Click that button marked "Preferences". Yep, that one. Click that. Now, "Messages"...good. Now see that "threshold" button? Set it to the "1". There, look at that, no more AC's unless someone's seen fit to mod 'em up!
Unfortunately, that doesn't always ENTIRELY solve the problem of, say, people ranting way the hell off the topic. But it sure helps.
Well, I'm glad to know that! Then I'm sure, if all they're concerned with is bandwidth costs, they won't mind when I mirror their updates. After all, then they're not paying for bandwidth.
What's that? "You'll get a C&D letter before you can say 'sue your ass into oblivion'?" Oh, I guess there's more going on here then that.
Oh, I don't know. They could always supervise the kids by, oh, damn, let me think. They could use their eyes, and a bit of sense as to what's going on in the school! There we go!
And you know, I have a neighbor who's a teacher, and talk to him quite a bit. He's told me that parents are extremely important in any child's education, and that he is always grateful for parents who are involved, even if sometimes that means they disagree with him. So maybe you just know a different type of teacher.
"You should hire more teachers! But don't you dare raise my property taxes."
Certainly, you did not put that in quotation marks as to say that you were quoting, or even paraphrasing me, I didn't even bring up that subject. I'm sure that was just an honest mistake, since I imagine you're well aware that it's wrong to stuff words in someone's mouth. However, since you bring the subject up, in Colorado, voter approval is required to raise taxes, and I voted in favor of a tax increase at the last election to build two new elementary schools and add on to two high schools. Now, I'm not entirely sure, but I do imagine they plan to hire teachers to staff these schools, too. (The increase passed by a 65-35 margin.) So apparently, these "morons" who won't pay for more teachers are, at least, in the minority.
When I went to school, I don't recall a single instance, after the first few weeks of a new year, that the principal could not refer to each and every student by name. This was at a school of 1600-some students. We need more PEOPLE of that caliber, and less intrusive technology doing a poor attempt at doing their job for them.
I'm against the Iraq war, to begin with, so let's preface with that.
Now, that being said, what you said disgusts and greatly saddens me. I know several soldiers, both former and current. My father and both grandfathers were soldiers. I have the greatest of respect for those who are willing to put their lives on the line for a cause they believe in. And you know what? Soldiers don't choose the wars they go to.
Many soldiers have families, and love them as much as anyone else would. Their families miss them greatly when they are away. If some way is available to make communication easier, let's do it. And let's not spew garbage. Some soldiers and ex-soldiers are not the greatest people, granted, but that's true of any group you pick. Most soldiers I've met are the men and women of honor you would hope to see in such positions.
What really shocks me is that this post was apparently modded up before being knocked down where it belongs. An attack against ANY group based on a stereotype is a troll, and should be modded as such.
See the first paragraph of the Windows XP user license. I guess you must've missed that one.
"If you do not agree, do not install, copy, or use the software. You may return it to the place of purchase for a full refund." (from above, put into lowercase to avoid running afoul of lameness filter)
I respectfully disagree with you on many issues I'm sure, but that's better than you disagreeing with yourself (and trying to make a political party out of that idea).
No problem there, I've met very many intelligent, articulate conservatives quite capable of having a respectful debate. Thus far, you certainly seem to fall into that category. I don't expect that the whole world would agree with me, that would be terribly boring.
Without health coverage does not mean without health care. Another interpretation of that statistic is that 40 million people think that they can manage their own health better than someone else managing it for them.
True, or that they are too young for anything to happen, or...
However, I would imagine that, if we did a survey of those people, we would find that at least the majority would have health coverage if they could afford it, and because they cannot, live without checkups, diagnostic screenings, and other basic health care services.
Some further information on this point:
"The proportion of children who were uninsured did not change, remaining at 11.6 percent of all children, or 8.5 million, in 2002."
"Even having to pay very small contributions to health insurance policies can deter workers from joining. In fact, about 20 percent of all uninsured people live in families where a worker has declined employer-sponsored insurance coverage, with two-thirds citing cost as the culprit. For many, the decision to purchase health insurance must compete with the need for food and housing."
