Good point, but I guarantee you that most people you see on the streets are not going to change that channel and possibly miss a moment of "The Amazing Race" or thier favorite synidcated gameshow. Plus, I know people who talk at work about their favorite commercials.
That is acceptable once a year, and it is during the superbowl, because the inherent manliness of watching it makes up for your minds freedom being sold for a day.
This post is brought to you by Dial anti viral vagina cream, Post(tm) Cocks and Mallow cereal, and the movie Junk Puncher, from the makers of The Matrix, premiers in a theater near you Friday...
Honestly, I don't even like getting text messages from friends, unless it is a girl who is saying "I am on my way to give you BJ, need beer?"
I don't even watch TV anymore because commercials are so god damn annoying.
The last thing I want is some annoying bullshit ringing my phone while I am sleeping, roll over, cursing the fact that I haven't muted it, check out who sent me what...
"Best buy is having a sale on Kelly Clarkson: From church going babe, to cocksucking ho! And don't forget to watch 3LBS tonight, it's not exactly brain surgery... Actually it is!"
While "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" is playing in the background...
I don't think that it would be illegal for someone to make a system that runs sony playstation games, but good luck to someone actually making a profit doing so... They don't get royalties, nor do they get money from developers, and they wouldn't be able to sell at a loss, because that would be where they make money... Plus, I would imagine reverse engineering a PS3 would be a lot of work... most likely impossible.
Seriously man. I have a DS, I liked some of the games, but kirby didn't have much replay value, in fact, it didn't have much play value. The game that I have spent the most time on has been New Super Mario.
In fact, right now, I just took my DS off the charger. I certainly wish there were more games with a long period of play time in them. Trust me, if the PSP had anything on it that was of the level of FFVII or Doom or any cool game, it would have beaten the DS. The DS took advantage of an expensive handheld with nothing to play. Maybe the Wii will do the same.
Oh yeah, please don't say Animal Crossing... God that game was boring. It got great reviews, people loved it, then I played it and started wondering how many people who work for online game sites still play with their sisters Barbies.
I'll be hacking my way through Hyrule by hand, thank you very much.
Kind of... What you will actually be doing is flicking your wrist or swinging your weemote, or really just making some movement with your right arm in some arbitrary way while controlling the direction of the swing with the left analog stick. The "hacking" is really just a substitute for pressing a button, nothing more, nothing less. I can see it adding a little fun for a child, but not much for an adult.
I like Nintendo, I have a DS which is pretty cool, though I think somewhat overated. I still play SNES games frequently, more than my xBox or PS2. I am not really a Nintendo fanboy, but I definately am excited for their new console. I have a 360 which I am very disapointed in, and I have ZERO intent on buying a PS3. The thing is though, I didn't really see this as some kind of "1337" preview. It sounds to me like a typical all ages roleplaying game. And the control scheme, which you would have thought would be pretty good because this is one of Nintendos big release games, seems to be mostly average. I am sorry, but if you are going to have a system that isn't a graphical processing powerhouse that puts a PS2 to shame, your control scheme better be really cool and add something to the game.
I just want the motion of your right hand to mean something... Is that too much to ask out of Nintendos big Zelda release? I don't think it is, and even if the game is good, I don't think it is what I was hoping for. I just hope that this time some 3rd party game makers do something for Nintendo that is awsome. My biggest fear is that the control scheme isn't so simplified because Nintendo wanted it to be easy, or because they were short on time, but because the Weemote interface isn't as capable as we thought it would be. Remember that mapping the hand motions and ploting the force of the sword will use processing time, hopefully the Wii has the horsepower it needs to do this and Nintendo simply made a creative decision to not use it for this release. I have my fingers crossed... Actually, I don't, hard to type that way.
There is certainly a difference besides the hardware.
One is a source of active entertainment, the other a source of passive entertainment. It is the flow of carefully selected programming aimed at keeping attention and selling very expensive advertising space that makes TV somewhat hazardous. And before someone jumps on me with "but they do the same thing online too!", yes, you CAN use the internet in the same way, to an extent, but it is not as likely.
