EA is in the business of making a profit. If product placement within a video game will fatten their bottom line, good for them and great for their investors. It doesn't seem to hurt one of the most popular spectator sports in the US, NASCAR. No one even seems to find the irony of cars flying around a circle at 200mph with beer ads emblazoned on the sides of the cars.
EA will quickly learn if this business move is bad. Their sales will drop from "The Sims". Frankly, I have never figured out why so many people are afraid of advertising. If you don't like it, don't buy their products. The only question I have is if the Mac OS X version will drop the Intel ads?
Like another poster said, if you want to see a real racist you need to look in a mirror.
Toby, you are defending the denigration of a black man because he has a skin disease that dilutes the pigmentation of his skin. Because of this disease, you are asserting that he does not have the right to speak out against racism that he feels that has been pressed upon him by SONY because he has gone under treatment to re-establish a consistent skin tone. What other diseases remove the right of people to speak out on political issues under your mind set? Are AIDS suffers to be ignored? Breast cancer victims? The diabetic? Vitiligo is a disease that is more obvious to the people around them--than that of the others I have mentioned and much easier for someone to discriminate against.
The Reverend Al Sharpton, a major African American political leader, hosted him to express that view point among his followers. So, no offense to you, I tend to believe the audience that raucously applauded his speech at the National Action Network HQ. There were no dissenting voices in that audience. I know, I watched it, thanks to Public Interest Broadcasting in NYC.
I think you need to rethink your discredit on someone that does not match your preconceived notions of what "black" is. I think publicly mocking a person because of a disease is bad sport--And most likely below your normal standards of personal conduct in public. As for trolling, which is more the troll, defending someone that has a disease or someone bashing them because of it?
Mr. Jackson is entitled to all the cosmetic surgery he wants and can afford, just like anyone else. However, if he opts to have surgery done that makes him look like a member of another ethnic group, it will make him come across as a hypocrite if he uses his ethnicity to get sympathy (especially when he's using it for a seemingly completely unrelated cause).
The only thing that could make Jackson a hypocrite would be his statements not his appearance. I don't ever recalling him say that, "I'm not black, I don't care about black people because I am rich". Picking on people because of their physical being is not cool. One of the reasons he has had plastic surgery is due to his Vitiligo.
However, it is a fact that mr. Jackson has received surgery to make him look more "white" as regards his facial features etc., which is why it appears very hypocritical when he claims that fighting for him is fighting the cause of all black people. If he himself believed in that cause, why would he pay to have his appearance altered to look less "black"?
Are black people restricted in what forms of cosmetic surgery they receive or they cannot talk about their own racial struggle? I have never heard any bitching about a white person getting "black featured cosmetic surgery" (if there is such a thing). Its amazing all the restrictions African Americans have to face in our country so they "fit" in a smartly categorized group and allowed to speak about it.
Consider this way. If I was white and decided to run around with black makeup all over my body all the time and it was obvious that I was white, what would you say? Honestly what would you say? You would say I am nut and totally politically incorrect. You might even say I am insulting the black race or something like that. I think that is what people have an issue with when it comes to Micheal Jackson and not his skin colour.
If you have a skin disease that makes you black, I could understand. Michael Jackson suffers from Vitiligo. That is why his skin is light, it is being discolored by the disease and he is trying for a constant tone with his medical treatment. I know a few people with the disease and the verbal torture that they receive from those that do not understand it is shameful.
I can state with some certainty that you are full of shit.
I didn't know you could determine the contents of my digestive tract. Makes me wonder where your head must be.
"U R Racist" trolls are like fart jokes... they are lame and ineffective. When you grow up to be an adult troll you will learn this for yourself.
Saying Michael Jackson is white as an insult is racist. The man suffers from a skin disease that causes the pigmitation to dilute called Vitiligo. Only an insenstive jerk would verbally punish a man because of a disease.
In the meantime, you should probably know that your opinion carries no more validity here than any AC posting. How do you like them apples?
Coming from someone that delights in the verbal torture of a man because of a skin disease, I think I can stomach those Apples.
Al Sharpton is an opportunistic vulture. Nobody's taken him seriously for several years. Besides, Michael suprised even Sharpton when he called Tommy Mottola a racist
That is not entirely true. Sharpton made no negative comments about Jackson's speech until after he was confronted by several African American artists with financial interests in SONY and fund Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network through donations. Rev. Sharpton is also, according to latest polling data, a more respected Democratic Presidential Candidate than Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. That appears to be an individual that is being taken seriously. The African American community takes him very seriously as shown by his widespread support.
Race is entirely a social construct.
Try telling that to Sam Moore. His life might have been more financially constructive if he was white.
Here's the classic reverse racism: You feel righteous stating that "WHITE" people have no right to determine who is "black" (despite many coloured comedians making fun of Mr. Jackson, and many in the "black" community shunning him for apparently being ashamed of his roots), and go on to proclaim that the AC must be "white". If you want to see a stunning racist, take a look in the mirror you hippocrit.
