The emails weren't really exposed as I understand it, only a couple of them and a list of the subjects.
In addition, I don't think it's a valid assumption that all mails sent to the account were still there at the time it was compromised. Even assuming that emails weren't removed from it on a regular basis, it was some time after the address of the account was published before it was compromised. Unless Palin and everyone around her is a complete idiot, if the account had, hypothetically, been used inappropriately it would have been cleaned up as soon as the issue arose in the media.
That's not proof that there WERE inappropriate emails in the account of course. I'm just saying that a list of relatively innocuous subjects obtained a while after the account address was made public isn't proof that there weren't either.
Everyone has a real stake in the economy, even those of us working in universities. We still buy the same houses, gas, heating, etc., etc., that everyone else does.
Then how about their unauthorised use of CBS's Katie Couric in their "Obama called Palin a pig!" ad? I'd give you the youtube link, but "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by CBS Interactive Inc."
...his recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.
Also (I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again) voting to allocate funds for a war in progress does not necessarily mean not objecting to that war. There is no option for no war at that point, the choice is between funding the troops fighting the war, or not funding the troops fighting the war. Choosing to fund the troops fighting the war is the pragmatic decision. It's not inconsistent with opposing the war in principle.
Not entirely accurate??? CONGRATULATIONS! You've just won the "understatement of the year" award!
Understatement of the year? Hardly. Unless you think purposefully withholding, and indeed, actively preventing treatment along with concealing the contagious nature of syphilis is SO much better than 'purposefully infecting'. Are you really going to argue that point?
What do you do for an encore? Defend the morons who keep insisting that Auschwitz had swimming pools for the prisoners? You know, their claims are also "not technically accurate", but Auschwitz really DID have swimming pools!
OK, seriously, you're really going to have to give it up with the analogies. They're not your strong point.
You should just stick with the distorting, exaggerating, and failing to grasp relatively simple points. You're much better at that.;-)
Yep, I see the problem here.
Every time the guy opens his mouth he accuses white people of committing one horror or another. For instance:
"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." 'The government'. Not 'white people'.
"They purposely infected African American men with syphilis." 'They' being 'the government. Not 'white people.' Incidentally, while the statement above is not entirely accurate, are you familiar with the Tuskegee Study?
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans" 'We' being 'America'. Not 'white people'. Can you see a pattern emerging here?
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America." Do I even have to say it again?
"Weâ(TM)ve got more black men in prison than there are in college." I don't even know what you were thinking with this one.
"We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God"
And this one is a statement of belief that America is institutionally racist, which brings us to the crux of the matter.
Rev. Wright clearly believes the government, and America as a whole, has been (which it certainly has), and still is (which is debatable), institutionally racist. Do you really think that belief, a belief in institutional racism, is in itself racist? Really?
I'd also question the wisdom in equating 'the government' and 'America' with 'white people'. It's possible to accuse the government of racism without accusing all white people of racism.
So basically that's zero out of six. Well done!
the fact that he's attended these sermons for decades certainly doesn't speak well for his character. And again, if you actually check out the sermons, you'll find they're not 'overtly racist'.
Ah, yes. So as long as I only say "Those fucking niggers are ruining our country!" every couple weeks or so, it's ok, since I'm not doing it too often. Nicely done! No. Firstly, every couple weeks would be often. Secondly, it depends on exactly what you say and in what context - could you give an example of something that Rev. Wright has said you would consider analogous to your example above? - and thirdly, if I'm judging your friend by what you say and not you yourself, how often you say it may well be relevant.
Man, OJ should have picked YOU to defend him... Erm... I think OJ did pretty well with his defense as it was. You're not great with these analogies are you?;-)
If you attended a church whose minister was a Neo-Nazi and who preached racial segregation on a regular basis, not only would I not vote for you, but I would probably question your sanity. Ditto for Obama.
Bad analogy. The Rev. Wright can't reasonably be considered analogous to a neo-nazi who preaches racial segregation. Have you actually watched or read any of his sermons in their entirety? Do you actually know how often he went off on one? I suspect not, because if you had, you'd know it's not so much.
It's obvious Rev. Wright is quite bitter about America's historic treatment of african-americans - to the extent of entering the realms of the paranoid conspiracy theorist when it comes to the government - but there's a world of difference between that and a neo-nazi preaching racial segregation.
