Just as a sample, and since I live in the Buffalo-Niagara region of the USA (near the Canadian border) I compared Futureshop's canadian price against's Circuit city's American price for an 80GB iPod Video (in black)
Future Shop = $399.99 CAD
Circuit City = $332.49 USD
When you factor in the Exchange rate, the numbers in US dollars come out to this:
Future Shop = $338.601 USD
Circuit City = $332.49 USD
So even with the exchange, the US one is still cheaper. Add in the VAT and the cost of driving to a Future Shop in gasoline and border crossing fees, and the future shop purchase just doesn't make sense when you can just go down the street to circuit city and pick one up for less. (Unless you want a French Language version, in which case it makes perfect sense, as it's cheaper than having one shipped to you.)
The only people I know with pirated copies of XP are geeks.
I myself have 7 computers. Two laptops, my desktop, my wife's desktop, a server and a custom built firewall from an old PC.
Laptop #1 - Kubuntu Linux Laptop #2 - Windows XP, Pirated Edition My Desktop - Windows XP, Pirated Edition Wife's Desktop - Windows XP, Pirated Edition Server - Windows 2000 Adv Server, Student version that I cracked the timebomb off of. Firewall - Smoothwall Linux firewall.
Final count - 4 pirated, 2 legit.
There is simply no way that I could afford all the above machines had I paid for the software (Adv server alone is still over $1500.00 new). I'm not bragging, (Although I'm sure I'll get modded down by the MS fanboys) I'm sure there are many others with quite a bit more pirated software than I, and if MS software was reasonably priced, I probably would have bought all the pirated OSes that I have. I'm just trying to make the point that any self-respecting geek has at least one pirated OS running on a machine at home. (Unless the geek is a Mac or Linux geek.)
Oh, and I have never even come close to failing a WGA check. (Hurray for Corporate Keys!)
I really don't think it's as subjective as you are making it out to be.
While I will agree that generally the concepts of good and evil can be highly subjective, if you narrow the scope a bit you will see that it becomes significantly less subjective.
Let's look at general "business ethics". In business, from a CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE Business are "Good" when they provide a quality product or service at a reasonable price. Businesses are "Evil" when they lower the quality of their product or service without lowering the price, or raise the price beyond what is generally accepted as reasonable, or devalue their product in some manner that it becomes less desirable, while still maintaining a high price. Alternately, businesses are considered "Evil" when they are engaged in anti-competitive practices as defined by law. The words Good and Evil are simply used as synonyms for ethical and unethical or legal and illegal.
In our real-world case, Adding advertisements to games devalues the game as it damages two very important game features: Immersion and Escapism. To a gamer, often the reason for playing games is to escape the stress and humdrum of everyday life. Part of what makes that escapism function is the overall immersion in the game atmosphere. In-game ads almost always take away from both of those two crucial (if intangible) value points to any game.
There are also privacy concerns to deal with. It has been shown that some in-game ad companies do individual data tracking on game players. This is considered a privacy violation, which is considered highly unethical by many.
Thusly, when Ads are placed into a game, particularly one where they did not exist before, the value of the game is reduced. If then the cost of the game is not correspondingly reduced, the action of including ads appears to steal value. The gamer feels that something has been taken from them without compensation. Google, by involving itself in value-theft by purchasing an in-game ad company, is enabling unethical or "Evil" behavior. Those who consciously enable Evil (unethical) behavior are themselves Evil (unethical).
Except that you are "forced" to watch the ads, in that they become a part of the game textures. In other words, unless you are closing your eyes every 10 seconds, you can't help BUT see an ad.
Now, you aren't "forced" to watch the ads in the sense that you have to sit through a commercial while waiting for a level to load, or during game startup. But who is to say that won't happen in the future? The game companies understand the old adage about boiling a frog. They know that if they go full bore with slapping ads and commercials all through the game that gamers will revolt. So they turn up the heat slowly. They start with unobtrusive ads placed in places you would expect an ad (soda machines, billboards, etc.) and then slowly ramp-up from there. Eventually, we are stuck sitting and watching 15 minutes of commercials for every 15 minutes of game time. Our kids (assuming slashdotters can attract a mate to breed) will be playing games stuffed to the gills with commercials and will think that it's always been that way.
It's important to stand up NOW against this type of invasive advertising. Refuse to buy or subscribe to any game that uses in-game ads. If you are canceling a subscription, MAKE CERTAIN that the game company understand that it was the ADS that drove you away. if we stand up now, the fight will be easy. If we wait it will be too late.
