No Zelda games that appeared on a Game Boy platform were on the collector's disk, including LttP, since they were trying to sell that cartridge at the same time as the collector's disk.
Zelda 1 & 2 appeared on both the Game Boy and the collector's Disk.
I've got Tennis and Baseball for free via Animal Crossing. Maybe they're worth playing for free for a few minutes now and then, but I can't say I'd pay $5 each for them. In fact, I can emphatically say that I wouldn't. Especially with Wii Sports right there.
Someone will buy them, even if it's not you. Since it will cost them so little to sell them, it's worth it for them if only 10 people buy them. Also, saying they have 30 games available sounds better than having 5, even if it's the best 5 games ever made, and the only 5 that 90% of people would buy anyways, and it will attract more people to know they have variety. So, good for them. Of course, I still have my NES and I'm getting Twillight Princess for Gamecube, so I really don't care.
Where do you see a game called Wii Play with Duck Hunt an extra wiimote? Do you mean Wii Sports? That's the only game on the list with the word "Wii" in it, but it doesn't come with Duck Hunt, and it comes with the console, not a controller. Well, I guess the controller's included to, but not an extra one.
(Replying to you since the other guy is anonymous)
Why is it that people see that there's something wrong with bulimia, but not contraception? They're pretty similar phenomena, except that one is an abuse of the digestive system and the other an abuse of the reproductive system...
I agree with your drawing a comparison between bulimia and contraception, I've done so myself in other conversations about this subject.
Bulimia and contraception? There's a comparison!
Let's see... bulimia, when untreated, makes you sick and kills you. Contraception is a relatively safe medication (compared to other medications, and to pregnancy risks).
Should we compare bulimia with other medications? Is my asthma medication an abuse of my respitory system? It certainly isn't natural, and it has worse side effects and risks than contraception. And don't say that asthma is a problem and pregnancy isn't - first of all, pregnancy can be a problem, second of all, birth control pills help with other reproductive problems, which is why my friend was on them when she was a virgin.
The comparison of cotraception and bulimia is stupid, and I hope you think about it long enough to understand that.
Women are only fertile for a couple days a month, and it's relatively easy to know when if you know what to look for. Morning temperature spike, change in the mucus texture, etc.
I gave a Natural Family Planning book to a friend/acquaintance as a wedding gift some years back, because she didn't want any children ever. (I finished highschool at a catholic school, and was thus exposed to the practice.)
If I never wanted children, ever, I'd just get my tubes tied and be done with it. I've tried NFP, not as birth control but to know my body better, and it's a hassle. Every morning you have to wake up at the same time, check your temperature, check yourself (why do we have to call it mucus? do we want people to be grossed out by it?), and fill out the little calendar, which you have to interprete. Get a cold? Don't get enough sleep? Body decides to be weird this month? And you're left clueless. NFP is a unreliable hassle that I wouldn't recommend to anyone.
So, use NFP. Ignore the religious bits, if you are so inclined. It works great.
Dude, if he's paranoid enough to consider using condoms and male birth control when it comes out even if she's on the pill, then NFP alone isn't going to cover it.
I've used NFP before, and it's a great way to (as a woman) get in touch with your body. But I would never use it as my only birth control in a situation where I absolutly did not want to get pregnant. There's a reason it's used only by people who believe children are literally a gift from God.
It'll be useful for single men who don't know for sure if their partners are on the pill (yes, they should use condoms, but people are dumb and backups are good anyways), and it will be useful for couples where the woman can't take the pill, or who want a backup to hers. More options when it comes to reproductive choice is good for everyone.
She would have been taking a hell of a chance by believing him, and that is the biggest problem with it.
Men take just as much chance by believing women who say they're on the pill. Men don't get pregnant, but they do have to pay child support, and it's good for them to have options to prevent having kids if they don't want to. It also helps couples when the woman can't take hormonal birth control, for whatever reason, and couples who want a backup but aren't fond of condoms.
That's a dumb argument. Forget about 2001, when you have the PS2 selling for $299, and the Gamecube with better graphics at $199, yet the Gamecube was ignored?
By the way, Sony's only releasing 2 days ahead of Nintendo this time. Not really enough to count.
I disagree. I am not advocating cruelty as an end unto itself, but I have no problem with necessary harm. If milk yields can be safely improved best by kicking the cows, then that's what should happen. If they can be safely improved best by massaging them, then I'd be in favor of that. I certainly wouldn't kick a cow for the hell of it; that's a waste of effort that could be used more productively and might imperil yields.
