as a happy ps3 owner are you actually sweating the fact that nintendo didnt address the hardcore gamer in a conference explicitly talking about how nintendo is trying to not specifically address the hardcore gamer?
Being a happy ps3 owner is cool, i happen to know two of you personally. But parent is just being an idiot. I'm not going to reply to the 'new cool shooter coming out for ps3' thread by ranting about how stupid shooters are, because that would make me That Guy. And everyone hates That Guy.
*gasp* They didnt reach out to the hardcore gamer at a press conference talking about how they were explicitly reaching out to other demographics! What were they thinking? idiot.
For all the gamers you know... oh, i get it, its a pun. *highfive*
... the real customers, who flip out and start rallying their friends when they realize that they cant play their bluray movies on their shiny hd tv because the stupid cord-thingies are different versions or something (I've had to tell a relatives that either their expensive player or expensive tv needs to be replaced because some stupid HDMI implementations beyond 1.1 arent backwards compatible with 1.1. Different DRM, i realize, but its still fucking weak)
The real customers are fine as long as everything is in the background. The more complicated DRM has to get, the more things are gonna get fucked up for the real customer experience, and the wider the circle of "us" who understand how bad we're getting hosed is gonna get.
Its like Leia said to Grand Moff Tarkin... except about video discs... and corporate assholes.
XFlop? Thats one of the most retarded things I've *ever* heard a sony fanboy say. And considering the sample, thats saying something.
Brilliant price cut? If that's what we're calling desperate moves to avoid losing a console war by being waaaaay to expensive, ok. But since I'm pretty sure its only you saying that, fuck off. $500 is still too expensive, and I'm in their target demographic of decently well-off gamers with high-end video display devices. They made too hardcore a machine and its biting them in the ass.
officer 1: and... in the briefcase? Dude: oh, just... papers... business papers... my papers, papers from work. officer 1: And what do you do Mr. Lebowski? Dude: I'm unemployed.
i think the point is that its very difficult, in the real world, to have *all* of the business in a particular market on those grounds. Point in case, M$ isnt in legal problems for having the largest share of the OS market, because they obviously dont. They are not a monopoly in any sense. They had antitrust problems because they were leveraging their majority share in an anticompetitive fashion. the whole "convicted monopolist" rhetoric is fucking meaningless, but i doubt that there exist many if any non-governmentally-granted monopolies in the country that conform to the principle you cite from grandparents source. If you've got a monopoly on something, you either A. own IP on the central technology in the market, B. have been granted a legal monopoly on the market by the govt (private utilities and the like) or, C. have engaged in as-yet undiscovered shenannigans of an anticompetitive nature.
they want him to undergo psych evaluation and so to prove he's not crazy, he goes and tells the media about it?
yeah, that sounds like a real good way to prove your sanity there, asshole. For your next trick, i suggest a chicken costume while singing opera and walking around daytona beach. That'll teach 'em to think you're crazy.
If a product is produced in a way such that it illegally stifles competition, it doesnt really matter where it was created, it matters what the law says. In this case the law apparently says that Anticompetitive business practices outside the borders of the EU are relevant when they result in products being sold within the borders of the EU. In a more general sense, if you want to sell something in Country B, you'd better abide by Country B's laws.
How is disagreeing with the president not even worse treason? Why do you hate freedom so much? Why must you insist on ignoring the real enemy here, people who hate our liberties.
well, you're still being a complete wanker. One may link to a story from an rss feed because from the title it seems as though there may be a *gasp* substantive article/discussion. Yet upon reaching the story it becomes apparent that its just another vapid iPhone hype/negahype. This story may then become the straw that broke the camels back. A reply may then be chosen from the header of the discussion without reading any comments whatsoever. And then 25 seconds later, the surfing of the tubes may recommence as normal.
My post got modded troll because it was explicitly so. I even pointed it out and apologized for it. Not sure what you're complaining about, when your antitroll troll gets modded insightful. The best part of these little spats is that the "Well if you dont like (topic of discussion) you can just guuheeht out!" trolls. thank you for making my morning.