You'll never get it. This is the "Big Lie (tm)" that all the in-game ad pushers have been selling. The ads do not, and will not EVER make your games cheaper. SOE has been pushing in-game ads for over a year now on many of it's games. Guess what? The Subscription prices have NOT COME DOWN! The in-game ads are NOT to make the game cheaper for gamers. They are there to provide on-going profit margins for game manufacturers. The profits aren't coming back to the consumers, they are going into the game company coffers!
Now, once those extra profits are there, we may see an improvement in development as they re-invest in staff, but there isn't any way to predict when or where that will happen. More likely what we will see is a drop in ad-inappropriate games.
Let's face it. Ads are only tolerated by the gaming community in games where they "fit" (Coke and Pepsi machines in CS, Billboards in racing games, Etc.) Where the heck would ad billboards "fit" into say, Eve-Online or WOW? They won't. And over time, as those particular titles age and become less popular, you will see a reluctance on the part of game companies to take a risk on an ad-inappropriate game, as they won't have that reliable income stream potential.
Wrong. If he had said "Do Not Vote For Kerry" then the IRS gets involved.
Actually, even IF he said "Do not vote for Kerry" the IRS wouldn't get involved. That's where the whole "Free Speech" thing we have here in the USA comes in. Bishops are people too, and they have the right to free speech just like everyone else, even if they happen to be standing behind a pulpit when they speak.
This is what I really hate about modern Liberalism. They have so many people all screwed up and backwards on issues like this.
(Note: This next part is not necessarily directed at EQ, I was just using his post as a jumping-off point.)
Let me make this as simple and clear as I can:
1) As American Citizens, we all have the inalienable right to Free Speech. IE: We can speak our minds (particularly regarding politics) and say whatever we want with only a very tiny set of legal caveats such as Slander.
2) As American Citizens, we also have the inalienable right to Freedom OF Religion. IE: We can gather together and worship in any way we see fit, again with only a very tiny set of caveats, such as No Human Sacrifice Allowed.
These two rights are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Just because you chose to exercise your right to Freedom Of Religion, perhaps even so far as to join the clergy, does not therefore mean you give up the right to Free Speech.
In our Country we practice Capitalism. Part of the Capitalistic tradition is that corporate entities are granted most of the same rights as individuals. Mostly because they are made up of individuals. A church is a legally definable corporate entity. Therefore, as a corporate entity, they have all the rights that any other corporate entity has, INCLUDING FREE SPEECH. Which means that it is perfectly legal for a pastor, or a bishop, or even an entire church, to make political statements and support political parties.
The whole tax-exemption thing is not even related to the Speech issue, except in that by creating a legal fence around Churches, our system prevents the GOVERNMENT from interfering with Religion by using it's taxing influence to punish or reward those the State deems good or bad. Do we all get it now? churches are tax-exempt to prevent government meddling.
Saying "Well, if churches want to get involved in politics, then they had better be prepared to start paying taxes." Is nothing more than an attempt to squash the Free Speech of churches by threatening them with State oppression! If you say that then you are proposing we go back to the One-Church-State model that the Pilgrims came here to flee! You would be taking us back in time over 200 years to a less-enlightened more bigoted and oppressive society! Is that really what you Liberals want? MORE oppression? It would certainly seem so based on some of the statements I am seeing here.
You know, I find that hard to believe since during EACH AND EVERY national election cycle we get video of one liberal leader after another visiting CHURCHES and TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE. Hillary did it, Bill did it, Kerry did it, every Dem presidential candidate (and many congressional candidates) for the last 50 years has done it, and Jesse Jackson does it every year! So please don't insult our intelligence.
Liberals just don't want CONSERVATIVE speakers to be able to stand at the pulpit at tell people how to vote. Once again, with Liberals it's "Free speech for me but not for thee". They just keep proving it every day.
If liberals weren't interested in fostering religion, they would point out that any attempt by the government to even decide which organizations are churches, is a violation of the separation of church and state. They would get rid of the tax-exempt status altogether, which would remove the government interference that bothers you so.
Except that the Government doesn't generally decide which organizations are churches. Yes, they have set some VERY basic criterion, but only for the purpose of definition. Just about anyone can form a church and apply for tax-exempt status. The government just checks your church, and as long as you meet the simple criteria, you get the status. NOWHERE in the criteria is the requirement that your church, both it's individuals AND the corporate entity, be divorced from political involvement.
Again, you are incorrect when you say:
a 'church' is only a tax-exempt organization if it constrains itself to conducting religious affairs.
A church is in NO WAY required to constrain itself to religious affairs only. As a corporate entity it may legally and Consitutionally involve itself in political affairs without losing it's tax exempt status. Attempting to stop that is suppressing free speech. Churches are even allowed to enter into commercial enterprises as well. The commercial aspect of the enterprise is legally somewhat different than the church aspect, and so tax law does affect that part of it differently, but it is not legally constrained to not be involved.
