IANAL but I don't believe this sort of law can possibly withstand a challenge on constitutional grounds. Given the COPA, CDA etc. failures, this sort of law is a gimme for quick injunction followed by protracted lawsuit that eventually finds it completely unenforcable. The mere mentioning of "obscene" images is a dead giveaway that this law is a rush job with no hope to succeed beyond attempting to garner votes for being tough on porn.
Stop mentioning this stupid game. Please. All this supposed controversy does is feed idiot developers who make games without redeeming content. Have we learned nothing about how trying to restrict something causes controversy that inevitably brings that something into more popularity than it would have ever garnered had it been allowed to slip into well deserved obscurity?
Note to Senators: Ignore this piece of crap and it will go away, mention it as a reason to censor/restrict games and you will a) Encourage more states to pass game censorship legislation that will be struck down in a lawsuit that will be costly to taxpayers and b) bring free publicity to this game and c) annoy anybody who games, because unlike US Senators, the vast majority of gamers are capable of telling the difference between truth and fiction.
In the UK it is heinous that you are not able to buy it, because that is dictated by your government. Government has no business telling you what games you can and cannot play, and I fully sympathize. In the United States however, this is not a matter of government interference, it is Target deciding not to carry it. Given the absolute lack of merit to anybody I think that's probably good sense. The only option we could have to remedy this solution would be to force retailers to carry all games, regardless of their merit, and that will never happen.
Customers are free to express their displeasure with Target's choice, and that is essentially the best way to steer any retailer. That said, I am glad that Target is not wasting their money on this piece of crap game.
Like "Postal" before it, Manhunt 2 is purely violence for the sake of violence, without any effort at making the game anything more than a simulation of over the top sadism. While I am sure that will appeal to a portion of the population, I think it is unlikely to appeal to a wide audience. Games like "Overlord" or the old "Syndicate" appeal to the dark side of our nature as well, but they do it in a fun and entertaining way that is challenging and stimulating (even for non sadists) and appeal to a vast number of gamers. I'm not likely to cry over the difficulty in finding this one.
Technically they aren't censoring, they are simply deciding not to sell it. Since they are not a government agency, this is entirely within their rights. You, of course, are free to point out that it is entirely the right of the shopping public to protest this. Honestly though, while I share a disdain for censorship, I feel that this is not the fight to make a stand for requiring retailers to stock lemons. Target could just as easily have decided not to sell Bioshock, a game that allows you to kill little girls (albeit rather creepy little girls), yet they did not make that choice because Bioshock is actually a darn good game. If Target chooses not to pick up this title for lack of redeeming features that's their business, and probably a wise move.
I think I speak for the majority of gamers when I say "Who gives a rat's ass?"
I mean seriously, when the major marketing point of a game is whether it's banned, not the graphics, gameplay, and technical merit, one has to wonder whether anybody besides Jack Thompson is ever going to bother with the game.
Can we stop talking about this lame and pathetic excuse for a game now? Violence as part of a game is shiny. Crappy games that use it to sell instead of actually being decent suck, let's move on.
Again, the burden of common sense in this case falls to the officers. Do bombers typically carry the bombing material around in their hands? Understand that I am not saying that security was unjust in checking her to ensure that it was not a bomb, but rather that aspiring makers don't typically dress with concern as to whether they'll be mistaken for a suicide bomber. Pressing charges as a "hoax device" is also over the top, she clearly had no intent to deceive anybody into thinking she was a walking bomb.
It looks like a breadboard to anybody involved with electronics. Explosives have electronics attached to something that goes boom. Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.
Lack of common sense should not, in a sane society, involve worrying about whether your LED shirt looks like a bomb. She was also at the airport to pick somebody up. She did not try to get through a security checkpoint, nor was she attempting to conceal the LEDs. Both of these things should have made a sensible security person think twice as to her possible danger level. Simply verifying that she did not have the breadboard attached to explosives should have been sufficient to confirm her lack of explosive potential.
Mind you, I itch from bad embroidery, I hate to think what a shirt with a breadboard in it feels like.
Music is priced beyond its worth. When something is priced beyond its worth one of two things happens. Either cheap knockoffs/imitations are produced and sold if there is high enough demand or that thing fails to sell and whoever priced it that way goes out of business.
