And what's with this wiretapping nonsense? That doesn't even make sense, how do you wiretap the air? Last I checked it wasn't a series of wires...
"Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent."
Okay...what? Why is this illegal? I mean, I can see some potential for abuse, recording someone saying something and using it to incriminate them etc. But seriously, if you say it aloud to someone they can report that you say it in court (presumably without hearsay as, as far as I know, that only applies to stating facts you heard from someone else, not what someone else said. As in I can say "Billy said..." in court but not "I know that because Billy said so")
I mean, I'm sure this law is great for privacy freaks, but it just seems off. If you're going to say something to me why don't I have the right to record it? My brain's already doing that, what's wrong with having a more accurate representation of it? You'd prefer I improperly remember you saying "I'm gonna blow them up!" and not have the recording that actually says "He's gonna blow them up?" I wouldn't mind people recording my conversations, why would you ever say anything you wouldn't want recorded to another human being with a memory?
Just seems like an off law to me. The case itself, not so much. If it's illegal there, no matter how off that law may be, then he should be arrested. However I'd hope he could get off with only a fine due to the extreme obscurity and horrible naming policy (really, they're supposed to know that videotaping someone talking is wiretapping?).
Because it's a simpler equation. You're replacing d20+skill points in skill+ability modifier+circumstance with d20+1/2 level+modifier+5 if trained. That, at first, looks at least as complex however since the 1/2 level will rarely change, unlike the skill point difference between say, spot and listen, and the +5 is constant. It's replacing +1, +2, +3, +4...etc with +5 and that makes it simpler.
Honestly though I'm a lot more excited about the possibility of fewer skills. I've always wondered why we need a skill to determine an item's value and another skill to use that item (for instance). Over half the skills in the last ST rulebook were functionally useless unless you were playing an anti-combat game...
"That being said, it's a bit disconcerting to see them concerned with "who owns reproduction equipment like this". I really don't think that should be a concern of anyone... owning equipment shouldn't be a crime, even if it is professional-quality duplicators."
I completely agree. I was reading through this thinking to myself that this wasn't really an issue, the police doing their job, but then that comment just boggled my mind. Since when did it become illegal to own replication equipment? What if you want to use it to replicate 4 CDs so you can put them in 4 different CD players and not have to carry the CD around with you? Of course since this is supposed to be "million dollar" replication machines (whose parts probably cost a couple grand to buy and put together knowing "million dollar" machinery...) there are probably few legal uses for them unless you're some famous celebrity who the RIAA wouldn't get within a mile of arresting. I'm just worried about the possible precedent if they start going after people for owning these things and the government upholds it which doesn't seem that unlikely...
Mod parent up, that's a great point. If you can't defame a person using a Computer Program output based on an algorithm then people can just design algorithms to defame people and have no repercussions.
Everyone in RL judges people based on algorithms in their heads, "He didn't do as well as person Y, and charges more than Z". Typical defamation cases are thrown against people who have messed up algorithms, "He wears white all the time...I hate white" or poor input, "I've only seen him lose". Why shouldn't a computer programmer be held to the same standards when they make judgments about people?
I'd say that if you're willing to reveal your algorithm you shouldn't be able to be sued, as a poor algorithm will garner more laughter than defamation. If you're not willing to reveal it, however, then you should be treated the same way as if you were saying what the program is as it's probably using your algorithm and input.
You have a point however, unless I'm mistaken, a Church is private property and there are some laws having to deal with using private property items without the owners permission in a video/game.
Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously. Why should a church be denied that? I'm not saying that Sony should pull the game back or that churches should have special rights in cases like this, only that, if you're going to use a famous religious site in your violent FPS, you should at least ask for permission.
- Plays lots of FPSes and is religious, also doesn't care for Sony, has nothing against violent ones, recognizes that many people, and even more religious people, do have something against them.
Isn't the Mars Rover in an area where there couldn't be free flowing water? Last I checked the temperature and pressure were far from the conditions needed for liquid water to flow freely on a surface.
And as someone mentioned earlier the images are artificially colored. It's probably just a mineral deposit or something.
