Consider the fact that maybe you don't NEED guns for that? And should you ever DO need guns in an event like that, I'm sure there'd be no problem getting them.
I don't know of any country in the entire world with nearly as many guns as you, that are as afraid of yourselves that you are. Remember, Bush can't hold down 300 million americans alone. YOU have the power, you're just too lazy and afraid to admit it, rather relying on guns to do the talking and objecting.
Think about it. If 300 MILLION americans rose up against an abusive government, even without weapons, what the hell could they do about it?
Get your heads out of your gun-barrels and think about it. Really think about it.
ps. I live in sweden. We have idiots. We have a government. We have idiots IN the goverment. Yet, not a single citizen here feels that guns should be a "right" so that we can defend ourselves against said goverment. And we're just a measly 9 million people over here:)
So... If he feels so strongly about helping all the poor, misguided children who obviously can't tell the difference between their real-life, three-dimensional friend with non-scripted speech and movements that weren't pre-recorded, why doesn't he step up and actually help their parents with parenting?
Help the parents explain the paradox in that other children are NOT two-dimensional, pre-scripted and pre-animated contrary to what every child in America must believe by now.
Am I the only one who thinks drea 'ol JT is only making things worse? He's forcing the image that games are more real-to-life than they actually are. He's telling kids that there is no difference in playing a game and beating up their friends.
If his mouth is the gun, he's the one pointing it at the kids while tugging the trigger.
This has to be done in steps. Crime is not going to disappear overnight, and it's about time we stop thinking it will. For now, a great first stop is remove the access to guns from everyone. This will leave only the really determined crooks with guns. Great, now you've reduced the amount of suspects by, I don't know, maybe 70% or more? Suddenly you have enough police to go around twice-and-a-half, and you can go ahead and really crack down on the real criminals, instead of having to ride between one idiot with a gun and an itchy trigger finger and the next one.
I hate to say it, but your founding fathers weren't really unbiased either. You took a country by force from its very natives while basically comitting mutiny against another country. Of course they needed guns.
You don't anymore, though. Sure, you might think you need it because of crime or whatever... But consider this: would there really be so many robberies and so much crime, if it was much harder to get ahold of guns? Would kids simply open their fathers closets, take the gun and shoot their classmates in school if not _everyone_ had a weapon?
Sorry, but that argument just doesn't stick. You have the highest crime and murder rate in the world for a reason. And it's not JUST because of viodegames;)
You have to admit though, the game does very little to promote peaceful solutions to its problems and obstacles, and very much to insinuate that you use violence. How about the assassination-missions in Vice City? How do you kill someone without violence?
Trust me, I think JT is a major dumbass just like everyone else, but to say that a game like GTA does NOT promote violence is actually stretching it a bit:)
But you have to compare it to something, otherwise you couldn't set any limits at all.
In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames. Add to that the violence everyday on TV, and you get a society that's just waiting to tear itself apart in fear of itself.
Long story short, Jack Thompson is an egotistic fuckhead who cares nothing for the children. If he did, he'd get rid of guns and actually do something about the physical violence not connected to videogames.
Seriously, now he's not only telling parents they no longer are responsible for parenting, but he's even going up against a judge saying he doesn't know how to do his job!
Someone need to slip dear ol' Jack a chillpill before his head explodes. On the other hand... If it does explode, we can continue blaming lawyers for all that's wrong in this world while having proof: The heads of lawyers are prone to spontanious explosion! Keep all children at a safe distance!
...designs an MP3-player that actually does what it's supposed to, that's when I'll buy it.
What I don't want is an MP3-player that's DRM-infested, but doesn't even play their own, much advertised DRM format, an MP3-player with WiFi that can ONLY communicate with other MP3-players or an MP3-player with a navigational wheel that doesn't spin.
Congratulations Microsoft, at least you reinvented the wheel!:=)
It doesn't have to be inappropriate as long as it's inconvenient. If it doesn't suit your agenda, just yell "TERRORISM!!!" and you automatically win. That's how society works these days...
It seems words like censorship, fascism and terrorism are the new 'hip' things to blurt right out these days. It doesn't matter what you talk about, or with whom. Just yell one of those words at the top of your lung when your opponent is most obviously correct, and you automatically get a point.
Rather like how any and every blog/article with one of those words in its headline will automatically end up on the Digg frontpage...
Precisely. Had YouTube been some sort of public service channel, censoring something submitted by users would be rather bad taste. However, they're not, and they have every right to chose what kind of material they want to show or not show on their own site.