You might be right in a few cases, but in the majority, cost of insurance is just not payable. Of course, those who cannot insurance can also not afford to pay directly for care. Therefore, lack of health insurance does, at least in a very significant number of cases, bear a causal relationship to a lack of health care. (Except in an emergency situation, where care must be provided regardless of ability to pay. Even in these circumstances, however, followup care is often inadequate.)
But there was substance there, consider:
I will indeed.
* no gay marriage
Not a substantive issue at all. It's one that raises the hair on a lot of people's necks, but no one's shown how government belongs involved in the issue in the first place. Also, he knew well that the proposed Constitutional amendment against gay marriage didn't have anywhere near the kind of support it needed in order to pass, that was pure window-dressing.
I have yet to hear any objection to gay marriage on non-religious grounds. Pursuant to the separation of church and state, religious reasons are not and cannot be a rationale for government prohibition of an activity. (I presume this to be well-known, I'll cite sources upon request.) The only other argument I've heard is that it's "not natural"-and by that rationale, we should ban cars.
* continue with war in Iraq on course
Certainly no denying that this was an issue of substance, but I would've been far more comfortable had the failures of intelligence, etc., been more thoroughly addressed by Bush, instead of glossed over with "Well he wasn't a very nice guy anyway, so it's alright in the end."
* hold Iraqi elections soon
Fair enough, but I never heard Kerry be against that one, so I'm not sure how Bush "won on" that issue-to my knowledge, it was never in dispute. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. As to the fact that the elections were held on time, and went off overall quite well, I'm thrilled to see it, and I certainly hope that Iraq can stay on that course.
I imagine the initial ENIAC-style transistor computers were power monsters too. So yes, they likely do, but technology only gets better with time. And in fact, depending how it's implemented, it may actually take a little LESS power once it reaches a production-quality level.
Earnie Graham, the superintendent and principal of Brittan Elementary School in Sutter, said Tuesday night. "I think I let my staff down. Nobody on this campus knows every student."
Now we have identified the REAL problem, that they should be looking to a solution for. Or, of course, we could always try and get technology to think for us.
"Kids", remember that? I would be reminding/informing my OWN children of that fact. (And no, this is not hypothetical, I have 3 of them.) I want my children SUPERVISED while they're at school, granted, but I do not want them being taught that it is acceptable for someone to track every move they make. We're already seeing the results of this in the acceptance of employees and lawmakers alike of employers tracking their movements via GPS.
They're launching legal attacks against their own customers in the cases grandparent listed. That is not a valid reason not to wish to become a customer?
Besides, I can choose not to buy something, for any reason I choose. I can choose not to buy a Honda because I like the shape of the Toyota bumpers better. You might think that's a dumbass reason, but it's me that's buying the item. Of course, if you like Hondas, you're still free to get one of those.
Actually, in the city in which I live, retailers are required to accept a return, provided that:
1. The item is defective for reasons not caused by the customer, or the item is in new condition, or the item did not perform as expected. This is so vague that really, in any case short of the customer buying something and taking a sledgehammer to it, they have to take it back.
2. The retailer may set a "reasonable time frame" after which returns will not be accepted. Such time period must be communicated clearly to the customer and may be no less then two weeks unless the item is perishable and has a shorter shelf life then that.
3. The retailer must give the customer money back if the return is within these terms. While they can offer the OPTION of store credit/identical replacement, they may not state that this is all that they'll do.
In contrast (I found this out the hard way), a neighboring city only offers those remedies if the item is defective, and allows the store to stipulate identical-replacement only even in that case. I can certainly tell you which city I buy in now. So you can't say "In the US..." in this case, at all, because those matters are covered by state and local law, not in most cases federal.
That aside, however, the EULA in that box (all of them I've ever seen) SPECIFICALLY states that if you do not wish to accept it, you may return the software to the place of purchase for a full refund. The stores cannot claim to be ignorant of this fact, so, while IANAL, I should think that if the EULA is enforceable on the user, it is also enforceable on the selling store, who is aware of this obligation. And if it's unenforceable altogether...well, then we're all going to be happy, aren't we? But it's either a binding contract, and enforceable on all parties concerned, or a worthless piece of garbage with no enforceable value at all. But it is not worth something only when it is to the consumer's detriment, while being worthless when he wishes to invoke a clause that works to his advantage.
