If you do, save yourself some effort and switch to FEAR 2 after playing the base FEAR 1 game. The two expansion packs (Extraction point and Perseus Mandate) were developed by a third party studio after Monolith lost the rights to the FEAR name. Monolith considers them non-canon and FEAR 2 completely ignores anything from them. And yes both are PC games.
Microsoft (ala Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer) is that annoying boss in Final Fantasy games that you spend 90% of the game fighting against, only to watch them fall as the real ultimate villian of ultimate destiny appears and kills them to prove exactly how bad ass they are. Normally, this is someone in your party who has a mysterious past and pretends to be your friend for most of the game, only to disappear right before the big fight.
Apple (ala Steve Jobs) really really wants to be the one who plays that second role.
Agreed, certain animals, specific breeds of dogs for instance, have far stronger instincts. Terriers for instance were breed specifically to be rat killers, and even ones raised inside tend to have aggressive enough tendencies that they could make a go at it without much extra help.
But on the whole, most dogs and cats need to be 'taught' to hunt as young or have a horrible time at it.
Yes, because a lucky kill on a pet creature that hasn't learned itself how to survive as prey is the same thing as actually being a skillful and cunning hunter capable of not just surviving on what you bring in, but being able to catch live prey to bring to your litter to train them on how to do it.
Yes, all cats have instincts. That doesn't mean they are ready killers from the git go. When I was a teenager, my family moved from suburbia to a farm. Our house pets were transitioned from house pet to yard pet.
Yes, the cat stalked the rodents. Yes the dog would chase and even sometimes tree coon's and dillos. But neither of them had a freaking clue what to do then, and most of the time even failed at that. When they did manage to catch some sick or terminally stupid creature, half the time they'd play with it not having gained the 'kill reflex' when they were young. Half the time they'd bite at it ineffectively in random spots. Neither of them ever got the "grab the neck" instinct or in the case of the dog, the "shake vigorously" instinct.
Contrast that to the cats and dogs that came after, the ones that actually came from litters that were raised and born outside and I guarantee you that you'll immediately notice what I'm talking about.
Since their children have moved out a long time ago, my folks have salved their 'empty nest' syndrome by keeping a colony of cats and a couple of dogs. Although most are born 'wild', a good number of them are still 'take ins' from people my parents know in the community who need a good home for their cats and you can ALWAYS tell the difference between the ones who grew up knowing how to kill and the ones that didn't.
Amusingly, the Denatonium article lead me to the one conerning phenylthiocarbamide and the following quote struck me.
The genetic taste phenomenon of PTC was discovered in 1931 when a DuPont chemist named Arthur Fox accidentally released a cloud of a fine crystalline PTC. A nearby colleague complained about the bitter taste, while Dr. Fox, who was closer and should have gotten a strong dose, tasted nothing. Fox then continued to test the taste buds of assorted family and friends, setting the groundwork for future genetic studies. The genetic correlation was so strong that it was used in paternity tests before the advent of DNA matching.
That ladies and gentlemen, is how science is done. Spill some shit and see who falls over dead, goes blind, or starts growing a third arm. Then do studies to "Find Out Why".
These are just regular sized cats with no ninja training.
I know you said that tongue in cheek, but realistically speaking if they've been doing it since they were 4 months old, then yes they did have the requisite 'ninja training'. House cats (and dogs), from experience, don't know squat about how to hunt or kill effectively because they never learned how and didn't need to. They might learn how to scavenge, and might even get lucky enough if they are in a 'high target' location to get a few kills, but they never do learn how to do it 'right'.
That might sound pedantic, but it's important to realize that if you are going for a 'mouser' at the local Humane Society, you may have to do quite a bit of looking to find the right one.
You are right, that was a 100% flamebait post, not a troll. Except of course, the connotation of a troll is that they are someone who consistantly posts inflamitory crap without bothering to add anything to the topic other than vitrol. So maybe we should see if someone else with mod points can balance it out, 50/50 troll and flamebait.