When they say TV causes autism, they are not refering to the squared box with a glass front and light rays hitting your brain. It is the programming. They are talking about young children who are less likely to select different shows based on interests.
Just because they are both sources of video and sound doesn't mean they are the same. There is a big difference between a flow of programming selected to sell advertising space and viewing what you deem usefull to yourself.
Do some people use multimedia online like TV? Sure. The other way around, not so much.
I watch TV, only stuff that I DVR though. It usually fills one of two needs for me. Art or information. I never use TV as a distraction or a time killer. I prefer active entertainment to passive entertainment.
I think that active/passive entertainment is the major difference between the two types of media choices. Choosing active entertainment helps build your mind, not always in a good way, of course. I think passive entertainment has more of a numbing affect. I have been a long time believer that TV rots your brain, and I am only 23.
I just think that he probably did do something. It is just a guess, but there are plenty of people who have actually downloaded songs, why didn't they sue them... Or me?
I am not very impressed by this story as a whole... The article references slashdot for discussion. That doesn't make any sense to me.
There just isn't much information in this story, it doesn't even say if anyone paid out at all. Could it have been a settlement? What did this guy ACTUALLY do? I doubt he is being sued for literally nothing. Any news article that sites P2P websites is not really very fair or balanced.
Next time you read something like this, please send a link to a real article, not just some web-blogger who heard something from a torrent site. Standards people, standards!
You probably won't read this, but I am going to respond anyways...
You seem to be bitterly defending certain things that I don't really disagree with. Yeah, I know some guys are really good at picking up on subtle communication, and yes, they are much better at picking up chicks, and it has nothing to do with how good looking they are. However, I guarantee you that they dress well and stand out in a crowd. I also guarantee you that THEY spent time on that stuff, it is only natural to a select few. But in general women are better at it, because that is what they talk about. Ask them.
And to your comments about women who go for assholes being like alcoholics, that is retarded. Women and men have been socially conditioned for thousands of years to pick up on certain traits and find them attractive. You do not choose who you are attracted to, anyone who says that they do is lying. You do choose who you are with, but when people are very attracted to someone else it can be very difficult to get away from, regardless how bad it is logically.
Yes, girls like alpha males. That is how the world works, in every species. People are naturally attracted to those that increase their chances of pushing forward their bloodline, even if their conscious choices do not reflect this (condoms).
Superficial is different than selective. I am saying people are more attracted to others that stand out and look like they take care of themselves. The actual price of jeans isn't as important as the sense of fasion. And the time and money isn't always spent directly, a girl watching the real world is learning how the dynamics of social events work. I fucking hate watching the real world.
As to being in denial, about what? You will find just as many attractive women with good looking jerks as you will with bad looking ones. It is a fact that women are less interested in the looks of men. The reason this doesn't always hold true is because the girl hasn't met the guy yet, or, because the guy is good looking, he is more confident and acts accordingly. This is what really is attracting the women. I know plenty of good looking guys that struggle with women.
I don't like the Chicago Bears because they kicked my Bills ass.
Yeah, I am thinking that the idea is that the publisher doesn't release content for extra money. They release it for free as incentive to actually own the game. But those neat extra levels can be cracked too. So I don't really think it is the best solution.
I don't read CGW anymore, but they may still be decent. PC Gamer is awsome in the review department, they really seem to care more about people playing the games than they do about the people selling the games... It is unfortunate that this doesn't seem to be helping them win the battle against the big online companies that are much more forgiving in their reviews.
I just want the big review sites to bury games that are buggy or detrimental to your computer. And if the game is a cheap update to the last game, SAY THAT! Sites like gamespot are the media of the gaming industry, and like the media of other things, it seems that the money rolling in from companies is far more important to them than their subscribers... Probably because most of what you see is pretty much free to us. You get what you pay for.