Harm isn't necessary with dairy cows, they'll still produce milk whether we kick them or massage them. If you don't have to be mean, then why be mean? For a few more dollars? I don't buy that argument, which is why I buy soymilk since I know how badly dairy cows are mistreated.
Yes, but authors-as-members-of-the-public are not appreciably different from other members of the public. They like getting works for free, they like the freedom to use others' works, etc.
Members of the public who are authors tend to have a "do unto others" attitude about using others' works, because they know how they would feel if they weren't compansated for their works. You tend not to find musicians downloading large amounts of music from the Pirate Bay.
I'm happy to give artists whatever they want, so long as I am better off for it. But copyright is not a charity, and artists must never get any copyright just to be nice or fair.
Is your job charity, or do you expect to get paid what is fair for your work?
And if giving them something yields a net public detriment, then it is in our interests to deny them. Again, we're not doing it merely because it benefits them or they ask for it.
And if not giving them something is detrimental to them, then it is in their best interests to deny us by not creating any more art, music, movies, etc for us. Both sides have to be fair.
Not only is copyright not like a contract, but contracts are never required to be fair to both sides, which is good since they are virtually never fair.
Being blatantly unfair is grounds for a contract to be rendered invalid. If we made a contract where I loaned you a dollar and you had to pay one million dollars in interest there's no court that uphold that.
Fairness is just something people do. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is in every moral system humanity has ever made. You can't argue that we should not care if we are fair to others. That's just being selfish. Artwork will get into the public domain, even though right now the laws are unfair to the public, but there's no reason that the laws should change to be unfair to the artists.
Balance is irrelevant. The best copyright law is the one that best serves the public. No one cares how well authors do under it, except insofar as that affects whether the public is best served. Kind of like how a dairy farmer doesn't care if his dairy cows are happy, except insofar as it affects the milk yield. If treating them gently will make him more money, he'll do it. If treating them harshly will make him more money, he'll do that instead. Copyright's quite similar, with the public as the farmer, the authors as the cows, and their creative works as the milk.
Dairy cows should be treated gently, because they have feelings, too. By the same token, authors should be treated fairly. In fact, since they can talk and vote unlike cows, I imagine it would be rather hard to treat them harshly for the good of the public, which they happen to be a part of.
I argee with most of what you're saying, but I don't think you can ignore the authors when making copyright laws. Copyright is kind of like a contract between authors and the rest of the public, and like any contract, it should be fair to both sides.
When I talk about it being practical to kill animals, I'm talking about other people and my attempts not to judge them. Most everyone I know and meet eats meat and/or wears leather, and if I went around telling them how evil they are and all the horrors of factory farming, there would quickly be no one willing to talk to me (trust me, I've tried). If I want people to understand me, I have to try to understand them first.
As for my cats, it's more than just a practicality; it's a necessity. I was looking on the internet once about vegetarian cat food, and I found a website selling vegetarian dog food that specifically warned against feeding cats vegan. If people who will go to the trouble of making their dogs vegetarian don't even think cats can be healthy without meat, then how could I, in good conscience, make them? I can be healthy and vegetarian, so I am, those who can't I don't force.
Unless you can get a package for Firefox 2.0, it isn't necessarily easier to install a browser. More people care about having Firefox 2.0 than a real-time kernel, by far. So you are in the minority.
Mozilla.com has packages for Firefox, so I don't see why that would be a problem. When I was using Breezy and they didn't have FF 1.5 for Breezy, I used Mozilla's package and it was easy enough, while I wouldn't have a clue how to recompile a kernel.
My cats don't kill mice, they're too fat and lazy. Seriously, a hamster once found his way into my apartment, and they came crying to me because he was eating their food (My response was to buy hamster food and some cute hamster toys. I was sad when I found out he was my neighbor's and I had to give him back). If they did attack a mouse, I'd probably stop them, though I let them eat cat food made of chicken, which is morally the same thing, but I do because cats can't be vegan.
You're not a pain in the ass. I think we just have very different perspectives. I'm a vegetarian; you've appearently been in situations where it's more practical to kill animals than not. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Ok, since you used the phase "so to speak" and I live in the city, I assumed you weren't talking about a literal hen house. If the hens were my pets, which is the only reason I would have hens, then that falls under the reasons I listed before that I would shoot an animal. If the cat is being a nuisance but not killing or harming anyone (pets, family members, neighbors, etc) then I wouldn't shoot it. Being a nuisance is not a reason to kill something. Same thing with mice, though I've never had to deal with mice problems because mice are afraid of my cats. I wouldn't kill a mouse, a dog, a cat, a horse, etc, unless I really had to, and I'd still feel bad about it.
