For how they shrunk the size of their ice cream boxes from 1.75 quarts to 1.5 quarts but did not change the price, of course.
If you need to raise the price, raise the price. Don't shrink the size of the box... that's pretty sneaky and deceptive. Edy's has been my favorite ice cream brand for some years now, due to their large variety of great flavors (note: Edy's is known as Dreyer's out west), but I won't buy Edy's or Breyer's as long as they keep doing this.
Because some brands, like Hood and Friendly's, haven't shrunken their boxes. $2.50 for a Hood or Friendly's 1.75 quart box, or $3.20 for a Edy's 1.5 quart one? Hmm, I wonder which is the better deal (and Breyer's is even more expensive than that)... and which isn't trying to decieve its customers by secretly shrinking their box size.
Heck, Friendly's ice cream actually went DOWN in price recently...
This stuff has happened before (it used to be 2 quarts per box, a while ago... aka a "half gallon"... until somebody got the brilliant idea to reduce it to 1.75 quarts and everybody else copied them), and it's not a good trend, that's for sure. Similar things have happened with cereal, etc... :(
But nobody seemed to notice.....
Guess I'm doing my job...
But yea, we were down for two days...
Thank god I worship those pigeon Gods or we would have been totally screwed.
*Erich.... I owe you one Satin
*Satin, no prob Toven, we still up for stakes on Saturday?
*You bet.... Deaths got the hookers, and Ryans bringing chips.
*Erich, ow the hackers account got suspended right?
*Satin, yep, and he's never getting laid again.
*Erich, sweet! Satin your the best.
*Satin, ow your just saying that... Friends forever?
*Erich, friends forever!
~BTW, 2 of the above statements are not a fabrication... :)
dont play with me right now because i cant see things i love aegis wing did i spell that
Eirwyn i think that's right, i have like, halo 3 and paraidise city get some, not for re-sale may contain peanuts, increases chance of pregnancy god,m i want bomberman so bad
I mean, how dumb do they think people are? Do they they think a few illegal threats will get bloggers and websites to stop following the law or something and instead obey their ridiculous restrictions? It's really bizarre...
There is currently a total remake of Perfect Dark (for the N64) being redone in the Half-Life 2 game engine (Source).
Better yet, they already are in beta. I've downloaded it and played around and while they only have some multiplayer set up, it is already very promising. They have done a very good job remaking some of my favorite multiplayer levels and some of the weapons (such as proximity pinball grenade, super dragon, and RP-120).
So apparently some idiot woman wants a new law in England requiring all games to be tested for photoseizure effects.
How the heck are they going to test for that on a mass produced basis? They'd have to hire a ready and willing team of people to give themselves seizures repeatedly while playing games. While I can see smaller samples of people doing that for a limited time, as in a medical test, I can't see a sustained massive industry for it. And then what? We don't get games until the test is done? Forget that! If you know you or your kids are photosensitive, the burden is on you to stop exposing yourself to that threat. It's not just video games after all! If she (or more accurately her kid) was in a public space or even a restaurant with flashing lights that gave a seizure, there'd be every reason to set up requirements to tone down the special effects in a public space like that. I'd support that to a limited extent, but NOT this.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, the DS in both England and America is identical (PAL and NTSC not mattering with portable displays), and so she (or her kid) should see the same ANNOYING warning I do EVERY TIME I TURN ON THE SYSTEM. That's ignoring that the warning is not just there, but also on all recent GBA games, in the instruction booklets on the first page, in a seperate document dedicated entirely TO that safety warning, and printed on the box itself. Even if they DID do these tests, the warnings aren't going to get any more direct than that. If she isn't going to bother actually READING them, what good will sticking yet another one on there do?
Don't get me wrong. Photosensitive epilepsy is surely just as much of a tragedy as any other form of epilepsy. Heck as recently as the 1980's epileptic seizures were treated like they were contageous by a lot of people and those with it were shunned (if a "very special" sitcom episode I saw is any indication of reality, and of COURSE they are, like how Perfect Strangers taught me what life as "a foreigner" is like for ALL foreigners). So I understand that living such a life and bearing the burdens in taking care of someone with such a condition can be tragic. I also acknowledge that depending on the number of those afflicted society does bear a responsibility in enabling these people to live their lives with minimal threat.
However, this is no reason to so restrict the development of entertainment that it hampers everyone else to this extent. Further, there is no reason why these flashing lights should necessarily hinder this kid's life. So he can't play video games, that's always been the case. All the kid need do is not play those games. This is not going to hinder his life. It's not like someone unable to climb the stairs to go into a restaurant. People need to eat. They don't need to play video games. Again, I'd support the woman if she was encountering flashing lights in lobbies of restaurants and those were causing the seizures. There is no expectation of such a scenario for a photoepileptic when entering a store so it would endanger them, and further it is an effectively public space (not legally but in practical application). I can't support this though. It's unreasonable. Further, I wouldn't support such restrictions to online web sites either. There's not only an expectation of such things but an easily available solution for the kid (surfing the net in a browser or browser mode that disables all scripting, visual plugins, and images, and all of those options are available in Internet Explorer alone).
Basically what I'm saying is it's hard to unilaterally legislate disability protection. It has to be considered on a case by case basis, and in this case I really can't justify this sort of grand wide sweeping change. It's ridiculous. I certainly hope their parliment agrees and they don't get it in their heads that this is a "photo op" style chance to look like they are "caring".
And further, it really limits the ability of the "little guy" trying to just publish a small game for free online. Suddenly they can be found liable for not checking the game for epileptic scenes.
This basically means massive tax cuts and scientific projects specifically decided by political movings. Of course, that's absolutely foolish. For science to work, it CAN'T be controlled as such by political considerations, funded ONLY when it benefits some politician's popularity to do so. Science MUST be funded in a more general manner, so it can grow on it's own freely, or it'll simply become retarded (in the classical definition).