I am totally for supporting the PC Gaming industry, that means I purchase games made by publishers that I want to support. I pirate games all the time, they are generally games that I want to use as a time kill but that are not impressive enough for me to shell out fifty bucks for.
I have bought the following games in the last year or so...
Half-Life 2, Oblivion, Rome Total War, Age of Empires 3, Doom 3...
Those are games that I want the developers and publishers to continue making money on. I also make a point in trying to pirate anything that EA releases, because I am a Madden fan (I just like football games, sue me) and I am sick of their fucking bullshit when it comes to releasing unfinished "next-gen" shit. I sure would like a good football game to play on my xBox360, unfortunately, EA has fucked everyone who loves the sport and the sport gaming genre.
So my point was... Support good games... and fuck EA:)
I don't like George Bush, but I don't think he is as avengelical as you think he is. He may not be very good at running the country, but he is a cunning polotician. Just because he says something, or states some belief, doesn't mean that it is true. Specifically when dealing with elections and winning a giant portion of the country on religious beliefs alone.
Girls get lots of offers - many not very good ones, but some good - without having to work for it.
I guarantee you that girls spend a lot more time talking about, and thinking about how to get men interested in them than men do. How much time do you spend on your look before you go to a bar? How much money have you spent on clothes and make-up, and lotions, and shoes? Attractive women spend A TON!
often the girls go for good looking fucktards that treat them like dirt
Another misguided statement. Yes, I will agree lot's of attractive girls go for guys that treat them like dirt, but it is not because they are good looking, and it is not because they are fucktards... It is because women are drawn to many aspects of the asshole guys. They are generally confident, and they are generally leaders. Girls want a guy who is going to lead in a relationship, and not make them feel uncomfortable. Don't believe me? Ask any attractive woman (ugly girls don't count) what makes them more uncomfortable; a guy who is treating them poorly, or a guy who is treating them too nicely. One comes off as arrogant (which can even be somewhat attractive), the other comes off as creepy. Creepy is generally much worse.
Men also use looks as an excuse way too much. Girls are not like you, they do not instantly make up their minds on who they like based on looks. Men do. A hot chick walks up to you and says something dumb, and looks embarrased, you will probably be like "great! i might have a shot with this one". A hot guy rolls on some chick and says in a mumbly insecure voice "hey, my name is Chodeboy, what do you do?" she will run. Looks may matter, but they don't matter as much as you think they do, luckily for men.
Girls get a lot of things that men don't pick up on. Body language, eye contact, voice tone just to name a few. Attractive women don't need your help in keeping guys in check. They have grown very good at it. They get a lot of practice. Women are not dumb, they are different, a liberal crowd like slashdot should understand that.
I think the only way to do this is to ban lobbying, which is pretty much the most obviously bad thing that happens in American government... It just happens to also be pretty much the most effective way to get things done in American government.
Is that irony? I'm not really sure, but I know it sucks.
My problem is this. It is not obvious to most users that this information is tracked to such a detailed degree. I spent four years in college for computer engineering, before that, I didn't know that entering text in a search engine was actually trackable to me. And I certainly didn't know that it was trackable, storeable, and searchable.
There is a reason people have their rights read to them when they are arrested. It is because not everyone knows the law and when something really important to someone is at stake, the government believes that the less educated still deserve to know how certain things will affect them...
This leads to a dispute over what should people know on their own, and what should people be told before using. Google has an EUA, but you don't need to read it, or even look at it to use their service. Maybe you should (oh yeah, and maybe it should be readable by normal people, not just lawyers).
I know there is sentiment to say "fuck people who use stuff they don't understand". I think that people need to be more responsible for themselves. But in the case of the internet it is a great tool for everyone, and I think the more people use it, the better. Something as basic to anyone who needs information as a search engine should have the risks better explained on a regular basis.
I am not exactly sure what I think should be legal and illegal for companies to do with their data. There is definately some gray area and good arguments on both sides.