Does your special scroll bar widget do anything superspecial that the regular ones dont? maybe they make you super clever and witty. Gosh, i should really try to find that widget so i can be as super cool and non-retarded as you all the time. *crush*
Enough I honestly dont give a fuck about the fucking iPhone anymore. This endless blathering on has gone on quite long enough. I dont care what some douche has to say on his twitchstream. I dont care what an engadget unscientific poll has to say about it. I dont care what MacWorld has to say about it. I just fucking dont care anymore.
I'm sorry to troll, i really am, but this fucking circus is worse than any other hypefest we've had recently here. Fucking knock it off.
It might be the right thing to do, but the act itself is one of censorship.
What's wrong with you people who insist on, "seeing shades of gray" in stuff that isn't? The word has a meaning, everyone else knows it, why don't you?
You've touched on what i feel to be the heart of the issue. Yes, obviously the word has a meaning. But it has two very different connotations depending on the situation: one the "right" thing to do, one "wrong." And because the two are often less easily differentiated than 'censoring free speech' vs. 'censoring kiddie porn and snuff pics' people here like to conflate the two, and simply call all censorship 'wrong.' I find this to be an inherently narrow and immature view on the world. What's wrong with 'you people' who seem incapable of distinguishing between the two?
Hardly my fault you're unable to mount an argument less vapid than, "posting more pictures is more open and therefore the better course of action." Nor is it my fault that you completely failed to drop a coherent insult and had to come back later and play it off as "you're stupid so i didnt care enough to proofread."
Worth the effort to reply again, though, wasn't it?
Or was that just on the principle of "if you get the last word in you win the argument." That's every bit as much bullshit as the rest of your argument. Though its easier to just call the person an idiot than it is to discuss the issue at hand, isnt it?
I wouldn't call remove of child or snuff porn censorship in the same sense that I would call the censorship of politically unacceptable ideologies, no. I dont find that to be self-contradictory, and i dont find it to be uselessly relativist. Censorship in the two situations has wildly different connotations. And yes, I'm obviously talking about my personal beliefs. If we lived in a cannibalistic culture, I'm sure that pics of murder-victim stir-fry would be perfectly fine. We don't, so they wouldnt be. Your perspective is not more circumspect, it paints all censorship in the same light, and i would argue that it is a complex enough issue that black and white is not the way to look at it.
That may be. However, censorship has different connotations when applied to arbitrarily banned books and to kiddie porn or snuff pics. Censorship of ideas has an inherently negative connotation not there when discussing the restriction of images that can be created only through the commission of a heinous and violent crime. That is all i was trying to point out, but if you'd rather think in black and white, I'm not going to stop you.
Please try to comprehend replies before trying to them
trying to what them? If you're going to snark at someone, at least use complete sentences. And I do comprehend your reply. Its just vapid. Though the U.S. Government is certainly unnecessarily untransparent at times, criminal justice is not one of the areas this happens. Court records are sealed when there is good reason to, and other cases, opinions and decisions are readily and publicly available. Nothing more would be served by posting a picture of John Q. Murderer killing someone than by the already available public record of his conviction. Could that also contain the evidence used in the case? Sure. But attaching an imperative to that is shallow, and saying that BayImg should necessarily leave all pics up as some sort of Freedom initiative is just plain stupid.
I was merely trying to differentiate between, say, myspace taking down "inappropriate" content and and BayImg taking down something like kiddie porn or snuff pics. The knee-jerk "spluh, if they're taking anything down at all they're EVIL CENSORING BASTARDS" response people had was absurdly black-and white. Yes, what they really mean to say is "we just dont care about copyrights," but if they want to take down pics that can be produced only by the suffering or such of another human being, then I'm fine with that and can display enough adaptability to see that its not hypocrisy, its common fucking sense.