The point of the original comment was that Jackson's beef with SONY has nothing to do with his ethnicity. Him calling upon it as a rallying cry is pathetic and detracts from the issue at hand.
Rev. Sharpton seemed to have no problem with the speech when it was made. It was only have the guys that kick back the $$$ to him did he change his tune a day or so later. If you watched a video of the speech Jackson made at NAN, you will see the African American audience was in complete support of Jackson's comments. They believed Jackson's beef.
...who is black? I assume you must be white because you are an Anonymous Coward, hiding in anonymity like a KKK member in a hood. As I remember, this statement was made at the National Action Network HQ. Are you going to debate that the Reverend Al Sharpton doesn't know who is black?
Race is not a skin color but an ethnicity. It's sad that this sort of message can be moderated as 'Funny' so quickly.
While I applaud RedHat for looking towards standards for their Desktop, but do they have to make it so damn ugly? If Apple can make UNIX beautiful, why can't the Open Source crowd do the same for KDE/GNOME? It looks like someone needs to come up with a better GUI base than XFree86 -- widgets just look too widgety.
My point was that the RIAA is trying to make it look like P2P networks would never pay artists, even if forced. But really, the RIAA owns all the content the P2P networks want access to, but wont let them have it, because they want to own that market.
Why are artists passing over their valuable copyright to the RIAA if it has no real benefit to them? At some point, creating music has to cost something and thus, in most cases, someone is wanting to get paid for it. It would be my hope that the artist gets the most out their music...not the RIAA or someone other distribution channel.
"... maybe the artists would have fought the Napsters such that they could pay proper royalties and such,"
So the artists would have to fight the p2p folks instead of the RIAA to get paid? How are they going to fight if they have no revenue to pay the lawyers? RIAA or P2P, it sounds like the artist is still getting screwed--just different orifice.
No, but correct me if I'm wrong in stating thats the whole point of the market. There would not have been a need for them. Mind you, there may have been a need to regulate or mandate these distribution networks such that artists had to get paid, but the way the RIAA conducts business (shelfspace, adspace, and no space left over for anybody else).. there would not be a need for their business model.
Interesting read, your post (Yoda speak). Lets say meat-space was nuked as a distribution method. How can music artists make money with p2p? Its not like Kazaa or Napster required you to swipe a credit card before the download started. None of the current p2p trading models seem to benefit the artist directly -- at least the record label kicks a couple of pennies their way. I know artist are supposively getting ripped off by the labels but it doesn't seem to stop them from seeking a label instead of starting their own Internet Music Publishing Empire.
Well, *obviously not*. I mean, major record labels didn't turn a profit while Napster, Kazaa, Gnutella, Aimster, FTP, HTTP, TCP/IP, The Internet exi - oh wait, yes they did.
But these companies were already in business before these technologies came into effect. The record industry had decades on time to build up before the onslaught of "p2p traders". What if the technology and the record companies grew up simultaneously instead of decades apart? Would the record companies be able to sell into a meat-space distribution network?
You are right, I am wrong. My analogy was not specific enough for his comment. I accept your insult.
To satisfy your specificity, just think I am your Dorm Resident Advisor and I want to make sure of your Dorm Room security. Therefor, without warning to you, I start to probe the various ways I can I break into your room. Hey, its just the University's dorm. They have a right to make sure all students living in them are secure. And what do you mind? If they happen to "stumble" on your 6 foot water pipe disguised as a Sunflower stand and kick you out, its for your security. How can you complain?
Slashdot Mirror
EA will quickly learn if this business move is bad. Their sales will drop from "The Sims". Frankly, I have never figured out why so many people are afraid of advertising. If you don't like it, don't buy their products. The only question I have is if the Mac OS X version will drop the Intel ads?
Toby, you are defending the denigration of a black man because he has a skin disease that dilutes the pigmentation of his skin. Because of this disease, you are asserting that he does not have the right to speak out against racism that he feels that has been pressed upon him by SONY because he has gone under treatment to re-establish a consistent skin tone. What other diseases remove the right of people to speak out on political issues under your mind set? Are AIDS suffers to be ignored? Breast cancer victims? The diabetic? Vitiligo is a disease that is more obvious to the people around them--than that of the others I have mentioned and much easier for someone to discriminate against.
The Reverend Al Sharpton, a major African American political leader, hosted him to express that view point among his followers. So, no offense to you, I tend to believe the audience that raucously applauded his speech at the National Action Network HQ. There were no dissenting voices in that audience. I know, I watched it, thanks to Public Interest Broadcasting in NYC.
I think you need to rethink your discredit on someone that does not match your preconceived notions of what "black" is. I think publicly mocking a person because of a disease is bad sport--And most likely below your normal standards of personal conduct in public. As for trolling, which is more the troll, defending someone that has a disease or someone bashing them because of it?
