Yeah, I was thinking:
"Insane Clown F***ing Posse?"
And then I thought: "What the heck could people program for them? And then I thought... ooohhhh..."
And then I went to bed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k5Elsda1GI
This commercial PROVES that my client, the FIRST Space Lawyer, was on the scene much, much earlier. Naturally, we plan on a countersuit that will involve reparations including the spaceship that this "so-called" "Space Lawyer" rode in on...
Re:Only applicants with a lisp need apply...
on
Explosives Camp
·
· Score: 1
Oh please know I really meant nothing against your alma mater... just a funny typo, so I took the obvious joke. I'm sure it is a great school. And honestly, what little boy would not want to go to this camp? Hell, what grown man wouldn't want to go?:)
Come on now... this is a serious matter. And that is why I am introducing the "No Child Left in a Mine" bill to congress this summer...
Only applicants with a lisp need apply...
on
Explosives Camp
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Obviouthly it's a technical thchool and not anything near the ivy leagueths... The brothure acthually stateth that the deadline for applicanth is April 1th.
Yes. The 1th.
Not the 1st. Becauth they're not that type of inthituthun. Dammit, Jim, they're miners, not phythithiths!
I love it... your Dead Man's Switch connects to the Revival Machine, which leads to the Dead Man's Switch, which leads to the Revival Machine, which....
Dude, while I'm not saying your ideas are completely unfounded, how about a LITTLE fact checking before your ranting post? I mean, it's like saying:
Man, those astronauts better wear their ray guns, if they've made ray guns yet. If I was an alien I'd be all over those astronauts trying to get their technology. So for the astronauts' sakes, and for the sake of humanity, I sure hope there are NOT aliens.
See how silly the above sounds? It's because it's all biased, non-grounded information. In fact, there's only a little bit of good information in there (that they have high technology), and in your posting, there's also some good info, like "He was president when they went from hosting the biggest entertainment expo..."
And that's about it.
Not trying to flamebait (honest), but this kind of posting is just noise instead of signal, ya know?
Actually, I don't know why your post got modded as flamebait. I think it's a valid question. I love these games (although I have less time to play them lately), and I can tell you that the answer lies in this situation:
Advertising is a reality. It is really all around us in an ever-increasing way. So, you can either have it force-fed to you in banner ads, commercials, and mass marketers, or you can choose how it is delivered to you.
First of all, these games, even those as promotions for companies or products, (like 42 Entertainment in the article does,) tend to have only tangential references to the product. For example, even the I Love Bees game which was a promotion for Halo 2, had very little to do with Halo 2, other than it took place in the timeframe between Halo 1 and Halo 2, story-wise. It NEVER mentioned the game, Microsoft, or Bungie. EVER. There were never ads placed in the game.
It was more like, "play in this space" and we know that as the game is perhipherally related to the product we're trying to sell, that it will be in your minds more than if you didn't play this game.
So, by virtue of this advertisement being EXTREMELY non-intrusive, and well-put-together in terms of the content and story, as well as the "delivery mechanism", it made you think positively about the product they were selling.
But again, there really was no selling. It was more of a "getting you to think about Halo 2, without mentioning Halo 2" kind of thing. If I could have all advertisement come to me in such a way, I would do so forever. It's honestly that refreshing.
For the game "Last Call Poker" which was an ARG promoting the video game "GUN" by Activision, the story had little again to do with the product, excepting that it revolved around the story of a gun, and it's owners, the history of the thing, and that "cowboy culture" kind of thing. It featured a fully-functioning online poker site (free chips of course, to be legal), as well as a robust video storytelling mode. It was web 2.0 all over the place, as well as being extremely fun and social.
Again, you thought about the product, but only tangentially. It was NEVER referred to in the game. It was just the thing that got this story going.
So I know that's extremely long, but honestly, THAT'S why people would play a commercial. I'd honestly reccomend checking it out, and if it's not your thing, then totally cool... never play again. But I think once you've tried it, you'll agree that in terms of advertising, it's the best way you'll have seen advertising go since it's inception. Honest.
(check out www.argn.com or www.unforums.com for information on new games and places to learn more about the genre and how the games are played.)
as I write for them occasionally, but I'd reccomend ARGNet and UnFiction (a site I DON'T write for) for those who are interested in this unique game genre. It's growing daily, and there are more games to suit more tastes than ever. Definitely cool stuff.