Additionally, often things like city wide security and red light cammeras are not monitored by actual government employees but companies sub-contracted out to do the job. Canceling the contract generally has a penalty involved.
Since I have stated my point numerous times in several threads of this discussion, I'm going to go the route of simply ignoring you. If you haven't caught MY point yet, it's not from my lack of trying.
No, I would say that it's reasonable to expect that if a company sells the OS separate from the machine, that you be allowed to install it on whatever machine it would work on and not just that company's branded version.
Reasonable is to admit that you sell an Intel based OS for Intel based machines and only officially support your own hardware but allow people to use 3rd party hardware if they want.
Apple, by refusing to allow this is the one being unreasonable. I've simply pointed out that if they want to play that game, they should do it correctly and not sell the OS separate from the machine rather than rely on a BS license agreement, which regardless of whether it is found legal or not, is still about as ethical as any other company trying to force you to only use their products.
This is the same as printer manufactures trying to force you to only buy their overpriced ink. The same as auto manufacturers trying to ban the sale of non-OEM parts. The same as drug companies attempting to squash generic drugs by slightly changing the packaging on their drugs and using that to submit new patents when the old are about to run out.
It's BS, it's unethical, and in the areas where it isn't already, it should be illegal.
I agree in so far as if Apple only sold upgrades, it would have been impossible for Pystar to install OS X onto a non-Macintosh machine without actually stealing code. In other words, if you actually required a previous installation of OS X by not packaging the full OS into the 'upgrade'.
That's disingenous and you know it. Leopard installs on a completely wiped disk, it makes no checks for a previous install of OS X other than the "is this authorized hardware" check.
They sell both full installs and upgrades. For instance, the steps in 10.4 were all upgrades, but 10.5 is being sold as a full install. You don't need anything else installed on your machine to run it, you can install it on a freshly formated machine.
After that, it's merely a game of symmantics. You can call a full install an upgrade if you want, but that doesn't make it such.
And even if they were just selling 'upgrades' if the upgrade installs without any additional code other than the "block the check for authorized hardware", then if it installs on non-authorized hardware, it's none of Apple's concern.
Your arguement is basicly "Apple has a unwritten, unspoken, gentleman's agreement with the world that Apple'll discount the price of it's OS as long as it's only installed on offical Apple hardware." And it makes about as much sense.
Yes they sell the complete package, but they also sell the OS,a la carte.
If they sold it as a complete package, then I'd understand the idea that the OS is only allowed to work on 'their' devices. But they don't. They sell the OS seperate from the machine.
And that's not an upgrade version, they sell upgrades too. Those require the previous version to install.
That means, that Apple is selling the OS seperately. Not as a complete package. And as many have proven, that OS can be installed on any sufficently compatible equipment with just a few tweaks, not just Apple's. So your whole house of card arguement falls down.
Don't own a Kindle, don't plan on it. I agree with 90% of your comment. My "break even" point was from the related stories blurb right below the summary:
Related Stories On the Economics of the Kindle perlow writes "Just how many books a year would you need to read before the cost of Amazon's Kindle is justified? The answer is not so cut-and-dried. If you're a college student and all of your texts were available on Kindle (possible but unlikely), you could recover the cost of the reader in a semester and a half. For consumers to break even with Kindle's cost in that time, they would have to be in the habit of buying and reading four new hardback books per month -- if the convenience factor wasn't part of the equation. At two books per month, breakeven would be in three years." Here is the spreadsheet if you want to play with the numbers.
In another year, the Kindle 3 will be out, have the same order of magnitudes improvement, and if you have bought the Kindle 2, you'd probably still be trying to reach the 'breakeven' point where your savings matched the cost.
Plus, eventually these will reach $100 mark, still be orders of magnitude better, and you'll be stuck with a $300-$400 Kindle 3 trying to justify not throwing more money out on another reader (which may or may not be compatible with what you already have on your Kindle.)