So, in response to your post, there are indeed LEGALLY MANDATED LEVELS of customer service. (See related topics of restaurant health and sanitation codes, false advertising regulations, laws against predatory sales tactics such as bait-and-switch, disclosure requirements of all kinds in countless situations, anti-discrimination laws, I could go on all day...)
There IS a boycott of Blizzard-while I don't know of a coordinated one (although maybe that should be fixed), I've heard quite a few people express the same sentiments after the bnetd case. Those people most certainly include me, and a few others that I've convinced to do the same after describing Blizzard's bullying.
If one hundred people convince two people each to boycott, and those two convince two, and...well pretty soon, there IS a boycott, and one they're going to notice. If that's something you'd like to see, start now.
And don't forget to make your vote COUNTED-write to Blizzard and let them know that you would like to buy their games, but you will not, and why it is that you refuse to do so. Once they get enough of those, they might think long and hard about whether the public-relations problem is really worth it. If you just "don't buy", then they just "don't care"-millions of people in the world don't buy their stuff every day. Make sure they see their actions cost them people who WOULD have bought from them otherwise.
Sure, the conservatives are into free choice. Until it comes down to who (and of which sex) you wish to marry, or a woman's choice whether or not to have a baby, and to have the government kept out of the support of religion. Can you explain that dichotomy, please?
Or are the conservatives only into "free choice" when it translates to "large corporations get to get away with murder", and not to "The common man gets to do whatever he wishes provided it harms or puts at risk no one but him/herself?"
Avery Lee 00-12-05: ASF support removed at request of Microsoft
Avery Lee, author of http://www.geocities.com/virtualdub/, a free software tool for converting multimedia file formats, reports sad news:
Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media group. He informed me that Microsoft has intellectual property rights on the ASF format and told me that, although the implementation was still illegal since it infringed on Microsoft patents. I have asked for the specific patent numbers, since I find patenting a file format a bit strange. At his request, and much to my own sadness, I have removed support for ASF in VirtualDub 1.3d, since I cannot risk a legal confrontation.)
--From the above-cited link
They didn't need to file a lawsuit, they eliminated competition just by THREATENING one. That's the whole problem here. This is not a "defensive" use of their patent, the creator of VirtualDub had not made a threat to MS that they were responding defensively to.
Well...sorry for the troll bit, I guess this is based in more fact then I thought initially. See what happens when I post in a bad mood.
I still, however, have not seen any evidence, including that introduced, that tidal generators could cause such a massive effect as to send the Earth "hurtling out of the solar system." While it is true that they would have SOME effect, I don't know that it would to that degree.
And I'm out of mod points. I could not have said it better. It's time that Democrats quit BUYING INTO the Republican position-namely, that "liberal" is some kind of epithet, a "dirty word" if you will. I am a LIBERAL, I'm proud of it, and it's about damn time we put some pride back in it.
There is one other thing-the Democrats need to play on the inherent wish of Americans to be moral. And in fact, they can do that! The Republicans pick garbage issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) that they know will divide. It's time for the liberals (Dem or otherwise) to stand up and say "Who GIVES A CRAP if 2 guys get married, when over 40 million Americans live without basic health coverage! THAT is immoral! THAT is unethical! And for that matter, it is UNCHRISTIAN!" Well guess what, Joe Average can rally around that! Now you're making it a question of basic morality, not a question of any type of cost-benefit scenario, not looking at it as some sort of "handout".
It's time for liberalism to quit being seen as an elitist philosophy, and for what it is-the philosophy which really DOES care about every man, instead of pandering to him and then stabbing him in the back with a cheerful smile, and trying to convince him that he did it to himself. That is my liberalism, thank you very much, and I see it as a good thing. And when someone calls me a "liberal", expecting me to begin backpedaling and prove that I'm not, I smile and say proudly "You are goddamn right I am, and I am proud to be. Thank you for noticing." They don't even know what to do!
And no, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, either, they don't represent my wishes really any more than the Republicans do. When they get back to being good old social democrats, well then, I'll be the first to sign up. Until then, I have no wish to participate in the ultraconservative (Republican) vs. plain old conservative (Democrat) scam.