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
*the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
*the nature of the copyrighted work;
*amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
*the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to the situation.The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
(Emphasis added by me)
And Goldeneye 007 was what first brought the world of FPS to console gamers (read: those without a computer that would/could play Doom or did not have a net connection to play with friends on games like Quake.)
So it was a very important game for not only Nintendo, but for First Person Shooters, as well as the game industry as a whole. FPS wasn't really successful on consoles prior to Goldeneye 007.
Actually, what you should do, if you want a real Shadowrun RPG, is to hope this sells mildly well.
That way, they'll see that the IP has legs and will develop more games in that "world".
Otherwise, the thing will sell horribly, and you won't see another Shadowrun game for quite some time, if at all.
I agree that the SNES and Genesis versions with just an upgrade would be worth buying, but you're not going to see that, unless the FASA division makes some cash on this one.
It looks like you're pidgeon-hole-ing me because I brought up a question that didn't say "religion sux".
My point is that if a moon is molten (which I know, hasn't been proven, it's just "more supported" with this finding) at the core, then it likely is not as old as previously thought, as it would have, as you said, likely radiated it's heat much quicker, than say, the earth, as it was a smaller body. So, for it to have a molten core, would tend to lend itself to a younger creation (by whom/whatever, I'm not saying, please note that...) And would therefore lend itself to at least to a timetable closer to what a creationist tends to believe than what most modern science believed (at least previously).
So, if you choose to take that as some religious guy yelling "Woo-hoo! Take THAT science!" Then you, good sir or madam, are confused and incorrect. I was simply asking a question, and saying, doesn't this TEND to follow logic.
I also hate how no-one can also say, hmmm, this science seems to support the bible. Whether you believe the bible or not, science is fact, right? So it either supports or does not support any theological "side". So, all I was asking was "Does this tend to support that side?"
Sorry (seriously) if I'm reading too much into your comment, but it seemed to be so defensive and didn't really answer the question I was asking.
But I do wholeheartedly agree that the next moon expeditions (of which I sincerely hope there are some soon!) should bring the type of equipment you mentioned. I find it silly that we tend to send people doing generic experiments to see "what happens in space" as opposed to "building on what we've learned" in terms of observation from earth or from, say, the Hubble Telescope.
Okay, so I'm going to preface this: I'm asking a QUESTION, not stating anything as fact, or whatever. So don't tag this flamebait on a kneejerk reaction. I'm honestly asking a question here.
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon? Meaning, would this indicate a "newer, younger" moon, generally speaking? Just curious...
Issue a statement with verbage stating something along the lines of "these machines, like everything electronic, controlled by a computer, are 'hackable' and here's what you can do, as a voting body, to protect the investment, and to ensure a safe and reliable election:"?
It seems that these flaws are bad, but they're fixable. They have the way to plug the holes, but they don't work on it, don't promote it, and don't seem to want to admit there's issues. I know they're a company trying to protect their bottom line and all. But I guess the main thing is why don't they see that the PR collapse here could be fixed, if they would just issue fixes to their hardware/software?
The truth is that the author has a good and valid point. While it's not going to cure what ails the industry all by itself, the gaming media has a responsibility (I think) to objectively see what's out there in terms of perspective (not just from Jack Thompson soundbytes, and also from Rockstar soundbytes) and to really see what the "community" says about the subjects. That way, you get (OMG) balanced journalism, that, when opinion is then later injected into, has the right to say what it has to say, without being fanboyish to one side or the other.
I mean, who ever really got upset at someone for having an opinion that was actually well-informed, even if you disagreed with it? IMHO, this is the kind of thing that separates gaming journalism from other forms of the genre, in some arenas. The reporting of the industry is better, but not necessarily the "perhiphery" of the industry is getting glanced at, and nothing more. Digging deeper in these areas are what take journalism from being a niche and making it accessible to everyone, even outside of games.
Again, this is only my opinion, but seriously, the author has a right to call out those who consider major "non-press-conference" events, not worth attending.
IANAScientist, but why not use our nuclear waste then, to produce hydrogen for fuel cells via these bacteria? Or did I completely read the article incorrectly? (which is more than entirely possible and likely)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I was thinking:
"Insane Clown F***ing Posse?"
And then I thought: "What the heck could people program for them? And then I thought... ooohhhh..."
