If the US had not used the bomb, many many more people on both sides would have died, and the war would have been extended significantly.
But, in your warped fairy tale world, saving hundreds of thousands of human lives (on both sides) is unacceptable, because the US had to break a few eggs to do it. Would you prefer a death toll in the millions? It sounds like you would have.
Except back then, you almost certainly would have approved, because your country most likely was involved. I doubt very seriously you'd be saying the same thing you are now if you were told the alternative was to fight hand to hand through millions of Japanese.
You're a fool if you think 2 doesn't constantly consider their use. Israel, with all the turmoil in their area, almost certainly has a nuclear contingency at the ready, and are probably far more prone to ise it than any of the others listed.
Do a little research. The purpose of the public tests before we actually used the bombs was to show the world (especially Japan) what we had. They kept fighting, so we used it. There were few alternatives at that point, apart from atrociously large casualty numbers on both sides.
Explain how saving many, many live on both sides is evil again, because I missed that one.
"You just touched on the colossal, huge, central point that virtually every dimisser of global warming fails to get."
Well, I am a dismisser (normal changes in climate, too complex to be predicted accurately, unknown natural forces working to aid/slow warming etc.) but I "get" this concept. In fact, it's central to my argument. Humans ARE NOT special in the animal kingdom, except as a fortuitous mistake. The idea that WE are poisoning the earth (for ourselves as you said) strikes me as a fitting lesson in humility.
Yeah, um, no one says Microsoft is a monopoly, but rather (this is important so pay attention) that they used monopolistic tactics, that COULD HAVE resulted in a monopoly.
And before all you slahbots flame me, I own an iBook, and run Fedora Core 2 on my desktop. I don't own a single computer (out of 5) that runs any version of WIndows. If microsoft were a monopoly, none of this would be possible.
Attempting to be a monopoly is not the same as actually BEING a monopoly. I know hating on MS will get you karma here, but try to be accurate please.
No. I love ESPN, but their in game content is useless, and it gets skipped over anyway. To suggest people will buy more because ESPN is on it is ridiculous. YOU might, but the rest of us probably won't.
"No, EA has the two big fanchises and the exclusive NFL contracks(sic)"
What big two? Surely you don't mean ESPN. If you think having the ESPN franchise will add anything to any game, you're a fool. They're a TV station, with some pseudo-celebrities. How will blathering idiotic commentary (that we all skip over anyway) improve a game?
Whose fault is that? Next time you take a job, do some fucking research. Otherwise don't complain when you get what EVERYONE else gets when they work there.
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn't blame others because he made a stupid choice and doesn't have the sack to own up to it
Amazingly, the law disagrees. And frankly, so do I. You DO NOT own my ideas, no matter how much you insist you do. They are mine, to use as I see fit. My labor will never go to improve your life unless I want it to. What your opinion is of copyright law is irrelevant. Your opinion of the logic is also not important.
My point was that compensation had been negotiated, and the suit was to address whether Lee should be paid at all. That is a question of whether he had any rights to the property (ownership) not compensation.
Congratulations on stating a useless generality. In my overly general opinion, self taught people are not team players, too self absorbed, and unable to accept useful criticism. They also don't have enough follow through to finish tedious, time consuming tasks, and can't succeed in a structured environment.
Now I could continue blathering on about the other things some self taught people do, or we could just admit that both of our statements are hogwash, and that self taught people run the gamut just like EVERYONE else.
How does that change anything? What, you're saying it's ok for individuals to own IP, but not companies?
And to be a little pedantic, I am certain it is Stan Lee Enterprises (a corporation in case you were wondering) that filed suit. So you were wrong about your statement.
You're clearly not a dedicated sports fan. You may claim to be, but you're not. Your comments verify this.
Actually PLAYING as your team is entertaining in a way that more "original" (how original can a 100 year old sport be?) games can't capture.
"Sure "real teams" is a nice touch but I personally wouldn't care." "To me it's about the reflexes and/or strategy"
Ok, might as well get this over with. You're not the norm. What the game is about to you is meaningless, because the vast majority of gamers who play sports titles don't have your opinion, but instead want the extra realism. They want a game that is good to play, but ALSO has the license. Anything less is just Dr. Chek.
Does a game need real teams? No, not necessarily. But there is a certain something to playing your favorite teams, as your favorite player. A game can be successful without a license, but it won't be the same.
"He crossed the line when he used another person's name"
No, he didn't. You don't have exclusive use of Todd Knarr, so I can absolutely use it as my pseudonym.
"You using my name as a psuedonym, effectively representing to other people that you are me, stands on the wrong side of the line"
Here you made two points which are essentially unrelated. Yes, I CAN use your name as a pseudonym. Sorry, but yes I can. What I DO with it, however, is where the problem lies. Presenting yourself as someone else crosses the line.