Hey, at least this time we didn't get 8 previous stories "Ubuntu 6.06 releases next week!" "Ubuntu 6.06 releases tomorrow!" "Ubuntu 6.06 releases later todaay!"
If I found a cat in my house that wasn't supposed to be there, I would either take it to a shelter or keep it as a pet. The only way I'd shoot a cat is if the cat was attacking me, my family members, or my pets, and shooting the cat was the most effective and pratical method of stopping it, which is pretty much the only reason I'd ever shoot a human. Why kill something if it's not hurting you?
Except cats just do, and it is sort of nice to think that people are actually capable of reasoning about and distinguishing between right and wrong. Anybody who thinks people spewing hate speech aren't capable of moral reasoning really shouldn't have a problem shooting them.
I don't think cats are capable of moral reasoning yet I still wouldn't shoot them.
I'm not religious, but...
"Thou shalt not murder"
Is pretty clear to me.
First of all, it didn't say "Thou shalt not murder" it said something in Hebrew that we usually interpret as "Thou shall not murder". Sometimes it's "Thou shall not kill" (that's what I learned in Sunday School) which could indicate that killing animals (even for food) is wrong, because that's killing. Most people interpret it to mean that you shouldn't kill innocent humans, but what's the definition of innocent? Someone who hasn't sinned? Well, the Bible is pretty clear (well, depending on your interpretation) that everyone (besides Jesus) sins, so that's not a helpful definition. Is an innocent someone who hasn't killed anyone before? What if they're going to kill someone in the future? What if they kill someone inadvertantly? What if they run an abortion clinic? Are abortions murder?
That's probably the clearest line in the whole Bible, and there's still room for debate and interpretation. No matter how clear something looks to you, there's going to be someone who takes it differently.
I've switched to GNU's IceWeasel on Ubuntu, and it's not that big of an issue. They changed the user agent, but that's easily fixed in about:config (doubleclick on general.useragent.extra.firefox [GNU missed one!] and replace IceWeasel with Firefox or FuckDebian or whatever). Extensions work fine. If you haven't had extension problems with Debian's customized Firefox, you won't have problems with Debian's IceWeasel. The home directory is different, but just pick up what's in ~/.mozilla/firefox and drop it in ~/.iceweasel, and it'll transfer your bookmarks, plugins, extensions, whatever. That's what Flock users have been doing. All in all, switching isn't that big of a deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you see a game called Wii Play with Duck Hunt an extra wiimote? Do you mean Wii Sports? That's the only game on the list with the word "Wii" in it, but it doesn't come with Duck Hunt, and it comes with the console, not a controller. Well, I guess the controller's included to, but not an extra one.
Bulimia and contraception? There's a comparison!
Let's see... bulimia, when untreated, makes you sick and kills you. Contraception is a relatively safe medication (compared to other medications, and to pregnancy risks).
Should we compare bulimia with other medications? Is my asthma medication an abuse of my respitory system? It certainly isn't natural, and it has worse side effects and risks than contraception. And don't say that asthma is a problem and pregnancy isn't - first of all, pregnancy can be a problem, second of all, birth control pills help with other reproductive problems, which is why my friend was on them when she was a virgin.
The comparison of cotraception and bulimia is stupid, and I hope you think about it long enough to understand that.
I've used NFP before, and it's a great way to (as a woman) get in touch with your body. But I would never use it as my only birth control in a situation where I absolutly did not want to get pregnant. There's a reason it's used only by people who believe children are literally a gift from God.
It'll be useful for single men who don't know for sure if their partners are on the pill (yes, they should use condoms, but people are dumb and backups are good anyways), and it will be useful for couples where the woman can't take the pill, or who want a backup to hers. More options when it comes to reproductive choice is good for everyone.
Well, it will stop men from bitching "She said she was on the pill! She trapped me!" because everyone will just ask him "Why weren't you on the pill?"
So it's ok for her to risk her health, but not you? What if she couldn't take the pill, would you try this option?
That's a dumb argument. Forget about 2001, when you have the PS2 selling for $299, and the Gamecube with better graphics at $199, yet the Gamecube was ignored?