I rather obviously meant protection from state censorship and restriction. And tho IANAL, i was certainly under the impression that except where court records are sealed, they are kept available for public review, at least in the U.S. and at least in theory. Gee, if it even more open than regular, it must be teh greetest!!1!
Slashdot Mirror
as a happy ps3 owner are you actually sweating the fact that nintendo didnt address the hardcore gamer in a conference explicitly talking about how nintendo is trying to not specifically address the hardcore gamer?
Being a happy ps3 owner is cool, i happen to know two of you personally. But parent is just being an idiot. I'm not going to reply to the 'new cool shooter coming out for ps3' thread by ranting about how stupid shooters are, because that would make me That Guy. And everyone hates That Guy.
*gasp*
They didnt reach out to the hardcore gamer at a press conference talking about how they were explicitly reaching out to other demographics! What were they thinking?
idiot.
For all the gamers you know... oh, i get it, its a pun. *highfive*
... the real customers, who flip out and start rallying their friends when they realize that they cant play their bluray movies on their shiny hd tv because the stupid cord-thingies are different versions or something (I've had to tell a relatives that either their expensive player or expensive tv needs to be replaced because some stupid HDMI implementations beyond 1.1 arent backwards compatible with 1.1. Different DRM, i realize, but its still fucking weak)
The real customers are fine as long as everything is in the background. The more complicated DRM has to get, the more things are gonna get fucked up for the real customer experience, and the wider the circle of "us" who understand how bad we're getting hosed is gonna get.
Its like Leia said to Grand Moff Tarkin... except about video discs... and corporate assholes.
A short comment on a full article talking about how full articles are better than short comments on full articles...
I CANT TAKE IT!! ITS TOO META!!
XFlop? Thats one of the most retarded things I've *ever* heard a sony fanboy say. And considering the sample, thats saying something.
Brilliant price cut? If that's what we're calling desperate moves to avoid losing a console war by being waaaaay to expensive, ok. But since I'm pretty sure its only you saying that, fuck off. $500 is still too expensive, and I'm in their target demographic of decently well-off gamers with high-end video display devices. They made too hardcore a machine and its biting them in the ass.
officer 1: and... in the briefcase?
Dude: oh, just... papers... business papers... my papers, papers from work.
officer 1: And what do you do Mr. Lebowski?
Dude: I'm unemployed.
i think the point is that its very difficult, in the real world, to have *all* of the business in a particular market on those grounds. Point in case, M$ isnt in legal problems for having the largest share of the OS market, because they obviously dont. They are not a monopoly in any sense. They had antitrust problems because they were leveraging their majority share in an anticompetitive fashion. the whole "convicted monopolist" rhetoric is fucking meaningless, but i doubt that there exist many if any non-governmentally-granted monopolies in the country that conform to the principle you cite from grandparents source. If you've got a monopoly on something, you either A. own IP on the central technology in the market, B. have been granted a legal monopoly on the market by the govt (private utilities and the like) or, C. have engaged in as-yet undiscovered shenannigans of an anticompetitive nature.
AFAIK, they're also the same company...
they want him to undergo psych evaluation and so to prove he's not crazy, he goes and tells the media about it?
yeah, that sounds like a real good way to prove your sanity there, asshole. For your next trick, i suggest a chicken costume while singing opera and walking around daytona beach. That'll teach 'em to think you're crazy.
Fuckwit.
If a product is produced in a way such that it illegally stifles competition, it doesnt really matter where it was created, it matters what the law says. In this case the law apparently says that Anticompetitive business practices outside the borders of the EU are relevant when they result in products being sold within the borders of the EU. In a more general sense, if you want to sell something in Country B, you'd better abide by Country B's laws.
How is disagreeing with the president not even worse treason? Why do you hate freedom so much? Why must you insist on ignoring the real enemy here, people who hate our liberties.
well, you're still being a complete wanker. One may link to a story from an rss feed because from the title it seems as though there may be a *gasp* substantive article/discussion. Yet upon reaching the story it becomes apparent that its just another vapid iPhone hype/negahype. This story may then become the straw that broke the camels back. A reply may then be chosen from the header of the discussion without reading any comments whatsoever. And then 25 seconds later, the surfing of the tubes may recommence as normal.