What I am sure of, is this. The government should not have the right to tell companies they need to save this data. That is absolutely wrong on a very basic and fundamental level.
Basically the most dangerous part of keeping this data is the fact that other people can match you to your queries.
I think the government should only get involved if there is a problem that cannot be solved by the people themselves. Unfortunately, the willingness of companies to offer easily accessable avenues for finding some of the risks of their services is not as good as it should be.
I think the first step here is not to make hard rules as to how long all search info can be held, instead, they should give rules as to what can be held indefinately, and what cannot.
In this case, I don't think there is anything wrong with queries being kept indefinately, but it should not be kept in relation to people. Make it so that they have to encrypt IPs to some other value, so that searches can be tracked, and even what the users search, but there will be no way to tie that information to actual people.
That way the information can be stored indefinately, and in the event other people want to see, they will have nothing that they can use maliciously against other people. They will see search trends, and even see what individual users search for in order to create correlation between searches, but will not have access to anyones personal business.
It would be difficult to argue against this because any business that wants to know specific peoples searches is obviously using information that the users did not intend anyone to have.
By doing this the search companies would have a much more trusting user base.
If only we had a media that brought up important stuff like this, the companies would do it on their own in order to generate good PR and more traffic.
Off Topic Here... But I see your sig all the time, and I just want to know what it means. Is it a joke about the revolution? Either it is pure nintendo hatred, or a joke that goes Whoosh!
God you are a pussy, it is a good time that you were born in a time where you could live your soft fruity life of peace and love and oppression. What would you have done as a knight in medieval times? No father, I will not fight!
"Are you saying murdering these people is the solution!? OMG I haev to go piss myself with laughter that anyone in history can think that at some point a group fights another because it is the only way to regain any form of balance!"
Listen - I am NOT saying we have to kill the RIAA, but think about what he purposed, which was kind of a joke, by the way.
The RIAA has WAY too much power in influencing the way people recieve musical art. They have lobbied to create laws that were originally beneficial to musicians and themselves. Now it is becoming apparent that the laws to protect Michael Jackson from me releasing Bad at the same time as him and making a shitload of money (Might be a bad example, since I can't moonwalk), have a side effect.
The side effect is pretty much that everything is owned by the artists, who sell their rights to companies. So now you can't do what you want with the art you have, you have to obey whatever rules the companies put on you. Some are good and protect the musicians from having everything they do be free. Some are bad, the worst of which are going to great lengths to destroy the idea of art, and turning it into a brutal business, which in turn is destroying the art itself.
As new distribution comes into play, we have much less need for these companies, yet they have put in a framework to make us dependent on them. The companies uses are greatly reduced, but they are unwilling to find other ways to make money, and instead use large sums of reserve cash to influence our government. They in turn influence us, under penalties that are totally detrimental to our lives, to get our music from the companies reguardless of how rediculous it is. They also control the musicians by the same way.
So the RIAA has a lot more pull than you do. They can RUIN PEOPLES LIVES, and you can't do anything except live by their rules.
Well folks, this isn't new to the world. It has happend thousands of times in recent history. Luckily we don't need to resort to violence. Right? That is what the law is there for. I think you see what I am getting at now.
As George Carlin has said, "The game is rigged, there is a big club, and YOU ain't in it". Despite being funny, it is true, and it is sad. The sentiments of one of the people in this thread that said that killing someone in the RIAA is really that bad does make sense, until you realize that they are ruining the lives of thousands of people, and they don't care. They really don't.
Sure, relax and don't go kill people, that IS a good thing. It is good for the people who are not in control, because it makes us feel safe. And it is good for the people who belong to that big club because it ACTUALLY MAKES THEMS SAFE.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, but I guarantee you that most people you see on the streets are not going to change that channel and possibly miss a moment of "The Amazing Race" or thier favorite synidcated gameshow. Plus, I know people who talk at work about their favorite commercials.