This is no more censorship than any webforum anywhere on the Internet. Certain things are allowed, other things aren't.
Youtube is a "private" site. It can, and obviously will, censor whatever the hell it will.
There is no constitution on the Internet. There is no free speech. There is only the right to say whatever the hell you want, and hope someone will listen to you. If they don't, too bad.
That said, I don't approve of censoring anything. I think it's cowardly and serves no real purpose other than to shield people from things they may not necessarily want to be shielded from. But it IS the right of youtube to chose what they want to have on their site, and what the don't want. Obviously, they don't want people being overly political. That's their call.
What I find most amazing is how computers and technology have gone from "Yesterday you couldn't do this and that, but with this new machine you can do both, and more!" to "Yesterday you could do this and that, but if you upgrade to the latest version we're no longer allowing you to".
There should always be a compromise. That said, it doesn't mean they should remove all the geekier features entirely.
The practice of always having an 'advanced' tab seems healthy to me. That way, there's a basic interface for those that don't need to tweak much, and a more advanced interface for those that really like to tweak.
The first thing that pops into my head is the new Gnome Screensaver dialog. Frankly, it sucks. Why even bother with that many screensavers, if there isn't any way to set them up the way you want them? You want a slideshow? Too bad, you can't choose what pictures to show. You get dizzy from the speed of those stars and planets? Too bad, change screensaver because the Gnome people think you're too dumb to understand how to alter the speed yourself.
I'm all for simple... But there are times when you need advanced too!
I'm getting a little tired of people comparing a computer running an OS to a TV set or similar.
The TV will do one thing, and one thing only. That's displaying an analog signal as moving images and sound. That's all. The day that's all Windows will ever have to do, that's the day you can demand a refund.
This is something that's been happening to me too. Not that I really buy MORE CDs, I just tend to pick better ones from having to risk buying another beercoaster.
I really don't get why they're so stuck up about this. Isn't the RIAA *supposed* to care for the artists? In that case, they've succeded, since alot of smaller artists are now getting their _fair_ share of the money with sites like garageband.com and more artists selling their CDs themselves over the internet. So essentially, the RIAA tells consumers they promote the artist, but would rather want customers to buy through them leaving LESS money to the artist, than to buy from the artist directly and thus actually doing what they claim to be doing. Funny thing, this...
I used to buy lots of CDs, back when I was in school. I had even less money then, so it has nothing to do with my account balance. I like CDs, because I get a) something solid, tangible that I can *own* and have as part of *my property* and b) I get all those nice things like linear notes and photography with it. Yes, I do appreciate those things too.
Not all of my digitally stored music, but a great deal of it, comes directly from those CDs. Ripping them to OGG and playing them on my iAudio M3 (like, the only player left in the world to support OGG?) means they sound practically identical to the original CD audio.
Now, let's consider this "problem" the RIAA is having. They claim that their sales are down due to "piracy", and therefor they invent this stupid thing called DRM. Where do people get their songs from, when they're pirated? It's not from me or my own, personal music collection. It's not from my MP3-player. It's from some dude, over in asia or the middle east, getting a CD and ripping it, before putting it on some major torrentsite. This dude doesn't care about DRM. There's ALWAYS a way to around DRM.
Me, on the other hand, I'll still be buying CDs to hearts content. Until the day the CD won't work. Hmm, I say. My CD-player won't play this CD. It must be this new DRM the RIAA have come up with, that crippled my store-bought CD so that I can't play it. Oh well, lucky that I can just go out on the internet and download it then!
What does this mean? It doesn't mean that the RIAA are shooting themselves in their collective feet. No, it means they're basically blowing their collective brains out with the equivalent of an atomic bomb!
Seriously, if they just for five minutes took their eyes away from those "studies" and actually contemplated exactly what people this whole scheme is going to hurt, I think they'd turn around. No store I know, no company in the history of the world, actually benefited from continually selling customers crap that didn't even work properly. In the end, customers go somewhere else.
Customers go where they're wanted, it's as simple as that, and the RIAA is sure as hell letting people know they really don't want them...
Slashdot Mirror
Consider the fact that maybe you don't NEED guns for that? And should you ever DO need guns in an event like that, I'm sure there'd be no problem getting them.
:)
I don't know of any country in the entire world with nearly as many guns as you, that are as afraid of yourselves that you are. Remember, Bush can't hold down 300 million americans alone. YOU have the power, you're just too lazy and afraid to admit it, rather relying on guns to do the talking and objecting.
Think about it. If 300 MILLION americans rose up against an abusive government, even without weapons, what the hell could they do about it?
