Thursday, February 15, 2007

Plymouth, Michigan, United States – This week, independent software developer Stardock released Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, an expansion to their PC turn-based strategy game Dread Lords. Industry websites IGN and GameSpy responded with Editors’ Choice awards, while UGO gave it an A. The expansion had previously been named as one of GameSpy’s Most Wanted Games of 2007.

Reviewers cited the significant increase in customization options, better artificial intelligence, and an improvement in graphics quality as decisive factors. UGO’s Adam Swiderski noted that “if creating a fleet of death-dealing starships sounds like fun to you (and it really should), this is your dream playground,” while GameSpy’s reviewer suggested that “after a week of playing Dark Avatar, you may forget Master of Orion altogether.” Criticism mostly revolved around “uninspired” ground combat, a too-generic tech tree, and the continued lack of multiplayer support.

The original game received some publicity for its lack of copy protection, but gained far more by the actions of a StarForce forum administrator, who made a post linking to an illegal BitTorrent download of the game. StarForce developer Protection Technology later claimed this to be a poorly-considered attempt to demonstrate the result of not using their software, which is designed to prevent software piracy. The result was a media backlash against the company, including satirical commentary by gaming webcomic/blog Penny Arcade describing the action as “extortion.” Its writer, Jerry Holkins, asked that “publishers distance themselves from a company that has shown such contempt for their industry.”

The expansion is available as an online purchase in CD or digital download form through Stardock’s gaming subsidiary, TotalGaming.net. A compilation of the original and expansion has also been released as Galactic Civilizations II: Gold Edition and is available in stores, say Stardock. Their retail game releases still contain no copy protection, but online activation is required to download updates.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Yesterday in Dortmund, Germany prior to the UEFA Champions League’s quarter-final match against AS Monaco, explosives detonated near a bus carrying Borussia Dortmund (BVB)’s team, injuring defender Marc Bartra. The match was “postponed until Wednesday at 18:45 CET”, read UEFA’s official statement.

Spanish centre back Marc Bartra broke his radial bone of his right hand, and underwent an operation later at night, BVB reported. Goalkeeper Roman Bürki, who was next to Bartra in the bus told Blick that Bartra “was hit by fragments of the broken rear window”^{((de))German language: von Splittern der zerborstenen Rückscheibe getroffen wurde}.

Dortmund’s police chief Gregor Lange said the explosions were reported at 19:15 CET. He said, “At 19:15 CET, there were three explosions in the vicinity of the hotel in which the BVB team had been guests and were leaving to travel to the stadium.”^{((de))German language: Um 19.15 Uhr ist es zu drei Explosionen im Umfeld des Hotels gekommen, in dem die Mannschaft des BVB gastiert und von dort den Weg zum Stadion angetreten hat.} He said it was a “targeted attack on the BVB Team Bus”. Police checked for further explosives using sniffer dogs. Gregor Lange said they discovered another explosive which did not detonate. They also found a letter claiming the responsibility of the attack, but the officials did not reveal its details.

Benedikt Höwedes, captain of Schalke 04, Dortmund’s local rivals, tweeted, “Separated by color, united against violence! Best regards @MarcBarta and the whole team of @BVB [Borussia Dortmund], I hope you are all well! #BVBASM”^{((de))German language: Getrennt in den Farben, vereint gegen Gewalt! Alles Gute, @MarcBartra und dem gesamten Team des @BVB! Ich hoffe, es geht euch gut! #BVBASM}. AS Monaco supporters in the stadium yesterday were heard chanting “Dortmund! Dortmund!” after the accident was announced.

Dortmund asked their supporters to help away fans by providing them accommodation for a day by using #bedsforawayfans (beds for away fans) hashtag via social media. Dortmund announced stadium tours for Wednesday were canceled, via their official website. Increasing the security after the attack, Dortmund announced storage facilities at Signal Iduna Park would be closed and no backpacks bigger than A4 size would be permitted in the stadium.

Monday, December 24, 2007

Finnish theatrical hard rock band Lordi have released Beast Loose in Paradise – which will be the soundtrack to the band’s upcoming horror movie Dark Floors – as a downloadable single.