And then I went to bed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k5Elsda1GI This commercial PROVES that my client, the FIRST Space Lawyer, was on the scene much, much earlier. Naturally, we plan on a countersuit that will involve reparations including the spaceship that this "so-called" "Space Lawyer" rode in on...
Oh please know I really meant nothing against your alma mater... just a funny typo, so I took the obvious joke. I'm sure it is a great school. And honestly, what little boy would not want to go to this camp? Hell, what grown man wouldn't want to go? :)
Come on now... this is a serious matter. And that is why I am introducing the "No Child Left in a Mine" bill to congress this summer...
Obviouthly it's a technical thchool and not anything near the ivy leagueths... The brothure acthually stateth that the deadline for applicanth is April 1th.
Yes. The 1th.
Not the 1st. Becauth they're not that type of inthituthun. Dammit, Jim, they're miners, not phythithiths!
'Now we got (the) low-budget Mac we ever wanted.'
Duuuude! Come on! This almost sentence (even without the parenthetical 'the') is ridiculous!
Who says that?
And they lived happily all after...
I love it... your Dead Man's Switch connects to the Revival Machine, which leads to the Dead Man's Switch, which leads to the Revival Machine, which....
Mod Parent Up! (Honestly, it's even RARER to see someone use solipsism correctly, especially in a joke situation!)
Dude, while I'm not saying your ideas are completely unfounded, how about a LITTLE fact checking before your ranting post? I mean, it's like saying:
Man, those astronauts better wear their ray guns, if they've made ray guns yet. If I was an alien I'd be all over those astronauts trying to get their technology. So for the astronauts' sakes, and for the sake of humanity, I sure hope there are NOT aliens.
See how silly the above sounds? It's because it's all biased, non-grounded information. In fact, there's only a little bit of good information in there (that they have high technology), and in your posting, there's also some good info, like "He was president when they went from hosting the biggest entertainment expo..."
And that's about it.
Not trying to flamebait (honest), but this kind of posting is just noise instead of signal, ya know?
When you outlaw melting coins, only outlaws will have... er- um...
Actually, I don't know why your post got modded as flamebait. I think it's a valid question. I love these games (although I have less time to play them lately), and I can tell you that the answer lies in this situation:
Advertising is a reality. It is really all around us in an ever-increasing way. So, you can either have it force-fed to you in banner ads, commercials, and mass marketers, or you can choose how it is delivered to you.
First of all, these games, even those as promotions for companies or products, (like 42 Entertainment in the article does,) tend to have only tangential references to the product. For example, even the I Love Bees game which was a promotion for Halo 2, had very little to do with Halo 2, other than it took place in the timeframe between Halo 1 and Halo 2, story-wise. It NEVER mentioned the game, Microsoft, or Bungie. EVER. There were never ads placed in the game.
It was more like, "play in this space" and we know that as the game is perhipherally related to the product we're trying to sell, that it will be in your minds more than if you didn't play this game.
So, by virtue of this advertisement being EXTREMELY non-intrusive, and well-put-together in terms of the content and story, as well as the "delivery mechanism", it made you think positively about the product they were selling.
But again, there really was no selling. It was more of a "getting you to think about Halo 2, without mentioning Halo 2" kind of thing. If I could have all advertisement come to me in such a way, I would do so forever. It's honestly that refreshing.
For the game "Last Call Poker" which was an ARG promoting the video game "GUN" by Activision, the story had little again to do with the product, excepting that it revolved around the story of a gun, and it's owners, the history of the thing, and that "cowboy culture" kind of thing. It featured a fully-functioning online poker site (free chips of course, to be legal), as well as a robust video storytelling mode. It was web 2.0 all over the place, as well as being extremely fun and social.
Again, you thought about the product, but only tangentially. It was NEVER referred to in the game. It was just the thing that got this story going.
So I know that's extremely long, but honestly, THAT'S why people would play a commercial. I'd honestly reccomend checking it out, and if it's not your thing, then totally cool... never play again. But I think once you've tried it, you'll agree that in terms of advertising, it's the best way you'll have seen advertising go since it's inception. Honest.
(check out www.argn.com or www.unforums.com for information on new games and places to learn more about the genre and how the games are played.)
as I write for them occasionally, but I'd reccomend ARGNet and UnFiction (a site I DON'T write for) for those who are interested in this unique game genre. It's growing daily, and there are more games to suit more tastes than ever. Definitely cool stuff.
To support what you wrote (from copyright.gov):
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
*the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
*the nature of the copyrighted work;
*amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
*the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. (Emphasis added by me)
Apple patented porn?
