MasterDex

Yant, I know it seems that we're constantly at odds..and we kind of are, but I have to call you out on using Modern Family as an example of "liberal media pushing an agenda". Is Modern Family liberal media? Yeah, of course it is. It's a show where an old man is married to a woman younger than his daughter, where his son is married to another man and both of them are raising an adopted asian child. But, it's not pushing any agenda. What it's doing is the same thing that many, many sitcoms have done throughout time - reflecting a piece of the world that we live in. It doesn't send out any messages that being gay and adopting foreign children are the best things in the world, etc. it just reflects the type of life that many people, both conservative and liberal have with their families. That you equate its portrayal of a Modern Family with pushing a liberal agenda is a problem of your own making - from your own insecurities, I'm willing to wager. As for evolution being taught in schools and being generally accepted as factual. Well, that's because most of the evidence that's used to prove evolution is a very real process is factual. Let's take the dog breeding that was mentioned earlier. The reason we have so many different breeds of dogs is that, even before we knew of evolution, we realised that we could breed different types of dogs together to achieve desirable results.The Bulldog, German Shepard, Japanese Akita, Greyhound, etc were all bred over and over again to strengthen their most favourable traits (which unfortunately doubled up thier least favourable ones too, but thats inbreeding for you). To take another example of evolution in action, there are now children born without appendices and on the same note, born without wisdom teeth - both are vestiges of our raw meat eating, leaf digesting ancestors. I noticed you also ignored the article about elephants being born without tusks. As has been said already, if you're going to dismiss evolution, dismiss it by showing us evidence that itself dismisses the theory, and please address your thoughts on the evidence we've presented that strengthens the theory. Finally, the biggest reason that the bible and other religious texts were questioned so little until recently (though they have always been questioned, by other religions and wise men) was because the cost of such a "liberal agenda" was often your life, or just your livelihood, if you were lucky enough. Even today, non-believers and followers of other faiths are chastised, punished and killed for their beliefs - by people claiming to be christian, muslim, jewish, etc. Even now, as a man from a Catholic family, I keep my religious beliefs or lack thereof from most of my greater family. I even recall one census year with my father filling out the forms asking us all to answer the questions and when it got to the religion question, my response of "I'm an Athiest" received a comeback of "There's no room in the foxhole for an athiest" from my father. There is still a massive disparity between people pushing a secular/liberal/athiest agenda and those pushing a religious/conservative/Christian/Jewish/Muslim/etc/etc/etc/ agenda. If you ignore that so you can cry persecution then you do so at the cost of any cogency you may have had.

That's really good work! The mouth looks a bit simplistic compared to the rest of the image but still, it's a brilliant painting.

Just finished Blood of Elves. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. When I finished and looked back on it, I realised that very little happened and the story barely advanced. The chapters threw me off too. The book is 7 chapters long and 300-odd pages so it was hard to find a suitable place to put the book down. I did enjoy the book regardless of all that however, even if Geralt wasn't present through most of it. With any luck, the third book will arrive on time...and have shorter chapters.

The journey of life takes men to strange places, where mysteries abound and darkness reigns. What was once apparent truth can become inconsolable gibberish. Religion, most of all, is a journey. I know few men that believe the same things they did as a child, and I think that's important. How can you respect someone whose beliefs have not evolved with their knowledge and experience? Well said. I started life as a Catholic but even by the time I was making my confirmation, I had become disillusioned with the church. Turning away from Catholicism, I started down the rabbit-hole of the occult, reading the writings of Crowley, among others, before settling on LaVeyan Satanism for a few years. When I was around 16 or 17, I decided that I had no need for any religion at all and began considering myself an Atheist, as I do to this day. Still, Catholicism, Crowley, Lavey and the writings of other spiritual leaders have instilled in me the laws that I live by.

I'd suggest using spoilers at least when talking about mangas like Bleach and Naruto that are ahead of the animes. I don't read the Bleach manga, I just watch the show so I'm back at the start of the Fullbring Arc.

I'd be up for some races some time in the evening (GMT). Haven't played Wipeout in a while.