In this particular case, cheap knockoffs are actually high quality knockoffs and they sell for free. Many studies have shown that while some people are inclined to pirate simply because they can, most people like to buy legitimate copies. Why then is piracy rampant? Because most folks would rather not pay $17 for the latest Britney album perhaps?
And while making good music does take money, a multitude of bands have shown that it really doesn't take much money. Moreover, the money that is collected by the likes of the RIAA and it's Canadian equivalent really doesn't go to "making" music. The vast majority goes to middlemen with the smallest of percentages actually going to the folks that used their creative genius (or lack thereof in the case of Britney) to create the music in the first place.
The RIAA and it's like are now superfluous and they know it. Rather than erecting complex rationales about how downloading music is stealing, it would be best if they went away, and artists depended on the rather impressive array of music fan sites to promote those with quality (who, incidentally would likely do it for free) to connect them with folks that will pay for music, and pay them far more than the RIAA.
IANAL but as I understand it, the Napster decision pretty much boinked them because the primary purpose of Napster was to facilitate infringement. Given the precedent, I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that a site dedicated to putting up torrents even as a wiki would be immune from litigation. It's important to remember also that even if the case is eventually won by a private wiki, the legal costs of defending yourself is not inconsequential and is beyond the reach of most citizens.
That's really just treating the symptoms in any case, and there's a variety of perfectly good alternatives to torrentspy.
The unfortunate thing about going on general numbers like "firefox users have lower average online spending" is that even if they are true there will still be a fair number of customers that will be turned aside that will be 100% likely to be pissed off to have their browser of choice blocked.
Not to mention the fact that pop ups are annoying regardless of demographic spending habits.
For the most part they have been party to the crafting of the law, so it is no wonder that they believe themselves to be above the law. That said, they do not care about paltry things like right or wrong, they wish only to protect their interests and as such a protracted law suit in the long term does them little harm.
Nintendo isn't the only one making games for the Wii. Not to mention that the point of any game system is to amuse and entertain, something that nintendo seems to have realized very well. If nintendo were to go out and forbid third party developers from making shooters or RPGs that'd be one thing, but frankly this is like accusing McDonalds of not catering to salad lovers when they introduce a new burger. If you don't like McDonald's salad offerings go buy a salad from some place else, and in the meantime, try that new triple bacon 4 cheese double quarter pounder and see if you like how it tastes.
- Buy some damn curtains. This solution has the added benefit that it also protects your cat from unwanted observation from sources besides the Google folks. It is worth noting that if your cat cannot be observed, it may enter a indeterminate quantum state. - Request (using the link provided by Google) that Google remove your address from the street view. - Whine about it to the new york times. - Build a wall in front of your house. Similar to curtains but it has the added benefit from preventing you from leaving your house where somebody somewhere might observe you. - Develop the means to create and trap a singularity and place it in front of your house so that it can bend the light around your house. If you try to leave your house you will of course get sucked up and your component atoms may end up in another universe but at least nobody would see you.
I don't truly believe it matters what you wish to learn first. Pick one and learn it, and all the rest will be easier. Much like learning a spoken language, once you know a few it gets to be easier to learn new ones. The analogy is true even to families of languages. Iterative languages tend to have common features that are distinct from recursive languages. Web based languages tend to ignore whole facets that form the bulk of some other languages.
The one thing I do believe strongly is that once you learn a few of the programming languages, you take the time to learn structured programming and design. You don't truly realize how important it is until you learn it and then have to go back and try to maintain code written by some guy who taught himself Visual Basic and thinks he's uber programmer because of it.
Seriously. The code you make after you learn structured programming and design will take about half to a quarter of the effort to maintain. The only problem is that you sort of have to learn to do code in the first place before it'll make any sense.
Slashdot Mirror
At least Derek Zoolander has a fallback career now if he can't model anymore.
IANAL but I don't believe this sort of law can possibly withstand a challenge on constitutional grounds. Given the COPA, CDA etc. failures, this sort of law is a gimme for quick injunction followed by protracted lawsuit that eventually finds it completely unenforcable. The mere mentioning of "obscene" images is a dead giveaway that this law is a rush job with no hope to succeed beyond attempting to garner votes for being tough on porn.
