the American Family Association's statement:
It's an attempt to silence political bloggers.
Hell, how many of you know about the marching orders to deflect any mention of Barak Obama's heavy smoking by referencing Mark Foley? We could go all day with this.
Haha, after all, Dems never hire anyone or have millions to spend (hello, liberal Hollywood)...anyway, this bill was an attempt by Democrats to stifle criticism of incumbents going into 2008. They know they're already on shaky ground--all the new Democrats are conservative anti-abortion, pro-gun Democrats--and they wanted to require bloggers with 500 or more readers to register. It's a restriction of free speech.
Since you probably haven't even read it, here's section 220. The phrase "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" is conveniently not defined in the bill.
What about that part in the bill requiring people who reached 500 or more members of the public to register, and that was enough to constitute payment?
It wasn't about astroturfing. If you communicated to 500 or more members of the public, you had to register or face jail time. It was an attempt to minimize incumbent criticism and bolster a shaky Democratic party going into 2008.
It boils down to them not wanting unrestricted Internet criticism of incumbents. Essentially, Democrats are worried about 2008. The election of so many conservative Democrats, the so-called "Blue Dog" caucus, has split the party, and the more liberal leadership is worried about alienating their base.
Consider it a little education. Your assumption that Republicans are somehow more idiotic and stifling than Democrats was wrong in the first place. If anything, Democrats are the folks who want the government to regulate everything--there is actually a draft bill in California make spanking your child a misdemeanor. You can't even smoke cigarettes in your own home anymore (better tell Barak Obama, a heavy smoker!).
This is pretty much proof that it's business as usual with the new Congress, and that Democrats are going to be even more idiotic than the last guys. And no, before you read my sig and think I'm a Republican, I'm a libertarian who just dislikes the left more than the right.
Is this when they're throwing pies or rushing college stages? Is it when they're saying "screw them" to dead U.S. soldiers like at Daily Kos? Is it after they refer to everybody they don't like as Nazis and Hitlers, or accusing people of being stupid because they don't believe in abortion or raising taxes?
That's not even true. Franken's books have been found to be riddled with falsehoods, and he calls people names all the time.
Newsweek just referred to the popular show 24 as a "neocon sex fantasy" simply because a nuke went off. This is the level of intellectual discourse you get from liberals who are terrified of the idea that someone might disagree with them. They don't know how to argue--they only know how to rely on emotions and call you names.
Of course the RIAA doesn't profit from mixtapes. They're simply a representative lobby group for the record labels. The record labels have ownership rights to the music this "Pro Artist" was pirating. The summary assumes no artists were complaining simply because the article doesn't mention any, which is a poor assumption that's likely to be incorrect.
This is nothing more than yet another anti-RIAA propaganda hitpiece on Slashdot, intended to make pirates feel all warm and fuzzy inside for pirating music. "I'm not stealing from the artists. I'm stealing from the RIAA! Slashdot tells me they're bad, so it's justice! Artists who?"
What's confusing about it? It's illegal to copy music owned by someone else. I don't get the "confusion" here except for yet another anti-RIAA article posted by Slashdot to distract everyone from their guilty conscience and make them feel better about pirating.
The biggest reason for me not to install it on my Boot Camp Partition is that Vista noticeably runs games slower than XP. Microsoft quietly admitted an average 10% slowdown in games under Vista. No thanks. Not to mention the absolutely broken 64-bit effort on the part of Microsoft. 64-bit Leopard will happily run all 32-bit drivers and apps, and won't require separate 64-bit executables, thanks to Universal Binaries. Apple's 64-bit efforts are technically superior to Microsoft's, and I'd rather just stick with 32-bit XP for the next few years.
But the Mac versions don't have "Windows" prefixed on them so that your Start menu is polluted with a neverending series of items like Windows Mail, Windows Calendar, Windows Media Player, Windows Internet Explorer, Windows Picture Gallery, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Live Messenger, and so forth. How could such pervasive branding be wrong? Buy Windows Vista Home Premium Edition today! BUY THE BRAND!
Imagine what realistic quotes on the box might look like:
"Yesterday's technology today!"
"Doesn't slow games down more than 10%!"
"Easier than driving through a tornado!"
"Angers your Mac friends!"
Not really. Microsoft will do what it did for XP and not release consumer sales statistics. Instead, they'll cite sales to retailers. This will be to inflate the numbers and hide the muted interest in Vista that XP also experienced.
Well, the year after, 10.2 came out, which was a huge hit and was so successful that everyone knew its codename, Jaguar. The point Mossberg was making is that OS X already had the features Vista is trying to tout six years later. So it was not "completely false."
I still think it's funny that it took over half a decade for Microsoft to implement hardware compositing for the window manager, so they could get in on all those fancy transparencies and real-time video previews on the Dock that Apple was marketing six years ago. Sheesh.
I didn't make up any numbers. The 750,000 figure comes from the U.N.
Anything else I can shoot down while I'm here?