Same here and that prmpted me to have some faith in the series, which led me to buying three more NFS games I hated. Now I'm done with the series.

My god! It's...it's REVOLUTIONARY! DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS COULD MEAN?! DO YOU! We'll have to rewrite the books!

I may throw up a picture of my bitch. She's the most awesome dog ever - Everyone that knows her agrees so y'all shut your mouths!

Try and take it from us! We've got chainmail, bitches! And Scotsmen! Oh and we battle naked. Try stealing our oil and gas when there's a thousand naked men running at you!

I say Aye! Then we'll convince Wales that they should be seperate and we'll establish the Celtic Empire AND RULE THE WORLD! MWAHAHAHAHAA!

What do folks call an airing cupboard in the US? I think airing cupboard is what most of the UK use but we call it a hot press here in Ireland.

Here's a god article that talks about piracy and archiving via The Sunday Papers. It touches on some things we discussed in the piracy thread lately, like the suitability of copyright law in the digital age.

Orrrrr you could play through it now then save the second playthrough, in which you'll choose the other path, for when the new content releases. I've played through it 4 times now and I still find it enjoyable enough and I certainly don't see any reason not to play it at least twice. It's great that they're sticking to their habits, for now at least. I was worried that anything extra would be either delayed or hit with an "On the 360" tax.

I picked up Solider of Fortune 2 used from a pawn shop the other day. Haven't played it yet but at least I know it'll run on the laptop so it should keep me sane a little longer. RE Brutal Legend - I can understand why the general consumer wouldn't be aware at or before launch that it was part RTS but I remember about two, maybe three, months before release that Tim Shaffer came out and said as much and then came out after release and clarified things further. I'm surprised that there's still people in the know that feel they were decieved. Fantastic game though and Jack Black was the perfect choice for Schafer's comedic style. And fucking METAL! 'nuff said.

I don't think people should be unable to sell copyright in its entirety nor do I think the world in general has the right to consume copyrighted content but I do believe that once copyright has been transferred from its original holder that any owners thereafter should be limited in how much they can defend it if it goes unused for a long period of time. For instance, let's say that developer X makes a game and sells the copyright to publisher Y. It's supported for let's say 2 years and for the next 10 years, lies unsupported but soon finds itself getting sales once more on GoG. Let's say once it starts selling that there's problems running it with certain systems or there's leftover glitches, outdated and inefficient methods used, etc. Let's say that someone comes along, makes a copy of the source code and starts fixing things here and there. They then upload a file containing not all but a fair amount of the source code, which is protected under copyright. In such a situation, I don't think the publisher should have the unfettered right to pursue litigation or send a C&D order against this person and his work. Similarly, If the only available copy of a game available for a current technology is through a pirated rom or image file then I don't think the copyright holder should have unrestrained power to do the same. Then, if the copyright becomes active once more then all reasonable power should be returned to its holder. As a disclaimer however, I'm no lawyer and only have a passing knowledge of copyright law so I could very well be talking right out of my arse. TL;DR: I feel that the reach of copyright is so great that claims can be entirely frivolous. Here's Gaiman and Micheal Moore summing up very nicely my general opinion on piracy and why trying to eliminate it or punish the every-guy is ridonkulous to the nth degree:

Yeah, though used PC games aren't a big thing, they still exist and lending is still viable. It's also varied. Take GoG for example. There are absolutely no restrictions preventing me from giving a copy of my GoG game files to a friend. Then there's companies who choose to remove their DRM. What Microsoft is proposing is taking choice from both the consumer and the developer, for greed more than anything else. I can get behind online passes to a certain extent but this would be a dick move from Microsoft. I wonder what the level of consumer backlash would be.

This. The 6xxx series isn't exactly a slouch when it comes to graphics either so if it's around the same it should be decent. I think the real test of the potential of the next consoles and the effect they'll exert on advancement will be in the memory and CPU department. If the graphical output is decent yet limited but the memory and general processing power is great, we should be in for some fantastic games.

I wouldn't buy on principle. If the system was exactly like the PC currently has, in all it's forms, then I'd probably get it if there was something on it I wanted to play badly but I don't like the idea of Microsoft being the protection police and I'd certainly crack that s.o.b as soon as it was possible.

Not my roommate technically but it's really all the same. I'm living with my mother (Get that image of the basement nerd out of your head. I'm the law at home!). Nice girl calls to the door about a charity, I invite her into the hall to hear who and what it's for and my mother comes down and all but physically kicked the girl out the door. I can't wait to get out of here. Either way, I let my mother know my mind. I don't think she'll pull shit like that, at least, in the future.

Essentially. Clear the air in regards to abandonware and set out clear terms about undefended or unused IPs. Allow reasonable conditions for the copyright holders, whoever they may be, but ease the restrictions. Whatever anyone's stance on digital piracy, there is no denying that the genie is out of the bottle. Continuing this "war on piracy" that outdated copyright laws allow is moronic. All it does is make very rich men richer and stifle freedom and creativity. I won't respond to all of your reply as I'll probably end up going back over some stuff I've said already but thanks, I understand where you're coming from a lot better now. In response to the paragraph I quoted - I think that even if copyright were not to be taken from the holders that their right to defend it should be limited somewhat. How limited, I'm not sure entirely but I think I've explained the gist of my opinion in other replies. In regard to the Square Enix and Chrono Trigger example. Let's say I made a fan sequel and released it for free and SE had no intention of using that IP. I don't think I should have to fear prosecution. Similarly, If I used assets from the Chrono Trigger game in another game, I don't think I should have to fear anything. If the original copyright was always Square's then I think that they should be allowed to retain those rights as the law permits but that their right to defend those rights if the IP is going unused should be limited.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. I'm not saying that publishers shouldn't be allowed to hold IPs or that the creators should have sole rights to their IPs regardless of all else. Again, I'm having trouble finding a way to answer this. Do you mean who should the IP go to if it has been seen to be hoarded under some hypothetical law? If that is what you're asking then I believe, in the case of a publisher hoarding IP rights (so there's no need for you to put quotes around hoarded, I'll explain that hoarding in this case would be holding onto IP rights or licenses that you have no intention of using), I believe that the IP rights should return to the creators after a certain period of time - let's say 25 years, hypothetically. Alternatively, if returning the IP rights to the creators is no longer feasible then I believe the public domain is where they should go. In the case of the creator hoarding IP rights, I believe they have the right to do so as the original creators of the work but that after their death, the rights should be destroyed and the work/s enter into the public domain - as is the case I believe but 75 years is far too long. I think I answered these questions above. Yes, that argument strays away from being a copyright issue but it's somewhat related since the coersion is often targeting the copyright and the way copyright law is at the moment, it's hard to both avoid and avenge such coersion and control. I don't think it's funny at all. Yes, there are many different avenues that allows independant developers to remain masters of their IP's destinies but there's a difference between the likes of Minecraft and something like Metal Arms just as there is between Radiohead giving away albums for free and a young star being thrown by the wayside because they're not flavour of the week while the royalties go to some corporation who just cried about how pirates are hurting honest artists. I'm not sure I know where you stand on this or what your argument really is. Could you explain your point of view better in lieu of throwing more questions out?

Vivendi was purchasing the game idea and paying Swingin' Ape to create the game. It's not entirely different. Whether the original idea was created before and pitched to Vivendi doesn't change the contract that they signed. It's not entirely different but there is a clear difference there. That's easy to say but the reality is much less idealistic. It'd be a wonderful world where artists and developers didn't have to sell out to survive or make a career from their work but we don't live in a utopia. While it's possible for a developer to keep hold of their IP rights, it's not so easy to do that if you expect to see your game on store shelves or advertised in magazines or on TV. But I digress. As Johnny said, the discussion is not whether they signed the contract willingly or not but that the publishers can hoard IPs they have no intention of using, that they can effectively bully developers into these restrictive contracts and that they (the developers) have no recourse is a problem that we should all hope lessens.