The song was originally intended to be released via Zed.fi, but for unknown reasons has not appeared on the site. However, it has appeared on at least two other sites as a pay-to-download single – MSN Music Finland and MTV3.fi.

The song was one of two recorded last month, and will be released by Sony BMG Finland as an actual CD on January 8 . The other song, titled Studs and Leather, was also written for the movie.

The cover art for the CD single has already been revealed. It is a direct tribute to the KISS album Creatures of the Night.

Most of both songs were composed during Lordi’s tour of the United States as part of Ozzfest, with the band’s lead vocalist saying in an interview with MonsterDiscoHell.com that the main riff of Beast Loose in Paradise was written in Milwaukee, while the chorus of Studs and Leather was composed in St. Augustine.

He went on to say that Studs and Leather had originally been intended for Bend over and Pray the Lord!, an unreleased album from 1999 that had been intended to be Lordi’s debut. The verses from Beast Loose in Paradise had been decided on between the whole band during therapy sessions at Christmas 2006. He said that he had written most of the rest between two US tours, the Ozzfest tour and a tour as the support act for American gothic doom metal band Type O Negative.

He continued to deny a recent rumour posted in Finnish music periodical Soundi that the new material was going to be “more brutal and raw” than that on Lordi’s last album, The Arockalypse. “Our music is not gonna get any brutal or heavier, but not any lighter [either]… I’d say these two songs are familiar Lordi. Although Beast Loose in Paradise is more ‘movie-esque’ and ‘horror-ish’ on purpose. And some might say it’s even heavier, but at the very least the chorus will be familiar and melodic Lordi stuff. And Studs and Leather is basically Heaven’s on Fire (KISS song) meets Balls To The Wall (Accept song).

Wednesday, June 1, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a witness tampering conviction against accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP for destroying documents related to now-bankrupt energy giant Enron Corp. The verdict virtually put Andersen, once one of the largest accounting firms in the world and the fifth-largest in the United States, out of business.

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the court threw out the verdict due to serious flaws in the jury instructions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld Andersen’s June 15, 2002 conviction in Houston.

In the court’s view, the instructions allowed the jury to convict Andersen without proving that the firm knew it broke the law or that there was a link to any official proceeding that prohibited the destruction of documents. “The jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing,” Rehnquist wrote. “Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required.” Rehnquist’s opinion also expressed grave skepticism at the government’s definition of “corrupt persuasion”–persuasion with an improper purpose even without knowing an act is unlawful. “Only persons conscious of wrongdoing can be said to ‘knowingly corruptly persuade,’ ” he wrote.

The ruling came very quickly, as oral arguments in the case had taken place on April 27. Justice Department attorneys claimed Andersen employees were instructed “undertake an unprecedented campaign of document destruction” in order to impede a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into Enron’s conduct. Deputy Solicitor General David Dreeben likened Andersen’s behavior to “shredding its smoking guns.”

However, Maureen Mahoney, arguing for Andersen, countered that the employees involved merely followed the company’s policy on destroying unneeded documents, and that the shredding occurred before Andersen received a subpoena on November 8, 2001. She also claimed that under the government’s legal definition of “corrupt persuasion,” acquittal was virtually impossible.

The justices seemed to indicate which way they were leaning very early in oral arguments, as they peppered the government lawyers with hostile remarks.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the government’s theory of prosecution “weird.” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was particularly troubled by the trouble the jury initially had sifting the evidence. “If this thing is so confusing,” she asked, “how is a businessperson supposed to know? How is a lawyer supposed to know?”

Andersen’s appeal was backed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. In a friend-of-the-court brief, the association claimed that the government’s broad definition of “corrupt persuasion” put defense lawyers at risk for prosecution simply for advising clients of their rights to assert legal privileges or review document retention policies.

Despite the ruling, which returns the case to the Fifth Circuit, it is highly unlikely Andersen will ever return as a viable business. It lost nearly all of its clients after its indictment, and was forced to shut down its American accounting practice due to federal laws that forbid convicted felons from auditing public companies. The firm still faces more than 100 civil suits related to its audits of Enron and other companies. Once 28,000 employees strong, the Chicago-based Andersen is now down to around 200 employees who are largely occupied with handling the civil suits and other details of winding down the partnership.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Daybreak, a new breakfast show on ITV in the United Kingdom, launched on Monday at 0600 BST (0500 UTC). The show was hosted by Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles, both of whom previously presented The One Show on BBC One.