As for Bush-he DID win with rhetoric, and most certainly with image. Personally, I'm scared of the guy, although I'd be scared anytime that the guy with access to the "nukyalur" button can't even pronounce "nuclear" properly. Apparently, a lot of people find that endearing. I find it disturbing. But he did win on a lot of style and very little substance (for example, not correcting several of his statements during the debates, even when they were proven factually incorrect.) But he's not the first politician to try the image-over-substance trick. The Dems, however, handled it artlessly-instead of exposing the fraud, they played along. Instead of pointing out that he'd rigged the game, they played by his rules. And unsurprisingly, they lost.
The liberals also need to show that THEY are the real "freedom party"-the ones who advocate genuine freedom. Freedom of religion, including, for those who desire it, freedom FROM religion. Freedom of opportunity for everyone, not just the elite. Freedom from those we did not elect having power by virtue of their bank balance. Freedom from tyranny by corporations, as well as from tyranny of the government. Freedom from government interference in our bodies and bedrooms. Freedom from poverty. This is freedom. The conservatives only seek to offer us corporate tyranny, where instead of a dynasty of monarchial rulers, we face a dynasty of the wealthy elite, who, exempt from nearly all taxes, hold all the REAL power.
This situation is immoral and horrific. But the Dems, if they want to have any hope, better start painting a hell of a lot clearer picture of where we're REALLY going if we follow the conservative method. Otherwise, the conservatives will just keep nudging that heat on up, until it really IS too late for the frog to jump out of the pot. Currently, it's not.
Great. Now since you're one of the smart ones, you are going to bother to tell us your logical, rational reasons for supporting Bush, right? Although I'm sure you were just about to do that.
If one pedestrian got accidentally hit by a car, instead of saying just that, their notion of reporting would have been "People are being run down on the streets of Los Angeles!!"
Incorrect. The corrected analogy reads "If 30% of the pedestrians in Los Angeles got hit by a car, instead of saying just that, their notion of reporting would have been..."
Given that case, even though (in theory) it would be a minority of LA's population, would such a report be sensationalistic? That would be a massive, unprecedented number of people, even though technically a "minority." We're not talking about ONE PERSON here.
Of course, in the case of critical environmental research, it's not acceptable for them to even be pressuring ONE scientist in ONE case to alter findings for political reasons. A systematic abuse such as this is absolutely cause for outrage, and when a third of scientists are under such pressure, calling it a widespread problem is NOT sensationalism. We call cancer a widespread, far-reaching problem, but that doesn't mean over 50% of the US population has cancer.
That is a fallacy. The fact that worse things have been done does not automatically make any lesser evil acceptable. The fact that people have been brutally murdered does not make it acceptable for me to commit an armed robbery, or even to speed. Those are not -as- bad of things to do, but they are still wrong.
Why sure, I'm going to buy a $27,000 machine to copy DVD's that I actually bought, because I can't afford them. That would be much smarter then using a $400 PC to get them off of Bittorrent.
Once the **AA's decide to embrace digital distribution instead of attempting to squash it, they'll make the same killing they have off every other technology they fought at first. Remember, radio and, later, the cassette tape were going to be the end of the music business. We're tired of hearing that the sky is falling. Start adapting your business model to technology, and quit telling us to adapt technology to your business model.
Nope. It relates to porting Mac applications to run under Solaris. They just called it "Win32C/C++ Applications to Linux" to see if you'd ask a stupid question.
That "tiny niche market" purchases millions of copies, between the thriving PC and console game markets. Now do you think some rich guy is buying millions at a time just to fart around?
Kids who grew up with video games aren't kids anymore. I have kids of my OWN now, and yes, I still will sit down to a video game periodically. (Not that kids leave you -much- spare time, I grant!) I have a job, a house, children, no dog, but I do periodically play tennis. And -gasp- I enjoy video games, as do many of my friends, who lead similarly normal lives. Video games aren't a niche market, or just for kids, anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Click that button marked "Preferences". Yep, that one. Click that. Now, "Messages"...good. Now see that "threshold" button? Set it to the "1". There, look at that, no more AC's unless someone's seen fit to mod 'em up!
Unfortunately, that doesn't always ENTIRELY solve the problem of, say, people ranting way the hell off the topic. But it sure helps.