"Again, they made the choice to buy the software, almost certainly knowing that there would be an enclosed EULA"
Okay...so I buy a product that I know will take away, say, 1 of my rights. I open it up and read the right it wants to take away to let me use the product. I don't want to give up that right. I'm therefore at fault for deciding to buy the game? Just because I know there's going to be a EULA for the game doesn't mean I know what it's going to demand. If I don't know what it's going to demand I have no idea whether I can accept it and I'm back where I started, stuck with the exact same choices and problems.
Perhaps your assuming that the EULA can be read off a site somewhere, in which case the consumer would be responsible for reading it before buying to avoid this problem. I, for one, have never seen such a thing and doubt it's existence...
That's nice...hmm, I just had an idea. The overwhelming majority of internet content (note the sweeping generalization with no facts or statistics to support it) is either pornographic or copyright infringing. Anyone who doesn't believe that obviously has a few cogs embedded in their brain, since, you know, then brain doesn't actually have Cogsworth Cogs (and now note the Argument ad Hominem (sp?)). Therefore lets shutdown/monitor the entire internet because who cares about the couple of people actually using it for respectable purposes.
How bout no? You may be correct that the majority of bitTorrent traffic is pirating. But even if you are it's a pointless statistic as there is no way that all bitTorrent traffic is pirating. If it's all illegal then I don't care what happens to it but if some people are using it for legal reasons what reason is there to spy on them?
"As for the various regions of things, you can always buy the media in the other nation. I can buy discs from Amazon.co.uk. Why can't you?
You can buy it from the uk [or wherever] then decss it to play it locally."
Which is considered to be just as illegal as pirating it by the RIAA...so what's the incentive? If I were to pirate something I can't get locally I have a chance of being sued. If I were to purchase and rip something I can't get locally I have a chance of being sued. Frankly if they want to treat me like a criminal no matter how I get a hold of their product, even if they get money from me, then why shouldn't I act like a criminal?
Laws like the Anti-Pirating ones are based almost solely on profit and monopoly, there's very little moral reason to obey them besides the fact that it's the law. You can make the good old fashion "Depriving the artist of money" argument but when the artist, or the company representing the artist, shows that they don't want your money by making it illegal for you to get your hands on their product by paying them then you may as well not give them your money. I mean, if someone doesn't want to sell me something, and is willing to sue me if I find a way to buy it from them, then why in the world shouldn't I simply copy it from someone else? They obviously don't want my money anyways, if they did they'd make region-changing legal.
But still the best way to hurt them is to simply ignore them. I've seen probably 2 movies at the theater in the last year and bought none. I don't buy music, I Pandora it. These guys get very little money out of me and have no legal way (like that'll stop 'em) to demand money from me, I win.
Forced to sign as in "Agree to this or waste the money you spent buying this game because you can't play unless you do and few companies accept returns with opened boxes, a prerequisite to seeing this screen."
I don't know of any recourse you can take to get your money back in the case you don't agree with, say, Battlefield 2142's EULA. The moment you see that EULA none of the game stores I know of will let you refund as you opened the box and the company's just going to tell you to accept it.
Force doesn't necessarily mean physical force. In many cases the most potent forces are the ones of the mind, a blackmailer doesn't hold a gun to your head but I don't think you'd say he's not forcing you to do something. In the same way many software companies hold your money ransom and demand you accept or lose it and get nothing back.
This becomes irrelevant if you can returned the open game or find the EULA before opening the box but both are exceedingly rare where I live. You really have no good choices if you don't like the EULA, you can decline and lose your money or accept and lose your freedom. What a choice...
Yeah I mean, whatever happened to at least trying to ensure some unbiasedness in the articles? It's all well and good to link to a biased article and the mention the bias in the editorial but flat out saying the white house is lying? That seems a little too biased for my liking, I'd rather have a somewhat balanced summary that says the article claims the white house is lying than this summary.
But, then again, I'm one of the.01% of people on/. who don't think that the current White House is an incarnation of Cthulhu so I guess this bias makes everyone else feel all warm inside:P.