By the way, Sony's only releasing 2 days ahead of Nintendo this time. Not really enough to count.
Extreme? Could you go into some details, maybe provide a source, because I installed KDE over Ubuntu 6.06 and I didn't have any problems whatsoever.
Members of the public who are authors tend to have a "do unto others" attitude about using others' works, because they know how they would feel if they weren't compansated for their works. You tend not to find musicians downloading large amounts of music from the Pirate Bay.
Is your job charity, or do you expect to get paid what is fair for your work?
And if not giving them something is detrimental to them, then it is in their best interests to deny us by not creating any more art, music, movies, etc for us. Both sides have to be fair.
Being blatantly unfair is grounds for a contract to be rendered invalid. If we made a contract where I loaned you a dollar and you had to pay one million dollars in interest there's no court that uphold that.
Fairness is just something people do. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is in every moral system humanity has ever made. You can't argue that we should not care if we are fair to others. That's just being selfish. Artwork will get into the public domain, even though right now the laws are unfair to the public, but there's no reason that the laws should change to be unfair to the artists.
I argee with most of what you're saying, but I don't think you can ignore the authors when making copyright laws. Copyright is kind of like a contract between authors and the rest of the public, and like any contract, it should be fair to both sides.
When I talk about it being practical to kill animals, I'm talking about other people and my attempts not to judge them. Most everyone I know and meet eats meat and/or wears leather, and if I went around telling them how evil they are and all the horrors of factory farming, there would quickly be no one willing to talk to me (trust me, I've tried). If I want people to understand me, I have to try to understand them first.
As for my cats, it's more than just a practicality; it's a necessity. I was looking on the internet once about vegetarian cat food, and I found a website selling vegetarian dog food that specifically warned against feeding cats vegan. If people who will go to the trouble of making their dogs vegetarian don't even think cats can be healthy without meat, then how could I, in good conscience, make them? I can be healthy and vegetarian, so I am, those who can't I don't force.
My cats don't kill mice, they're too fat and lazy. Seriously, a hamster once found his way into my apartment, and they came crying to me because he was eating their food (My response was to buy hamster food and some cute hamster toys. I was sad when I found out he was my neighbor's and I had to give him back). If they did attack a mouse, I'd probably stop them, though I let them eat cat food made of chicken, which is morally the same thing, but I do because cats can't be vegan.
You're not a pain in the ass. I think we just have very different perspectives. I'm a vegetarian; you've appearently been in situations where it's more practical to kill animals than not. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Ok, since you used the phase "so to speak" and I live in the city, I assumed you weren't talking about a literal hen house. If the hens were my pets, which is the only reason I would have hens, then that falls under the reasons I listed before that I would shoot an animal. If the cat is being a nuisance but not killing or harming anyone (pets, family members, neighbors, etc) then I wouldn't shoot it. Being a nuisance is not a reason to kill something. Same thing with mice, though I've never had to deal with mice problems because mice are afraid of my cats. I wouldn't kill a mouse, a dog, a cat, a horse, etc, unless I really had to, and I'd still feel bad about it.
Hey, at least this time we didn't get 8 previous stories "Ubuntu 6.06 releases next week!" "Ubuntu 6.06 releases tomorrow!" "Ubuntu 6.06 releases later todaay!"
If I found a cat in my house that wasn't supposed to be there, I would either take it to a shelter or keep it as a pet. The only way I'd shoot a cat is if the cat was attacking me, my family members, or my pets, and shooting the cat was the most effective and pratical method of stopping it, which is pretty much the only reason I'd ever shoot a human. Why kill something if it's not hurting you?
No Tab Close Button extension
That's probably the clearest line in the whole Bible, and there's still room for debate and interpretation. No matter how clear something looks to you, there's going to be someone who takes it differently.
I've switched to GNU's IceWeasel on Ubuntu, and it's not that big of an issue. They changed the user agent, but that's easily fixed in about:config (doubleclick on general.useragent.extra.firefox [GNU missed one!] and replace IceWeasel with Firefox or FuckDebian or whatever). Extensions work fine. If you haven't had extension problems with Debian's customized Firefox, you won't have problems with Debian's IceWeasel. The home directory is different, but just pick up what's in ~/.mozilla/firefox and drop it in ~/.iceweasel, and it'll transfer your bookmarks, plugins, extensions, whatever. That's what Flock users have been doing. All in all, switching isn't that big of a deal.