You keep making my points for me. You say that Liberals don't want to suppress free speech, and then in the very next breath you try to make the case for the suppression of free speech for certain groups of people. Nice hypocrisy there!
Oh, and your last statement makes no sense at all. How would not having a special protective section of law around churches somehow improve the separation of Church and State? It wouldn't. Please re-read my last paragaph from above for the explanation of why the tax-exempt status is there in the first place.
But since they were bought by Microsoft, they aren't really relevant to the gaming community at large anymore (other than as a vehicle for the Roosterteeth guys). The problem is that Microsoft basically boxed them into the X-Box. (no pun intended) Those of us who are PC gamers (and we are legion) are essentially being shut out of the HALO franchise unless we meet certain Microsoft criterion. A) we must own an X-box or X-box 360, or B) we must own Vista.
Now, that's all fine and good, Microsoft can do what it pleases with it's products. But make no mistake that this immediately relegates the HALO franchise to irrelevancy with HUGE sections of the gaming community. As noted by an earlier/. article, there are some very influential people in the gaming community that just don't see a compelling reason to drink the Microsoft DX10 koolaid. With the availabilty of inexpensive and fully compatible alternative engines, it's becoming less and less compelling to even bother with Direct X, other than as a convenience because it's what many programmers are already used to. Put all these factors together, and the PC gaming community isn't likely to be rushing to Vista any time soon.
What does this mean for the HALO franchise? Well, since they are locked into Vista and the X-Box, that pretty much relegates them to that minority section of the market. Which means for the vast amount of gamers, Bungie might as well be non-existent for the amount of effect they have on those gamers. Halo 1 was nice. Halo 2 did OK considering it's an X-Box only title. Halo2 Vista and Halo3 should do a small amount better, but not much. Until the majority of PC's are Vista (at least 4 years, if not longer) Bungie is a non-entity in the PC gaming market.
Once again you prove my point. The very fact that the politicians are going there during an election cycle with the Press in tow to "press the flesh" shows that they are campaigning there. There have been MANY MANY stronger instances of bald faced lobbying. How many times does Jesse Jackson have to get up in front of a church audience and talk about the Eeeevil Republicans for you to comprehend that it is a form of telling people how to vote?
Ultimately, I don't really care if they do this or not. As far as I'm concerned, Political Speech is part of free speech. Just because you are in politics for your profession or in religion for your profession DOES NOT MEAN that you therefore give up your right to free speech. If a political leader OR a religious leader wants to get up in front of a congregation and tell them "vote for so and so" then they have a right to do that as American Citizens. The Government does NOT, however, have a right to take that speech away by threatening the organization that these people happen to be a part of.
That is where the difference between Liberals and Conservatives lies:
Liberals think that religious persons should not have the right to free speech. They seem to think that the concept of "Separation of Church and State" means that church members aren't allowed to have or speak political opinion. (Unless, of course, they are speaking in support of Liberal causes. Then it's OK.) Obviously, this is wrong, and goes against the fundamental concepts of the Bill of Rights. Of course, most Liberals are ok with that, as long as it does not apply to them.
Conservatives think that all people should have a right to free speech, including religious leaders, even if they are speaking in a religious forum. Conservatives feel that if the church members think it is inappropriate, then they can either kick out the leader, or find another church. It's a matter that is internal to the church, not something for the government to be involved in. (You know, that whole "Separation of Church and State" thing.) Conservatives' big problem with Liberal politicians doing this in churches is the Liberals' hypocrisy. Not their speech.
Oh, and that whole "churches are tax-free" thing? That's also a "Separation of Church and State" thing as well. Since the government can influence heavily via taxation, if religious groups are subject to taxation, what's to stop the government from taxing a religious group that speaks out against something that is currently government sanctioned? Say for example, SLAVERY? If you know your history, the Abolitionist movement STARTED in churches, and then spread from there to the rest of society. If churches hadn't been tax-exempt, then the government could have used taxation as a form of speech suppression to silence the early abolitionists, and we might still have slavery today.
Do you understand now? POLITICAL SPEECH IS PART OF FREE SPEECH. All American Citizens have a right to free speech, INCLUDING RELIGIOUS LEADERS.
1: Barcodes can't be read at distance, without me knowing about it. If somebody, for example, tried to read a barcode in my passport, I'd know. I wouldn't know if somebody had tried to read a RFID tag in my passport.
2: I'm sure that if the article related to barcoding cattle and soldiers, you'd have received similar comments. To be honest, I don't want RFID or barcodes printed on me for the world to see.
Ok, a couple problems here.