My point, which you failed to address, was that "SUBSTANTIVE" evidence is required before making claims like this. We have nothing that could in any way be called substantial, but still the claims were made.
That, by any standard, is irresponsible.
As for the rest, arguing by analogy is both useless and stupid.
I did read the article. Why would you assume I didn't? I know this is slashdot, but I'm not one of the idiots who posts without thinking or reading.
As for the rest of your post, you said nothing I hadn't already thought about. What you failed to do is address MY point, that it is irresponsible to make these claims with what is essentially NO proof.
"How responsible would it be to let a whole generation of kids grow up with an increased risk of brain tumours?"
Way to change the subject. This has nothing to do with kids or brian tumors, but rather science. You have focused on the specifics of this case, which are irrelevant. The point was this scientist neeeds to have real evidence, of which there is currently little or none, before making potentially damaging claims like this.
I never said absolute proof (you said that) but rather "something SUBSTANTIVE". We don't have that, and I maintain it's irresponsible to announce something like this based on speculation.
There may be some small possible increase in potential risk. Maybe. In kids. Maybe.
The question I have of course, is that why, out of all the studies done, is there only evidence of harm in four of them. There have been hundreds of studies, but only four get mentioned.
The answer of course is that all the other studies fail to give the desired results.
Show me something SUBSTANTIVE (this study is not)before you make chicken little claims. It's the responsible thing to do.
So, what does what you said have to do with what I said?
Actually, having read your post, you didn't really say anything at all. You made some unrelated points, about unrelated subjects, and didn't add anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't sound like a troll, you are.
If the US had not used the bomb, many many more people on both sides would have died, and the war would have been extended significantly.
But, in your warped fairy tale world, saving hundreds of thousands of human lives (on both sides) is unacceptable, because the US had to break a few eggs to do it. Would you prefer a death toll in the millions? It sounds like you would have.
Except back then, you almost certainly would have approved, because your country most likely was involved. I doubt very seriously you'd be saying the same thing you are now if you were told the alternative was to fight hand to hand through millions of Japanese.
You're a fool if you think 2 doesn't constantly consider their use. Israel, with all the turmoil in their area, almost certainly has a nuclear contingency at the ready, and are probably far more prone to ise it than any of the others listed.
Is that the best you can come up with?
"You'd better listen or you'll be sorry!"
Ok, so what happens when the threats and fear-mongering aren't effective?
How about some REAL evidence form some REAL scientists that shows something more than a vague, undefinable, possibly natural trend.
Let's be frank, the gist of this entire argument is not global warming, but man's impact on global warming.
Do a little research. The purpose of the public tests before we actually used the bombs was to show the world (especially Japan) what we had. They kept fighting, so we used it. There were few alternatives at that point, apart from atrociously large casualty numbers on both sides.
Explain how saving many, many live on both sides is evil again, because I missed that one.
"You just touched on the colossal, huge, central point that virtually every dimisser of global warming fails to get." Well, I am a dismisser (normal changes in climate, too complex to be predicted accurately, unknown natural forces working to aid/slow warming etc.) but I "get" this concept. In fact, it's central to my argument. Humans ARE NOT special in the animal kingdom, except as a fortuitous mistake. The idea that WE are poisoning the earth (for ourselves as you said) strikes me as a fitting lesson in humility.
Yeah, um, no one says Microsoft is a monopoly, but rather (this is important so pay attention) that they used monopolistic tactics, that COULD HAVE resulted in a monopoly.
And before all you slahbots flame me, I own an iBook, and run Fedora Core 2 on my desktop. I don't own a single computer (out of 5) that runs any version of WIndows. If microsoft were a monopoly, none of this would be possible.
Attempting to be a monopoly is not the same as actually BEING a monopoly. I know hating on MS will get you karma here, but try to be accurate please.
No. I love ESPN, but their in game content is useless, and it gets skipped over anyway. To suggest people will buy more because ESPN is on it is ridiculous. YOU might, but the rest of us probably won't.
No, actually the other guy was right when he said it was because Slashbots hate ESPN. He was (half) joking, but it's still true.
"No, EA has the two big fanchises and the exclusive NFL contracks(sic)"
What big two? Surely you don't mean ESPN. If you think having the ESPN franchise will add anything to any game, you're a fool. They're a TV station, with some pseudo-celebrities. How will blathering idiotic commentary (that we all skip over anyway) improve a game?
"However, I can't spare the time to read it"
Whose fault is that? Next time you take a job, do some fucking research. Otherwise don't complain when you get what EVERYONE else gets when they work there.
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn't blame others because he made a stupid choice and doesn't have the sack to own up to it
"Haven't met any Ivy League graduates, have you..."