Opening the broadcast, Bleakley commented: “Dawn is happening, day is breaking behind us here, it’s a beautiful thing here behind us in the studio.” Chiles then commented: “The sun is up and thank goodness. We spent good money bringing you this view […] at least you can see it. Thank goodness for that.” On the website for The Guardian, Stuart Heritage stated that “[a]lthough it does seem like a continuation of GMTV rather than a bold reinvention, some of the new aspects of Daybreak have worked. Adrian and Christine have done reasonably well and the other new faces all seem like good additions.” The set for the programme features two purple sofas with a large round desk in between the sofas and a skyline of London in a backdrop.

The new programme was followed at 0830 BST (0730 UTC) by another new programme, entitled Lorraine — hosted by Lorraine Kelly — which was broadcast until 0925 BST (0825 UTC). Kelly stressed: “I’ve really missed you. I hope you like our new look and we’ve got a packed show for you today.” The Lorraine set contains a pink sofa, a pink armchair and a large round white desk. The two new programmes are the successors to GMTV — which had its last broadcast on Friday.

Previously, Alison Sharman, ITV Director of Factual and Daytime, explained: “Daybreak plays a key part in ITV’s ongoing transformation and reflects the fact that creative renewal lies at the heart of our schedule, which is being modernised and improved under Peter Fincham. We want to ensure that the core audience of housewives with children keep watching but are also determined to attract new viewers to our revitalised breakfast show. As we approach the next stage of this transformational journey our newly confirmed anchors — Christine and Adrian — will be the lynchpins of Daybreak with their unique and brilliant partnership.”

Monday, June 29, 2009

A crash has killed nine people on a turnpike (toll road) northeast of Miami, Oklahoma. The accident occurred on Friday when a semi-trailer truck struck a line of stationary traffic from behind on the Will Rogers Turnpike near state lines with Missouri and Kansas.

Traffic had come to a standstill as a result of an earlier accident eastbound when the accident occurred. The road has a speed limit of 75 mph, and it is currently thought that the truck driver made no attempts to stop his vehicle. He was hospitalised. A spokesperson for the nearby Freeman Hospital said eight people were treated there, and it is reported a twelve-year-old girl is among the injured.

The girl had to be cut free from the wreckage of her car, and was taken to the Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City where she was in critical condition. Her parents were both killed. The accident occurred at 1p.m., and it was four hours before any eastbound lanes re-opened, leaving vehicles stranded in high temperatures and prompting emergency services to distribute water to motorists.

Also killed are an Oklahoma City family of four and a seven-year-old Texas girl and her father. The mother from that family is in a critical condition, and another woman was also killed in the same car.

Lt. George Brown of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol described the scene: “It looks like a war zone. There’s mangled metal everywhere. There’s debris, fluids, dead bodies.” A man who has worked thirty years as a tow truck driver said the crash was “the worst one I’ve ever worked.”

A number of other smaller incidents occurred in the area afterwards. At least three accidents were caused by vehicles slowing down in response to the crash, and four cars collided with each other westbound. No-one was killed in the other accidents.

It took hours to locate the last fatality, who was in a car pinned under the semi-trailer. Two tow trucks were required to separate the vehicles. A total of seven vehicles were involved, including three cars which were beneath the truck by the end of the accident sequence.

A criminal investigation has been launched. A blood sample has been taken from the truck driver, 76-year-old Donald Creed, who has been released from hospital after treatment. There is no indication alcohol was a factor in the accident.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Russian President Vladimir Putin heavily criticized the United States in a speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy Saturday for what he called its “almost uncontained” use of force in the world.

Putin also criticized US plans for missile defense systems and NATO’s expansion.

Putin said that nations are witnessing an “almost uncontained hyper use of force” in international relations. The Russian President pointed out that only the UN, and not the EU or NATO, can sanction the legitimate use of force. “One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.”

Putin stated that the “excessive use of force” showed a lack of capacity for “complex solutions”.

“This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law,” he said, speaking through a translator. “This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons,” he told the 250 officials, including more than 40 defense and foreign ministers.