1) If you RTFA, you will note that the RFID tag is only readable from "Up to four feet away". Somehow I don't think that really counts as a great distance. You are going to notice if someone walks up near you and starts wanding you to get an RFID signal. In practical applications, the RFID tag is often (although not always) little better than a barcode tag due to interference from nearby radio sources and environmental signal blockage. This is a big reason why it hasn't seen widespread adoption yet. It costs much more than comparable technologies but only adds a small value.
2) In the case of regular citizens, I absolutely agree with you. But for Soldiers the RFID tattoo has a great advantage over the dog tag as it cannot be lost. If it is small, removable via inexpensive laser surgery, and placed on a couple different points around the body, it is useful for identifying bodies that have been badly mangled due to things like bombs, mines, and other explosives.
It also has an excellent practical application for use with criminals, both in prison and out on parole. If you place RFID readers at certain strategic locations, you can go a long way to detecting the presence of, say, pedophiles that have been paroled and are hanging out near a school (assuming you have hidden RFID readers near schools, of course.) Naturally, the law-enforcement uses are very limited, due to the limitations of RFID that I mentioned in the first point. But the uses for identifying soldiers are very practical, and I imagine that we will be seeing RFID used in that manner sometime in the very near future.
You know, I find that hard to believe since during EACH AND EVERY national election cycle we get video of one liberal leader after another visiting CHURCHES and TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE. Hillary did it, Bill did it, Kerry did it, every Dem presidential candidate (and many congressional candidates) for the last 50 years has done it, and Jesse Jackson does it every year! So please don't insult our intelligence.
Liberals just don't want CONSERVATIVE speakers to be able to stand at the pulpit at tell people how to vote. Once again, with Liberals it's "Free speech for me but not for thee". They just keep proving it every day.
I'd say that the Dems have been WAY WAY WAY more socialist than the GOP for years now. All this does is prove it. Even the most socialist of the GOP voted against this horror of a provision. I frankly find it surprising that as many as 7 Dems joined them.
No matter how you look at it, this certainly puts the lie to Nancy Pelosi's "Most Ethical Congress Ever"(tm) BS.
It's the DEMOCRATS that are proposing this travesty of a bill. NOT the Republicans. Sounds like you have your party accusations backwards to me.
One other thing, as someone who has actually READ the bill in question, it is interesting to note that it specifically EXEMPTS the large established lobbying organizations. What we have here is an attempt to silence the little guy by burying him/her in onerous reporting law. I guess they are just sick and tired of getting called out when they do stupid/unethical/illegal things. [sarcasm] Glad to see Nancy Pelosi really following through with that "Most ethical Congress ever" pledge. [/sarcasm]
Actually, the Windows CD that comes bundled with their laptops is just that. A Windows CD and nothing more.
My work is an all Dell shop, and while we have mostly Latitude laptops, we did buy an Inspiron i6400 Media Center laptop. Yep, it was loaded with crapware when we bought it. So I immediately broke out the Windows CD's (Two of them for Media Center 2005) formatted and reinstalled. I used the Resource CD to reinstall the drivers, and Bingo, one clean install of Windows Media Center 2005, no craplets included.
Those are the N-Series equipment. They are a Godsend for shops like mine, where we use a RAID drive array and a custom Windows image. we don't have to pay the Windows tax on the machine just to wipe Windows off of it to install our version. (We have a corporate version, unlimited copies.) The notebooks are a more recent addition, and really great given that we don't want Vista forced down our throats for at least 2 more years.
You missed the part about my kids being Autistic. They like to SLAP the T.V. screen because they like the *pong* of the glass. The Tube TV can handle it because the glass is so thick. How do you think a $400.00 LCD is going to react to a good hard slap from a 6 year old? I might as well just roll the $400.00 around some Mary Jane and smoke it. It would make about as much sense as buying an LCD screen TV, and at least I'd get a nice buzz off of it.
Actually, that is probably what I'm going to have to do. But it's still at least $1500.00 for an HD projector. I paid under $300.00 for my 27" tube TV 2 years ago. That is really the max I am willing to pay for a comparably sized display. Even then, the LCD's are just too fragile. So it's either pay for something that will be broken in no time, or WAY overpay for a projector.
Of course, none of that solves the DRM stupidity inherent in HD-DVD and BR-DVD. No matter which way I go, I'm screwed by an industry that's lost it's customer service focus.
Now, don't get me wrong. I AM a geek, and I would LOVE to have a wall-sized multi-thousand dollar full HD setup with both types of players and a 7.1 surround-sound system with nice big leather la-z-boy chairs to go with it. But that's just not possible for me and many others like me. We're a not-insignificant market segment and we're tired of being ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
You can go to CDW and get a Volume License copy for a few thousand dollars.