Slashdot Mirror
If you do, save yourself some effort and switch to FEAR 2 after playing the base FEAR 1 game. The two expansion packs (Extraction point and Perseus Mandate) were developed by a third party studio after Monolith lost the rights to the FEAR name. Monolith considers them non-canon and FEAR 2 completely ignores anything from them. And yes both are PC games.
When people use the phrase "I reach for my shotgun", I give Anne a good night kiss, grab my pants, and shimmy out the window.
Microsoft (ala Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer) is that annoying boss in Final Fantasy games that you spend 90% of the game fighting against, only to watch them fall as the real ultimate villian of ultimate destiny appears and kills them to prove exactly how bad ass they are. Normally, this is someone in your party who has a mysterious past and pretends to be your friend for most of the game, only to disappear right before the big fight.
Apple (ala Steve Jobs) really really wants to be the one who plays that second role.
Agreed, certain animals, specific breeds of dogs for instance, have far stronger instincts. Terriers for instance were breed specifically to be rat killers, and even ones raised inside tend to have aggressive enough tendencies that they could make a go at it without much extra help.
But on the whole, most dogs and cats need to be 'taught' to hunt as young or have a horrible time at it.
Yes, because a lucky kill on a pet creature that hasn't learned itself how to survive as prey is the same thing as actually being a skillful and cunning hunter capable of not just surviving on what you bring in, but being able to catch live prey to bring to your litter to train them on how to do it.
Yes, all cats have instincts. That doesn't mean they are ready killers from the git go. When I was a teenager, my family moved from suburbia to a farm. Our house pets were transitioned from house pet to yard pet.
Yes, the cat stalked the rodents. Yes the dog would chase and even sometimes tree coon's and dillos. But neither of them had a freaking clue what to do then, and most of the time even failed at that. When they did manage to catch some sick or terminally stupid creature, half the time they'd play with it not having gained the 'kill reflex' when they were young. Half the time they'd bite at it ineffectively in random spots. Neither of them ever got the "grab the neck" instinct or in the case of the dog, the "shake vigorously" instinct.
Contrast that to the cats and dogs that came after, the ones that actually came from litters that were raised and born outside and I guarantee you that you'll immediately notice what I'm talking about.
Since their children have moved out a long time ago, my folks have salved their 'empty nest' syndrome by keeping a colony of cats and a couple of dogs. Although most are born 'wild', a good number of them are still 'take ins' from people my parents know in the community who need a good home for their cats and you can ALWAYS tell the difference between the ones who grew up knowing how to kill and the ones that didn't.
Amusingly, the Denatonium article lead me to the one conerning phenylthiocarbamide and the following quote struck me.
That ladies and gentlemen, is how science is done. Spill some shit and see who falls over dead, goes blind, or starts growing a third arm. Then do studies to "Find Out Why".
Denatonium, ironicly found by this search.
Great, now we are going to have Canadian cats stealing, hard working, American cat's jobs.
I know you said that tongue in cheek, but realistically speaking if they've been doing it since they were 4 months old, then yes they did have the requisite 'ninja training'. House cats (and dogs), from experience, don't know squat about how to hunt or kill effectively because they never learned how and didn't need to. They might learn how to scavenge, and might even get lucky enough if they are in a 'high target' location to get a few kills, but they never do learn how to do it 'right'.
That might sound pedantic, but it's important to realize that if you are going for a 'mouser' at the local Humane Society, you may have to do quite a bit of looking to find the right one.
Barn bred cats are the ninja's of the cat world.
So you either live in Eastern Europe or Eastern Asia...
I blame Regan. His trickle down economics must have damaged the brains of our as of yet unborn children.
You are right, that was a 100% flamebait post, not a troll. Except of course, the connotation of a troll is that they are someone who consistantly posts inflamitory crap without bothering to add anything to the topic other than vitrol. So maybe we should see if someone else with mod points can balance it out, 50/50 troll and flamebait.
