8 posts • joined Tuesday 15th July 2008 14:50 GMT
What's the fuss?
Twenty-odd comments in and no one seems to have noticed the phrase "just like The Sims 2".
True, with Sims 2 I had to have the disk in the drive to run the game, which is true of practically every modern game I play. True, I had to enter the serial code when I installed the game. True, I had access to 'extras' when I registered the game with EA.
But I did not have to enter a code every time I wanted to play, nor did I have to connect to the Internet. Provided my OS still supports it, I can continue to play for as long as I have the disk and (should I need to reinstall) the serial number.
Sounds like a pretty acceptable system to me and if Sims 3 uses the same mechanism I'll definitely consider buying it ... which I certainly wouldn't if it was crippled by SecuROM or some other phone-home system.
"Doesn't matter if you agree with what he says or not, you should defend his right to say it (even if he later retracts it :p )."
"He made a stupid comment that some found offensive, nothing more and nothing less. Get over it"
No, he felt his position of power and privelege allows him to encourage others of the same mindset to abuse and denigrate a section of society he has issues with. He has put his hand up and declared himself to be a disgusting bigot of the first order and deserving of all the ridicule and reprobation he has since received.
As others have said, whether serious or not, his purpose was to promote the subjugation of homosexuals just as the Nazis did the Jews (and others) and as white Americans did to black Americans. The difference between the Nazis and this bigot is that where the Nazis picked on people who had made a lifestyle choice, he wants to attack people for something that is inherent. Which makes him even more despicable. The only reason he didn't include blacks or women, who have also borne the brunt of religious bigotry, is that, by and large, you can easily tell whether a person is black or female without additional tagging!
Being gay doesn't make you any more of a threat to society than does the fact that you might be black, a redhead, male, or female. It's just that some people who make a choice to follow a particular religion or creed often need to find some group of people they are against just to make themselves feel good.
Of course, he is free to say these things, so that we can then properly judge him for the idiot that he is and ensure that he is removed from any position where he might be able to convince other similar idiots that he knows what he is talking about!
Oh, the irony
Umm, does anyone else remember a rather iconic advert from Apple in which the little guy (or gal in this instance) frees the people from the chains of an all-powerful computer supplier?
According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, but it was the easiest place to find it!) ...
"in his 1983 Apple keynote address, Steve Jobs made the following comment before showcasing a preview of the commercial to a select audience: 'It is now 1984. It appears IBM wants it all. Apple is perceived to be the only hope to offer IBM a run for its money. Dealers initially welcoming IBM with open arms now fear an IBM dominated and controlled future. They are increasingly turning back to Apple as the only force that can ensure their future freedom. IBM wants it all and is aiming its guns on its last obstacle to industry control: Apple. Will Big Blue dominate the entire computer industry? The entire information age? Was George Orwell right?'"
How times (and minds) change!
The buck has to stop somewhere
It really is about time *someone* was held accountable for Internet advertising.
The buck-passing can be quite phenomenal (Website owner - content provider - advertising provider - advertising consolidator - advert creator - product marketer/malware writer ...) but to my mind the simple approach offers the best way of stopping both badly placed and malicious ads. The website owner has the final say on what appears "in their name" or alongside their "brand" so they take the publicity hit for bad ads and should also face penalties for any damages caused.
A magazine publisher, a radio network, a TV channel knows, and is responsible for, the source of their adverts. I see no reason why a legitimate website owner should not be able to identify exactly where each advert has come from and so, if they faced something like legal action, could call the advertising agent to account.
Agreed, I'm not sure we should dismiss this idea out of hand - provided the regulatory and technological framework is properly defined.
If the technology evolves to keep control in the hands of the user then perhaps termination charges could be acceptable.
If I get a call from a new number, one that isn't already in my list of authorised contacts, I want to be given comprehensive information, at no charge, about the caller and the nature of the call BEFORE I accept it and incur the call cost.
If I can make an informed choice about which calls I receive then I suppose I will be happy enough to accept or reject the charge. Of course, I am more likely to take calls from people who don't demand a call termination charge ...
IT companies are even more offensive
All this fuss over a simple consumer product yet I don't recall any outrage and demands for withdrawing Proxim's Tsunami wireless router?
Hundred's of thousands of people have died as the result of Tsunamis across the world yet this product is still on the market and and I have yet to see a scandalized tabloid headline!
I think it's time to ban any product with a name connected to the cause of death of any one anywhere on the planet. Think of the grieving children!
I think it is about time to reconsider the words of poet John Cooper-Clarke:
"Bring back hangin' for everyone"
It's the only way to really stop crime.