Why do people continually place real-life weight on games and the things that happen in them? It's a pretend fucking place, why don't they just pretend that in this place, GLBT doesn't exist. But this leads to another question, why...WHY WHY do people INSIST on dragging what they do with their penises and vaginas into a GAME? Are people that sick and depraved of actual human contact that they need to flex their sexual muscles in a game? Fuck man, get a girlfriend / boyfriend / he-she friend and let the rest of us play the game.
AOL has always been the scourge of the internet. I always explain it as sort of a handholding experience with new internet users. It's sorta like how people go to Mc Donalds, not nessesarily because they like the burger, but because it's easy.
Perhaps if they keep enacting dumb ass policies like this one, it might start to affect the user base that makes them so profitable, the people that just don't know any better. If it continues to grow in stupidity, even the stupid will see.
What's next, a car that detects if your driving is substandard and forces itself off the road and won't let you drive?
Might be good to install such a thing in repeat DUI or DWI offenders vehicles, like how they have breath machines you have to blow in before you can start the motor.
Of course, then what would it do for people who just drive shitty even when completely sober...
I've often thought that the individuals across the globe that spend the time figuring out where the security holes are in order to develop exploits tend to focus on microsoft products, perhaps in an effort to "bring the giant down." Do you think that a good deal of the fear alot of us have that Microsoft products tend to be less secure is the result of the focused effort of exploit developers?
Who cares? It's a body, get over it. Sex is something humans do. Christians are always attacking sex because they can't bear the thought of something that they do being pleasurable.
I cant fathom how our congress is concerned with people, private citezens, who might look or see pornography on their computers, which by the way is no different from the 70's and 80's when all we had were tapes. The internet has simply sped up the process, as it has for everything else that it has an effect on.
Im just sick of all these high-road people who will hide every bit of sexually related material from their lives, and then they turn around and plop themselves in front of CNN and watch people die on live tv. This seems to me like the general public is more comfortable watching one person shoot another in the head than watch two people have sex. It's fine to bring your 15 year old kid into a movie theater to watch Hannibal Lechter eat sombody's brain, but how many of you would have left the theater with your kids if he threw Foster down on the table and made love to her. Values are F**KED.
Just remember that when you are browsing your teenager's internet cache looking for evidence of "deviancy" there is most likely sombody selling crack cocaine a block away from your kid's high school.
It seems a little stupid to me to be able to sue an end user for having something like a movie or a song.
These companies are able to prove damages to a court because I have a file on my computer, this seems rather stupid. Let me explain.
I have prepared a document, that I have signed, that states, in a rather long winded manner, the following.
Any files that are in my possesion can not be used to seek damages due to the fact that I will NEVER purchase, or more effectively NEVER WOULD HAVE purchased this information to begin with. Damages are moot, due to the fact that no money was lost by me having this file, as no purchase would have ever taken place.
Often the RIAA and now the MPAA fly into court and make it seem like you just walked into a car dealership, stole car keys, and stole a car right off the showroom floor. That would be theft, because that car can no longer be sold.
Now, the computer equivalent would be, walking past the dealership on the sidewalk, taking a picture of the car with a camera, and driving away with the picture. Did the dealership loose any money? No. But the "VIAA" would argue that the dealership lost money due to the fact that now you don't have to buy the car. Aren't they assuming too much? They assume that without this technology that a purchase would have taken place. Welp, sorry cousin, *bilabial fricative* wasn't going to happen.
So, I've prepared the document for myself. I don't understand how a person can get away with murder because a defense attourney can argue that there is "reasonable doubt". I say, there is more than reasonable doubt that I would not have purchased that CD or that DVD because I've signed this affidavit that says I will not, nor will ever make that purchase.
So, the guy is mad because the OS manufacturer took some peice of the "little guy code" and integrated it into the OS and buried the little guy?
And he's making the move to windows because he thinks this happens less often there?
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people continually place real-life weight on games and the things that happen in them? It's a pretend fucking place, why don't they just pretend that in this place, GLBT doesn't exist. But this leads to another question, why...WHY WHY do people INSIST on dragging what they do with their penises and vaginas into a GAME? Are people that sick and depraved of actual human contact that they need to flex their sexual muscles in a game? Fuck man, get a girlfriend / boyfriend / he-she friend and let the rest of us play the game.
Perhaps if they keep enacting dumb ass policies like this one, it might start to affect the user base that makes them so profitable, the people that just don't know any better. If it continues to grow in stupidity, even the stupid will see.
Crash Detected, Deploy Airbags?
[YES] [NO] [CANCEL]
What's next, a car that detects if your driving is substandard and forces itself off the road and won't let you drive? Might be good to install such a thing in repeat DUI or DWI offenders vehicles, like how they have breath machines you have to blow in before you can start the motor. Of course, then what would it do for people who just drive shitty even when completely sober...
I've often thought that the individuals across the globe that spend the time figuring out where the security holes are in order to develop exploits tend to focus on microsoft products, perhaps in an effort to "bring the giant down." Do you think that a good deal of the fear alot of us have that Microsoft products tend to be less secure is the result of the focused effort of exploit developers?
I cant fathom how our congress is concerned with people, private citezens, who might look or see pornography on their computers, which by the way is no different from the 70's and 80's when all we had were tapes. The internet has simply sped up the process, as it has for everything else that it has an effect on.
Im just sick of all these high-road people who will hide every bit of sexually related material from their lives, and then they turn around and plop themselves in front of CNN and watch people die on live tv. This seems to me like the general public is more comfortable watching one person shoot another in the head than watch two people have sex. It's fine to bring your 15 year old kid into a movie theater to watch Hannibal Lechter eat sombody's brain, but how many of you would have left the theater with your kids if he threw Foster down on the table and made love to her. Values are F**KED.
Just remember that when you are browsing your teenager's internet cache looking for evidence of "deviancy" there is most likely sombody selling crack cocaine a block away from your kid's high school.
These companies are able to prove damages to a court because I have a file on my computer, this seems rather stupid. Let me explain.
I have prepared a document, that I have signed, that states, in a rather long winded manner, the following.
Any files that are in my possesion can not be used to seek damages due to the fact that I will NEVER purchase, or more effectively NEVER WOULD HAVE purchased this information to begin with. Damages are moot, due to the fact that no money was lost by me having this file, as no purchase would have ever taken place.
Often the RIAA and now the MPAA fly into court and make it seem like you just walked into a car dealership, stole car keys, and stole a car right off the showroom floor. That would be theft, because that car can no longer be sold.
Now, the computer equivalent would be, walking past the dealership on the sidewalk, taking a picture of the car with a camera, and driving away with the picture. Did the dealership loose any money? No. But the "VIAA" would argue that the dealership lost money due to the fact that now you don't have to buy the car. Aren't they assuming too much? They assume that without this technology that a purchase would have taken place. Welp, sorry cousin, *bilabial fricative* wasn't going to happen.
So, I've prepared the document for myself. I don't understand how a person can get away with murder because a defense attourney can argue that there is "reasonable doubt". I say, there is more than reasonable doubt that I would not have purchased that CD or that DVD because I've signed this affidavit that says I will not, nor will ever make that purchase.
So, the guy is mad because the OS manufacturer took some peice of the "little guy code" and integrated it into the OS and buried the little guy? And he's making the move to windows because he thinks this happens less often there?