That is acceptable once a year, and it is during the superbowl, because the inherent manliness of watching it makes up for your minds freedom being sold for a day.
This post is brought to you by Dial anti viral vagina cream, Post(tm) Cocks and Mallow cereal, and the movie Junk Puncher, from the makers of The Matrix, premiers in a theater near you Friday...
Honestly, I don't even like getting text messages from friends, unless it is a girl who is saying "I am on my way to give you BJ, need beer?"
I don't even watch TV anymore because commercials are so god damn annoying.
The last thing I want is some annoying bullshit ringing my phone while I am sleeping, roll over, cursing the fact that I haven't muted it, check out who sent me what...
"Best buy is having a sale on Kelly Clarkson: From church going babe, to cocksucking ho! And don't forget to watch 3LBS tonight, it's not exactly brain surgery... Actually it is!"
While "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" is playing in the background...
Jesus Christ, that is some evil shit.
I don't think that it would be illegal for someone to make a system that runs sony playstation games, but good luck to someone actually making a profit doing so... They don't get royalties, nor do they get money from developers, and they wouldn't be able to sell at a loss, because that would be where they make money... Plus, I would imagine reverse engineering a PS3 would be a lot of work... most likely impossible.
Kirby was fun... for about an hour and a half.
Seriously man. I have a DS, I liked some of the games, but kirby didn't have much replay value, in fact, it didn't have much play value. The game that I have spent the most time on has been New Super Mario.
In fact, right now, I just took my DS off the charger. I certainly wish there were more games with a long period of play time in them. Trust me, if the PSP had anything on it that was of the level of FFVII or Doom or any cool game, it would have beaten the DS. The DS took advantage of an expensive handheld with nothing to play. Maybe the Wii will do the same.
Oh yeah, please don't say Animal Crossing... God that game was boring. It got great reviews, people loved it, then I played it and started wondering how many people who work for online game sites still play with their sisters Barbies.
I'll be hacking my way through Hyrule by hand, thank you very much.
Kind of... What you will actually be doing is flicking your wrist or swinging your weemote, or really just making some movement with your right arm in some arbitrary way while controlling the direction of the swing with the left analog stick. The "hacking" is really just a substitute for pressing a button, nothing more, nothing less. I can see it adding a little fun for a child, but not much for an adult.
I like Nintendo, I have a DS which is pretty cool, though I think somewhat overated. I still play SNES games frequently, more than my xBox or PS2. I am not really a Nintendo fanboy, but I definately am excited for their new console. I have a 360 which I am very disapointed in, and I have ZERO intent on buying a PS3. The thing is though, I didn't really see this as some kind of "1337" preview. It sounds to me like a typical all ages roleplaying game. And the control scheme, which you would have thought would be pretty good because this is one of Nintendos big release games, seems to be mostly average. I am sorry, but if you are going to have a system that isn't a graphical processing powerhouse that puts a PS2 to shame, your control scheme better be really cool and add something to the game.
I just want the motion of your right hand to mean something... Is that too much to ask out of Nintendos big Zelda release? I don't think it is, and even if the game is good, I don't think it is what I was hoping for. I just hope that this time some 3rd party game makers do something for Nintendo that is awsome. My biggest fear is that the control scheme isn't so simplified because Nintendo wanted it to be easy, or because they were short on time, but because the Weemote interface isn't as capable as we thought it would be. Remember that mapping the hand motions and ploting the force of the sword will use processing time, hopefully the Wii has the horsepower it needs to do this and Nintendo simply made a creative decision to not use it for this release. I have my fingers crossed... Actually, I don't, hard to type that way.
There is certainly a difference besides the hardware.
One is a source of active entertainment, the other a source of passive entertainment. It is the flow of carefully selected programming aimed at keeping attention and selling very expensive advertising space that makes TV somewhat hazardous. And before someone jumps on me with "but they do the same thing online too!", yes, you CAN use the internet in the same way, to an extent, but it is not as likely.