Just as a sample, and since I live in the Buffalo-Niagara region of the USA (near the Canadian border) I compared Futureshop's canadian price against's Circuit city's American price for an 80GB iPod Video (in black)
Future Shop = $399.99 CAD
Circuit City = $332.49 USD
When you factor in the Exchange rate, the numbers in US dollars come out to this:
Future Shop = $338.601 USD
Circuit City = $332.49 USD
So even with the exchange, the US one is still cheaper. Add in the VAT and the cost of driving to a Future Shop in gasoline and border crossing fees, and the future shop purchase just doesn't make sense when you can just go down the street to circuit city and pick one up for less. (Unless you want a French Language version, in which case it makes perfect sense, as it's cheaper than having one shipped to you.)
Riiiiight.
The only people I know with pirated copies of XP are geeks.
I myself have 7 computers. Two laptops, my desktop, my wife's desktop, a server and a custom built firewall from an old PC.
Laptop #1 - Kubuntu Linux
Laptop #2 - Windows XP, Pirated Edition
My Desktop - Windows XP, Pirated Edition
Wife's Desktop - Windows XP, Pirated Edition
Server - Windows 2000 Adv Server, Student version that I cracked the timebomb off of.
Firewall - Smoothwall Linux firewall.
Final count - 4 pirated, 2 legit.
There is simply no way that I could afford all the above machines had I paid for the software (Adv server alone is still over $1500.00 new). I'm not bragging, (Although I'm sure I'll get modded down by the MS fanboys) I'm sure there are many others with quite a bit more pirated software than I, and if MS software was reasonably priced, I probably would have bought all the pirated OSes that I have. I'm just trying to make the point that any self-respecting geek has at least one pirated OS running on a machine at home. (Unless the geek is a Mac or Linux geek.)
Oh, and I have never even come close to failing a WGA check. (Hurray for Corporate Keys!)
Gandalf was obviously NOT a geek.
I really don't think it's as subjective as you are making it out to be.
While I will agree that generally the concepts of good and evil can be highly subjective, if you narrow the scope a bit you will see that it becomes significantly less subjective.
Let's look at general "business ethics". In business, from a CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE Business are "Good" when they provide a quality product or service at a reasonable price. Businesses are "Evil" when they lower the quality of their product or service without lowering the price, or raise the price beyond what is generally accepted as reasonable, or devalue their product in some manner that it becomes less desirable, while still maintaining a high price. Alternately, businesses are considered "Evil" when they are engaged in anti-competitive practices as defined by law. The words Good and Evil are simply used as synonyms for ethical and unethical or legal and illegal.
In our real-world case, Adding advertisements to games devalues the game as it damages two very important game features: Immersion and Escapism. To a gamer, often the reason for playing games is to escape the stress and humdrum of everyday life. Part of what makes that escapism function is the overall immersion in the game atmosphere. In-game ads almost always take away from both of those two crucial (if intangible) value points to any game.
There are also privacy concerns to deal with. It has been shown that some in-game ad companies do individual data tracking on game players. This is considered a privacy violation, which is considered highly unethical by many.
Thusly, when Ads are placed into a game, particularly one where they did not exist before, the value of the game is reduced. If then the cost of the game is not correspondingly reduced, the action of including ads appears to steal value. The gamer feels that something has been taken from them without compensation. Google, by involving itself in value-theft by purchasing an in-game ad company, is enabling unethical or "Evil" behavior. Those who consciously enable Evil (unethical) behavior are themselves Evil (unethical).
Thusly Google is now Evil.
I know. But I was just so damn surprised! (I'm a first post virgin. Cut me some slack mods!)
Except that you are "forced" to watch the ads, in that they become a part of the game textures. In other words, unless you are closing your eyes every 10 seconds, you can't help BUT see an ad.
Now, you aren't "forced" to watch the ads in the sense that you have to sit through a commercial while waiting for a level to load, or during game startup. But who is to say that won't happen in the future? The game companies understand the old adage about boiling a frog. They know that if they go full bore with slapping ads and commercials all through the game that gamers will revolt. So they turn up the heat slowly. They start with unobtrusive ads placed in places you would expect an ad (soda machines, billboards, etc.) and then slowly ramp-up from there. Eventually, we are stuck sitting and watching 15 minutes of commercials for every 15 minutes of game time. Our kids (assuming slashdotters can attract a mate to breed) will be playing games stuffed to the gills with commercials and will think that it's always been that way.
It's important to stand up NOW against this type of invasive advertising. Refuse to buy or subscribe to any game that uses in-game ads. If you are canceling a subscription, MAKE CERTAIN that the game company understand that it was the ADS that drove you away. if we stand up now, the fight will be easy. If we wait it will be too late.
