TV users hate ads, too. But they still watch programs that are full of both overt ("commercials") and less overt ("product placement") advertising all the time.
Similarly, internet users hate ads, but they still go to ad-supported sites, and the ads still sell products, and consequently the advertisers will keep buying ads, and the ad-deliverers will keep looking for more and more ways to deliver them.
Given that rating systems are supposed to express meaning to consumers
"Supposed" to whom? To the politicians who pressured the industry to create them with the threat of censorship? No, to them the ratings are supposed to be something they can find error with and continually blame for problems, so they can go on little symbolic quests to "fix" the problem without doing anything substantive, so it will recur for them to "fix" again.
To the industry? No, the ratings were and are for them a manner of doing the least possible to avoid the possibility of intrusive government regulation.
To most people buying video games? I don't think most consumers care about ratings.
To the parents who actually care enough and spend some minimnal effort to exert control over what their children play, but can't be bothered to actually check out the game itself, research reviews, or do anything more than look at the box cover at rating block? Well, yeah, I expect both of them see expressing meaning to consumers as a major function of the ratings system.
Maybe it is time to penalize repeat offenders who vote for and pass (and don't veto) for unconstitutional laws. The voting booth is not enough to prevent future intrusions. A judge can sentence me to jail for breaking my oath to follow the law, the same should be true for those creating the laws.
"Oath" has very little to do with your liability for criminal behavior, and the same is true for those making the laws. They, too, can be sentenced to jails or fines for breaking criminals laws. They can't be sentenced to jails or fines for voting in particular ways because that itself would violate the Constitutional structure of our government, and the system of checks and balances, as it would give the judiciary essentially unchecked power over the other branches.
I was always wondering, what about commercials in the US ? ( no trolling, genuine question )
Here in Europe ( France, Belgium at least ) you have tits in almost *every* commercial on TV and at whatever time of the day.
Here, they are covered tits. Oh, sometimes only slightly covered with a bikini. But if a nipple comes out its all OMG NUDITY! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! MY EYES! MY EYES!
Windows isn't rated M because it isn't rated by the ESRB, because it isn't entertainment software.
In fact, its quite the opposite, Frustration software.
They'd be very few parents that would agree to that absurd scenario.
Well, yeah. Even for their 22yo offspring that moved out four years ago.
That's the point.
"No age of consent" plus "let the parents decide when their rating" is a return to the system in many ancient societies where children were legally subject to their parents until their parents died.
That is to say, the ESRB has been consistent about judging the content within the game itself, not the content added by modders.
Consistently stupid. If it requires a modification to the game files, and is not accessible via gameplay, the experience is not part of the game as delivered.
If you let your children play games on computers where they have access to change the installed files, well, you open it up to both rearranging existing content to change, substantially, the experience and to third-party content.
If I can change a game file, I can replace it; if I can get the information on how to change a file, I can probably also get a replacement for it that will change the game even more. If you let your children change the game, the rating is meaningless.
The ESRB is, if anything, doing parents a disservice by taking action which pretends that there is anything meaningful being done by rating the base game based on content which requires the ability to make changes that would enable you to alter every aspect of the game experience in order to access.
If the model was just there for the shape/physics of things that go over it (bras, armor, whatever), why couldn't it just be all-white?
My understanding is that it is designed so that different clothing, with different lines, which exposes different parts of it can be layered on top of the nude form, instead of making the visible skin part of the clothing.
Negligence, at law, simply means (approximately) failing to fulfill a legal duty to protect another from some injury; it doesn't exclude intentional conduct, although usually if you have proof of intent, you have stronger remedies available under causes of actions that apply specifically to intentional harm.
Also, even outside of legal contexts, "Did X and did Y" does not mean "Did X by doing Y".
I'd like it to work in reverse, since almost all of my wanted email is in English, and almost all of the non-English --and certainly 100% of the Chinese, Arabic, and, if I recognize the characters right, Thai -- email I receive is unwanted.
The US is not merely a republic, it is specifically, by design, a democratic republic -- a form of representative democracy -- even though this isn't used in its founding documents.
Not all Republics are democratic (e.g., China is a Republic, but not a democratic one).
Not all democracies are republics (in addition to the rare direct democracies, there are representative democracies that are constitutional monarchies, rather than republics, e.g., the United Kingdom.)
But "democracy" and "republic" are not exclusive, and those who say the US is a "republic, not a democracy" either don't know what they are talking about (most common, IMO) or are particularly cynical about the role and effect of public participation through the electoral process.
A republic is simply a government order whose head of state is not a monarch; the PRC is certainly a "Republic".
Now its not a "Democratic Republic" like, e.g., the US. But you don't have to be at all democratic to be a Republic.
Google is a big target. Both for the value as political theater (which is almost certainly the main purpose), and the hope of extorting a large monetary settlement to make the bad PR go away (almost certainly a secondary purpose), Google is a much better target.
However, there is no mention of who would be getting the money.