When they say TV causes autism, they are not refering to the squared box with a glass front and light rays hitting your brain. It is the programming. They are talking about young children who are less likely to select different shows based on interests.
Just because they are both sources of video and sound doesn't mean they are the same. There is a big difference between a flow of programming selected to sell advertising space and viewing what you deem usefull to yourself. Do some people use multimedia online like TV? Sure. The other way around, not so much. I watch TV, only stuff that I DVR though. It usually fills one of two needs for me. Art or information. I never use TV as a distraction or a time killer. I prefer active entertainment to passive entertainment. I think that active/passive entertainment is the major difference between the two types of media choices. Choosing active entertainment helps build your mind, not always in a good way, of course. I think passive entertainment has more of a numbing affect. I have been a long time believer that TV rots your brain, and I am only 23.
I just think that he probably did do something. It is just a guess, but there are plenty of people who have actually downloaded songs, why didn't they sue them... Or me?
Arg!
I am not very impressed by this story as a whole... The article references slashdot for discussion. That doesn't make any sense to me.
There just isn't much information in this story, it doesn't even say if anyone paid out at all. Could it have been a settlement? What did this guy ACTUALLY do? I doubt he is being sued for literally nothing. Any news article that sites P2P websites is not really very fair or balanced.
Next time you read something like this, please send a link to a real article, not just some web-blogger who heard something from a torrent site. Standards people, standards!
You probably won't read this, but I am going to respond anyways...
You seem to be bitterly defending certain things that I don't really disagree with. Yeah, I know some guys are really good at picking up on subtle communication, and yes, they are much better at picking up chicks, and it has nothing to do with how good looking they are. However, I guarantee you that they dress well and stand out in a crowd. I also guarantee you that THEY spent time on that stuff, it is only natural to a select few. But in general women are better at it, because that is what they talk about. Ask them.
And to your comments about women who go for assholes being like alcoholics, that is retarded. Women and men have been socially conditioned for thousands of years to pick up on certain traits and find them attractive. You do not choose who you are attracted to, anyone who says that they do is lying. You do choose who you are with, but when people are very attracted to someone else it can be very difficult to get away from, regardless how bad it is logically.
Yes, girls like alpha males. That is how the world works, in every species. People are naturally attracted to those that increase their chances of pushing forward their bloodline, even if their conscious choices do not reflect this (condoms).
Superficial is different than selective. I am saying people are more attracted to others that stand out and look like they take care of themselves. The actual price of jeans isn't as important as the sense of fasion. And the time and money isn't always spent directly, a girl watching the real world is learning how the dynamics of social events work. I fucking hate watching the real world.
As to being in denial, about what? You will find just as many attractive women with good looking jerks as you will with bad looking ones. It is a fact that women are less interested in the looks of men. The reason this doesn't always hold true is because the girl hasn't met the guy yet, or, because the guy is good looking, he is more confident and acts accordingly. This is what really is attracting the women. I know plenty of good looking guys that struggle with women.
I don't like the Chicago Bears because they kicked my Bills ass.
Yeah, I am thinking that the idea is that the publisher doesn't release content for extra money. They release it for free as incentive to actually own the game. But those neat extra levels can be cracked too. So I don't really think it is the best solution.
I don't read CGW anymore, but they may still be decent. PC Gamer is awsome in the review department, they really seem to care more about people playing the games than they do about the people selling the games... It is unfortunate that this doesn't seem to be helping them win the battle against the big online companies that are much more forgiving in their reviews.
I just want the big review sites to bury games that are buggy or detrimental to your computer. And if the game is a cheap update to the last game, SAY THAT! Sites like gamespot are the media of the gaming industry, and like the media of other things, it seems that the money rolling in from companies is far more important to them than their subscribers... Probably because most of what you see is pretty much free to us. You get what you pay for.
I am totally for supporting the PC Gaming industry, that means I purchase games made by publishers that I want to support. I pirate games all the time, they are generally games that I want to use as a time kill but that are not impressive enough for me to shell out fifty bucks for.