Oh man, someone needs to take that thing and make it a reset button right now...I would so buy if it served a useful purpose. That would be so amusing... Fellow Worker: Hey dude, your computer froze up on me You: Okay, just reset it FW: How? (Expecting the location of the reset button) You: Do you see the box on your right? Flip the top switch FW: Okay... You: Now flip the bottom one FW: Okay...you sure this is the reset? You: Yep, now insert the key on the desk next to it into the keyhole on the left and turn it to the right FW: Okay...umm, it lit up red...is that bad? You: Nope, now lift the plastic guard and hit the button FW: Uhh...I think I'll just go work on my laptop instead...thanks
Yes, because there are ways to cheat. If you let any individual sponsor something, then any company can as well as they can simply use one or more of their workers as an individual for the purposes of sponsoring. Ban any corporate sponsorship and they'll just find a way around it (Okay Bill, we're going to give you a 2,000,000 bonus and you're going to donate 1,900,000 to X fund to sponsor X thing or Y bad thing will happen to you etc.)
I hate lobbying as much as the next guy (who is on/. and hates lobbying:P) but don't try to make it seem like a small problem, so long as you allow ANY sponsorship (which isn't always a bad thing, especially individual sponsorship) there will be corporate lobbying, no matter how many laws you put up to try and stop it. Every law has a loop-hole and these companies have armies of lawyers experienced at finding loopholes. Say you make the max contribution for a company 10,000 or something, they'll just create a whole bunch of sub-corps and have each donate 10,000 to get back to their original contribution. That's just a single example, everything you do to stop it will have a loophole by nature of needing to allow unaffiliated individuals the chance to help.
I mean, 90% of video game movies (and movie video games for that matter) are horrible horrible things that make you want a refund...even when your friend just describes them to you. However that was said about Superhero movies a while ago and now Hollywood's picked up on how to make those pretty good (although they're milking spiderman WAY too much IMHO) so perhaps there's a chance for this.
This seems like a bit of an unfocused article...almost as though the poster was addicted to Halo...but there's no way the/. editors would let an addict write an article about a subject they were addicted to and then put it on/., I have way too much faith in them...
Ummm dude? I was just out yesturday browsing game stores (for an entirely different reason, I've had a Wii since launch and it's great) and every store had Wii's on the shelf. Even GameDaze, GAMEDAZE, the people who were selling pre-order Wiimotes because they had sold out their stock before the launch had Wiis on the shelf.
If you're unwilling to even look at a couple of stores (I hit 6 in my quest to help a friend get a certain old XBox game, Circuit City had them, Best Buy had them, Gamedaze had them, I think Target might have even had them) then I feel no sympathy for the fact you don't have one. Supply issues ended a long time ago over here, not sure about where you live but it seems obvious from your post you're trying to garner sympathy and discredit the Wii because you're too lazy to check the shelves every once in a while. Don't expect me to feel sorry for you, I'm willing to bet there are numerous consoles within a couple miles of you, wherever you live.
Looks like a different plotline after the cartoons to me.
And I thought it looked cool, CG isn't everyone's thing of course but I happen to like it and that looked good. The character models were a little cartoony but the ships and stuff looked awesome.
No, schools should be teaching facts. Schools should not be teaching theories which are unproven, even if the majority of scientists agree on them. Evolution is one of those theories, in fact an interesting thing about it is that it's not provable by any conventional experiment, something that should put it firmly outside the realm of science but has been generally ignored.
Ignored that, however, school should not be the place where any theories are taught as facts. Evolution should be taught, as it is a large part of current science, but it should be taught with the simple caveat (Wow...where did I pick up that word?) that was proposed and subsequently shot down by Evolutionist, a simple statement that Evolution is unproven. I never really got why that was so disapproved, if that was put on, say, quantum gravity (at least the quantum gravity I last heard of a year or two ago, that field changes far too fast) I doubt there would be too much uproar. Same goes for just about any other unproven theory, MOND (if that's even taught), Wormholes etc. Yet stick it on an Evolution book and you're immediately a crazy religious person trying to kill science.
To reiterate, School should not be the place where theories are taught as fact, even if they evidence may support them (a belief I do not hold about the Evolution vs. Creation debate, but would take too long to get into). I really don't care if schools teach creationism, I just don't like them teaching Evolution as a pure fact rather than a theory and one which is no Falsifiable to my knowledge by the way (a fundamental part of true scientific theories).
Just my.02 cents. I really don't like this museum idea that much, it seems like it's giving too big of a Straw Man target to Evolutionists, 'Oh look, that display has improper representations of Lava flows...these creationists don't know anything do they?', rather than helping.