Since its a private lawsuit, and there is no indication that it is a class action, in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it was successful, or somewhat less unlikely event that Google settled to avoid the hit to goodwill from having that suit making news repeatedly, the person getting the money would be the person filing the lawsuit (and, presumably, his lawyers, assuming the case was taken on contingency.)
"Negligence" and "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" are two separate torts; the suit is charging that Google committed both (though IIED against the public at large seems, to my limited knowledge, to be a novel concept, but then novel legal theories asserted in lawsuits filed almost entirely as political stunts aren't exactly unusual.)
Lawsuits by the government that are titled "The People v. Google" seem to never help The People, harm Google, and in the end the lawyers win and the government wins a case that helps it grow in power without having to be any more accountable to those paying the bills in the end.
I hate to interrupt your rant, but this is a private, not public, lawsuit against Google.
From the Debian FAQ entries, it doesn't need to be open-sourced, but it does need a license which doesn't prevent it from being bundled with other software that replaces any function of JVM, which allows it to be distributed other than for the sole purpose of running an application or applet distributed with it, and doesn't require you to agree to indemnify and defend Sun from any lawsuits by the people you distribute it to, before it can be bundled.
The GPL isn't an issue. Sun's license is the issue.
If so many Windows users hate Windows, then why aren't they switching?
I hate Windows. Less so with XP than previously, but I still hate Windows.
OTOH, I need to minimize the headaches in working with what my work uses (Windows, MS Office on Windows, etc.), and what my school I attend on-line demands (MS Office formats), and I like my games, and I have other gadgets that only have bundled software for Windows and Mac.
So, much as I like OS X, Linux, etc., better, I use Windows mostly. Though recently I've set up a dual boot on my home desktop (and will probably follow suit on my laptop), and started using Kubuntu for things that I don't need to use Windows for.
Using Windows doesn't imply liking Windows. The main reasons I use Windows all trace back to "most people are already using Windows", and I suspect that's true of lots (perhaps most) Windows users. Network externalities are powerful forces with products where interoperability is an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
TV users hate ads, too. But they still watch programs that are full of both overt ("commercials") and less overt ("product placement") advertising all the time. Similarly, internet users hate ads, but they still go to ad-supported sites, and the ads still sell products, and consequently the advertisers will keep buying ads, and the ad-deliverers will keep looking for more and more ways to deliver them.
...but you can still return it for a refund, minus a "reasonable" restocking fee.
You have to texture it if you are going to layer different shaped things over it and not have the visible skin be part of the outer layer.
I <3 Judge Edwards works for me.
But you need to use the HTML Entity Reference for the less-than symbol.
Windows isn't rated M because it isn't rated by the ESRB, because it isn't entertainment software. In fact, its quite the opposite, Frustration software.
Negligence, at law, simply means (approximately) failing to fulfill a legal duty to protect another from some injury; it doesn't exclude intentional conduct, although usually if you have proof of intent, you have stronger remedies available under causes of actions that apply specifically to intentional harm. Also, even outside of legal contexts, "Did X and did Y" does not mean "Did X by doing Y".
I'd like it to work in reverse, since almost all of my wanted email is in English, and almost all of the non-English --and certainly 100% of the Chinese, Arabic, and, if I recognize the characters right, Thai -- email I receive is unwanted.
The US is not merely a republic, it is specifically, by design, a democratic republic -- a form of representative democracy -- even though this isn't used in its founding documents. Not all Republics are democratic (e.g., China is a Republic, but not a democratic one). Not all democracies are republics (in addition to the rare direct democracies, there are representative democracies that are constitutional monarchies, rather than republics, e.g., the United Kingdom.) But "democracy" and "republic" are not exclusive, and those who say the US is a "republic, not a democracy" either don't know what they are talking about (most common, IMO) or are particularly cynical about the role and effect of public participation through the electoral process.
A republic is simply a government order whose head of state is not a monarch; the PRC is certainly a "Republic". Now its not a "Democratic Republic" like, e.g., the US. But you don't have to be at all democratic to be a Republic.
Google is a big target. Both for the value as political theater (which is almost certainly the main purpose), and the hope of extorting a large monetary settlement to make the bad PR go away (almost certainly a secondary purpose), Google is a much better target.
"Negligence" and "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" are two separate torts; the suit is charging that Google committed both (though IIED against the public at large seems, to my limited knowledge, to be a novel concept, but then novel legal theories asserted in lawsuits filed almost entirely as political stunts aren't exactly unusual.)
IIRC, a court filing is never actionable as libel; OTOH, it may be actionable as malicious use of process.
More than attempt to get money, or change Google's behavior, this is a politician making a political stunt.
From the Debian FAQ entries, it doesn't need to be open-sourced, but it does need a license which doesn't prevent it from being bundled with other software that replaces any function of JVM, which allows it to be distributed other than for the sole purpose of running an application or applet distributed with it, and doesn't require you to agree to indemnify and defend Sun from any lawsuits by the people you distribute it to, before it can be bundled. The GPL isn't an issue. Sun's license is the issue.