My post got modded troll because it was explicitly so. I even pointed it out and apologized for it. Not sure what you're complaining about, when your antitroll troll gets modded insightful. The best part of these little spats is that the "Well if you dont like (topic of discussion) you can just guuheeht out!" trolls. thank you for making my morning.
Does your special scroll bar widget do anything superspecial that the regular ones dont? maybe they make you super clever and witty. Gosh, i should really try to find that widget so i can be as super cool and non-retarded as you all the time. *crush*
Enough
I honestly dont give a fuck about the fucking iPhone anymore.
This endless blathering on has gone on quite long enough.
I dont care what some douche has to say on his twitchstream.
I dont care what an engadget unscientific poll has to say about it.
I dont care what MacWorld has to say about it.
I just fucking dont care anymore.
I'm sorry to troll, i really am, but this fucking circus is worse than any other hypefest we've had recently here.
Fucking knock it off.
You've touched on what i feel to be the heart of the issue. Yes, obviously the word has a meaning. But it has two very different connotations depending on the situation: one the "right" thing to do, one "wrong." And because the two are often less easily differentiated than 'censoring free speech' vs. 'censoring kiddie porn and snuff pics' people here like to conflate the two, and simply call all censorship 'wrong.' I find this to be an inherently narrow and immature view on the world. What's wrong with 'you people' who seem incapable of distinguishing between the two?
Hardly my fault you're unable to mount an argument less vapid than, "posting more pictures is more open and therefore the better course of action." Nor is it my fault that you completely failed to drop a coherent insult and had to come back later and play it off as "you're stupid so i didnt care enough to proofread." Worth the effort to reply again, though, wasn't it?
Or was that just on the principle of "if you get the last word in you win the argument." That's every bit as much bullshit as the rest of your argument. Though its easier to just call the person an idiot than it is to discuss the issue at hand, isnt it?
I wouldn't call remove of child or snuff porn censorship in the same sense that I would call the censorship of politically unacceptable ideologies, no. I dont find that to be self-contradictory, and i dont find it to be uselessly relativist. Censorship in the two situations has wildly different connotations.
And yes, I'm obviously talking about my personal beliefs. If we lived in a cannibalistic culture, I'm sure that pics of murder-victim stir-fry would be perfectly fine. We don't, so they wouldnt be.
Your perspective is not more circumspect, it paints all censorship in the same light, and i would argue that it is a complex enough issue that black and white is not the way to look at it.
does it really matter which of the 51 states it comes from?
That may be. However, censorship has different connotations when applied to arbitrarily banned books and to kiddie porn or snuff pics. Censorship of ideas has an inherently negative connotation not there when discussing the restriction of images that can be created only through the commission of a heinous and violent crime.
That is all i was trying to point out, but if you'd rather think in black and white, I'm not going to stop you.
Ass-tons, obviously.
The same as every other good idea ever in the history of everything.
what you call semantic knots, i call nuance. we can disagree, its ok.
well we agree on that. People will shove all kinds of sick shit up on that site.
I was merely trying to differentiate between, say, myspace taking down "inappropriate" content and and BayImg taking down something like kiddie porn or snuff pics. The knee-jerk "spluh, if they're taking anything down at all they're EVIL CENSORING BASTARDS" response people had was absurdly black-and white.
Yes, what they really mean to say is "we just dont care about copyrights," but if they want to take down pics that can be produced only by the suffering or such of another human being, then I'm fine with that and can display enough adaptability to see that its not hypocrisy, its common fucking sense.
I rather obviously meant protection from state censorship and restriction. And tho IANAL, i was certainly under the impression that except where court records are sealed, they are kept available for public review, at least in the U.S. and at least in theory.
Gee, if it even more open than regular, it must be teh greetest!!1!