The only thing that could make Jackson a hypocrite would be his statements not his appearance. I don't ever recalling him say that, "I'm not black, I don't care about black people because I am rich". Picking on people because of their physical being is not cool. One of the reasons he has had plastic surgery is due to his Vitiligo.
Are black people restricted in what forms of cosmetic surgery they receive or they cannot talk about their own racial struggle? I have never heard any bitching about a white person getting "black featured cosmetic surgery" (if there is such a thing). Its amazing all the restrictions African Americans have to face in our country so they "fit" in a smartly categorized group and allowed to speak about it.
If you have a skin disease that makes you black, I could understand. Michael Jackson suffers from Vitiligo. That is why his skin is light, it is being discolored by the disease and he is trying for a constant tone with his medical treatment. I know a few people with the disease and the verbal torture that they receive from those that do not understand it is shameful.
According to Democratic President Candidate polls, Reverend Sharpton has a lot of credibility in the Democratic Party.
I didn't know you could determine the contents of my digestive tract. Makes me wonder where your head must be.
"U R Racist" trolls are like fart jokes... they are lame and ineffective. When you grow up to be an adult troll you will learn this for yourself.
Saying Michael Jackson is white as an insult is racist. The man suffers from a skin disease that causes the pigmitation to dilute called Vitiligo. Only an insenstive jerk would verbally punish a man because of a disease.
In the meantime, you should probably know that your opinion carries no more validity here than any AC posting. How do you like them apples?
Coming from someone that delights in the verbal torture of a man because of a skin disease, I think I can stomach those Apples.
Nice try, Troll.
That is not entirely true. Sharpton made no negative comments about Jackson's speech until after he was confronted by several African American artists with financial interests in SONY and fund Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network through donations. Rev. Sharpton is also, according to latest polling data, a more respected Democratic Presidential Candidate than Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. That appears to be an individual that is being taken seriously. The African American community takes him very seriously as shown by his widespread support.
Race is entirely a social construct.
Try telling that to Sam Moore. His life might have been more financially constructive if he was white.
And you state this as an Anonymous Coward?
Hmmm...Pot, Kettle, Honky.
Rev. Sharpton seemed to have no problem with the speech when it was made. It was only have the guys that kick back the $$$ to him did he change his tune a day or so later. If you watched a video of the speech Jackson made at NAN, you will see the African American audience was in complete support of Jackson's comments. They believed Jackson's beef.
Race is not a skin color but an ethnicity. It's sad that this sort of message can be moderated as 'Funny' so quickly.
Freedom shouldn't be an eyesore...
Former Astronaut, "Buzz" Aldrin seems to have suffered no ill effects or brain injury from high Gs from his flights and space shots.
As my high school football coach/drivers ed teacher used to say, "Keep your God damn eyes on the road before I smack you in the head!".
Why are artists passing over their valuable copyright to the RIAA if it has no real benefit to them? At some point, creating music has to cost something and thus, in most cases, someone is wanting to get paid for it. It would be my hope that the artist gets the most out their music...not the RIAA or someone other distribution channel.
So the artists would have to fight the p2p folks instead of the RIAA to get paid? How are they going to fight if they have no revenue to pay the lawyers? RIAA or P2P, it sounds like the artist is still getting screwed--just different orifice.
But then again, all we could listen too would be Pat Boone and Patsy Cline records.
He is obviously lying. As we all know, Al Gore "took the initiative in creating the Internet".
Interesting read, your post (Yoda speak). Lets say meat-space was nuked as a distribution method. How can music artists make money with p2p? Its not like Kazaa or Napster required you to swipe a credit card before the download started. None of the current p2p trading models seem to benefit the artist directly -- at least the record label kicks a couple of pennies their way. I know artist are supposively getting ripped off by the labels but it doesn't seem to stop them from seeking a label instead of starting their own Internet Music Publishing Empire.
But these companies were already in business before these technologies came into effect. The record industry had decades on time to build up before the onslaught of "p2p traders". What if the technology and the record companies grew up simultaneously instead of decades apart? Would the record companies be able to sell into a meat-space distribution network?
Interesting point.
I wonder if the mass distribution of music for a profit would survive if Napster, Kazaa and Grokster would have been around during the 1920s.
Now, if only the Chinese Government would prevent e-mail from escaping their country, about 75% of the SPAM I receive every day would disapear.
To satisfy your specificity, just think I am your Dorm Resident Advisor and I want to make sure of your Dorm Room security. Therefor, without warning to you, I start to probe the various ways I can I break into your room. Hey, its just the University's dorm. They have a right to make sure all students living in them are secure. And what do you mind? If they happen to "stumble" on your 6 foot water pipe disguised as a Sunflower stand and kick you out, its for your security. How can you complain?
Name one that has information listed on their home page that shows how one can be removed from their service when their entry was incorrect.