And Goldeneye 007 was what first brought the world of FPS to console gamers (read: those without a computer that would/could play Doom or did not have a net connection to play with friends on games like Quake.) So it was a very important game for not only Nintendo, but for First Person Shooters, as well as the game industry as a whole. FPS wasn't really successful on consoles prior to Goldeneye 007.
Actually, what you should do, if you want a real Shadowrun RPG, is to hope this sells mildly well. That way, they'll see that the IP has legs and will develop more games in that "world". Otherwise, the thing will sell horribly, and you won't see another Shadowrun game for quite some time, if at all. I agree that the SNES and Genesis versions with just an upgrade would be worth buying, but you're not going to see that, unless the FASA division makes some cash on this one.
Maybe he thought God of War was a game he used to play on his Magnavox Odyssey? ;)
I'm getting it for both the Wii and the Playstation topics, perhaps more... I don't know what's up with that...
Well, see, at least the last post actually answered the question... Thank you! :)
It looks like you're pidgeon-hole-ing me because I brought up a question that didn't say "religion sux".
My point is that if a moon is molten (which I know, hasn't been proven, it's just "more supported" with this finding) at the core, then it likely is not as old as previously thought, as it would have, as you said, likely radiated it's heat much quicker, than say, the earth, as it was a smaller body. So, for it to have a molten core, would tend to lend itself to a younger creation (by whom/whatever, I'm not saying, please note that...) And would therefore lend itself to at least to a timetable closer to what a creationist tends to believe than what most modern science believed (at least previously).
So, if you choose to take that as some religious guy yelling "Woo-hoo! Take THAT science!" Then you, good sir or madam, are confused and incorrect. I was simply asking a question, and saying, doesn't this TEND to follow logic.
I also hate how no-one can also say, hmmm, this science seems to support the bible. Whether you believe the bible or not, science is fact, right? So it either supports or does not support any theological "side". So, all I was asking was "Does this tend to support that side?"
Sorry (seriously) if I'm reading too much into your comment, but it seemed to be so defensive and didn't really answer the question I was asking.
But I do wholeheartedly agree that the next moon expeditions (of which I sincerely hope there are some soon!) should bring the type of equipment you mentioned. I find it silly that we tend to send people doing generic experiments to see "what happens in space" as opposed to "building on what we've learned" in terms of observation from earth or from, say, the Hubble Telescope.
Okay, so I'm going to preface this: I'm asking a QUESTION, not stating anything as fact, or whatever. So don't tag this flamebait on a kneejerk reaction. I'm honestly asking a question here.
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon? Meaning, would this indicate a "newer, younger" moon, generally speaking? Just curious...
Issue a statement with verbage stating something along the lines of "these machines, like everything electronic, controlled by a computer, are 'hackable' and here's what you can do, as a voting body, to protect the investment, and to ensure a safe and reliable election:"? It seems that these flaws are bad, but they're fixable. They have the way to plug the holes, but they don't work on it, don't promote it, and don't seem to want to admit there's issues. I know they're a company trying to protect their bottom line and all. But I guess the main thing is why don't they see that the PR collapse here could be fixed, if they would just issue fixes to their hardware/software?
DNF being released and Reality are mutually exclusive, actually.
The truth is that the author has a good and valid point. While it's not going to cure what ails the industry all by itself, the gaming media has a responsibility (I think) to objectively see what's out there in terms of perspective (not just from Jack Thompson soundbytes, and also from Rockstar soundbytes) and to really see what the "community" says about the subjects. That way, you get (OMG) balanced journalism, that, when opinion is then later injected into, has the right to say what it has to say, without being fanboyish to one side or the other.
I mean, who ever really got upset at someone for having an opinion that was actually well-informed, even if you disagreed with it? IMHO, this is the kind of thing that separates gaming journalism from other forms of the genre, in some arenas. The reporting of the industry is better, but not necessarily the "perhiphery" of the industry is getting glanced at, and nothing more. Digging deeper in these areas are what take journalism from being a niche and making it accessible to everyone, even outside of games.
Again, this is only my opinion, but seriously, the author has a right to call out those who consider major "non-press-conference" events, not worth attending.
IANAScientist, but why not use our nuclear waste then, to produce hydrogen for fuel cells via these bacteria? Or did I completely read the article incorrectly? (which is more than entirely possible and likely)