:)
I have bought the following games in the last year or so...
Half-Life 2, Oblivion, Rome Total War, Age of Empires 3, Doom 3...
Those are games that I want the developers and publishers to continue making money on. I also make a point in trying to pirate anything that EA releases, because I am a Madden fan (I just like football games, sue me) and I am sick of their fucking bullshit when it comes to releasing unfinished "next-gen" shit. I sure would like a good football game to play on my xBox360, unfortunately, EA has fucked everyone who loves the sport and the sport gaming genre.
So my point was... Support good games... and fuck EA
I don't like George Bush, but I don't think he is as avengelical as you think he is. He may not be very good at running the country, but he is a cunning polotician. Just because he says something, or states some belief, doesn't mean that it is true. Specifically when dealing with elections and winning a giant portion of the country on religious beliefs alone.
I smoke pot, and some girls like me. I hear lot's of rockstars smoke dope too.
Girls get lots of offers - many not very good ones, but some good - without having to work for it.
I guarantee you that girls spend a lot more time talking about, and thinking about how to get men interested in them than men do. How much time do you spend on your look before you go to a bar? How much money have you spent on clothes and make-up, and lotions, and shoes? Attractive women spend A TON!
often the girls go for good looking fucktards that treat them like dirt
Another misguided statement. Yes, I will agree lot's of attractive girls go for guys that treat them like dirt, but it is not because they are good looking, and it is not because they are fucktards... It is because women are drawn to many aspects of the asshole guys. They are generally confident, and they are generally leaders. Girls want a guy who is going to lead in a relationship, and not make them feel uncomfortable. Don't believe me? Ask any attractive woman (ugly girls don't count) what makes them more uncomfortable; a guy who is treating them poorly, or a guy who is treating them too nicely. One comes off as arrogant (which can even be somewhat attractive), the other comes off as creepy. Creepy is generally much worse.
Men also use looks as an excuse way too much. Girls are not like you, they do not instantly make up their minds on who they like based on looks. Men do. A hot chick walks up to you and says something dumb, and looks embarrased, you will probably be like "great! i might have a shot with this one". A hot guy rolls on some chick and says in a mumbly insecure voice "hey, my name is Chodeboy, what do you do?" she will run. Looks may matter, but they don't matter as much as you think they do, luckily for men.
Girls get a lot of things that men don't pick up on. Body language, eye contact, voice tone just to name a few. Attractive women don't need your help in keeping guys in check. They have grown very good at it. They get a lot of practice. Women are not dumb, they are different, a liberal crowd like slashdot should understand that.
I think the only way to do this is to ban lobbying, which is pretty much the most obviously bad thing that happens in American government... It just happens to also be pretty much the most effective way to get things done in American government.
Is that irony? I'm not really sure, but I know it sucks.
You give up this data willingly.
To a certain extent.
My problem is this. It is not obvious to most users that this information is tracked to such a detailed degree. I spent four years in college for computer engineering, before that, I didn't know that entering text in a search engine was actually trackable to me. And I certainly didn't know that it was trackable, storeable, and searchable.
There is a reason people have their rights read to them when they are arrested. It is because not everyone knows the law and when something really important to someone is at stake, the government believes that the less educated still deserve to know how certain things will affect them...
This leads to a dispute over what should people know on their own, and what should people be told before using. Google has an EUA, but you don't need to read it, or even look at it to use their service. Maybe you should (oh yeah, and maybe it should be readable by normal people, not just lawyers).
I know there is sentiment to say "fuck people who use stuff they don't understand". I think that people need to be more responsible for themselves. But in the case of the internet it is a great tool for everyone, and I think the more people use it, the better. Something as basic to anyone who needs information as a search engine should have the risks better explained on a regular basis.
I am not exactly sure what I think should be legal and illegal for companies to do with their data. There is definately some gray area and good arguments on both sides.