Get your heads out of your gun-barrels and think about it. Really think about it.
ps.
I live in sweden. We have idiots. We have a government. We have idiots IN the goverment. Yet, not a single citizen here feels that guns should be a "right" so that we can defend ourselves against said goverment. And we're just a measly 9 million people over here
So... If he feels so strongly about helping all the poor, misguided children who obviously can't tell the difference between their real-life, three-dimensional friend with non-scripted speech and movements that weren't pre-recorded, why doesn't he step up and actually help their parents with parenting?
Help the parents explain the paradox in that other children are NOT two-dimensional, pre-scripted and pre-animated contrary to what every child in America must believe by now.
Am I the only one who thinks drea 'ol JT is only making things worse? He's forcing the image that games are more real-to-life than they actually are. He's telling kids that there is no difference in playing a game and beating up their friends.
If his mouth is the gun, he's the one pointing it at the kids while tugging the trigger.
That's exactly the point.
This has to be done in steps. Crime is not going to disappear overnight, and it's about time we stop thinking it will. For now, a great first stop is remove the access to guns from everyone. This will leave only the really determined crooks with guns. Great, now you've reduced the amount of suspects by, I don't know, maybe 70% or more? Suddenly you have enough police to go around twice-and-a-half, and you can go ahead and really crack down on the real criminals, instead of having to ride between one idiot with a gun and an itchy trigger finger and the next one.
Tell me, doesn't this sound sort of logical?
I hate to say it, but your founding fathers weren't really unbiased either. You took a country by force from its very natives while basically comitting mutiny against another country. Of course they needed guns.
;)
You don't anymore, though. Sure, you might think you need it because of crime or whatever... But consider this: would there really be so many robberies and so much crime, if it was much harder to get ahold of guns? Would kids simply open their fathers closets, take the gun and shoot their classmates in school if not _everyone_ had a weapon?
Sorry, but that argument just doesn't stick. You have the highest crime and murder rate in the world for a reason. And it's not JUST because of viodegames
The best part will be when he realizes his mistake, and starts rightfully blaming the parents for not doing their god-damn job.
You have to admit though, the game does very little to promote peaceful solutions to its problems and obstacles, and very much to insinuate that you use violence. How about the assassination-missions in Vice City? How do you kill someone without violence?
:)
Trust me, I think JT is a major dumbass just like everyone else, but to say that a game like GTA does NOT promote violence is actually stretching it a bit
But you have to compare it to something, otherwise you couldn't set any limits at all.
In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames. Add to that the violence everyday on TV, and you get a society that's just waiting to tear itself apart in fear of itself.
Long story short, Jack Thompson is an egotistic fuckhead who cares nothing for the children. If he did, he'd get rid of guns and actually do something about the physical violence not connected to videogames.
Seriously, now he's not only telling parents they no longer are responsible for parenting, but he's even going up against a judge saying he doesn't know how to do his job!
Someone need to slip dear ol' Jack a chillpill before his head explodes. On the other hand... If it does explode, we can continue blaming lawyers for all that's wrong in this world while having proof: The heads of lawyers are prone to spontanious explosion! Keep all children at a safe distance!
Why go through all that trouble? Just open up the "spam" folder and voila! there's your two good emails :D
On a more serious note:
I love my gmail. 40+ spam mails every day, and not a single false alarm or unnoticed spam in months.
No, actually I don't.
:)
All you're doing is make yourself look bad, and by resorting to verbal assault you're just further proving my point
Ehm... well... That was kind of my whole point :)
They redesigned the wheel so that it didn't even spin anymore!
Hey! Some people happen to like brown.
Why? No one knows...
...designs an MP3-player that actually does what it's supposed to, that's when I'll buy it.
:=)
What I don't want is an MP3-player that's DRM-infested, but doesn't even play their own, much advertised DRM format, an MP3-player with WiFi that can ONLY communicate with other MP3-players or an MP3-player with a navigational wheel that doesn't spin.
Congratulations Microsoft, at least you reinvented the wheel!
It doesn't have to be inappropriate as long as it's inconvenient. If it doesn't suit your agenda, just yell "TERRORISM!!!" and you automatically win. That's how society works these days...
It seems words like censorship, fascism and terrorism are the new 'hip' things to blurt right out these days. It doesn't matter what you talk about, or with whom. Just yell one of those words at the top of your lung when your opponent is most obviously correct, and you automatically get a point.
Rather like how any and every blog/article with one of those words in its headline will automatically end up on the Digg frontpage...