(By the way, I'm a Christian, and one who holds to the young-earth ideas. I'm working on a Physics minor and have a great deal of interest in Quantum theory (I hate string theory, hope it dies a horrible painful death) and physics in general. I've studied the evidence for evolution, and the theories of creationists. My personal feeling is that both Evolution and Creation are non-science due to their subject matter, the distant unrecorded (in general) past, an area which can be neither observed nor experimented on as well as their long time spans for any experimental proof (either millions of years for evolution or the end of the universe as we know it for Creation). Just thought I'd throw that out there.))
Wrong. Sorry, but that's flat out wrong. Saying the first time does not imply that you're assuming there will be a second time. All it means is that this has not happened before. For the first time is a perfectly reasonable way to say it, a little hyperbolic but that's actually reasonable in this case as this is a huge event, something that, quite frankly, changes the planet itself.
Normally I'm against any hyperboles but in this case it's expected.
Oh man, I was looking for someone to mention the camera button on the outside. Mine got so bad (due to having a pen, cell phone, and keys in the same pocket and being a fidgeter while sitting) that I had to regurally delete 15 pictures of my pocket a day. Missing a day meant twice as long deleting the next day. And that phone was slow to delete pictures to, I got to the point where I could flip open the phone, enter the gallery and delete the first 15 pictures without even looking. I made sure to protect the pictures I actually meant to take so I didn't delete them accidentally but it was just sad, I think after 2 years with that phone I had taken 21 picture on purpose and easily that many 10, 20, 30, 40, 50x over on accident. My friends got used to hearing the sound and knowing exactly what it means...
Or just follow my simple strategy, if it's not bookmarked type it in google and do a quick search. This is ridiculously easy in FF because you can just type "SiteA" in your address bar and it'll ask google for the "I'm feeling lucky" result and go there, if you don't get the right site do a full google search.
Course I rarely visit sites that aren't direct links or bookmarks so this is an easy strategy for me but I haven't had a single typo page in years.
I agree, why is it a crime if the person has obviously taken no measures to secure the wifi? If you're not even going to password your wifi then I don't see how I can be charged for using it.
This is a really dumb judgement. The law completely ignores the fact that this wifi was so open as to be auto-connectible (yes, windows does do that with unsecured wifi) and so shouldn't be even considered for a crime, no one in the area knew it was a crime, and the fine is way over what would be considered reasonable.
I'll bet that if you go and look at this law you'll find it was passed partially as a result of someone mentioning pedophiles using other peoples wifi. No law with that high of a fine for that small of a crime could be passed without some "Think of the Children"ing...
Correct me if I'm wrong (I've never heard of the game before today, and my brief inquiries were thwarted primarily by the fact that the makers website has apparently been taken down) but isn't the game free in a similar fashion as the Columbine game?
Personally I don't like games like this V-Tech Rampage but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's sick and wrong, more like it bothers me but I'm sure some people will play it for reasons that are perfectly acceptable (i.e. 'How Could Someone Do Something Like This?')
Now this law on the other hand is just dumb. 4 days from being introduced to voted in? What is that? Could it be that the V-Tech shootings, which had absolutely nothing to do with video games as far as the evidence points, influenced the quick passing of this bill (Especially since it has a "Parent-Teacher" part)? And since when is violence Adult-Only material? Man...I'm starting to feel old, I played with Army Men, Squirt Guns, Tag, Street Hockey and numerous other games/toys that involved violence as a kid...so now that's all counted as Adult-Only? (I know tag's being treated that way). Honestly this is just getting pathetic, violence is a natural part of life. What person hasn't felt angry at some point? What adult didn't play a game that involved violence as a kid? Where's the evidence (the real evidence, not Anti-Violence funded studies that show clear signs of subject bias) that seeing violence as a kid makes you a violent person?
I mean I played CS, all the Battlefield's, Doom, Halo and tons of other violent video games that a kid the same age as me would probably be banned from playing in a few years and I would say I'm a pretty peaceful person, never gotten in a fight etc.
I hope this gets shot down or invalidated somewhere along the line. I would hate for it to actually become a law I'd have to deal with, it's so obviously made by a bunch of people who have no idea what a video game is besides a tool for corrupting children and producing violent murdering machines. Here's hoping...
Slashdot Mirror
And what's with this wiretapping nonsense? That doesn't even make sense, how do you wiretap the air? Last I checked it wasn't a series of wires...
"Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent."