Heh. The guy attends the church of, and is good friends with, an extremely racist minister. He degrades his grandmother by basically calling her racist. He lies about the war record of his grandfather (or makes a mistake which reveals his ignorance of history). He has no experience. He wants to turn the US into a welfare state. Him and his wife seem to despise everything about the US. He constantly talks about change, yet never explains how his presidency will be different.
The Rev. Wright isn't extremely racist. Bitter, yes, racist, not extremely so. Obama's grandmother is somewhat racist, that was the whole point which apparently went over your head - that people of the Rev. Wright and Obama's grandmother's generation, both black and white, are subject to such prejudices, which indeed they are. It was his great-uncle he was talking about, not his grandfather, and while it was certainly a mistake to refer to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald, given that that wasn't the relevant detail (the subject was the PTD his great-uncle suffered subsequently, the concentration camp liberation was just background to that), it's hardly a critical failure. Obama does have experience, he's 46 years old, not 18, and he's been an elected official for longer than Hillary Clinton has. Having said that, experience is not the end-all and be-all. Finally, Obama does explain how his presidency will be different - his speeches don't just consist of him chanting 'change change change' over and over again you know, although apparently you have that impression - and there are numerous detailed policies on his website.
I figure with the way he'll fuck up your country, MY currency will be worth double what it is today!
And I'm not American. I'm British.
Congratulations. You appear to have got just about everything wrong. Did you base your research entirely on the Clinton cribsheet and Fox News perhaps?:-)
On funding the Iraq war, at least, I wouldn't say it's inconsistent to oppose starting a war and to later agree to fund troops already fighting that war. You're in a different situation once the war has been started, and underfunding the troops there would arguably make a bad situation worse.
Calling his own grandmother a "typical white woman"? She is a typical white woman of her generation in the context he was talking about.
Or what about his spiritual advisor, who baptized his children and married him and his wife, saying that the white US Government created AIDS to kill black people? What about him? Do you think Obama had him baptise his children and conduct his wedding because Wright believes that? Or is that fact actually nothing to do with Obama and his relationship with Wright?
What about his relationship with someone who has bombed United States buildings? Again, do you honestly think Obama has connections with Ayers because of Ayer's actions in the sixties? Or is it just maybe slightly more likely Obama has connections with Ayers because Ayers is now an authority on inner-city education?
If you meant this would send a message on a purely superficial level because of his skin color, maybe. But anyone who has done research on this man doesn't want him as president. Untrue. It's only the people who've done their research but apparently lack the ability to assess it intelligently who don't want him to be president.
So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being.
Way to generalise. Has it occurred to you that they might have considered his policies, read his books, just generally done their research and decided that he's the overall best candidate for President?
I'd add that Obama has, to varying extents, actually done well with independent and republican votes in states where they were allowed to vote in the democratic primaries.
I'm not saying Obama's a sure thing, but you can't just pick one factor - in this case, prejudice amongst republicans - and say that'll be the decider. I could say "McCain won't win because he's too old", and certainly that'll be a factor too, but it's by no means the only one. You have to look at the whole picture. I don't think it'll be a landslide either way, but certainly Obama is a strong candidate.
From TFA: 'Mr. Hollick said he "asked about residuals when we negotiated, but I was told that was not a possibility."'
The whole point of the article is that he couldn't negotiate 'just like an actor in traditional media'. The disparity between video game media and other forms is the issue here - "... the contracts between the actors' union and the entertainment industry make little or no provision for electronic media like video games and the Internet." "To the actors it is a simple issue of equity: equal pay for equal work, regardless of the medium."
Michael Hollick isn't an idiot for 'not working with lawyers.' You're an idiot for not reading the article before spouting off.;-)
Because the person I was replying to specifically referred to Hotmail, because it's a webmail provider with a similar policy to that of Lycos, and because the experience I had with Hotmail had some similarities to that described in the article?
Seems pretty relevant to me. I'm sorry if that's too subtle a connection for you though...
That wouldn't necessarily have helped. My hotmail account got marked inactive, and all the email in it wiped, despite my checking it at least once every couple of weeks.
According to their support people, their system thought I hadn't logged in for 30 days because opening it via msn doesn't count. Here's the exact quote:
Sign in to your account directly. You need to manually enter your password in the MSN Hotmail sign in page in order for our system to detect that you are still actively using your account. If you access your mailbox through MSN Messenger and others where you do not manually enter your password, our system will not be able to detect you actively using your account.
Oddly, I only ever check my hotmail via msn and this only happened once over a period of many years. Personally, I think they just delete random accounts occasionally for a laugh. Fortunately I never really trusted them to start off with so I didn't use it for anything serious. It was still annoying though.
Of course, the best bit of the response was where they suggested I subscribe to Hotmail Plus and said they looked forward to providing me with a 'consistent and effective service'...
Maybe you should watch the movie again yourself. The knight says that you cannot take the grail itself beyond the seal. They said nothing of the "boundaries of immortality".
Maybe you should watch the movie again yourself.;-) I believe the exact line was "But the Grail cannot pass beyond the Great Seal. That is the boundary and the price of immortality."
Which leaves a very big plot hole on who made the great seal and what is it?
The seal's mummy and daddy made it, that's where seals usually come from.
And why does it have anything with the holy grail? Since presumptuously the grail in itself is the power to immortality, but why does it matter that the seal had anything to do with this? Did Jesus show up and bless the seal when the knights made the temple in the Middle ages?
The seal was, in fact, Jesus's pet seal, and was blessed by him at the time. It drank from the grail, and is hence immortal too. And that's why it's such a great seal.
Lastly... Why can't the seal be moved. If immortality is achievable why not move the seal or move into the temple with modern luxuries?
It doesn't want to be moved. It's got cantankerous in its old age.
Honestly though, it's a bit odd that you can accept drinking from a wooden cup could make you immortal, but not that the omniscient omnipotent omniprescent force behind that could set any additional conditions on it whenever it felt like it.
Hate to break it to you, but Peter Jackson's version of Gimli was positively dour compared to the dwarves in "The Hobbit".
Indeed. And Gimli wasn't depicted as anything like as child-like as the dwarves in the Hobbit, and he still became a figure of fun in Jackson's LOTR. What do you think the thirteen dwarves in the Hobbit are going to be like?
Sadly, I think Jackson's going to do exactly the same thing as some of you and confuse 'some child-like characteristics' with 'silly'. They're not the same thing.
I predict much slapstick and pratfalling. I do think he'll stop short of having them all chase each other around while the Benny Hill music plays in the background - but I don't think it'll be far off.
I was reading that, and thinking, "Yeah, it could be really good."
And then I suddenly thought: to Peter Jackson, dwarves appear to be figures of fun.
There's thirteen of them as central characters in the Hobbit.
Thirteen.
It's going to be a couple of hours of spectacular cgi and dwarves falling over isn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if extra scenes were inserted where they all have to get past some gap or other obstacle, and Gandalf tosses them over, while they all protest about dwarf tossing. And I can only imagine the scene where Bilbo helps them all into barrels and then tosses the lot of them.
Erm... they're pet rats. I'd really rather not poison them.:-)
That aside, they could easily get onto the top of a box, they can jump a couple of feet no problem. I also doubt poison-soaked cardboard would actually stop them. Rats aren't always that easy to poison, and they don't generally eat cardboard, they just shred it.
Plus, I imagine similar issues would arise with puppies, ferrets, rabbits, etc. too. That, and not everyone wants a cardboard box as part of their decor.
And all that aside, there are other good reasons for having PCs on the desk - easier access for the disabled, for example.
However what this guy did was a very clearcut case of botting and he deserves what he got.
Not only was it not a clearcut case of it, it wasn't even botting at all. Botting requires a bot. No bot was involved. Q.E.D. You do know what a bot is don't you?
And again, it's not as simple as "don't like their rules, don't play". In order to know whether you like the rules, you have to read them and understand them as intended by those who will be enforcing them. That's not simple, particularly when the rules are often dependent on terms not defined, withheld conditions, or not even listed anywhere. And even if someone doesn't like the rules, why exactly shouldn't they play? They may still feel the merits of the game outweighs the rules they don't like.
But perhaps an actual example would help - since you think it's so simple, could you find the exact rule broken in this case and post it here?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
The emails weren't really exposed as I understand it, only a couple of them and a list of the subjects.
In addition, I don't think it's a valid assumption that all mails sent to the account were still there at the time it was compromised. Even assuming that emails weren't removed from it on a regular basis, it was some time after the address of the account was published before it was compromised. Unless Palin and everyone around her is a complete idiot, if the account had, hypothetically, been used inappropriately it would have been cleaned up as soon as the issue arose in the media.
That's not proof that there WERE inappropriate emails in the account of course. I'm just saying that a list of relatively innocuous subjects obtained a while after the account address was made public isn't proof that there weren't either.
Everyone has a real stake in the economy, even those of us working in universities. We still buy the same houses, gas, heating, etc., etc., that everyone else does.
Then how about their unauthorised use of CBS's Katie Couric in their "Obama called Palin a pig!" ad? I'd give you the youtube link, but "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by CBS Interactive Inc."
Not to worry. Obama's a big proponent of improving education. ;-)
...his recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.I think Obama's position on war is pretty clear.
Also (I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again) voting to allocate funds for a war in progress does not necessarily mean not objecting to that war. There is no option for no war at that point, the choice is between funding the troops fighting the war, or not funding the troops fighting the war. Choosing to fund the troops fighting the war is the pragmatic decision. It's not inconsistent with opposing the war in principle.
Understatement of the year? Hardly. Unless you think purposefully withholding, and indeed, actively preventing treatment along with concealing the contagious nature of syphilis is SO much better than 'purposefully infecting'. Are you really going to argue that point?
What do you do for an encore? Defend the morons who keep insisting that Auschwitz had swimming pools for the prisoners? You know, their claims are also "not technically accurate", but Auschwitz really DID have swimming pools!OK, seriously, you're really going to have to give it up with the analogies. They're not your strong point.
You should just stick with the distorting, exaggerating, and failing to grasp relatively simple points. You're much better at that. ;-)
And this one is a statement of belief that America is institutionally racist, which brings us to the crux of the matter.
Rev. Wright clearly believes the government, and America as a whole, has been (which it certainly has), and still is (which is debatable), institutionally racist. Do you really think that belief, a belief in institutional racism, is in itself racist? Really?
I'd also question the wisdom in equating 'the government' and 'America' with 'white people'. It's possible to accuse the government of racism without accusing all white people of racism.
So basically that's zero out of six. Well done!
the fact that he's attended these sermons for decades certainly doesn't speak well for his character. And again, if you actually check out the sermons, you'll find they're not 'overtly racist'.Bad analogy. The Rev. Wright can't reasonably be considered analogous to a neo-nazi who preaches racial segregation. Have you actually watched or read any of his sermons in their entirety? Do you actually know how often he went off on one? I suspect not, because if you had, you'd know it's not so much.
It's obvious Rev. Wright is quite bitter about America's historic treatment of african-americans - to the extent of entering the realms of the paranoid conspiracy theorist when it comes to the government - but there's a world of difference between that and a neo-nazi preaching racial segregation.
Heh. The guy attends the church of, and is good friends with, an extremely racist minister. He degrades his grandmother by basically calling her racist. He lies about the war record of his grandfather (or makes a mistake which reveals his ignorance of history). He has no experience. He wants to turn the US into a welfare state. Him and his wife seem to despise everything about the US. He constantly talks about change, yet never explains how his presidency will be different.The Rev. Wright isn't extremely racist. Bitter, yes, racist, not extremely so. Obama's grandmother is somewhat racist, that was the whole point which apparently went over your head - that people of the Rev. Wright and Obama's grandmother's generation, both black and white, are subject to such prejudices, which indeed they are. It was his great-uncle he was talking about, not his grandfather, and while it was certainly a mistake to refer to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald, given that that wasn't the relevant detail (the subject was the PTD his great-uncle suffered subsequently, the concentration camp liberation was just background to that), it's hardly a critical failure. Obama does have experience, he's 46 years old, not 18, and he's been an elected official for longer than Hillary Clinton has. Having said that, experience is not the end-all and be-all. Finally, Obama does explain how his presidency will be different - his speeches don't just consist of him chanting 'change change change' over and over again you know, although apparently you have that impression - and there are numerous detailed policies on his website.
I figure with the way he'll fuck up your country, MY currency will be worth double what it is today!And I'm not American. I'm British.
Congratulations. You appear to have got just about everything wrong. Did you base your research entirely on the Clinton cribsheet and Fox News perhaps? :-)
On funding the Iraq war, at least, I wouldn't say it's inconsistent to oppose starting a war and to later agree to fund troops already fighting that war. You're in a different situation once the war has been started, and underfunding the troops there would arguably make a bad situation worse.