What I am sure of, is this. The government should not have the right to tell companies they need to save this data. That is absolutely wrong on a very basic and fundamental level.
Basically the most dangerous part of keeping this data is the fact that other people can match you to your queries.
I think the government should only get involved if there is a problem that cannot be solved by the people themselves. Unfortunately, the willingness of companies to offer easily accessable avenues for finding some of the risks of their services is not as good as it should be.
I think the first step here is not to make hard rules as to how long all search info can be held, instead, they should give rules as to what can be held indefinately, and what cannot.
In this case, I don't think there is anything wrong with queries being kept indefinately, but it should not be kept in relation to people. Make it so that they have to encrypt IPs to some other value, so that searches can be tracked, and even what the users search, but there will be no way to tie that information to actual people.
That way the information can be stored indefinately, and in the event other people want to see, they will have nothing that they can use maliciously against other people. They will see search trends, and even see what individual users search for in order to create correlation between searches, but will not have access to anyones personal business.
It would be difficult to argue against this because any business that wants to know specific peoples searches is obviously using information that the users did not intend anyone to have.
By doing this the search companies would have a much more trusting user base.
If only we had a media that brought up important stuff like this, the companies would do it on their own in order to generate good PR and more traffic.
Off Topic Here... But I see your sig all the time, and I just want to know what it means. Is it a joke about the revolution? Either it is pure nintendo hatred, or a joke that goes Whoosh!
For some reason I don't think cloning T-Rex Dinosaurs will resault in us eating them! The return of entertaining capital punishment.
God I am an idiot!
WORST. POST. EVER.
If I had mod points i'd mod myself down to a troll. You can mod this, -1 appologetic.
God you are a pussy, it is a good time that you were born in a time where you could live your soft fruity life of peace and love and oppression. What would you have done as a knight in medieval times? No father, I will not fight!
PUSSY!
"Are you saying murdering these people is the solution!? OMG I haev to go piss myself with laughter that anyone in history can think that at some point a group fights another because it is the only way to regain any form of balance!"
Listen - I am NOT saying we have to kill the RIAA, but think about what he purposed, which was kind of a joke, by the way.
The RIAA has WAY too much power in influencing the way people recieve musical art. They have lobbied to create laws that were originally beneficial to musicians and themselves. Now it is becoming apparent that the laws to protect Michael Jackson from me releasing Bad at the same time as him and making a shitload of money (Might be a bad example, since I can't moonwalk), have a side effect.
The side effect is pretty much that everything is owned by the artists, who sell their rights to companies. So now you can't do what you want with the art you have, you have to obey whatever rules the companies put on you. Some are good and protect the musicians from having everything they do be free. Some are bad, the worst of which are going to great lengths to destroy the idea of art, and turning it into a brutal business, which in turn is destroying the art itself.
As new distribution comes into play, we have much less need for these companies, yet they have put in a framework to make us dependent on them. The companies uses are greatly reduced, but they are unwilling to find other ways to make money, and instead use large sums of reserve cash to influence our government. They in turn influence us, under penalties that are totally detrimental to our lives, to get our music from the companies reguardless of how rediculous it is. They also control the musicians by the same way.
So the RIAA has a lot more pull than you do. They can RUIN PEOPLES LIVES, and you can't do anything except live by their rules.
Well folks, this isn't new to the world. It has happend thousands of times in recent history. Luckily we don't need to resort to violence. Right? That is what the law is there for. I think you see what I am getting at now.
As George Carlin has said, "The game is rigged, there is a big club, and YOU ain't in it". Despite being funny, it is true, and it is sad. The sentiments of one of the people in this thread that said that killing someone in the RIAA is really that bad does make sense, until you realize that they are ruining the lives of thousands of people, and they don't care. They really don't.
Sure, relax and don't go kill people, that IS a good thing. It is good for the people who are not in control, because it makes us feel safe. And it is good for the people who belong to that big club because it ACTUALLY MAKES THEMS SAFE.