Okay...what? Why is this illegal? I mean, I can see some potential for abuse, recording someone saying something and using it to incriminate them etc. But seriously, if you say it aloud to someone they can report that you say it in court (presumably without hearsay as, as far as I know, that only applies to stating facts you heard from someone else, not what someone else said. As in I can say "Billy said..." in court but not "I know that because Billy said so")
I mean, I'm sure this law is great for privacy freaks, but it just seems off. If you're going to say something to me why don't I have the right to record it? My brain's already doing that, what's wrong with having a more accurate representation of it? You'd prefer I improperly remember you saying "I'm gonna blow them up!" and not have the recording that actually says "He's gonna blow them up?" I wouldn't mind people recording my conversations, why would you ever say anything you wouldn't want recorded to another human being with a memory?
Just seems like an off law to me. The case itself, not so much. If it's illegal there, no matter how off that law may be, then he should be arrested. However I'd hope he could get off with only a fine due to the extreme obscurity and horrible naming policy (really, they're supposed to know that videotaping someone talking is wiretapping?).
Because it's a simpler equation. You're replacing d20+skill points in skill+ability modifier+circumstance with d20+1/2 level+modifier+5 if trained. That, at first, looks at least as complex however since the 1/2 level will rarely change, unlike the skill point difference between say, spot and listen, and the +5 is constant. It's replacing +1, +2, +3, +4...etc with +5 and that makes it simpler.
Honestly though I'm a lot more excited about the possibility of fewer skills. I've always wondered why we need a skill to determine an item's value and another skill to use that item (for instance). Over half the skills in the last ST rulebook were functionally useless unless you were playing an anti-combat game...
"That being said, it's a bit disconcerting to see them concerned with "who owns reproduction equipment like this". I really don't think that should be a concern of anyone... owning equipment shouldn't be a crime, even if it is professional-quality duplicators."
I completely agree. I was reading through this thinking to myself that this wasn't really an issue, the police doing their job, but then that comment just boggled my mind. Since when did it become illegal to own replication equipment? What if you want to use it to replicate 4 CDs so you can put them in 4 different CD players and not have to carry the CD around with you? Of course since this is supposed to be "million dollar" replication machines (whose parts probably cost a couple grand to buy and put together knowing "million dollar" machinery...) there are probably few legal uses for them unless you're some famous celebrity who the RIAA wouldn't get within a mile of arresting. I'm just worried about the possible precedent if they start going after people for owning these things and the government upholds it which doesn't seem that unlikely...
Mod parent up, that's a great point. If you can't defame a person using a Computer Program output based on an algorithm then people can just design algorithms to defame people and have no repercussions.
Everyone in RL judges people based on algorithms in their heads, "He didn't do as well as person Y, and charges more than Z". Typical defamation cases are thrown against people who have messed up algorithms, "He wears white all the time...I hate white" or poor input, "I've only seen him lose". Why shouldn't a computer programmer be held to the same standards when they make judgments about people?
I'd say that if you're willing to reveal your algorithm you shouldn't be able to be sued, as a poor algorithm will garner more laughter than defamation. If you're not willing to reveal it, however, then you should be treated the same way as if you were saying what the program is as it's probably using your algorithm and input.
You have a point however, unless I'm mistaken, a Church is private property and there are some laws having to deal with using private property items without the owners permission in a video/game.
Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously. Why should a church be denied that? I'm not saying that Sony should pull the game back or that churches should have special rights in cases like this, only that, if you're going to use a famous religious site in your violent FPS, you should at least ask for permission.
- Plays lots of FPSes and is religious, also doesn't care for Sony, has nothing against violent ones, recognizes that many people, and even more religious people, do have something against them.
Isn't the Mars Rover in an area where there couldn't be free flowing water? Last I checked the temperature and pressure were far from the conditions needed for liquid water to flow freely on a surface.
And as someone mentioned earlier the images are artificially colored. It's probably just a mineral deposit or something.
"Again, they made the choice to buy the software, almost certainly knowing that there would be an enclosed EULA"
Okay...so I buy a product that I know will take away, say, 1 of my rights. I open it up and read the right it wants to take away to let me use the product. I don't want to give up that right. I'm therefore at fault for deciding to buy the game? Just because I know there's going to be a EULA for the game doesn't mean I know what it's going to demand. If I don't know what it's going to demand I have no idea whether I can accept it and I'm back where I started, stuck with the exact same choices and problems.