Well, I'm glad to know that! Then I'm sure, if all they're concerned with is bandwidth costs, they won't mind when I mirror their updates. After all, then they're not paying for bandwidth.
What's that? "You'll get a C&D letter before you can say 'sue your ass into oblivion'?" Oh, I guess there's more going on here then that.
Oh, I don't know. They could always supervise the kids by, oh, damn, let me think. They could use their eyes, and a bit of sense as to what's going on in the school! There we go!
And you know, I have a neighbor who's a teacher, and talk to him quite a bit. He's told me that parents are extremely important in any child's education, and that he is always grateful for parents who are involved, even if sometimes that means they disagree with him. So maybe you just know a different type of teacher.
"You should hire more teachers! But don't you dare raise my property taxes."
Certainly, you did not put that in quotation marks as to say that you were quoting, or even paraphrasing me, I didn't even bring up that subject. I'm sure that was just an honest mistake, since I imagine you're well aware that it's wrong to stuff words in someone's mouth. However, since you bring the subject up, in Colorado, voter approval is required to raise taxes, and I voted in favor of a tax increase at the last election to build two new elementary schools and add on to two high schools. Now, I'm not entirely sure, but I do imagine they plan to hire teachers to staff these schools, too. (The increase passed by a 65-35 margin.) So apparently, these "morons" who won't pay for more teachers are, at least, in the minority.
When I went to school, I don't recall a single instance, after the first few weeks of a new year, that the principal could not refer to each and every student by name. This was at a school of 1600-some students. We need more PEOPLE of that caliber, and less intrusive technology doing a poor attempt at doing their job for them.
I'm against the Iraq war, to begin with, so let's preface with that.
Now, that being said, what you said disgusts and greatly saddens me. I know several soldiers, both former and current. My father and both grandfathers were soldiers. I have the greatest of respect for those who are willing to put their lives on the line for a cause they believe in. And you know what? Soldiers don't choose the wars they go to.
Many soldiers have families, and love them as much as anyone else would. Their families miss them greatly when they are away. If some way is available to make communication easier, let's do it. And let's not spew garbage. Some soldiers and ex-soldiers are not the greatest people, granted, but that's true of any group you pick. Most soldiers I've met are the men and women of honor you would hope to see in such positions.
What really shocks me is that this post was apparently modded up before being knocked down where it belongs. An attack against ANY group based on a stereotype is a troll, and should be modded as such.
See the first paragraph of the Windows XP user license. I guess you must've missed that one.
"If you do not agree, do not install, copy, or use the software. You may return it to the place of purchase for a full refund." (from above, put into lowercase to avoid running afoul of lameness filter)
I respectfully disagree with you on many issues I'm sure, but that's better than you disagreeing with yourself (and trying to make a political party out of that idea).
No problem there, I've met very many intelligent, articulate conservatives quite capable of having a respectful debate. Thus far, you certainly seem to fall into that category. I don't expect that the whole world would agree with me, that would be terribly boring.
Without health coverage does not mean without health care. Another interpretation of that statistic is that 40 million people think that they can manage their own health better than someone else managing it for them.
True, or that they are too young for anything to happen, or...
However, I would imagine that, if we did a survey of those people, we would find that at least the majority would have health coverage if they could afford it, and because they cannot, live without checkups, diagnostic screenings, and other basic health care services.
Some further information on this point:
"The proportion of children who were uninsured did not change, remaining at 11.6 percent of all children, or 8.5 million, in 2002."
Source: United States Census Bureau report. (PDF)
Children, of course, did not make that choice.
So far as adults?
"Even having to pay very small contributions to health insurance policies can deter workers from joining. In fact, about 20 percent of all uninsured people live in families where a worker has declined employer-sponsored insurance coverage, with two-thirds citing cost as the culprit. For many, the decision to purchase health insurance must compete with the need for food and housing."
Source: Urban Institute research paper.
You might be right in a few cases, but in the majority, cost of insurance is just not payable. Of course, those who cannot insurance can also not afford to pay directly for care. Therefore, lack of health insurance does, at least in a very significant number of cases, bear a causal relationship to a lack of health care. (Except in an emergency situation, where care must be provided regardless of ability to pay. Even in these circumstances, however, followup care is often inadequate.)