To each their own. I subscribe to the "if you like it then it's a good game for you" philosophy. I think it's junk but your mileage may vary.
While I dislike Hillary as much as the next rational person, this is related to the post how?
Stop mentioning this stupid game. Please. All this supposed controversy does is feed idiot developers who make games without redeeming content. Have we learned nothing about how trying to restrict something causes controversy that inevitably brings that something into more popularity than it would have ever garnered had it been allowed to slip into well deserved obscurity?
Note to Senators: Ignore this piece of crap and it will go away, mention it as a reason to censor/restrict games and you will a) Encourage more states to pass game censorship legislation that will be struck down in a lawsuit that will be costly to taxpayers and b) bring free publicity to this game and c) annoy anybody who games, because unlike US Senators, the vast majority of gamers are capable of telling the difference between truth and fiction.
In the UK it is heinous that you are not able to buy it, because that is dictated by your government. Government has no business telling you what games you can and cannot play, and I fully sympathize. In the United States however, this is not a matter of government interference, it is Target deciding not to carry it. Given the absolute lack of merit to anybody I think that's probably good sense. The only option we could have to remedy this solution would be to force retailers to carry all games, regardless of their merit, and that will never happen.
Customers are free to express their displeasure with Target's choice, and that is essentially the best way to steer any retailer. That said, I am glad that Target is not wasting their money on this piece of crap game.
Like "Postal" before it, Manhunt 2 is purely violence for the sake of violence, without any effort at making the game anything more than a simulation of over the top sadism. While I am sure that will appeal to a portion of the population, I think it is unlikely to appeal to a wide audience. Games like "Overlord" or the old "Syndicate" appeal to the dark side of our nature as well, but they do it in a fun and entertaining way that is challenging and stimulating (even for non sadists) and appeal to a vast number of gamers. I'm not likely to cry over the difficulty in finding this one.
Technically they aren't censoring, they are simply deciding not to sell it. Since they are not a government agency, this is entirely within their rights. You, of course, are free to point out that it is entirely the right of the shopping public to protest this. Honestly though, while I share a disdain for censorship, I feel that this is not the fight to make a stand for requiring retailers to stock lemons. Target could just as easily have decided not to sell Bioshock, a game that allows you to kill little girls (albeit rather creepy little girls), yet they did not make that choice because Bioshock is actually a darn good game. If Target chooses not to pick up this title for lack of redeeming features that's their business, and probably a wise move.
I think I speak for the majority of gamers when I say "Who gives a rat's ass?"
I mean seriously, when the major marketing point of a game is whether it's banned, not the graphics, gameplay, and technical merit, one has to wonder whether anybody besides Jack Thompson is ever going to bother with the game.
Can we stop talking about this lame and pathetic excuse for a game now? Violence as part of a game is shiny. Crappy games that use it to sell instead of actually being decent suck, let's move on.
You took the words out of my mouth... or you were just faster to post. He so would have kicked their asses.
Arrest their CEOs for contempt. When the VPs fail to provide the data, arrest them too. Work on down the line.
We're all doomed! Doomed I say!
Am I just jaded or does this seem a wee overdramatic? Total destruction of Linux? Civil war? Yeah.
Again, the burden of common sense in this case falls to the officers. Do bombers typically carry the bombing material around in their hands? Understand that I am not saying that security was unjust in checking her to ensure that it was not a bomb, but rather that aspiring makers don't typically dress with concern as to whether they'll be mistaken for a suicide bomber. Pressing charges as a "hoax device" is also over the top, she clearly had no intent to deceive anybody into thinking she was a walking bomb.
It looks like a breadboard to anybody involved with electronics. Explosives have electronics attached to something that goes boom. Unless they thought her boobs were filled with plastic explosives there's really not much there.
Lack of common sense should not, in a sane society, involve worrying about whether your LED shirt looks like a bomb. She was also at the airport to pick somebody up. She did not try to get through a security checkpoint, nor was she attempting to conceal the LEDs. Both of these things should have made a sensible security person think twice as to her possible danger level. Simply verifying that she did not have the breadboard attached to explosives should have been sufficient to confirm her lack of explosive potential.
Mind you, I itch from bad embroidery, I hate to think what a shirt with a breadboard in it feels like.