Speaking about the US missile defense system, possibly to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic, he stated that Washington’s reasons for the system weren’t plausible. Even such problem states like North Korea would not be able to build any missile in a foreseeable time necessitating such a defensive measure, the President opined.

Vladimir Putin also stated his doubts about the United States’ willingness to really go ahead with disarmament. He said that Russia was strictly adhering to the agreement to destroy thousands of strategic nuclear weapons until the end of 2012. He also said, he hoped the partner was acting in an equally transparent manner and would not keep a few hundred warheads for “bad times”.

The Munich Conference on Security Policy, founded in 1962, is an international forum composed of more than 250 leading politicians, diplomats, military officials, members of the business community, academics and public figures from more than 40 countries. It has become an annual opportunity for world leaders to discuss the most pressing issues of the day.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

A U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday has declared unconstitutional California Assembly Bills 1792 & 1793, the California “ultraviolent video games law” that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

Federal judge Consuelo M. Callahan has ruled that the 2005 statewide ban, which has yet to be enforced, violates minors’ rights under the US Constitution’s First and 14th amendment because even the most graphic on-screen mayhem, video game content represents free speech that cannot be censored without proper justification.

The Court has ruled that there’s no convincing evidence it causes psychological damage to young people. The 3-0 judgment has affirmed an earlier ruling by a U.S. District Court, which barred enforcement of the law on the basis that it was “unduly restrictive” and “used overly broad definitions,” and that the state failed to show that the limitations on violent video games would actually protect children.

In 2005, Leland Yee (???), a California State Senator (in District 8 which includes the western half of San Francisco and most of San Mateo County), Speaker pro Tempore of the Assembly (D-San Francisco/Daly City), introduced California Assembly Bills 1792 & 1793 which barred “ultra-violent” video games from minors under the age of eighteen in California and mandated the application of ESRB ratings for video games.

“California Assembly Bills 1792 & 1793” were commonly called the “ultraviolent video games bills” or simply “video game ban” bills. Bill 1792 banned the sales of such video games while Bill 1793 required signs explaining the regulations on said games to be placed where such were sold. Both bills were passed by the Assembly and signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger into law (AB 1179) on October 7, 2005.

Explicitly, these two bills provided that:

• AB 1792 will place ultra-violent video games into the “matter” portion of the penal code, which criminalizes the sale of said material to a minor.

• AB 1793 will require retailers to place M-rated games separate from other games intended for children, and will also require retailers to display signage explaining the ESRB rating system.

Yee, a former child psychologist has publicly criticized such games as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Manhunt 2, and opposes the U.S. Army’s Global Gaming League.

On October 17, 2005, before the effectivity of the challenged Act, plaintiffs Video Software Dealers Association, the not-for-profit international trade association dedicated to advancing the interests of the $32 billion home entertainment industry and Entertainment Software Association, a 1994 US trade association of the video game industry have filed lawsuit (D.C. No. CV-05-04188-RMW) against the defendants Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, Santa Clara County District Attorney George Kennedy, City Attorney for the City of San Jose, Richard Doyle, and County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara, Ann Miller Ravel.

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jenner & Block‘s Paul M. Smith has filed a declaratory relief to invalidate the newly-enacted California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 (the “Act”), on the grounds that it allegedly violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiffs have submitted that “the Act unconstitutionally curtailed freedom of expression on its face based on content regulation and the labeling requirement, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated equal protection. California’s restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors’ access to other material under the guise of protecting children.”

By December 2005, both bills had been struck down as unconstitutional, by Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, thereby preventing either from going into effect on January 1, 2006.

Judge Whyte has granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in “Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger,” 401 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2005), and cross-motions for summary judgment, in “Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger,” No. C-05-04188, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007).

Similar bills were subsequently filed in such states as Illinois, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Michigan and Louisiana have been ruled to be unconstitutional by federal courts on First Amendment grounds, according to Sean Bersell, a spokesman for the Entertainment Merchants Association.

The defendants, in the instant Case No. 07-16620, have timely appealed the judgment. On October 29, 2008, the appealed case was argued and submitted to the Sacramento, California‘s U.S. Court of Appeals, hence, the promulgation of the instant 30 pages decision (No. 07-16620; D.C. No. CV-05-04188-RMW) by Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Sidney R. Thomas and Consuelo M. Callahan (who wrote the court’s opinion), United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judges.