Way to generalise. Has it occurred to you that they might have considered his policies, read his books, just generally done their research and decided that he's the overall best candidate for President?
I'd add that Obama has, to varying extents, actually done well with independent and republican votes in states where they were allowed to vote in the democratic primaries.
I'm not saying Obama's a sure thing, but you can't just pick one factor - in this case, prejudice amongst republicans - and say that'll be the decider. I could say "McCain won't win because he's too old", and certainly that'll be a factor too, but it's by no means the only one. You have to look at the whole picture. I don't think it'll be a landslide either way, but certainly Obama is a strong candidate.
From TFA: 'Mr. Hollick said he "asked about residuals when we negotiated, but I was told that was not a possibility."'
The whole point of the article is that he couldn't negotiate 'just like an actor in traditional media'. The disparity between video game media and other forms is the issue here - "... the contracts between the actors' union and the entertainment industry make little or no provision for electronic media like video games and the Internet." "To the actors it is a simple issue of equity: equal pay for equal work, regardless of the medium."
Michael Hollick isn't an idiot for 'not working with lawyers.' You're an idiot for not reading the article before spouting off. ;-)
Because the person I was replying to specifically referred to Hotmail, because it's a webmail provider with a similar policy to that of Lycos, and because the experience I had with Hotmail had some similarities to that described in the article?
Seems pretty relevant to me. I'm sorry if that's too subtle a connection for you though...
According to their support people, their system thought I hadn't logged in for 30 days because opening it via msn doesn't count. Here's the exact quote: Oddly, I only ever check my hotmail via msn and this only happened once over a period of many years. Personally, I think they just delete random accounts occasionally for a laugh. Fortunately I never really trusted them to start off with so I didn't use it for anything serious. It was still annoying though.
Of course, the best bit of the response was where they suggested I subscribe to Hotmail Plus and said they looked forward to providing me with a 'consistent and effective service'...
Honestly though, it's a bit odd that you can accept drinking from a wooden cup could make you immortal, but not that the omniscient omnipotent omniprescent force behind that could set any additional conditions on it whenever it felt like it.
# factor 742381
742381: 742381
Huzzah, I'm a member of a meaningless subgroup!
Indeed. And Gimli wasn't depicted as anything like as child-like as the dwarves in the Hobbit, and he still became a figure of fun in Jackson's LOTR. What do you think the thirteen dwarves in the Hobbit are going to be like?
Sadly, I think Jackson's going to do exactly the same thing as some of you and confuse 'some child-like characteristics' with 'silly'. They're not the same thing.
I predict much slapstick and pratfalling. I do think he'll stop short of having them all chase each other around while the Benny Hill music plays in the background - but I don't think it'll be far off.
I was reading that, and thinking, "Yeah, it could be really good."
And then I suddenly thought: to Peter Jackson, dwarves appear to be figures of fun.
There's thirteen of them as central characters in the Hobbit.
Thirteen.
It's going to be a couple of hours of spectacular cgi and dwarves falling over isn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if extra scenes were inserted where they all have to get past some gap or other obstacle, and Gandalf tosses them over, while they all protest about dwarf tossing. And I can only imagine the scene where Bilbo helps them all into barrels and then tosses the lot of them.
*sigh*
Erm... they're pet rats. I'd really rather not poison them. :-)
That aside, they could easily get onto the top of a box, they can jump a couple of feet no problem. I also doubt poison-soaked cardboard would actually stop them. Rats aren't always that easy to poison, and they don't generally eat cardboard, they just shred it.
Plus, I imagine similar issues would arise with puppies, ferrets, rabbits, etc. too. That, and not everyone wants a cardboard box as part of their decor.
And all that aside, there are other good reasons for having PCs on the desk - easier access for the disabled, for example.
And again, it's not as simple as "don't like their rules, don't play". In order to know whether you like the rules, you have to read them and understand them as intended by those who will be enforcing them. That's not simple, particularly when the rules are often dependent on terms not defined, withheld conditions, or not even listed anywhere. And even if someone doesn't like the rules, why exactly shouldn't they play? They may still feel the merits of the game outweighs the rules they don't like.
But perhaps an actual example would help - since you think it's so simple, could you find the exact rule broken in this case and post it here?