Actually I have. And I imagine they read an entire post before replying. Perhaps you should try it.
"The public "owns" all ideas."
Amazingly, the law disagrees. And frankly, so do I. You DO NOT own my ideas, no matter how much you insist you do. They are mine, to use as I see fit. My labor will never go to improve your life unless I want it to. What your opinion is of copyright law is irrelevant. Your opinion of the logic is also not important.
My point was that compensation had been negotiated, and the suit was to address whether Lee should be paid at all. That is a question of whether he had any rights to the property (ownership) not compensation.
Congratulations on stating a useless generality. In my overly general opinion, self taught people are not team players, too self absorbed, and unable to accept useful criticism. They also don't have enough follow through to finish tedious, time consuming tasks, and can't succeed in a structured environment.
Now I could continue blathering on about the other things some self taught people do, or we could just admit that both of our statements are hogwash, and that self taught people run the gamut just like EVERYONE else.
I'm not sure why making money has anything to do with this. The question is ownership, not compensation.
With that in mind, explain where the cutoff is for this to be wrong? If I make a dollar? 10? 100,000?
How does that change anything? What, you're saying it's ok for individuals to own IP, but not companies?
And to be a little pedantic, I am certain it is Stan Lee Enterprises (a corporation in case you were wondering) that filed suit. So you were wrong about your statement.
Well, I didn't ask, but I will since I never post AC. How old then?
"Now prove that you're not, and give them your trade secrets in the process"
1. This is a civil case. Guilt and innocence have nothing to do with civil cases.
2. SCO has no access. SCO's lawyers (and the people they hire) have access, but a previous decision prohibits anyone from SCO getting a look.
Of course now others will rant about SCO's lawyers sneaking stuff to SCO, but that's nothing but conspiratorial horseshit.
You're clearly not a dedicated sports fan. You may claim to be, but you're not. Your comments verify this.
Actually PLAYING as your team is entertaining in a way that more "original" (how original can a 100 year old sport be?) games can't capture.
"Sure "real teams" is a nice touch but I personally wouldn't care."
"To me it's about the reflexes and/or strategy"
Ok, might as well get this over with. You're not the norm. What the game is about to you is meaningless, because the vast majority of gamers who play sports titles don't have your opinion, but instead want the extra realism. They want a game that is good to play, but ALSO has the license. Anything less is just Dr. Chek.
Does a game need real teams? No, not necessarily. But there is a certain something to playing your favorite teams, as your favorite player. A game can be successful without a license, but it won't be the same.
"He crossed the line when he used another person's name" No, he didn't. You don't have exclusive use of Todd Knarr, so I can absolutely use it as my pseudonym. "You using my name as a psuedonym, effectively representing to other people that you are me, stands on the wrong side of the line" Here you made two points which are essentially unrelated. Yes, I CAN use your name as a pseudonym. Sorry, but yes I can. What I DO with it, however, is where the problem lies. Presenting yourself as someone else crosses the line.
"You could, using your reasoning..."
No you couldn't, unless you were a moron.
My point, which you failed to address, was that "SUBSTANTIVE" evidence is required before making claims like this. We have nothing that could in any way be called substantial, but still the claims were made.
That, by any standard, is irresponsible.
As for the rest, arguing by analogy is both useless and stupid.
"If you read the article"
I did read the article. Why would you assume I didn't? I know this is slashdot, but I'm not one of the idiots who posts without thinking or reading.
As for the rest of your post, you said nothing I hadn't already thought about. What you failed to do is address MY point, that it is irresponsible to make these claims with what is essentially NO proof.
"How responsible would it be to let a whole generation of kids grow up with an increased risk of brain tumours?"
Way to change the subject. This has nothing to do with kids or brian tumors, but rather science. You have focused on the specifics of this case, which are irrelevant. The point was this scientist neeeds to have real evidence, of which there is currently little or none, before making potentially damaging claims like this.
I never said absolute proof (you said that) but rather "something SUBSTANTIVE". We don't have that, and I maintain it's irresponsible to announce something like this based on speculation.
is using a pseudonym "Identity theft"? Where did this guy cross the line (legally) from one to the other?
There may be some small possible increase in potential risk. Maybe. In kids. Maybe.
The question I have of course, is that why, out of all the studies done, is there only evidence of harm in four of them. There have been hundreds of studies, but only four get mentioned.
The answer of course is that all the other studies fail to give the desired results.
Show me something SUBSTANTIVE (this study is not)before you make chicken little claims. It's the responsible thing to do.
So, what does what you said have to do with what I said?
Actually, having read your post, you didn't really say anything at all. You made some unrelated points, about unrelated subjects, and didn't add anything at all.