Additionally, often things like city wide security and red light cammeras are not monitored by actual government employees but companies sub-contracted out to do the job. Canceling the contract generally has a penalty involved.
You're the man now, Dog!
Don't feel bad, I seem to find the loony right wingers whenever I post.
Btw, even if your first post didn't deserve a flamebait mod, that second one certainly did.
Since I have stated my point numerous times in several threads of this discussion, I'm going to go the route of simply ignoring you. If you haven't caught MY point yet, it's not from my lack of trying.
No, I would say that it's reasonable to expect that if a company sells the OS separate from the machine, that you be allowed to install it on whatever machine it would work on and not just that company's branded version.
Reasonable is to admit that you sell an Intel based OS for Intel based machines and only officially support your own hardware but allow people to use 3rd party hardware if they want.
Apple, by refusing to allow this is the one being unreasonable. I've simply pointed out that if they want to play that game, they should do it correctly and not sell the OS separate from the machine rather than rely on a BS license agreement, which regardless of whether it is found legal or not, is still about as ethical as any other company trying to force you to only use their products.
This is the same as printer manufactures trying to force you to only buy their overpriced ink. The same as auto manufacturers trying to ban the sale of non-OEM parts. The same as drug companies attempting to squash generic drugs by slightly changing the packaging on their drugs and using that to submit new patents when the old are about to run out.
It's BS, it's unethical, and in the areas where it isn't already, it should be illegal.
I agree in so far as if Apple only sold upgrades, it would have been impossible for Pystar to install OS X onto a non-Macintosh machine without actually stealing code. In other words, if you actually required a previous installation of OS X by not packaging the full OS into the 'upgrade'.
That's disingenous and you know it. Leopard installs on a completely wiped disk, it makes no checks for a previous install of OS X other than the "is this authorized hardware" check.
BTZZ! And you fail Copyright 101. You are thinking of Trademarks, which do require defense or are lost. Copyright does not.
They sell both full installs and upgrades. For instance, the steps in 10.4 were all upgrades, but 10.5 is being sold as a full install. You don't need anything else installed on your machine to run it, you can install it on a freshly formated machine.
After that, it's merely a game of symmantics. You can call a full install an upgrade if you want, but that doesn't make it such.
And even if they were just selling 'upgrades' if the upgrade installs without any additional code other than the "block the check for authorized hardware", then if it installs on non-authorized hardware, it's none of Apple's concern.
Your arguement is basicly "Apple has a unwritten, unspoken, gentleman's agreement with the world that Apple'll discount the price of it's OS as long as it's only installed on offical Apple hardware." And it makes about as much sense.
If it were an upgrade it would have required the previous version to install.
But it isn't. Is it?
Yes they sell the complete package, but they also sell the OS,a la carte.
If they sold it as a complete package, then I'd understand the idea that the OS is only allowed to work on 'their' devices. But they don't. They sell the OS seperate from the machine.
And that's not an upgrade version, they sell upgrades too. Those require the previous version to install.
That means, that Apple is selling the OS seperately. Not as a complete package. And as many have proven, that OS can be installed on any sufficently compatible equipment with just a few tweaks, not just Apple's. So your whole house of card arguement falls down.
Don't own a Kindle, don't plan on it. I agree with 90% of your comment. My "break even" point was from the related stories blurb right below the summary:
Ok, how about this...
In another year, the Kindle 3 will be out, have the same order of magnitudes improvement, and if you have bought the Kindle 2, you'd probably still be trying to reach the 'breakeven' point where your savings matched the cost.
Plus, eventually these will reach $100 mark, still be orders of magnitude better, and you'll be stuck with a $300-$400 Kindle 3 trying to justify not throwing more money out on another reader (which may or may not be compatible with what you already have on your Kindle.)