I am glad some people out there realize that it's not a case of lack of equal rights.
People who define themselves by their sexual urges have no different rights than those who don't. Calling yourself gay doesn't change your legal status one bit.
I realized that Spike TV didn't really care what they were talking about when they announced the best "human female" category, and Brooke Burke won. Now, the clips they showed of every other nominee had gameplay and voiceovers, while Brook was only shown as a sylized photograph on an menu screen - did she actually do anything but pose for the game? They had been hyping her as a guest for about a week though, which is why I'm guessing she won.
Yeah, that and all the rappers. Everyone is trying so hard to nail down the gaming demographic, but I still don't feel included. My guess is that they've decided that since the group of people that play games is so diverse, they'll just stick to the people they've been able to so successfully trick into buying crap in the past: MTV mooks and midrifs.
The Grimwell Online article is the best of the three by the way.
I created some software or music or something, and I'm just about positive professors are giving it to each other for free on Internet2, so I need to get on it so I can sue them.
When can I expect the guy to come by and install my connection?
I actually watched whichever flavor of CSI comes on on Monday this week. I kind of kicked myself for watching the whole thing - an hour I'll never have back and such. It's not just the junk science though, it's the amount of time and reasources that these people seem to have. Here's just a few things that happend that episode:
In order to determine the cause of death, the person performing the autopsy Cut off the victims head and boiled it. Nevermind that he might have, oh, I don't know, a family that might want to have a funeral. Nevermind that there are other ways of looking at wounds, even nifty 3d ones. It's like they're desparate to shock people with their radical "scientific" techniques.
They wanted to figure out the seating at a speed dating meet, so they created a 3d computer replica of the bar, and then animated the people walking around from table to table. This was practically the sims. I'm thinking a sketch on a peice of paper, or if you wanted to show it to someone, a blackboard, would have done just as nicely, not taken nearly as much time (not that this did on the show, of course), and cost a lot less.
In order to determine the murder weapon, a researcher created six or so 'head models' and hit each of them once with a tool, then measured it. He didn't measure the tool mind you, he had to create these huge clay things and then wack them with it to tell if was the same size. And they never explained where he got the potential weapons
The victim's car had been vandalized with acetone. They didn't just look up how long acetone took to evaporate, they went out, got a bunch of acetone and a car hood, and tried it out themselves.
All that, and the characters are fairly annoying and shallow. Expecially the main guy and his one liners: "Speed kills". It's like a licensed game, you figure you've got the name, so why spend time on effort, in this case, writers.
So, according to this argument, it was immoral to download before the industry started suing people, and thus the people who were doing something immoral and illegal before were suddenly justified once other people were being sued for doing the same thing?
In addition, we would appreciate it if you could provide us with contact information for RuneLateralus, or have him contact us directly, so that we may apologize to him. We would be glad to send him a game and system of his choice through you as well, since we do not have his contact information.
For me, it's right here where Nintendo demonstrates its sincerity and general non-evilness in this regard. Kudos to them.
It is rare to see someone post something as intelligent as this on slashdot. I've read the other emotionally charged responses to this, and they seem to be along the lines of:
"What?! No one has a right to profit!?" and "If people can get something for free, they will!"
Both of these statements are true, if in the right context:
The first one is true if you do not provide a product or a service that people want. If I start a company that sells only rusty nails, I can't complain when all my hard work and investment gets me nothing. However, should I create something that millions of people want, say a sequel to a popular game, I have a right to profit when people obtain copies of it, because - shock - I'm not giving it away for free.
The second one is true as well, if you accept that the people who do so are morally bankrupt. Of course free is better than not free, but - and here's the point again - they aren't giving it away for free. They worked on it, it's theirs, and if you want one, you have to pay for it. If it costs too much, don't buy it! It's luxury item, you don't need it!
Justify all you want, it's still wrong. And despite all the lovely semantics people like to use to make themselves feel better, I personally still consider it theft.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC This is still a problem that people run into with Cell Phones.
Not sure if the built-in GPS is used to automatically re-route the call to the correct 911 once you connect, but I'm doubtful.
I am glad some people out there realize that it's not a case of lack of equal rights. People who define themselves by their sexual urges have no different rights than those who don't. Calling yourself gay doesn't change your legal status one bit.
...and I was in the kitchen for most of it.
I realized that Spike TV didn't really care what they were talking about when they announced the best "human female" category, and Brooke Burke won. Now, the clips they showed of every other nominee had gameplay and voiceovers, while Brook was only shown as a sylized photograph on an menu screen - did she actually do anything but pose for the game? They had been hyping her as a guest for about a week though, which is why I'm guessing she won.
Yeah, that and all the rappers. Everyone is trying so hard to nail down the gaming demographic, but I still don't feel included. My guess is that they've decided that since the group of people that play games is so diverse, they'll just stick to the people they've been able to so successfully trick into buying crap in the past: MTV mooks and midrifs.
The Grimwell Online article is the best of the three by the way.
I created some software or music or something, and I'm just about positive professors are giving it to each other for free on Internet2, so I need to get on it so I can sue them.
When can I expect the guy to come by and install my connection?
I was also going to post this comic, the third panel is my personal favoite.
I'd suggest modding it up if you can, if only because it's funny.
All that, and the characters are fairly annoying and shallow. Expecially the main guy and his one liners: "Speed kills". It's like a licensed game, you figure you've got the name, so why spend time on effort, in this case, writers.
Draw the Marvel Comics Super Heroes
If no one else claims it (and this poster didn't get it from somewhere else), I say we officially name this the "Blender Law".
So, according to this argument, it was immoral to download before the industry started suing people, and thus the people who were doing something immoral and illegal before were suddenly justified once other people were being sued for doing the same thing?
For me, it's right here where Nintendo demonstrates its sincerity and general non-evilness in this regard. Kudos to them.
It is rare to see someone post something as intelligent as this on slashdot. I've read the other emotionally charged responses to this, and they seem to be along the lines of:
"What?! No one has a right to profit!?" and "If people can get something for free, they will!"
Both of these statements are true, if in the right context:
The first one is true if you do not provide a product or a service that people want. If I start a company that sells only rusty nails, I can't complain when all my hard work and investment gets me nothing. However, should I create something that millions of people want, say a sequel to a popular game, I have a right to profit when people obtain copies of it, because - shock - I'm not giving it away for free.
The second one is true as well, if you accept that the people who do so are morally bankrupt. Of course free is better than not free, but - and here's the point again - they aren't giving it away for free. They worked on it, it's theirs, and if you want one, you have to pay for it. If it costs too much, don't buy it! It's luxury item, you don't need it!
Justify all you want, it's still wrong. And despite all the lovely semantics people like to use to make themselves feel better, I personally still consider it theft.