Perhaps your assuming that the EULA can be read off a site somewhere, in which case the consumer would be responsible for reading it before buying to avoid this problem. I, for one, have never seen such a thing and doubt it's existence...
That's nice...hmm, I just had an idea. The overwhelming majority of internet content (note the sweeping generalization with no facts or statistics to support it) is either pornographic or copyright infringing. Anyone who doesn't believe that obviously has a few cogs embedded in their brain, since, you know, then brain doesn't actually have Cogsworth Cogs (and now note the Argument ad Hominem (sp?)). Therefore lets shutdown/monitor the entire internet because who cares about the couple of people actually using it for respectable purposes.
How bout no? You may be correct that the majority of bitTorrent traffic is pirating. But even if you are it's a pointless statistic as there is no way that all bitTorrent traffic is pirating. If it's all illegal then I don't care what happens to it but if some people are using it for legal reasons what reason is there to spy on them?
"As for the various regions of things, you can always buy the media in the other nation. I can buy discs from Amazon.co.uk. Why can't you?
You can buy it from the uk [or wherever] then decss it to play it locally."
Which is considered to be just as illegal as pirating it by the RIAA...so what's the incentive? If I were to pirate something I can't get locally I have a chance of being sued. If I were to purchase and rip something I can't get locally I have a chance of being sued. Frankly if they want to treat me like a criminal no matter how I get a hold of their product, even if they get money from me, then why shouldn't I act like a criminal?
Laws like the Anti-Pirating ones are based almost solely on profit and monopoly, there's very little moral reason to obey them besides the fact that it's the law. You can make the good old fashion "Depriving the artist of money" argument but when the artist, or the company representing the artist, shows that they don't want your money by making it illegal for you to get your hands on their product by paying them then you may as well not give them your money. I mean, if someone doesn't want to sell me something, and is willing to sue me if I find a way to buy it from them, then why in the world shouldn't I simply copy it from someone else? They obviously don't want my money anyways, if they did they'd make region-changing legal.
But still the best way to hurt them is to simply ignore them. I've seen probably 2 movies at the theater in the last year and bought none. I don't buy music, I Pandora it. These guys get very little money out of me and have no legal way (like that'll stop 'em) to demand money from me, I win.
Forced to sign as in "Agree to this or waste the money you spent buying this game because you can't play unless you do and few companies accept returns with opened boxes, a prerequisite to seeing this screen."
I don't know of any recourse you can take to get your money back in the case you don't agree with, say, Battlefield 2142's EULA. The moment you see that EULA none of the game stores I know of will let you refund as you opened the box and the company's just going to tell you to accept it.
Force doesn't necessarily mean physical force. In many cases the most potent forces are the ones of the mind, a blackmailer doesn't hold a gun to your head but I don't think you'd say he's not forcing you to do something. In the same way many software companies hold your money ransom and demand you accept or lose it and get nothing back.
This becomes irrelevant if you can returned the open game or find the EULA before opening the box but both are exceedingly rare where I live. You really have no good choices if you don't like the EULA, you can decline and lose your money or accept and lose your freedom. What a choice...
Couldn't you just tape a standard light bulb to your head and get the same effect?
:P
+1 Zing
Only on /. does a joke comparing the brain to an Array, or anything in programming, get modding insightful...
Yeah I mean, whatever happened to at least trying to ensure some unbiasedness in the articles? It's all well and good to link to a biased article and the mention the bias in the editorial but flat out saying the white house is lying? That seems a little too biased for my liking, I'd rather have a somewhat balanced summary that says the article claims the white house is lying than this summary.
.01% of people on /. who don't think that the current White House is an incarnation of Cthulhu so I guess this bias makes everyone else feel all warm inside :P.
But, then again, I'm one of the
Oh man, someone needs to take that thing and make it a reset button right now...I would so buy if it served a useful purpose. That would be so amusing...
Fellow Worker: Hey dude, your computer froze up on me
You: Okay, just reset it
FW: How? (Expecting the location of the reset button)
You: Do you see the box on your right? Flip the top switch
FW: Okay...
You: Now flip the bottom one
FW: Okay...you sure this is the reset?