In the ban’s defense, Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, Zackery Morazzini has contended that “if governments restrict the sale of pornography to minors, it should also create a separate category for ultra-violent video games.” Edmund Gerald “Jerry” Brown, Jr., California Attorney General, has also argued that “the Court should analyze the Act’s restrictions under what has been called the ‘variable obscenity’ or ‘obscenity as to minors’ standard first mentioned in Ginsberg, 390 U.S. 629. The Court’s reasoning in Ginsberg that a state could prohibit the sale of sexually-explicit material to minors that it could not ban from distribution to adults should be extended to materials containing violence.”

The “Fallo” or dispositive portion of the judgment in question goes as follows:

“We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder,” said the law’s author, Sen. Leland Yee, announcing he wanted Edmund Gerald “Jerry” Brown, Jr., the current Attorney General and a former governor of the State of California, to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Letting the industry police itself is like letting kids sign their own report cards and that a self regulating system simply doesn’t work. I’ve always contended that the … law the governor signed was a good one for protecting children from the harm from playing these ultra-violent video games. I’ve always felt it would end up in the Supreme Court,” Sen. Yee explained. “In fact, the high court recently agreed, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), that we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development,” he added.

According to Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, plaintiff, the Court’s ruling has stressed that parents, with assistance from the industry, are the ones who should control what games their children play. “This is a clear signal that in California and across the country, the reckless pursuit of anti-video game legislation like this is an exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time and state resources,” Gallagher said in a statement.

Entertainment Software Association members include Disney Interactive Studios, Electronic Arts, Microsoft Corp, THQ Inc, Sony Computer Entertainment America, and Take-Two Interactive Software, the maker of “Grand Theft Auto” games.

Judge Callahan has also reprimanded state lawyers for having failed to show any reasonable alternatives to an outright statewide ban against the ultra-violent video games. “Ratings education, retailer ratings enforcement, and control of game play by parents are the appropriate responses to concerns about video game content,” said Bo Andersen, president and chief executive of the Entertainment Merchants Association.

Andersen continues, “retailers are committed to assisting parents in assuring that children do not purchase games that are not appropriate for their age. Independent surveys show that retailers are doing a very good job in this area, with an 80 percent enforcement rate, and retailers will continue to work to increase enforcement rates even further; the court has correctly noted that the state cannot simply dismiss these efforts.”

California was already forced to pay $282,794 to the ESA for attorneys’ fees, money that would’ve helped with the state’s current budget difficulties. Andersen has urged California government officials not to appeal the case. “The estimated $283,000 in taxpayer money spent by the state on this case is so far an ‘ill-advised, and ultimately doomed, attempt at state-sponsored nannyism.’ A voluntary ratings system already exists to avoid the state-sponsored nannyism of a ban,” he explained.

“The governor believes strongly we have a responsibility to our children and our communities to protect against the effects of video games depicting ultra-violent actions,” said Governor Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Camille Anderson adding the governor was reviewing Friday’s decision.

Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, the state’s counsel in the appealed case, has stressed that “a law restricting sales of violent games is far more effective than industry self-policing, since the technological controls that the court cited as another alternative can be easily bypassed by any kid with an Internet connection.”

According to Jim Steyer, Founder of Common Sense Media, a non-profit organization of 750,000 regular users dedicated to improving children’s media lives, researches have shown that playing these violent video games are detrimental for kids mental and physical health. “The health threat involved with kids playing such games is equivalent to smoking cigarettes,” Steyer said. “These violent video games are learning tools for our children and clearly result in more aggressive behavior,” said Randall Hagar, California Psychiatric Association’s Director of Government Affairs.

The Federal Trade Commission‘s data reveals that “nearly 70 percent of thirteen to sixteen year olds are able to purchase M-rated (Mature) video games, which are designed for adults; ninety-two percent of children play video or computer games, of which about forty percent are rated M, which are the fastest growing segment of the 10 billion-dollar video game industry; the top selling games reward players for killing police officers, maiming elderly persons, running over pedestrians and committing despicable acts of murder and torture upon women and racial minorities.”