I know that. It was supposed to be funny. Apparently the mods today are google fanboys, since my first post got modded "Troll". Jerks.
You'll never get it. This is the "Big Lie (tm)" that all the in-game ad pushers have been selling. The ads do not, and will not EVER make your games cheaper. SOE has been pushing in-game ads for over a year now on many of it's games. Guess what? The Subscription prices have NOT COME DOWN! The in-game ads are NOT to make the game cheaper for gamers. They are there to provide on-going profit margins for game manufacturers. The profits aren't coming back to the consumers, they are going into the game company coffers!
Now, once those extra profits are there, we may see an improvement in development as they re-invest in staff, but there isn't any way to predict when or where that will happen. More likely what we will see is a drop in ad-inappropriate games.
Let's face it. Ads are only tolerated by the gaming community in games where they "fit" (Coke and Pepsi machines in CS, Billboards in racing games, Etc.) Where the heck would ad billboards "fit" into say, Eve-Online or WOW? They won't. And over time, as those particular titles age and become less popular, you will see a reluctance on the part of game companies to take a risk on an ad-inappropriate game, as they won't have that reliable income stream potential.
Say hello to ads, say goodbye to creative gaming.
Wow! I got First Post! I feel special.
Google is now Evil!
The proper pronunciation is: "Oo-boon-too". This not only sounds better than the other pronunciations, it's actually correct!
Actually, even IF he said "Do not vote for Kerry" the IRS wouldn't get involved. That's where the whole "Free Speech" thing we have here in the USA comes in. Bishops are people too, and they have the right to free speech just like everyone else, even if they happen to be standing behind a pulpit when they speak.
This is what I really hate about modern Liberalism. They have so many people all screwed up and backwards on issues like this.
(Note: This next part is not necessarily directed at EQ, I was just using his post as a jumping-off point.)
Let me make this as simple and clear as I can:
1) As American Citizens, we all have the inalienable right to Free Speech. IE: We can speak our minds (particularly regarding politics) and say whatever we want with only a very tiny set of legal caveats such as Slander.
2) As American Citizens, we also have the inalienable right to Freedom OF Religion. IE: We can gather together and worship in any way we see fit, again with only a very tiny set of caveats, such as No Human Sacrifice Allowed.
These two rights are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Just because you chose to exercise your right to Freedom Of Religion, perhaps even so far as to join the clergy, does not therefore mean you give up the right to Free Speech.
In our Country we practice Capitalism. Part of the Capitalistic tradition is that corporate entities are granted most of the same rights as individuals. Mostly because they are made up of individuals. A church is a legally definable corporate entity. Therefore, as a corporate entity, they have all the rights that any other corporate entity has, INCLUDING FREE SPEECH. Which means that it is perfectly legal for a pastor, or a bishop, or even an entire church, to make political statements and support political parties.
The whole tax-exemption thing is not even related to the Speech issue, except in that by creating a legal fence around Churches, our system prevents the GOVERNMENT from interfering with Religion by using it's taxing influence to punish or reward those the State deems good or bad. Do we all get it now? churches are tax-exempt to prevent government meddling.
Saying "Well, if churches want to get involved in politics, then they had better be prepared to start paying taxes." Is nothing more than an attempt to squash the Free Speech of churches by threatening them with State oppression! If you say that then you are proposing we go back to the One-Church-State model that the Pilgrims came here to flee! You would be taking us back in time over 200 years to a less-enlightened more bigoted and oppressive society! Is that really what you Liberals want? MORE oppression? It would certainly seem so based on some of the statements I am seeing here.
Really? Is that what Liberals want?
Huh.
You know, I find that hard to believe since during EACH AND EVERY national election cycle we get video of one liberal leader after another visiting CHURCHES and TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE. Hillary did it, Bill did it, Kerry did it, every Dem presidential candidate (and many congressional candidates) for the last 50 years has done it, and Jesse Jackson does it every year! So please don't insult our intelligence.
Liberals just don't want CONSERVATIVE speakers to be able to stand at the pulpit at tell people how to vote. Once again, with Liberals it's "Free speech for me but not for thee". They just keep proving it every day.
Except that the Government doesn't generally decide which organizations are churches. Yes, they have set some VERY basic criterion, but only for the purpose of definition. Just about anyone can form a church and apply for tax-exempt status. The government just checks your church, and as long as you meet the simple criteria, you get the status. NOWHERE in the criteria is the requirement that your church, both it's individuals AND the corporate entity, be divorced from political involvement.
