That is the way I feel about shooters. It really seems every shooter is just a clone of every other shooter on the planet. I find greater variety in the platformer genre. But to each their own.
I didn't suggest that. I actually support the compromise often suggested in that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest or the mother's life being in danger.
I'm pposed to conceiving a child and using abortion as retroactive birth control.
Look up the testimony from Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act as just one example off recent memory.
I didn't realize wanting to protect human life meant I belonged to a hate group. What a horrid fate.
I have brought up repeatedly a legal double standard which makes zero sense, and one that you continue to ignore. How about this one?
From the moment I decide to have sex, I have assumed legal risks. If a child comes from that sexual activity, I am legally obligated to support that child for 19 years in Nebraska. I can't say six months later I changed my mind. Again, from the moment I decide to have sex I am assumed to have accepted the legal mantle of repercussions for that action.
I never threatened you. You stated that someone deserves protection under the law only when they specifically request it. I thanked you for establishing that.
Establishing that someone doesn't deserve the right to live until they request it is an extreme view.
You're also insisting that in the first month, it isn't a human being, but it becomes a living human being later. When does this magical transformation occur? How does the pixie dust get in the womb? Is it the womb fairy?
And again, why is it that you can be charged with murder during the first trimester, but can kill the baby in the third trimester electively.
Anyone remember all the debate during the Presidential election about how Obama voted three times specifically against born alive bills that would recognize the rights of babies outside the womb? He fought to protect killing sustainable babies outside the womb. But again, you also insisted that doesn't happen, despite doctors testifying before the state senate how it was a shockingly common practice.
There is a clinic in Kansas that continued to practice elective third trimester abortions even after it was made illegal. The District Attorney was bringing them up on charges, but then after an election, a new pro-choice DA droppped all the charges and publicly said they'd never support any limitations on abortion.
I'm not an extremist. I don't support murder I didn't realize that was an extreme view. And again, there are legal precedents of being charged for murder of a fetus even in the first trimester (mudering a pregnant woman and being charged with two counts of murder for instance), where as some states still allow third trimester abortions. Even if you pick a date when the fetus is viable outside the womb, there is a legal double standard.
My wife was very pro-choice and marched in Washington for that reason. She saw my younger sister deliver a premature baby 3 months early. After seeing that baby, she suddenly had a very different take, especially given that it would have been legal to abort that baby.
It is a baby when it is conveniently labeled as such, and not a baby when it is inconvenient. Some states still allow third trimester abortions and partial-birth abortions, while at the same time you can be charged with murder for pushing a pregnant woman down the stairs and forcing her to miscarry.
There is no magical transformation where it goes from non-human life to human life. And even if there was some fantasy world where a magical transformation happened at a certain date (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 months?) we'd have a double standard by charging people for murder of a young fetus, but then allowing abortions in the third trimester.
There is a very important distinction there. Abortion should be no different than anything else. The limitation of your freedom is when it infringes me, thusly the famous phrase that you have the right to swing your first to the tip of my nose.
And generally I'm pro-freedom and largely Libertarian myself (except they're naive on foreign issues).
I do draw the line at abortion because I believe the right to swing your fist extends exactly to the tip of my nose. Thusly a woman should have all the right in the world to do with her body as she chooses, up to the point of killing a baby inside her.
I think most Republicans in the Senate have no clue what Net Neutrality really means. McCain said in the Presedential debates that he didn't understand the issue completely, but he was against more government regulation of business.
This is more ignorance than evil.
Overall I believe both parties support big business. There isn't a political party that doesn't love money.
The massive difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want social freedoms, but want to regulate the hell out of everything else. Republicans want financial freedoms, but want to regulate social issues.
It seems the public just wants freedom period, and neither party is really interested in delivering that.
Would it cost Barnes and Noble a penny to include the App Market?
Why remove 95% of the functionality and make your product worth less to your customers? Are you worried that people will buy your tablet, and download the Kindle app? Then make your book store the best! Customers might just support your store because they enjoy your tablet.
I want an Android tablet that I can flash and update with new releases, that has a decent touchscreen. Is that really too much too ask? Is there no company out there that wants my business?
1 - The government in Brazil wanted information on a group in Brazil circulating kiddie porn via Orkut. Google fought serveral court orders before handing over data. To my knowledge, this is the only time they've ever handed over data.
2 - George W. Bush asked the major search engines to hand over search data with corresponding IP addresses. Google flatly said no while AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft handed over data. If that wasn't enough, Google started anonymizing IP addresses earlier, and started building an off-shore mobile data center than can go into international waters to keep your private data away from the government.
Again, between the two, does Microsoft have a leg to stand on when it comes to critcizing Google here?
Google wants all my data. They make no effort at hiding that intent. But I do trust they aren't handing my data over. Microsoft has a specific patent on how to sell my private data, and has handed my private data over the government.
Actually, not true. Apple has approved GPL apps in their App Store. Stallman and the FSF is upset that they feel the App Store violates the GPL, and they are arguing that GPL apps shouldn't be allowed in the store.
At the moment I believe you can see get the VLC and Wesnoth apps in the store, both under a GPL license.
That's the point. Princess Leia may not have been a committee, but George Lucas is, by himself. He has the ego of an auteur and wants 100% control. He didn't want a studio offering input. He didn't want anyone to question him.
But from day to day he doesn't seem to know what he wants.
A New Hope started as a Dune rip-off. And it was a single movie, except when it was going to be 6, 9 or 12 movies. And the Jedi where the Whills, and they used spice on a twin-sun desert planet where a fat human villian controlled the spice-trade, that was produced by worm-like Krayt Dragons.
And Lucas insists for 25 years that Star Wars is a larger story about Luke Skywalker (who originally was an older General Skywalker until he split into the two characters of Obi Wan and Luke) bringing the Jedi Order back. Except now Lucas maintains the series was always about Anakin's rise, fall and redemption.
Just like Ric Olie was going to be a major character in the prequels, along with Aura Sing, until they disappeared. And the prequels were going to explain Force Ghosts in 2 and 3, because it was so important to the overall plot. And Syfodius was critically important until he disappeared. And so were the Lost 20.
I respect Lucas kick-starting a universe I love so much, but he really has no idea what he is doing from day to day. And if he truly wanted Star Wars to succeed, he needed to let go a little bit and trust others to write scripts and direct the movies.
What was lost in the whole shuffle is that Lucas did excel in what he does best. He continued to innovate by pushing the bar on new standards in sound and CGI (though Episode I really had mixed CGI, some incredible and some really terrible).
You're correct that antitrust laws have to do with anti-competitive practices, not market share. That is why it is odd you quote market share. As for market share, Apple completely owns the tablet market completely, had the best selling phone last year, completely owns the MP3 player market, and was the #1 seller of music last year. So they have plenty of market share, not that it matters.
What matters is anti-competetive practices, of which Apple is plenty guilty.
The only way to load software is through the App Store, and the App Store is banning an app that they feel is focused on a competitor. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products. Apple's anti-competitive practices are actually worse than Microsoft's. The main reason they haven't caught as much flak is that they've been seen as the plucky underdog with 10% market share.
The problem is that Lucas likes the paychecks he is getting from all the Star Wars novels he insists are canon (except when they aren't) and they have written 40+ years out I think at this point. The main characters (save for Chewbacca) are still alive. If he made new movies where Han had died, then his entire line of novels goes out the window, and all the revenue that comes from them.
He could do it, but it would be stupid.
I think his best bet would be to work with Zahn (who has made the most popular and best selling novels, and has a close relationship with Lucas) to write a sequel trilogy that doesn't entirely piss in the face of the novel continuity. If he took characters and plot points from the novels, and perhaps just skewed the time frame, then I think people could live with that. Take Zahn's 5 book series that follows Return of the Jedi, and just push it out 20 years, and tweak it.
Those books are amazing, and feel like a natural extension to the classic trilogy. It would make bank.
Lets assume for a second that we're in a fictional reality where there were kids in the van.
The people driving the van placed themselves and these fictional children in harms way. The helicopter wouldn't inherently know there are fictional kids in this van that they can't see. Who would be at fault in this scenario?
Not only have I watched the video repeatedly and can tell you the RPG pointed at the helicopter was larger than the camera you see earlier, but the news reports verified an RPG was found at the scene.
Please continue to spread lies however that there was no RPG, and now that kids were murdered. I'm content to focus on facts.
Honestly, I think Brian Singer has a hard-on for 70's sci-fi and could make new Star Wars films that look and feel like the original trilogy.
The prequels look too clean and modern in contrast.
Last I heard, Singer walked away from Logan's Run and wanted to do a new reboot on Battlestar Galactica, ignoring the new SyFy iteration, and stay closer to the original series.
You could set a new trilogy 20-30 years in the future with Luke as the old master now. Harrison Ford has repeatedly said he would never go back to Star Wars, but I think you might talk him into a single scene cameo that explains why he is largely out of the picture.
If you got Timothy Zahn to work with Lucas on stories/scripts, I think the fans would buy in.
I prefer to believe he is merely frozen in carbonite.
That being said, I recall the AFI Tribute to George Lucas, where Lucas openly admitted he couldn't write dialog. And Harrison Ford blasted him for writing dialog. Lucas is very good at coming up with a basic story and innovating at effects. But he isn't great at getting acting performances from actors, nor writing dialog. He knew he had these limitations, and thusly he allowed others to write the scripts and direct on Empire and Return of the Jedi.
So why exactly did he demand to write and direct the prequels? Wouldn't you want to put the best product forward and work around your personal limitations?
Slashdot Mirror
That is the way I feel about shooters. It really seems every shooter is just a clone of every other shooter on the planet. I find greater variety in the platformer genre. But to each their own.
I didn't suggest that. I actually support the compromise often suggested in that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest or the mother's life being in danger.
I'm pposed to conceiving a child and using abortion as retroactive birth control.
Look up the testimony from Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act as just one example off recent memory.
I didn't realize wanting to protect human life meant I belonged to a hate group. What a horrid fate.
I have brought up repeatedly a legal double standard which makes zero sense, and one that you continue to ignore. How about this one?
From the moment I decide to have sex, I have assumed legal risks. If a child comes from that sexual activity, I am legally obligated to support that child for 19 years in Nebraska. I can't say six months later I changed my mind. Again, from the moment I decide to have sex I am assumed to have accepted the legal mantle of repercussions for that action.
Why doesn't this also hold true for women?
I never threatened you. You stated that someone deserves protection under the law only when they specifically request it. I thanked you for establishing that.
Establishing that someone doesn't deserve the right to live until they request it is an extreme view.
You're also insisting that in the first month, it isn't a human being, but it becomes a living human being later. When does this magical transformation occur? How does the pixie dust get in the womb? Is it the womb fairy?
And again, why is it that you can be charged with murder during the first trimester, but can kill the baby in the third trimester electively.
Anyone remember all the debate during the Presidential election about how Obama voted three times specifically against born alive bills that would recognize the rights of babies outside the womb? He fought to protect killing sustainable babies outside the womb. But again, you also insisted that doesn't happen, despite doctors testifying before the state senate how it was a shockingly common practice.
Just keep telling yourself that.
There is a clinic in Kansas that continued to practice elective third trimester abortions even after it was made illegal. The District Attorney was bringing them up on charges, but then after an election, a new pro-choice DA droppped all the charges and publicly said they'd never support any limitations on abortion.
I'm not an extremist. I don't support murder I didn't realize that was an extreme view. And again, there are legal precedents of being charged for murder of a fetus even in the first trimester (mudering a pregnant woman and being charged with two counts of murder for instance), where as some states still allow third trimester abortions. Even if you pick a date when the fetus is viable outside the womb, there is a legal double standard.
My wife was very pro-choice and marched in Washington for that reason. She saw my younger sister deliver a premature baby 3 months early. After seeing that baby, she suddenly had a very different take, especially given that it would have been legal to abort that baby.
And by your logic, I can murder you so long as you don't file a protection order. I'm glad you established that.
It is a baby when it is conveniently labeled as such, and not a baby when it is inconvenient. Some states still allow third trimester abortions and partial-birth abortions, while at the same time you can be charged with murder for pushing a pregnant woman down the stairs and forcing her to miscarry.
There is no magical transformation where it goes from non-human life to human life. And even if there was some fantasy world where a magical transformation happened at a certain date (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 months?) we'd have a double standard by charging people for murder of a young fetus, but then allowing abortions in the third trimester.
No. I believe the baby deserves freedom as well.
There is a very important distinction there. Abortion should be no different than anything else. The limitation of your freedom is when it infringes me, thusly the famous phrase that you have the right to swing your first to the tip of my nose.
They're called Libertarians.
And generally I'm pro-freedom and largely Libertarian myself (except they're naive on foreign issues).
I do draw the line at abortion because I believe the right to swing your fist extends exactly to the tip of my nose. Thusly a woman should have all the right in the world to do with her body as she chooses, up to the point of killing a baby inside her.
I'm not sure this the case here.
I think most Republicans in the Senate have no clue what Net Neutrality really means. McCain said in the Presedential debates that he didn't understand the issue completely, but he was against more government regulation of business.
This is more ignorance than evil.
Overall I believe both parties support big business. There isn't a political party that doesn't love money.
The massive difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want social freedoms, but want to regulate the hell out of everything else. Republicans want financial freedoms, but want to regulate social issues.
It seems the public just wants freedom period, and neither party is really interested in delivering that.
What happens when you want to upgrade your computer or display? Do you throw your desk out?
The Galaxy Tablet has the Android App Market. I'm not sure why Archos and such haven't been given access yet.
I'm assuming the build of Android on the tablet needs to handle resizing the apps for the resolution.
Would it cost Barnes and Noble a penny to include the App Market?
Why remove 95% of the functionality and make your product worth less to your customers? Are you worried that people will buy your tablet, and download the Kindle app? Then make your book store the best! Customers might just support your store because they enjoy your tablet.
I want an Android tablet that I can flash and update with new releases, that has a decent touchscreen. Is that really too much too ask? Is there no company out there that wants my business?
There are two precedents.
1 - The government in Brazil wanted information on a group in Brazil circulating kiddie porn via Orkut. Google fought serveral court orders before handing over data. To my knowledge, this is the only time they've ever handed over data.
2 - George W. Bush asked the major search engines to hand over search data with corresponding IP addresses. Google flatly said no while AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft handed over data. If that wasn't enough, Google started anonymizing IP addresses earlier, and started building an off-shore mobile data center than can go into international waters to keep your private data away from the government.
Again, between the two, does Microsoft have a leg to stand on when it comes to critcizing Google here?
Really?
Google wants all my data. They make no effort at hiding that intent. But I do trust they aren't handing my data over. Microsoft has a specific patent on how to sell my private data, and has handed my private data over the government.
Actually, not true. Apple has approved GPL apps in their App Store. Stallman and the FSF is upset that they feel the App Store violates the GPL, and they are arguing that GPL apps shouldn't be allowed in the store.
At the moment I believe you can see get the VLC and Wesnoth apps in the store, both under a GPL license.
An insightful post from an AC?
That's the point. Princess Leia may not have been a committee, but George Lucas is, by himself. He has the ego of an auteur and wants 100% control. He didn't want a studio offering input. He didn't want anyone to question him.
But from day to day he doesn't seem to know what he wants.
A New Hope started as a Dune rip-off. And it was a single movie, except when it was going to be 6, 9 or 12 movies. And the Jedi where the Whills, and they used spice on a twin-sun desert planet where a fat human villian controlled the spice-trade, that was produced by worm-like Krayt Dragons.
And Lucas insists for 25 years that Star Wars is a larger story about Luke Skywalker (who originally was an older General Skywalker until he split into the two characters of Obi Wan and Luke) bringing the Jedi Order back. Except now Lucas maintains the series was always about Anakin's rise, fall and redemption.
Just like Ric Olie was going to be a major character in the prequels, along with Aura Sing, until they disappeared. And the prequels were going to explain Force Ghosts in 2 and 3, because it was so important to the overall plot. And Syfodius was critically important until he disappeared. And so were the Lost 20.
I respect Lucas kick-starting a universe I love so much, but he really has no idea what he is doing from day to day. And if he truly wanted Star Wars to succeed, he needed to let go a little bit and trust others to write scripts and direct the movies.
What was lost in the whole shuffle is that Lucas did excel in what he does best. He continued to innovate by pushing the bar on new standards in sound and CGI (though Episode I really had mixed CGI, some incredible and some really terrible).
You're correct that antitrust laws have to do with anti-competitive practices, not market share. That is why it is odd you quote market share. As for market share, Apple completely owns the tablet market completely, had the best selling phone last year, completely owns the MP3 player market, and was the #1 seller of music last year. So they have plenty of market share, not that it matters.
What matters is anti-competetive practices, of which Apple is plenty guilty.
The only way to load software is through the App Store, and the App Store is banning an app that they feel is focused on a competitor. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products. Apple's anti-competitive practices are actually worse than Microsoft's. The main reason they haven't caught as much flak is that they've been seen as the plucky underdog with 10% market share.
That is changing with their massive market cap.
They shouldn't be required to promote the competition, but banning the competition on your platform can get you in trouble.
As a 100 billion dollar gorilla, they need to be careful when it comes to antitrust and perception.
Imagine if Internet Explorer refused to load apple.com, or Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.
The problem is that Lucas likes the paychecks he is getting from all the Star Wars novels he insists are canon (except when they aren't) and they have written 40+ years out I think at this point. The main characters (save for Chewbacca) are still alive. If he made new movies where Han had died, then his entire line of novels goes out the window, and all the revenue that comes from them.
He could do it, but it would be stupid.
I think his best bet would be to work with Zahn (who has made the most popular and best selling novels, and has a close relationship with Lucas) to write a sequel trilogy that doesn't entirely piss in the face of the novel continuity. If he took characters and plot points from the novels, and perhaps just skewed the time frame, then I think people could live with that. Take Zahn's 5 book series that follows Return of the Jedi, and just push it out 20 years, and tweak it.
Those books are amazing, and feel like a natural extension to the classic trilogy. It would make bank.
There was never kids in the van.
Lets assume for a second that we're in a fictional reality where there were kids in the van.
The people driving the van placed themselves and these fictional children in harms way. The helicopter wouldn't inherently know there are fictional kids in this van that they can't see. Who would be at fault in this scenario?
Not only have I watched the video repeatedly and can tell you the RPG pointed at the helicopter was larger than the camera you see earlier, but the news reports verified an RPG was found at the scene.
Please continue to spread lies however that there was no RPG, and now that kids were murdered. I'm content to focus on facts.
Honestly, I think Brian Singer has a hard-on for 70's sci-fi and could make new Star Wars films that look and feel like the original trilogy.
The prequels look too clean and modern in contrast.
Last I heard, Singer walked away from Logan's Run and wanted to do a new reboot on Battlestar Galactica, ignoring the new SyFy iteration, and stay closer to the original series.
You could set a new trilogy 20-30 years in the future with Luke as the old master now. Harrison Ford has repeatedly said he would never go back to Star Wars, but I think you might talk him into a single scene cameo that explains why he is largely out of the picture.
If you got Timothy Zahn to work with Lucas on stories/scripts, I think the fans would buy in.
I prefer to believe he is merely frozen in carbonite.
That being said, I recall the AFI Tribute to George Lucas, where Lucas openly admitted he couldn't write dialog. And Harrison Ford blasted him for writing dialog. Lucas is very good at coming up with a basic story and innovating at effects. But he isn't great at getting acting performances from actors, nor writing dialog. He knew he had these limitations, and thusly he allowed others to write the scripts and direct on Empire and Return of the Jedi.
So why exactly did he demand to write and direct the prequels? Wouldn't you want to put the best product forward and work around your personal limitations?