You: Yep, now insert the key on the desk next to it into the keyhole on the left and turn it to the right
FW: Okay...umm, it lit up red...is that bad?
You: Nope, now lift the plastic guard and hit the button
FW: Uhh...I think I'll just go work on my laptop instead...thanks
Yes, because there are ways to cheat. If you let any individual sponsor something, then any company can as well as they can simply use one or more of their workers as an individual for the purposes of sponsoring. Ban any corporate sponsorship and they'll just find a way around it (Okay Bill, we're going to give you a 2,000,000 bonus and you're going to donate 1,900,000 to X fund to sponsor X thing or Y bad thing will happen to you etc.)
/. and hates lobbying :P) but don't try to make it seem like a small problem, so long as you allow ANY sponsorship (which isn't always a bad thing, especially individual sponsorship) there will be corporate lobbying, no matter how many laws you put up to try and stop it. Every law has a loop-hole and these companies have armies of lawyers experienced at finding loopholes. Say you make the max contribution for a company 10,000 or something, they'll just create a whole bunch of sub-corps and have each donate 10,000 to get back to their original contribution. That's just a single example, everything you do to stop it will have a loophole by nature of needing to allow unaffiliated individuals the chance to help.
I hate lobbying as much as the next guy (who is on
I mean, 90% of video game movies (and movie video games for that matter) are horrible horrible things that make you want a refund...even when your friend just describes them to you. However that was said about Superhero movies a while ago and now Hollywood's picked up on how to make those pretty good (although they're milking spiderman WAY too much IMHO) so perhaps there's a chance for this.
/. editors would let an addict write an article about a subject they were addicted to and then put it on /., I have way too much faith in them...
This seems like a bit of an unfocused article...almost as though the poster was addicted to Halo...but there's no way the
Ummm dude? I was just out yesturday browsing game stores (for an entirely different reason, I've had a Wii since launch and it's great) and every store had Wii's on the shelf. Even GameDaze, GAMEDAZE, the people who were selling pre-order Wiimotes because they had sold out their stock before the launch had Wiis on the shelf.
If you're unwilling to even look at a couple of stores (I hit 6 in my quest to help a friend get a certain old XBox game, Circuit City had them, Best Buy had them, Gamedaze had them, I think Target might have even had them) then I feel no sympathy for the fact you don't have one. Supply issues ended a long time ago over here, not sure about where you live but it seems obvious from your post you're trying to garner sympathy and discredit the Wii because you're too lazy to check the shelves every once in a while. Don't expect me to feel sorry for you, I'm willing to bet there are numerous consoles within a couple miles of you, wherever you live.
Looks like a different plotline after the cartoons to me.
And I thought it looked cool, CG isn't everyone's thing of course but I happen to like it and that looked good. The character models were a little cartoony but the ships and stuff looked awesome.
No, schools should be teaching facts. Schools should not be teaching theories which are unproven, even if the majority of scientists agree on them. Evolution is one of those theories, in fact an interesting thing about it is that it's not provable by any conventional experiment, something that should put it firmly outside the realm of science but has been generally ignored.
.02 cents. I really don't like this museum idea that much, it seems like it's giving too big of a Straw Man target to Evolutionists, 'Oh look, that display has improper representations of Lava flows...these creationists don't know anything do they?', rather than helping.
Ignored that, however, school should not be the place where any theories are taught as facts. Evolution should be taught, as it is a large part of current science, but it should be taught with the simple caveat (Wow...where did I pick up that word?) that was proposed and subsequently shot down by Evolutionist, a simple statement that Evolution is unproven. I never really got why that was so disapproved, if that was put on, say, quantum gravity (at least the quantum gravity I last heard of a year or two ago, that field changes far too fast) I doubt there would be too much uproar. Same goes for just about any other unproven theory, MOND (if that's even taught), Wormholes etc. Yet stick it on an Evolution book and you're immediately a crazy religious person trying to kill science.
To reiterate, School should not be the place where theories are taught as fact, even if they evidence may support them (a belief I do not hold about the Evolution vs. Creation debate, but would take too long to get into). I really don't care if schools teach creationism, I just don't like them teaching Evolution as a pure fact rather than a theory and one which is no Falsifiable to my knowledge by the way (a fundamental part of true scientific theories).
