It's like going from hotmail to gmail back when it launched.
It's sleek, doesn't get in the way, lets you do things easily. You manage your "friends" easily.
Hell, it's one service I wouldn't have any issue adding my boss and co-workers to, unlike facebook.
As a bonus, I don't get people posting asinine idiocies on my wall. Sure they can get me to eyeball their crap by mentionning me in their posts, but at least it won't bother everyone else who reads the things I write.
A negative side, not for me but for others, would be the lack of games, but we'll see...
Yes, we do go back and buy.
You have bought a legitimate license for EVERY SINGLE GAME you've ever downloaded/copied illegally?
Oh, the nice fallacy of the indivisible middle... "we do go back and buy", he said, not "we do go back and buy EVERY SINGLE TIME".
Now, if you're interested as to when, there's crap games, there's "meh" games not worth the money they're sold for and there's nice games. Those are the ones that are gone back for...
"You can put whatever you want on it, front or back."
Hmmm.... it's a good thing he didn't say "and", or if I was the instructor I would have said "Nice try, but logically your exam assistant can't be on the front *and* the back of the paper at the same time".
Simply fold the paper in a moebius strip (or, more simply, fold back 2cms)
As a physicist, I do get a bit annoyed at the constant attacks on string theory in public media.
Let me just state a few points please:
If you complain at string theory, then PLEASE state what you are proposing. What is the use in complaining when you have no alternative?
What kind of scientist are you? It doesn't matter if I can offer an alternative suggestion or not.
The use of "complaining" is to determine the validity of the theory. You can't test it, you can't determine if it's true. Simple enough for you?
If I were to say that invisible pink unicorns like small massive objects, you'd have every right to tear my suggestion apart without having to offer an alternative, that's the way it works...
Celvin, Really? Its Kelvin dumb ass. At least spell it right if you want to be a smart ass lol.
I have not the words. I think the only appropriate reaction is to give you a condenscenting backpat and walk away without a word.
It's "condescending", dumb ass (now where's my backpat?)
What about the distribution part?
There was no evidence of her acting as a distributor. That would have required proof that she -disseminated copies -to the public -by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by a rental, lease or lending. There was no proof of any of those.
That's not what I was asking. I haven't checked the case, my question was wether there's a limit to monies awarded for the distribution.
The fact that the jury found her guilty of that despite the absence of proof really sucks, however the summary says the monies were awarded "for stealing and illegally distributing", hence my question.
The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents. Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60. Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.
What about the distribution part? I don't agree with the principle that unwillingly distributing (as is the case with P2P technologies) should be grounds for extra payment since it wasn't the person's objective, but since the money is for obtaining AND distributing, there should be something there as well, don't you think? Is there some kind of constitutional limit to that as well?
As a side note, where I live (belgium) we now have a "tax" on hard drives, recordable CDs/DVDs and all forms of storage to pay for the piracy going on, no matter what that storage device is going to be used for
The upside is that I now have no moral issue whatsoever with downloading other's copyrighted works to my heart's content. I pay for it, I'm going to use it.
War is all about waiting and dicking around and about 10 minutes of fighting. WoW had to introduce the battlegrounds to give players a way to play PvP at no cost. Even Wintergrasp limits you to every few hours to make sure enough people join up so its "fun" There were no wars in Ultima Online, just a few assassins once in a while. Even major battles in EVE lasts only about 30 minutes.
That's not entirely true. Battles are short only if the number of people involved is small or one side overpowers the other. I've faught battles that have lasted between 2 and 6 hours. And once a whole week-end, with constant skirmishes faught over this gate or that, that POS or that one (there were a few).
Just my 2 cents
Oh trust me, I have the highest contempt for the courts right now.
This verdict will be the cause of derision internationally, and will provide endless fodder for those who are fond of laughing in their beer at the USA. Unfortunately, they will have a pretty irrefutable point.
Actually, I believe most of us chose to laugh at selected parts of the USA, this is just some extra fodder. It's not necessarily that we're fond of it, it's that you're definately not helping.
Your "justice" system has been a laughing stock for a looong time, as have your executive branch (come on, electing Bush, TWICE!), your televangelists, your puritans (omg, a boob on telly!), your failed healthcare and educational system, etc.
However, there's lots of good stuff in the people of the United States, most of it is the drive, the belief that you can accomplish things. Too bad it's dwarfed by everything else...
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
This is getting really ludicrous, mind boggling. I mean... What the HELL?
Doesn't the lawyer attempting that kind of idiotic stuff know that he's basically kissing his carreer goodbye? Surely every lawyer who hears about this is laughing...
16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling