Well, prior to all of that they were an extremely successful company with a large list of titles and a wide variety of IP. They produced many of the best selling and best rated games of the 90's. Perhaps knowing what was once possible mixed with a nostalgia for past days could lead someone into such a venture.
It has nothing to do with casual gamers knowing who he is. The competition knows who he is. And if they know what his upcoming interests are, they are better placed to beat the next Miyamoto game to market, or dilute brand value by putting out a crappy knock off and worsening the reputation for the real game.
Kinda sad that the press is the only one able to enforce this, though it would be financial suicide to actually carry out their threats.
This is very true. In a sense, the networks face a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma. They can all band together, boycott, and potentially serve a greater good. However, all it takes is one of them to defect and carry the Olympic broadcasts, and all the other networks lose out in terms of revenue and airtime.
In this case, when the number of subjects increases in the game, the odds of one defecting begins to reach 100%, and no one wants to risk being left out on the deal.
Being indicited is nothing. Yet. Once convicted, either W or McCain will pardon him, if they are in office.
Don't be so sure on that one. Although I'm not fan of the major parties, McCain and Stevens have been opposing each other on key issues for a long time. Probably the most distinctive between the two is the issue of earmarking. McCain's opposition and Stevens' abuse of them have been completely polar stances on the issue.
Just because people share the same political party does not mean their views do not vary widely, and the idea that 50% of politicians get to walk just because their party is in the white house is not reality.
But a crappy programmer with great promotion skills can create a startup company, hype the idea, and then sell it to an investment firm before it fails for a lifetime's wages.
Yes it does. A very LARGE portion of law is concerned with contract law. Whether somebody rights a contract, or agrees to one, does not necessarily make it legally binding. If the contract is illegal, then it cannot be upheld.
If you chose to sell yourself into slavery to me for $1,000,000 for 10 years, does not mean I could enforce that contract, even if both parties entered into it willingly.
Additionally, there have been so many issues with EULAs in the past (think MS and their shrink wrapped EULAs), it's naive to think that it is invincible or impossible to challenge.
This guy is feminist, pro-gay and atheist: he should run for POTUS!
Seriously? I mean it's nice that he's accepting and all, but what does any of that have to do with leadership, decision making skills, or diplomacy? Granted, we don't exactly have a shining example of that currently, or recently for that matter, but come on. I realize (hope) this is jokingly playful, but if this is the stuff we are using to determine the POTUS these days, no wonder this country is having so many issues.
Wait a minute. Do you pay when you receive text messages!? Do you also pay for receiving calls? What if you don't even answer? Why are you expected to pay for other person's decision of messaging with you? Is that even legal!?
Actually, you do pay for receiving calls, but only those you answer. Whether obvious or not, the received calls are deducted from the minutes you pay for. Where on a home line, even by answering you do not pay, on a cell phone, you pay every time someone calls you with your minutes.
Wrong number? Too bad. You're paying to receive it. Don't like it? Well, you don't really have an option. Either get unlimited plans (costly), only use it at night (inconvenient), or don't maintain a cell (nearly impossible anymore... have you tried finding a pay phone lately? good luck...)
Basically, until a company comes along that isn't part of the Good Ole Boy network and offers some competition, this is what we face.
Posting anonymously because of all the socialists here who down mod anything pro free market.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not...
While the Free Market is an ultimate equalizer, the Free Market can only exist in these modern times with a bit of regulation. When companies can force others out of industry and inhibit others from joining (similar to the old days of Standard Oil), a Free Market can not flourish, because they will be unfairly undercut, to the point of obtaining monopolies. It's not a matter of socialism.
I'm all for getting rid of government regulations where possible, but if corporations are given the power to, they will unfairly abuse it, and dismantle the Free Market for their own well being. Unfortunately, the only way to safeguard the Free Market these days is to create regulations protecting it. Pure Anarchy is not the answer and is an unrealistic goal.
Except it isn't Fraud unless there is some monetary gain or financial loss is it? According to Wikipedia, fraud is the following:
"In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them - usually, to obtain property or services unjustly."
In this case, the University is creating a public awareness, as well as personal awareness, with no deliberate attempt to obtain property or services unjustly.
A civilian militia in the U.S. no longer has the means to stand up to its own military, and hasn't for over 100 years.
Ok, by replying to this, I am burning the mod points I already used in this discussion.
The idea that US Citizens can't fight back because the Military has more firepower is wrong. See, it seems true at face value, but most people don't understand that if a rebellion were to occur, the military itself may be split. Military members have friends, family, etc. that may be part of said rebellion. Allegiances would be split, and many may choose to take arms (and armaments) to aid that fight.
Civil war (or rebellion) is rarely the military vs. the people. It is more often the people vs. the people, and the military vs. the military. Aside from the fact that the average hunting rifle has all the firepower needed to kill a person from a quarter to half a mile, if civil war were to break out in the US, all hell would break loose.
There is no nation on earth as heavily armed as the US, both military and civilian, and the casualty count would be immense. The effects of such a rebellion at this point in history would be absolutely catastrophic on a national and global level, and things just haven't gotten bad enough for the average reasonable person to justify it. Not saying it won't happen eventually, but it takes extreme acts to justify extreme acts.
5% (or less) of the world is enough population to support an entirely different language, or many different languages. As long as there is a standardized method for conversion, it shouldn't really matter. If you can have an entirely different language for a few thousand people, then what does it hurt to have a different unit of measure for 300 million or more?
Not that I am attempting to cause disbelief, but critical thinking in one area of a person's life does not necessarily guarantee it in other areas. Within a certain area of focus, you may have critical thinking and logistic skills, but in another they may be lacking or overlooked.
For example, a person may be a brilliant mathematician, engineer, or computer scientist, and able to reason through complex logic structures present in those fields. However, when it comes to personal relationships, they may repeatedly enter into abusive situations (domestic violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.), with an emotional need for acceptance outweighing the sensibility to avoid such encounters. They may even reason through those situations, attempting to create a logical basis that things are not as bad as they may be. However, it can still be argued that they are making irrational decisions lacking critical judgment.
Essentially, intelligent people come up with intelligent reasons to believe in irrational things. Again, not citing religion specifically, but I believe that while the grandparent's idea that religion and logic can't co-exist is incorrect, I believe the assumption of logic and critical thinking in all areas of one's life based on logic and critical thinking in one area of a person's life is also a flawed argument.
Based on that, you're correct. I did assume, and well, we all know where that got me. My mistake was to assume that your post was made from the Urban perspective, condemning ruralites as keeping themselves in poverty, which seems to be a common belief.
Please forgive me for being blinded by the normal "Republican=Bad, Democrat=good, Ignore the in-between" rhetoric I've become so used to seeing here on Slashdot. Apparently I've made the same mistake, and we share more common beliefs than I had thought. Thanks for the correction.
That's an absolutely horrible assumption. I happen to live in small-town Alaska, but by no means am I a country bumpkin. I live there because I want to, not because I have to. Many in this area vote for the candidate that stays out of their lives the most, be it Demican or Republicrat. Not like there's much of a difference these days.
Either way, the idea that voters somehow have superior beliefs and or logistical reasoning skills simply because they live within a city boundary is absurd.
Politically they lean on the side of the tree huggers, so I'm sure they will help the animal lovers..:) It'd be nice if there was a competing site that didn't dictate morality then. It's one thing to restrict illegal activity, and sensible. It's another to restrict legal activity on your own perception of morality. They're a for profit, publicly traded company. To me, it sounds like they're not maximizing profit to their shareholders if they're making choices as to what people can or can't sell, even legally. What about those of us who aren't Vegan, Pro-Gun Control, Environmental Activists that simply want to buy/sell/trade legal goods?
According to that, 200 gallons is only for a family (2 or more adults). 100 gallons is the individual rate. As you get about 10-11 standard beers out of a gallon (12oz. beers), you're looking at about 1066 beers per person, per year, or a little under 3 per day. Anything beyond that is taxable.
So I guess the key is to marry someone that doesn't drink so you can hit the 200gal mark:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, prior to all of that they were an extremely successful company with a large list of titles and a wide variety of IP. They produced many of the best selling and best rated games of the 90's. Perhaps knowing what was once possible mixed with a nostalgia for past days could lead someone into such a venture.
In Spain they certainly aren't.
It has nothing to do with casual gamers knowing who he is. The competition knows who he is. And if they know what his upcoming interests are, they are better placed to beat the next Miyamoto game to market, or dilute brand value by putting out a crappy knock off and worsening the reputation for the real game.
Kinda sad that the press is the only one able to enforce this, though it would be financial suicide to actually carry out their threats.
This is very true. In a sense, the networks face a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma. They can all band together, boycott, and potentially serve a greater good. However, all it takes is one of them to defect and carry the Olympic broadcasts, and all the other networks lose out in terms of revenue and airtime.
In this case, when the number of subjects increases in the game, the odds of one defecting begins to reach 100%, and no one wants to risk being left out on the deal.
Being indicited is nothing. Yet. Once convicted, either W or McCain will pardon him, if they are in office.
Don't be so sure on that one. Although I'm not fan of the major parties, McCain and Stevens have been opposing each other on key issues for a long time. Probably the most distinctive between the two is the issue of earmarking. McCain's opposition and Stevens' abuse of them have been completely polar stances on the issue.
Just because people share the same political party does not mean their views do not vary widely, and the idea that 50% of politicians get to walk just because their party is in the white house is not reality.
Hey, what's that flying over your head at high speed?
This guy doesn't have the problem that thousands or even millions of people are libelling him...
Now he does.
But a crappy programmer with great promotion skills can create a startup company, hype the idea, and then sell it to an investment firm before it fails for a lifetime's wages.
We've already been to the moon.
Careful... There might be a few around here that disagree with that :)
Argh... I meant 'writes' a contract... I even previewed it. Sorry about that.
Yes it does. A very LARGE portion of law is concerned with contract law. Whether somebody rights a contract, or agrees to one, does not necessarily make it legally binding. If the contract is illegal, then it cannot be upheld.
If you chose to sell yourself into slavery to me for $1,000,000 for 10 years, does not mean I could enforce that contract, even if both parties entered into it willingly.
Additionally, there have been so many issues with EULAs in the past (think MS and their shrink wrapped EULAs), it's naive to think that it is invincible or impossible to challenge.
This guy is feminist, pro-gay and atheist: he should run for POTUS!
Seriously? I mean it's nice that he's accepting and all, but what does any of that have to do with leadership, decision making skills, or diplomacy? Granted, we don't exactly have a shining example of that currently, or recently for that matter, but come on. I realize (hope) this is jokingly playful, but if this is the stuff we are using to determine the POTUS these days, no wonder this country is having so many issues.
What if it's a 24-hour analog clock? :)
http://homepage.mac.com/pete.boardman/24hourclock/
Tad bit nuts, or the inventor of a filesystem with a russian bride. (Too soon?)
Yep. Hasn't been 22.3 years yet.
Wait a minute. Do you pay when you receive text messages!? Do you also pay for receiving calls? What if you don't even answer? Why are you expected to pay for other person's decision of messaging with you? Is that even legal!?
Actually, you do pay for receiving calls, but only those you answer. Whether obvious or not, the received calls are deducted from the minutes you pay for. Where on a home line, even by answering you do not pay, on a cell phone, you pay every time someone calls you with your minutes.
Wrong number? Too bad. You're paying to receive it. Don't like it? Well, you don't really have an option. Either get unlimited plans (costly), only use it at night (inconvenient), or don't maintain a cell (nearly impossible anymore... have you tried finding a pay phone lately? good luck...)
Basically, until a company comes along that isn't part of the Good Ole Boy network and offers some competition, this is what we face.
Posting anonymously because of all the socialists here who down mod anything pro free market.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not...
While the Free Market is an ultimate equalizer, the Free Market can only exist in these modern times with a bit of regulation. When companies can force others out of industry and inhibit others from joining (similar to the old days of Standard Oil), a Free Market can not flourish, because they will be unfairly undercut, to the point of obtaining monopolies. It's not a matter of socialism.