But there was substance there, consider:
I will indeed.
* no gay marriage
Not a substantive issue at all. It's one that raises the hair on a lot of people's necks, but no one's shown how government belongs involved in the issue in the first place. Also, he knew well that the proposed Constitutional amendment against gay marriage didn't have anywhere near the kind of support it needed in order to pass, that was pure window-dressing.
I have yet to hear any objection to gay marriage on non-religious grounds. Pursuant to the separation of church and state, religious reasons are not and cannot be a rationale for government prohibition of an activity. (I presume this to be well-known, I'll cite sources upon request.) The only other argument I've heard is that it's "not natural"-and by that rationale, we should ban cars.
* continue with war in Iraq on course
Certainly no denying that this was an issue of substance, but I would've been far more comfortable had the failures of intelligence, etc., been more thoroughly addressed by Bush, instead of glossed over with "Well he wasn't a very nice guy anyway, so it's alright in the end."
* hold Iraqi elections soon
Fair enough, but I never heard Kerry be against that one, so I'm not sure how Bush "won on" that issue-to my knowledge, it was never in dispute. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. As to the fact that the elections were held on time, and went off overall quite well, I'm thrilled to see it, and I certainly hope that Iraq can stay on that course.
I imagine the initial ENIAC-style transistor computers were power monsters too. So yes, they likely do, but technology only gets better with time. And in fact, depending how it's implemented, it may actually take a little LESS power once it reaches a production-quality level.
Earnie Graham, the superintendent and principal of Brittan Elementary School in Sutter, said Tuesday night. "I think I let my staff down. Nobody on this campus knows every student."
Now we have identified the REAL problem, that they should be looking to a solution for. Or, of course, we could always try and get technology to think for us.
"Kids", remember that? I would be reminding/informing my OWN children of that fact. (And no, this is not hypothetical, I have 3 of them.) I want my children SUPERVISED while they're at school, granted, but I do not want them being taught that it is acceptable for someone to track every move they make. We're already seeing the results of this in the acceptance of employees and lawmakers alike of employers tracking their movements via GPS.
They're launching legal attacks against their own customers in the cases grandparent listed. That is not a valid reason not to wish to become a customer?
Besides, I can choose not to buy something, for any reason I choose. I can choose not to buy a Honda because I like the shape of the Toyota bumpers better. You might think that's a dumbass reason, but it's me that's buying the item. Of course, if you like Hondas, you're still free to get one of those.
Actually, in the city in which I live, retailers are required to accept a return, provided that:
1. The item is defective for reasons not caused by the customer, or the item is in new condition, or the item did not perform as expected. This is so vague that really, in any case short of the customer buying something and taking a sledgehammer to it, they have to take it back.
2. The retailer may set a "reasonable time frame" after which returns will not be accepted. Such time period must be communicated clearly to the customer and may be no less then two weeks unless the item is perishable and has a shorter shelf life then that.
3. The retailer must give the customer money back if the return is within these terms. While they can offer the OPTION of store credit/identical replacement, they may not state that this is all that they'll do.
In contrast (I found this out the hard way), a neighboring city only offers those remedies if the item is defective, and allows the store to stipulate identical-replacement only even in that case. I can certainly tell you which city I buy in now. So you can't say "In the US..." in this case, at all, because those matters are covered by state and local law, not in most cases federal.
That aside, however, the EULA in that box (all of them I've ever seen) SPECIFICALLY states that if you do not wish to accept it, you may return the software to the place of purchase for a full refund. The stores cannot claim to be ignorant of this fact, so, while IANAL, I should think that if the EULA is enforceable on the user, it is also enforceable on the selling store, who is aware of this obligation. And if it's unenforceable altogether...well, then we're all going to be happy, aren't we? But it's either a binding contract, and enforceable on all parties concerned, or a worthless piece of garbage with no enforceable value at all. But it is not worth something only when it is to the consumer's detriment, while being worthless when he wishes to invoke a clause that works to his advantage.