Precisely. Had YouTube been some sort of public service channel, censoring something submitted by users would be rather bad taste. However, they're not, and they have every right to chose what kind of material they want to show or not show on their own site.
This is no more censorship than any webforum anywhere on the Internet. Certain things are allowed, other things aren't.
Youtube is a "private" site. It can, and obviously will, censor whatever the hell it will.
There is no constitution on the Internet. There is no free speech. There is only the right to say whatever the hell you want, and hope someone will listen to you. If they don't, too bad.
That said, I don't approve of censoring anything. I think it's cowardly and serves no real purpose other than to shield people from things they may not necessarily want to be shielded from. But it IS the right of youtube to chose what they want to have on their site, and what the don't want. Obviously, they don't want people being overly political. That's their call.
Deal with it.
What I find most amazing is how computers and technology have gone from
"Yesterday you couldn't do this and that, but with this new machine you can do both, and more!"
to
"Yesterday you could do this and that, but if you upgrade to the latest version we're no longer allowing you to".
Doesn't anyone find this a bit disturbing?
That's it! I've had it with these mother-fucking snails in this mother-fucking nuclear plant!!!
Do not try and bend God. That's impossible... Instead, only try to realize the truth.
What truth?
There is no God.
There should always be a compromise. That said, it doesn't mean they should remove all the geekier features entirely.
The practice of always having an 'advanced' tab seems healthy to me. That way, there's a basic interface for those that don't need to tweak much, and a more advanced interface for those that really like to tweak.
The first thing that pops into my head is the new Gnome Screensaver dialog. Frankly, it sucks. Why even bother with that many screensavers, if there isn't any way to set them up the way you want them? You want a slideshow? Too bad, you can't choose what pictures to show. You get dizzy from the speed of those stars and planets? Too bad, change screensaver because the Gnome people think you're too dumb to understand how to alter the speed yourself.
I'm all for simple... But there are times when you need advanced too!
I'm getting a little tired of people comparing a computer running an OS to a TV set or similar.
The TV will do one thing, and one thing only. That's displaying an analog signal as moving images and sound. That's all. The day that's all Windows will ever have to do, that's the day you can demand a refund.
This is something that's been happening to me too. Not that I really buy MORE CDs, I just tend to pick better ones from having to risk buying another beercoaster.
I really don't get why they're so stuck up about this. Isn't the RIAA *supposed* to care for the artists? In that case, they've succeded, since alot of smaller artists are now getting their _fair_ share of the money with sites like garageband.com and more artists selling their CDs themselves over the internet. So essentially, the RIAA tells consumers they promote the artist, but would rather want customers to buy through them leaving LESS money to the artist, than to buy from the artist directly and thus actually doing what they claim to be doing. Funny thing, this...
I used to buy lots of CDs, back when I was in school. I had even less money then, so it has nothing to do with my account balance. I like CDs, because I get a) something solid, tangible that I can *own* and have as part of *my property* and b) I get all those nice things like linear notes and photography with it. Yes, I do appreciate those things too.
Not all of my digitally stored music, but a great deal of it, comes directly from those CDs. Ripping them to OGG and playing them on my iAudio M3 (like, the only player left in the world to support OGG?) means they sound practically identical to the original CD audio.
Now, let's consider this "problem" the RIAA is having. They claim that their sales are down due to "piracy", and therefor they invent this stupid thing called DRM. Where do people get their songs from, when they're pirated? It's not from me or my own, personal music collection. It's not from my MP3-player. It's from some dude, over in asia or the middle east, getting a CD and ripping it, before putting it on some major torrentsite. This dude doesn't care about DRM. There's ALWAYS a way to around DRM.
Me, on the other hand, I'll still be buying CDs to hearts content. Until the day the CD won't work. Hmm, I say. My CD-player won't play this CD. It must be this new DRM the RIAA have come up with, that crippled my store-bought CD so that I can't play it. Oh well, lucky that I can just go out on the internet and download it then!
What does this mean? It doesn't mean that the RIAA are shooting themselves in their collective feet. No, it means they're basically blowing their collective brains out with the equivalent of an atomic bomb!
Seriously, if they just for five minutes took their eyes away from those "studies" and actually contemplated exactly what people this whole scheme is going to hurt, I think they'd turn around. No store I know, no company in the history of the world, actually benefited from continually selling customers crap that didn't even work properly. In the end, customers go somewhere else.
Customers go where they're wanted, it's as simple as that, and the RIAA is sure as hell letting people know they really don't want them...
"...the CG was obvious..."
As opposed to all those movies starring REAL balrogs and cave trolls?