Again, you are incorrect when you say:
A church is in NO WAY required to constrain itself to religious affairs only. As a corporate entity it may legally and Consitutionally involve itself in political affairs without losing it's tax exempt status. Attempting to stop that is suppressing free speech. Churches are even allowed to enter into commercial enterprises as well. The commercial aspect of the enterprise is legally somewhat different than the church aspect, and so tax law does affect that part of it differently, but it is not legally constrained to not be involved.
You keep making my points for me. You say that Liberals don't want to suppress free speech, and then in the very next breath you try to make the case for the suppression of free speech for certain groups of people. Nice hypocrisy there!
Oh, and your last statement makes no sense at all. How would not having a special protective section of law around churches somehow improve the separation of Church and State? It wouldn't. Please re-read my last paragaph from above for the explanation of why the tax-exempt status is there in the first place.
But since they were bought by Microsoft, they aren't really relevant to the gaming community at large anymore (other than as a vehicle for the Roosterteeth guys). The problem is that Microsoft basically boxed them into the X-Box. (no pun intended) Those of us who are PC gamers (and we are legion) are essentially being shut out of the HALO franchise unless we meet certain Microsoft criterion. A) we must own an X-box or X-box 360, or B) we must own Vista.
/. article, there are some very influential people in the gaming community that just don't see a compelling reason to drink the Microsoft DX10 koolaid. With the availabilty of inexpensive and fully compatible alternative engines, it's becoming less and less compelling to even bother with Direct X, other than as a convenience because it's what many programmers are already used to. Put all these factors together, and the PC gaming community isn't likely to be rushing to Vista any time soon.
Now, that's all fine and good, Microsoft can do what it pleases with it's products. But make no mistake that this immediately relegates the HALO franchise to irrelevancy with HUGE sections of the gaming community. As noted by an earlier
What does this mean for the HALO franchise? Well, since they are locked into Vista and the X-Box, that pretty much relegates them to that minority section of the market. Which means for the vast amount of gamers, Bungie might as well be non-existent for the amount of effect they have on those gamers. Halo 1 was nice. Halo 2 did OK considering it's an X-Box only title. Halo2 Vista and Halo3 should do a small amount better, but not much. Until the majority of PC's are Vista (at least 4 years, if not longer) Bungie is a non-entity in the PC gaming market.
Sigh...
Once again you prove my point. The very fact that the politicians are going there during an election cycle with the Press in tow to "press the flesh" shows that they are campaigning there. There have been MANY MANY stronger instances of bald faced lobbying. How many times does Jesse Jackson have to get up in front of a church audience and talk about the Eeeevil Republicans for you to comprehend that it is a form of telling people how to vote?
Ultimately, I don't really care if they do this or not. As far as I'm concerned, Political Speech is part of free speech. Just because you are in politics for your profession or in religion for your profession DOES NOT MEAN that you therefore give up your right to free speech. If a political leader OR a religious leader wants to get up in front of a congregation and tell them "vote for so and so" then they have a right to do that as American Citizens. The Government does NOT, however, have a right to take that speech away by threatening the organization that these people happen to be a part of.
That is where the difference between Liberals and Conservatives lies:
Liberals think that religious persons should not have the right to free speech. They seem to think that the concept of "Separation of Church and State" means that church members aren't allowed to have or speak political opinion. (Unless, of course, they are speaking in support of Liberal causes. Then it's OK.) Obviously, this is wrong, and goes against the fundamental concepts of the Bill of Rights. Of course, most Liberals are ok with that, as long as it does not apply to them.
Conservatives think that all people should have a right to free speech, including religious leaders, even if they are speaking in a religious forum. Conservatives feel that if the church members think it is inappropriate, then they can either kick out the leader, or find another church. It's a matter that is internal to the church, not something for the government to be involved in. (You know, that whole "Separation of Church and State" thing.) Conservatives' big problem with Liberal politicians doing this in churches is the Liberals' hypocrisy. Not their speech.
Oh, and that whole "churches are tax-free" thing? That's also a "Separation of Church and State" thing as well. Since the government can influence heavily via taxation, if religious groups are subject to taxation, what's to stop the government from taxing a religious group that speaks out against something that is currently government sanctioned? Say for example, SLAVERY? If you know your history, the Abolitionist movement STARTED in churches, and then spread from there to the rest of society. If churches hadn't been tax-exempt, then the government could have used taxation as a form of speech suppression to silence the early abolitionists, and we might still have slavery today.
Do you understand now? POLITICAL SPEECH IS PART OF FREE SPEECH. All American Citizens have a right to free speech, INCLUDING RELIGIOUS LEADERS.
Ok, a couple problems here.