I'm all for getting rid of government regulations where possible, but if corporations are given the power to, they will unfairly abuse it, and dismantle the Free Market for their own well being. Unfortunately, the only way to safeguard the Free Market these days is to create regulations protecting it. Pure Anarchy is not the answer and is an unrealistic goal.
Except it isn't Fraud unless there is some monetary gain or financial loss is it? According to Wikipedia, fraud is the following:
"In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them - usually, to obtain property or services unjustly."
In this case, the University is creating a public awareness, as well as personal awareness, with no deliberate attempt to obtain property or services unjustly.
Ok, by replying to this, I am burning the mod points I already used in this discussion.
The idea that US Citizens can't fight back because the Military has more firepower is wrong. See, it seems true at face value, but most people don't understand that if a rebellion were to occur, the military itself may be split. Military members have friends, family, etc. that may be part of said rebellion. Allegiances would be split, and many may choose to take arms (and armaments) to aid that fight.
Civil war (or rebellion) is rarely the military vs. the people. It is more often the people vs. the people, and the military vs. the military. Aside from the fact that the average hunting rifle has all the firepower needed to kill a person from a quarter to half a mile, if civil war were to break out in the US, all hell would break loose.
There is no nation on earth as heavily armed as the US, both military and civilian, and the casualty count would be immense. The effects of such a rebellion at this point in history would be absolutely catastrophic on a national and global level, and things just haven't gotten bad enough for the average reasonable person to justify it. Not saying it won't happen eventually, but it takes extreme acts to justify extreme acts.
5% (or less) of the world is enough population to support an entirely different language, or many different languages. As long as there is a standardized method for conversion, it shouldn't really matter. If you can have an entirely different language for a few thousand people, then what does it hurt to have a different unit of measure for 300 million or more?
Not that I am attempting to cause disbelief, but critical thinking in one area of a person's life does not necessarily guarantee it in other areas. Within a certain area of focus, you may have critical thinking and logistic skills, but in another they may be lacking or overlooked.
For example, a person may be a brilliant mathematician, engineer, or computer scientist, and able to reason through complex logic structures present in those fields. However, when it comes to personal relationships, they may repeatedly enter into abusive situations (domestic violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.), with an emotional need for acceptance outweighing the sensibility to avoid such encounters. They may even reason through those situations, attempting to create a logical basis that things are not as bad as they may be. However, it can still be argued that they are making irrational decisions lacking critical judgment.
Essentially, intelligent people come up with intelligent reasons to believe in irrational things. Again, not citing religion specifically, but I believe that while the grandparent's idea that religion and logic can't co-exist is incorrect, I believe the assumption of logic and critical thinking in all areas of one's life based on logic and critical thinking in one area of a person's life is also a flawed argument.
Based on that, you're correct. I did assume, and well, we all know where that got me. My mistake was to assume that your post was made from the Urban perspective, condemning ruralites as keeping themselves in poverty, which seems to be a common belief.
Please forgive me for being blinded by the normal "Republican=Bad, Democrat=good, Ignore the in-between" rhetoric I've become so used to seeing here on Slashdot. Apparently I've made the same mistake, and we share more common beliefs than I had thought. Thanks for the correction.
That's an absolutely horrible assumption. I happen to live in small-town Alaska, but by no means am I a country bumpkin. I live there because I want to, not because I have to. Many in this area vote for the candidate that stays out of their lives the most, be it Demican or Republicrat. Not like there's much of a difference these days.
Either way, the idea that voters somehow have superior beliefs and or logistical reasoning skills simply because they live within a city boundary is absurd.
Parent should be modded troll, not insightful.
Steve, is that you?
According to that, 200 gallons is only for a family (2 or more adults). 100 gallons is the individual rate. As you get about 10-11 standard beers out of a gallon (12oz. beers), you're looking at about 1066 beers per person, per year, or a little under 3 per day. Anything beyond that is taxable.
:)
So I guess the key is to marry someone that doesn't drink so you can hit the 200gal mark