Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:5 mill on virtual pet cloths? (Score 1) 160

by BluBrick (#38971075) Attached to: Superpoke Players Sue Google

Yea, this lawsuit is a complete waste of time, which is not surprising considering all the plaintiffs obviously waste quite a bit of time on a regular basis. It was quite obvious that Superpoke was a service, not a product; there's not even the slightest bit of ambiguity about that in this case. When you subscribe to a service, there is never any guarantee that it will continue indefinitely.

Yes, it's obvious that Superpoke was a service rather than a product, but the lawsuit is not necessarily a waste of time*. The ambiguity is in whether or not the virtual currency purchased was a product or a service. The virtual currency was clearly transferable, so it could probably be argued that it was a product rather than a service like Superpoke itself.

*These are people who spent $5M on virtual clothes for their virtual pets in a game! I think it's reasonable to accept that their values are somewhat different than are yours or mine. How can you possibly have any basis on on which to judge the value they place on their time?

Comment: Re:First Bing, now this? (Score 1) 678

by BluBrick (#38768940) Attached to: Microsoft Pushes For Gay Marriage In Washington State

I agree that companies should look out for their employees but for issues as evenly split between left and right as this one, I wonder if they will deter as many potential employees as entice new ones.

Wait just a minute there, mister! Exactly how should this deter any potential employees? The presence of legislation that allows two men or two women to marry each other has no impact on me or my heterosexual marriage. It should similarly have no impact on any heterosexual. All it does it take one step closer to ceasing the government sanctioned treatment of homosexuals as second class citizens with fewer rights than heterosexuals. How could that be a bad thing?

I think a more effective approach would be to improve remote locations so employees don't have to come to Washington to work for MS.

Perhaps, but the two are not mutually exclusive, are they?

Comment: Re:More importantly, (Score 1) 237

by BluBrick (#38717200) Attached to: Radioactive Concrete From Fukushima Found In New Construction

since that movie Back to the Future, I've seen this pattern. Is everyone named Biff an idiot?

Then you fail at pattern recognition - or perhaps you have not seen all three. Yes, Biff Tannen is an idiot, and in every version of history/reality shown, he is an idiot. His descendant Griff Tannen is an idiot, and his ancestor Buford Tannen is an idiot. But there is only ever one Biff Tannen.

Hey, is your surname Tannen, by any chance?

Comment: Re:Guns (Score 1) 262

Really 1.5 well trained people can kill 100 people with gunfire? Apparently you've never played Warhammer 40k with space marines versus Tyranids. The sheer numbers allow the gun owners town. Now I realize that it wouldn't be the same, but it is similar. It's much like how the Revolutionaries were able to beat the English. Home field advantage and all that. Plus I doubt many military men are really going to fire on their own people.

No, I have never played Warhammer 40k with magical dinosaurs versus spacemen - or at all. But more importantly, you're not seriously trying to compare a fantasy video game to actual warfare, are you? It's not similar at all. In real war, there are no rules that cannot be broken, people do not lose their credits, they do not take an extra 30 hit points nor do they surrender their "cloaks of becoming", their Mithril armor or their Great Swords; they are not healed by mystical potions collected on their quest, or any other sort of magical bullshit. In real war, people get horribly maimed and they fucking DIE!

But I'll grant that you are almost right about one thing. People (military or otherwise) will not fire on their own people - they will however, quite readily redefine what constitutes "their own people". Take for example:

  • Romans vs Christians
  • Catholics vs Protestants
  • Colonists vs Monarchists
  • Confederates vs Unionists
  • Hatfields vs McCoys
  • Bloods vs Crips
  • just about any other conflict you care to name

That's why I said "almost right" just up there. Military men absolutely will fire on their own people under the right circumstances, and those really aren't too hard to come by. Simple weight of numbers would not be sufficient against the superior firepower of a professional military. It'd be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

On the other hand, military men will target "terrorist" installations and encampments if ordered to do so, even if those terrorists are home-grown. And isn't one man's freedom fighter another man's terrorist?

Comment: Re:Guns (Score 1) 262

Maybe in your country. In the US. according to 2005 figures, there were approximately 100,000,000 gun owners. While the current number of US. troop is 1. 5 million. So in essence, a revolt in America by gun owners is almost an assured win, if you can get them all on the same page.

Ya think so? Those 1.5 million have bigger budgets, superior weaponry, more basic guns, better armor and expert training. Regardless of any constitutional bleating about "a well-armed militia", the people of the US have no chance against their own military. No militia can be sufficiently well-armed to meet that force. I suspect that the primary purpose of the US flexing its military might every few years is not to convince the rest of the world that it is invincible, nor even to make profit for the Military-Industrial complex (although those are two highly favorable side-effects). No, it is to maintain the "balance" of power by dissuading its own populace from revolution. After all, the US was itself born of revolution, so any leader worth his salt knows that, all things being equal, the same is once again possible. That is why all things are very much not equal.

Comment: Re:the pro in pro sports (Score 1) 257

by BluBrick (#38430056) Attached to: NFL: National Football Luddites?

Yes you get paid, but you're throwing a ball around a field, get over yourselves

It's possible to trivialize any career if you try. I bet you get paid for simply pushing bits around, so get over yourself.

True, but you don't have to try terrribly hard to trivialize a career in which one gets paid to play a game.

I know what "custody" [of the children] means. "Get even." That's all custody means. Get even with your old lady. -- Lenny Bruce

Working...