1) If you RTFA, you will note that the RFID tag is only readable from "Up to four feet away". Somehow I don't think that really counts as a great distance. You are going to notice if someone walks up near you and starts wanding you to get an RFID signal. In practical applications, the RFID tag is often (although not always) little better than a barcode tag due to interference from nearby radio sources and environmental signal blockage. This is a big reason why it hasn't seen widespread adoption yet. It costs much more than comparable technologies but only adds a small value.
2) In the case of regular citizens, I absolutely agree with you. But for Soldiers the RFID tattoo has a great advantage over the dog tag as it cannot be lost. If it is small, removable via inexpensive laser surgery, and placed on a couple different points around the body, it is useful for identifying bodies that have been badly mangled due to things like bombs, mines, and other explosives.
It also has an excellent practical application for use with criminals, both in prison and out on parole. If you place RFID readers at certain strategic locations, you can go a long way to detecting the presence of, say, pedophiles that have been paroled and are hanging out near a school (assuming you have hidden RFID readers near schools, of course.) Naturally, the law-enforcement uses are very limited, due to the limitations of RFID that I mentioned in the first point. But the uses for identifying soldiers are very practical, and I imagine that we will be seeing RFID used in that manner sometime in the very near future.
Really? Is that what Liberals want?
Huh.
You know, I find that hard to believe since during EACH AND EVERY national election cycle we get video of one liberal leader after another visiting CHURCHES and TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE. Hillary did it, Bill did it, Kerry did it, every Dem presidential candidate (and many congressional candidates) for the last 50 years has done it, and Jesse Jackson does it every year! So please don't insult our intelligence.
Liberals just don't want CONSERVATIVE speakers to be able to stand at the pulpit at tell people how to vote. Once again, with Liberals it's "Free speech for me but not for thee". They just keep proving it every day.
Actually,
I'd say that the Dems have been WAY WAY WAY more socialist than the GOP for years now. All this does is prove it. Even the most socialist of the GOP voted against this horror of a provision. I frankly find it surprising that as many as 7 Dems joined them.
No matter how you look at it, this certainly puts the lie to Nancy Pelosi's "Most Ethical Congress Ever"(tm) BS.
Ummm...
Did you even RTFA??
It's the DEMOCRATS that are proposing this travesty of a bill. NOT the Republicans. Sounds like you have your party accusations backwards to me.
One other thing, as someone who has actually READ the bill in question, it is interesting to note that it specifically EXEMPTS the large established lobbying organizations. What we have here is an attempt to silence the little guy by burying him/her in onerous reporting law. I guess they are just sick and tired of getting called out when they do stupid/unethical/illegal things. [sarcasm] Glad to see Nancy Pelosi really following through with that "Most ethical Congress ever" pledge. [/sarcasm]
(And people wonder why I vote Republican?)
Actually, the Windows CD that comes bundled with their laptops is just that. A Windows CD and nothing more.
My work is an all Dell shop, and while we have mostly Latitude laptops, we did buy an Inspiron i6400 Media Center laptop. Yep, it was loaded with crapware when we bought it. So I immediately broke out the Windows CD's (Two of them for Media Center 2005) formatted and reinstalled. I used the Resource CD to reinstall the drivers, and Bingo, one clean install of Windows Media Center 2005, no craplets included.
Yep,
Those are the N-Series equipment. They are a Godsend for shops like mine, where we use a RAID drive array and a custom Windows image. we don't have to pay the Windows tax on the machine just to wipe Windows off of it to install our version. (We have a corporate version, unlimited copies.) The notebooks are a more recent addition, and really great given that we don't want Vista forced down our throats for at least 2 more years.
Nicely done Dell!
You missed the part about my kids being Autistic. They like to SLAP the T.V. screen because they like the *pong* of the glass. The Tube TV can handle it because the glass is so thick. How do you think a $400.00 LCD is going to react to a good hard slap from a 6 year old? I might as well just roll the $400.00 around some Mary Jane and smoke it. It would make about as much sense as buying an LCD screen TV, and at least I'd get a nice buzz off of it.
Actually, that is probably what I'm going to have to do. But it's still at least $1500.00 for an HD projector. I paid under $300.00 for my 27" tube TV 2 years ago. That is really the max I am willing to pay for a comparably sized display. Even then, the LCD's are just too fragile. So it's either pay for something that will be broken in no time, or WAY overpay for a projector.
Of course, none of that solves the DRM stupidity inherent in HD-DVD and BR-DVD. No matter which way I go, I'm screwed by an industry that's lost it's customer service focus.
Now, don't get me wrong. I AM a geek, and I would LOVE to have a wall-sized multi-thousand dollar full HD setup with both types of players and a 7.1 surround-sound system with nice big leather la-z-boy chairs to go with it. But that's just not possible for me and many others like me. We're a not-insignificant market segment and we're tired of being ignored.