So, in response to your post, there are indeed LEGALLY MANDATED LEVELS of customer service. (See related topics of restaurant health and sanitation codes, false advertising regulations, laws against predatory sales tactics such as bait-and-switch, disclosure requirements of all kinds in countless situations, anti-discrimination laws, I could go on all day...)
There IS a boycott of Blizzard-while I don't know of a coordinated one (although maybe that should be fixed), I've heard quite a few people express the same sentiments after the bnetd case. Those people most certainly include me, and a few others that I've convinced to do the same after describing Blizzard's bullying.
If one hundred people convince two people each to boycott, and those two convince two, and...well pretty soon, there IS a boycott, and one they're going to notice. If that's something you'd like to see, start now.
And don't forget to make your vote COUNTED-write to Blizzard and let them know that you would like to buy their games, but you will not, and why it is that you refuse to do so. Once they get enough of those, they might think long and hard about whether the public-relations problem is really worth it. If you just "don't buy", then they just "don't care"-millions of people in the world don't buy their stuff every day. Make sure they see their actions cost them people who WOULD have bought from them otherwise.
Sure, the conservatives are into free choice. Until it comes down to who (and of which sex) you wish to marry, or a woman's choice whether or not to have a baby, and to have the government kept out of the support of religion. Can you explain that dichotomy, please?
Or are the conservatives only into "free choice" when it translates to "large corporations get to get away with murder", and not to "The common man gets to do whatever he wishes provided it harms or puts at risk no one but him/herself?"
This is not offtopic...too bad I'm out of mod points, I would've given you a boost for funny anyway.
From the second weblink:
See this link, or:
Avery Lee 00-12-05: ASF support removed at request of Microsoft
Avery Lee, author of http://www.geocities.com/virtualdub/, a free software tool for converting multimedia file formats, reports sad news:
Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media group. He informed me that Microsoft has intellectual property rights on the ASF format and told me that, although the implementation was still illegal since it infringed on Microsoft patents. I have asked for the specific patent numbers, since I find patenting a file format a bit strange. At his request, and much to my own sadness, I have removed support for ASF in VirtualDub 1.3d, since I cannot risk a legal confrontation.)
--From the above-cited link
They didn't need to file a lawsuit, they eliminated competition just by THREATENING one. That's the whole problem here. This is not a "defensive" use of their patent, the creator of VirtualDub had not made a threat to MS that they were responding defensively to.
Well...sorry for the troll bit, I guess this is based in more fact then I thought initially. See what happens when I post in a bad mood.
I still, however, have not seen any evidence, including that introduced, that tidal generators could cause such a massive effect as to send the Earth "hurtling out of the solar system." While it is true that they would have SOME effect, I don't know that it would to that degree.
And I'm out of mod points. I could not have said it better. It's time that Democrats quit BUYING INTO the Republican position-namely, that "liberal" is some kind of epithet, a "dirty word" if you will. I am a LIBERAL, I'm proud of it, and it's about damn time we put some pride back in it.
There is one other thing-the Democrats need to play on the inherent wish of Americans to be moral. And in fact, they can do that! The Republicans pick garbage issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) that they know will divide. It's time for the liberals (Dem or otherwise) to stand up and say "Who GIVES A CRAP if 2 guys get married, when over 40 million Americans live without basic health coverage! THAT is immoral! THAT is unethical! And for that matter, it is UNCHRISTIAN!" Well guess what, Joe Average can rally around that! Now you're making it a question of basic morality, not a question of any type of cost-benefit scenario, not looking at it as some sort of "handout".
It's time for liberalism to quit being seen as an elitist philosophy, and for what it is-the philosophy which really DOES care about every man, instead of pandering to him and then stabbing him in the back with a cheerful smile, and trying to convince him that he did it to himself. That is my liberalism, thank you very much, and I see it as a good thing. And when someone calls me a "liberal", expecting me to begin backpedaling and prove that I'm not, I smile and say proudly "You are goddamn right I am, and I am proud to be. Thank you for noticing." They don't even know what to do!
And no, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, either, they don't represent my wishes really any more than the Republicans do. When they get back to being good old social democrats, well then, I'll be the first to sign up. Until then, I have no wish to participate in the ultraconservative (Republican) vs. plain old conservative (Democrat) scam.