Just my
(By the way, I'm a Christian, and one who holds to the young-earth ideas. I'm working on a Physics minor and have a great deal of interest in Quantum theory (I hate string theory, hope it dies a horrible painful death) and physics in general. I've studied the evidence for evolution, and the theories of creationists. My personal feeling is that both Evolution and Creation are non-science due to their subject matter, the distant unrecorded (in general) past, an area which can be neither observed nor experimented on as well as their long time spans for any experimental proof (either millions of years for evolution or the end of the universe as we know it for Creation). Just thought I'd throw that out there.))
Wrong. Sorry, but that's flat out wrong. Saying the first time does not imply that you're assuming there will be a second time. All it means is that this has not happened before. For the first time is a perfectly reasonable way to say it, a little hyperbolic but that's actually reasonable in this case as this is a huge event, something that, quite frankly, changes the planet itself.
Normally I'm against any hyperboles but in this case it's expected.
Oh man, I was looking for someone to mention the camera button on the outside. Mine got so bad (due to having a pen, cell phone, and keys in the same pocket and being a fidgeter while sitting) that I had to regurally delete 15 pictures of my pocket a day. Missing a day meant twice as long deleting the next day. And that phone was slow to delete pictures to, I got to the point where I could flip open the phone, enter the gallery and delete the first 15 pictures without even looking. I made sure to protect the pictures I actually meant to take so I didn't delete them accidentally but it was just sad, I think after 2 years with that phone I had taken 21 picture on purpose and easily that many 10, 20, 30, 40, 50x over on accident. My friends got used to hearing the sound and knowing exactly what it means...
"until the overloards/chairthrowing/enough for anyone/profit/etc jokes stop being a surefire way to get modded up."
Sooo...never?
Or just follow my simple strategy, if it's not bookmarked type it in google and do a quick search. This is ridiculously easy in FF because you can just type "SiteA" in your address bar and it'll ask google for the "I'm feeling lucky" result and go there, if you don't get the right site do a full google search.
Course I rarely visit sites that aren't direct links or bookmarks so this is an easy strategy for me but I haven't had a single typo page in years.
I agree, why is it a crime if the person has obviously taken no measures to secure the wifi? If you're not even going to password your wifi then I don't see how I can be charged for using it.
This is a really dumb judgement. The law completely ignores the fact that this wifi was so open as to be auto-connectible (yes, windows does do that with unsecured wifi) and so shouldn't be even considered for a crime, no one in the area knew it was a crime, and the fine is way over what would be considered reasonable.
I'll bet that if you go and look at this law you'll find it was passed partially as a result of someone mentioning pedophiles using other peoples wifi. No law with that high of a fine for that small of a crime could be passed without some "Think of the Children"ing...
Correct me if I'm wrong (I've never heard of the game before today, and my brief inquiries were thwarted primarily by the fact that the makers website has apparently been taken down) but isn't the game free in a similar fashion as the Columbine game?
Personally I don't like games like this V-Tech Rampage but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's sick and wrong, more like it bothers me but I'm sure some people will play it for reasons that are perfectly acceptable (i.e. 'How Could Someone Do Something Like This?')
Now this law on the other hand is just dumb. 4 days from being introduced to voted in? What is that? Could it be that the V-Tech shootings, which had absolutely nothing to do with video games as far as the evidence points, influenced the quick passing of this bill (Especially since it has a "Parent-Teacher" part)? And since when is violence Adult-Only material? Man...I'm starting to feel old, I played with Army Men, Squirt Guns, Tag, Street Hockey and numerous other games/toys that involved violence as a kid...so now that's all counted as Adult-Only? (I know tag's being treated that way). Honestly this is just getting pathetic, violence is a natural part of life. What person hasn't felt angry at some point? What adult didn't play a game that involved violence as a kid? Where's the evidence (the real evidence, not Anti-Violence funded studies that show clear signs of subject bias) that seeing violence as a kid makes you a violent person?
I mean I played CS, all the Battlefield's, Doom, Halo and tons of other violent video games that a kid the same age as me would probably be banned from playing in a few years and I would say I'm a pretty peaceful person, never gotten in a fight etc.
I hope this gets shot down or invalidated somewhere along the line. I would hate for it to actually become a law I'd have to deal with, it's so obviously made by a bunch of people who have no idea what a video game is besides a tool for corrupting children and producing violent murdering machines. Here's hoping...