Honestly, I'm a little dated too.
That's huge! Nobody should ever need more than 640k.
So what do they do if you decline to provide a DNA sample?
Music is priced beyond its worth. When something is priced beyond its worth one of two things happens. Either cheap knockoffs/imitations are produced and sold if there is high enough demand or that thing fails to sell and whoever priced it that way goes out of business.
In this particular case, cheap knockoffs are actually high quality knockoffs and they sell for free. Many studies have shown that while some people are inclined to pirate simply because they can, most people like to buy legitimate copies. Why then is piracy rampant? Because most folks would rather not pay $17 for the latest Britney album perhaps?
And while making good music does take money, a multitude of bands have shown that it really doesn't take much money. Moreover, the money that is collected by the likes of the RIAA and it's Canadian equivalent really doesn't go to "making" music. The vast majority goes to middlemen with the smallest of percentages actually going to the folks that used their creative genius (or lack thereof in the case of Britney) to create the music in the first place.
The RIAA and it's like are now superfluous and they know it. Rather than erecting complex rationales about how downloading music is stealing, it would be best if they went away, and artists depended on the rather impressive array of music fan sites to promote those with quality (who, incidentally would likely do it for free) to connect them with folks that will pay for music, and pay them far more than the RIAA.
Piracy is a direct result of unreasonably priced music so I don't think they're going to garner a lot of sympathy.
IANAL but as I understand it, the Napster decision pretty much boinked them because the primary purpose of Napster was to facilitate infringement. Given the precedent, I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that a site dedicated to putting up torrents even as a wiki would be immune from litigation. It's important to remember also that even if the case is eventually won by a private wiki, the legal costs of defending yourself is not inconsequential and is beyond the reach of most citizens.
That's really just treating the symptoms in any case, and there's a variety of perfectly good alternatives to torrentspy.
I predicted that they'd do that!
The unfortunate thing about going on general numbers like "firefox users have lower average online spending" is that even if they are true there will still be a fair number of customers that will be turned aside that will be 100% likely to be pissed off to have their browser of choice blocked.
Not to mention the fact that pop ups are annoying regardless of demographic spending habits.
For the most part they have been party to the crafting of the law, so it is no wonder that they believe themselves to be above the law. That said, they do not care about paltry things like right or wrong, they wish only to protect their interests and as such a protracted law suit in the long term does them little harm.
Nintendo isn't the only one making games for the Wii. Not to mention that the point of any game system is to amuse and entertain, something that nintendo seems to have realized very well. If nintendo were to go out and forbid third party developers from making shooters or RPGs that'd be one thing, but frankly this is like accusing McDonalds of not catering to salad lovers when they introduce a new burger. If you don't like McDonald's salad offerings go buy a salad from some place else, and in the meantime, try that new triple bacon 4 cheese double quarter pounder and see if you like how it tastes.
In order of increasing complexity.
- Buy some damn curtains. This solution has the added benefit that it also protects your cat from unwanted observation from sources besides the Google folks. It is worth noting that if your cat cannot be observed, it may enter a indeterminate quantum state.
- Request (using the link provided by Google) that Google remove your address from the street view.
- Whine about it to the new york times.
- Build a wall in front of your house. Similar to curtains but it has the added benefit from preventing you from leaving your house where somebody somewhere might observe you.
- Develop the means to create and trap a singularity and place it in front of your house so that it can bend the light around your house. If you try to leave your house you will of course get sucked up and your component atoms may end up in another universe but at least nobody would see you.
I don't truly believe it matters what you wish to learn first. Pick one and learn it, and all the rest will be easier. Much like learning a spoken language, once you know a few it gets to be easier to learn new ones. The analogy is true even to families of languages. Iterative languages tend to have common features that are distinct from recursive languages. Web based languages tend to ignore whole facets that form the bulk of some other languages.
The one thing I do believe strongly is that once you learn a few of the programming languages, you take the time to learn structured programming and design. You don't truly realize how important it is until you learn it and then have to go back and try to maintain code written by some guy who taught himself Visual Basic and thinks he's uber programmer because of it.
Seriously. The code you make after you learn structured programming and design will take about half to a quarter of the effort to maintain. The only problem is that you sort of have to learn to do code in the first place before it'll make any sense.