As for Bush-he DID win with rhetoric, and most certainly with image. Personally, I'm scared of the guy, although I'd be scared anytime that the guy with access to the "nukyalur" button can't even pronounce "nuclear" properly. Apparently, a lot of people find that endearing. I find it disturbing. But he did win on a lot of style and very little substance (for example, not correcting several of his statements during the debates, even when they were proven factually incorrect.) But he's not the first politician to try the image-over-substance trick. The Dems, however, handled it artlessly-instead of exposing the fraud, they played along. Instead of pointing out that he'd rigged the game, they played by his rules. And unsurprisingly, they lost.
The liberals also need to show that THEY are the real "freedom party"-the ones who advocate genuine freedom. Freedom of religion, including, for those who desire it, freedom FROM religion. Freedom of opportunity for everyone, not just the elite. Freedom from those we did not elect having power by virtue of their bank balance. Freedom from tyranny by corporations, as well as from tyranny of the government. Freedom from government interference in our bodies and bedrooms. Freedom from poverty. This is freedom. The conservatives only seek to offer us corporate tyranny, where instead of a dynasty of monarchial rulers, we face a dynasty of the wealthy elite, who, exempt from nearly all taxes, hold all the REAL power.
This situation is immoral and horrific. But the Dems, if they want to have any hope, better start painting a hell of a lot clearer picture of where we're REALLY going if we follow the conservative method. Otherwise, the conservatives will just keep nudging that heat on up, until it really IS too late for the frog to jump out of the pot. Currently, it's not.
Great. Now since you're one of the smart ones, you are going to bother to tell us your logical, rational reasons for supporting Bush, right? Although I'm sure you were just about to do that.
...Back under the bridge, troll. "Slows the planet's rotation?" Please cite your source for THAT one, I'd love to see who came up with it.
If one pedestrian got accidentally hit by a car, instead of saying just that, their notion of reporting would have been "People are being run down on the streets of Los Angeles!!"
Incorrect. The corrected analogy reads "If 30% of the pedestrians in Los Angeles got hit by a car, instead of saying just that, their notion of reporting would have been..."
Given that case, even though (in theory) it would be a minority of LA's population, would such a report be sensationalistic? That would be a massive, unprecedented number of people, even though technically a "minority." We're not talking about ONE PERSON here.
Of course, in the case of critical environmental research, it's not acceptable for them to even be pressuring ONE scientist in ONE case to alter findings for political reasons. A systematic abuse such as this is absolutely cause for outrage, and when a third of scientists are under such pressure, calling it a widespread problem is NOT sensationalism. We call cancer a widespread, far-reaching problem, but that doesn't mean over 50% of the US population has cancer.
That is a fallacy. The fact that worse things have been done does not automatically make any lesser evil acceptable. The fact that people have been brutally murdered does not make it acceptable for me to commit an armed robbery, or even to speed. Those are not -as- bad of things to do, but they are still wrong.
Why sure, I'm going to buy a $27,000 machine to copy DVD's that I actually bought, because I can't afford them. That would be much smarter then using a $400 PC to get them off of Bittorrent.
Once the **AA's decide to embrace digital distribution instead of attempting to squash it, they'll make the same killing they have off every other technology they fought at first. Remember, radio and, later, the cassette tape were going to be the end of the music business. We're tired of hearing that the sky is falling. Start adapting your business model to technology, and quit telling us to adapt technology to your business model.
Nope. It relates to porting Mac applications to run under Solaris. They just called it "Win32C/C++ Applications to Linux" to see if you'd ask a stupid question.
Worked brilliantly, too!
That "tiny niche market" purchases millions of copies, between the thriving PC and console game markets. Now do you think some rich guy is buying millions at a time just to fart around?
Kids who grew up with video games aren't kids anymore. I have kids of my OWN now, and yes, I still will sit down to a video game periodically. (Not that kids leave you -much- spare time, I grant!) I have a job, a house, children, no dog, but I do periodically play tennis. And -gasp- I enjoy video games, as do many of my friends, who lead similarly normal lives. Video games aren't a niche market, or just for kids, anymore.
Yes, but this idiot has to hijack every discussion posted with this crap. It's about time he gets nailed for trolling, that's exactly what he's doing.