I don't think it's prudent to be launching a new RPG in this over-saturated market. Maybe if it's got first class licensed material and is connected to a top notch company, but wasn't there a LOTR MMO that died recently?
I think action-adventure is the way to go in the current market. Maybe even something pure adventure with a more in-depth storyline. What was the budget behind the Walking Dead game, anyway? Makes me wonder what other first-rate games are out there this year that aren't based on just shooting things.
But this one has a special "hardcore" mode. You have to play through to the end without dying. No extra lives, no save states. In fact, if you get killed, you don't even get to start over.* If you want to win, you must win on the first play-through. Kind of a niche market, but for those who go for that kind of thing, nothing beats SHAM II.
*(Unless you install the "reincarnation" mod, which is pretty popular in India.)
Doctor Who was pretty terrible by the time Sophie joined the show, but she's the best.
I actually thought Sylvester McCoy was a pretty good Doctor. The real problem was that they were trying to make the Doctor More Than Just an Ordinary Time Lord(tm). He didn't need to be any more awesome than he already was. But anyway, McCoy himself was probably the -- well, hmm, let's see:
1. Tom Baker
2. David Tenant
3. Patrick Troughton
4/5. Chris Eccleston & Peter Davison (tied)
6. Jon Pertwee
7. Matt Smith
8/9. William Hartnell/Sylvester McCoy (tied)
10. Colin Baker
11. Paul McGann? Who's that?
Okay, so he was like the 9th best doctor out of 11. But I actually draw a big, fat line between 9th place and 10th place. The top 9 were all very enjoyable. Colin Baker---well, it wasn't all his fault that the producers screwed up the character. The 1997 TV movie was embarrassing.
Yep. The Lunar module was built by Grumman (way before Northrop got involved with them)
And Grumman subcontracted the rockets on the LEM to TRW. So when you see the Grumman weenie on "Apollo 13" whining about how the LEM rockets weren't designed to fire and cold soak, fire and cold soak, but it worked out fine anyway, it's because TRW made awesome rockets that were better than they needed to be.
Then Northrop and Grumman merged, then I worked for TRW and was really proud of working for the company that made the awesome better-than-they-needed-to-be rockets instead of the company with the whiny "Can't do it" engineer interfacing with NASA, then Northrop Grumman bought TRW, so we were both the company with the better-than-they-needed-to-be rockets AND the company with the whiny engineer, then I went to law school and it didn't matter anymore.
That's just sad. How can posting on/. be even momentarily more interesting than old Dr. Who from the 80s? Unless you're watching Colin Baker, in which case I can understand it.
IANAPsychologist, but intuitively I suspect that there's some feedback going on. A person is unhappy or lonely, so he seeks stimulus from multiple media inputs to try to fill the emptiness. It's gratifying for a while, but he quickly reaches diminishing returns and the endorphin rush peters out. Then he feels more depressed and lonely, so he seeks even more stimulus, and so on.
I'm honestly curious which candidate you think was better than Romney. Romney wasn't exactly my ideal candidate, but compared to the likes of Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, he looks positively statesman-like. I consider Barack Obama a trainwreck of a president, but I would not have voted for any one of those clowns.
In fact, when SOPA failed because people made it clear that they didn't want it, Chris Dodd threw a freaking tantrum, publicly reminded all the Democrats in his pocket where the gravy train was, and basically said, "You don't work for the people. You work for US." Wasn't exactly his finest moment.
Wow, somebody's not paying attention. Look, I know that on Slashdot it's hip to bash Republicans at every turn, but this is so wrong it's not even funny. Insane copyright laws is a bipartisan problem, but Democrats lead the charge. They're all in the pocket of Big Media in places like California and New York that lean heavily Democratic. Chris freaking DODD is running the MPAA now.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of the Republican party, and they're certainly not clean on this issue. But to say that they're worse than Democrats on copyright just sounds like uninformed Republican bashing.
Bombing an uninhabited area first was considered and rejected because U.S. leaders believed it would simply look to the war-crazed Japanese that we had a superweapon but were too soft to use it. It would be a waste of a bomb, and those were already in short supply (so the thinking went). Turns out that was probably a spot-on analysis, because after Hiroshima, the Emporer (who had already been leaning toward a conditional surrender), was pretty much ready to toss in the towel. But the senior military leaders wouldn't let it happen, and were ready for a coup if he tried. Their theory was, "America probably only has one of those. And even if they have more than one, they're too soft to use it twice." Then we dropped one on Nagasaki, and Japan suddenly lost all its will to fight. They were prepared to have every man, woman, and child in Japan fight to the death, but only if they could take a whole bunch of Yanks with them. Once we demonstrated that we could wipe them out without any of our own casualties, and that we had the will to do it, even they quit.
We did, however, blanket Hiroshima and Nagasaki with leaflets warning the people to leave because the city was about to be destroyed.
The atomic bombings are seen as a great tragedy in Japan, as were the fire bombings of other cities....
The prevailing view in Japan seems to be that the bombings were a test of the technology. At that time no-one knew what the effects on people and a city would be, and the US realized that eventually other countries would develop their own atomic weapons so they needed to find out.
I have two grandfathers who served in the Pacific theater. One is still alive, and the other lived to almost 90. They lived long, happy lives after the war ended. My grandmother is the kindest, sweetest, most thoroughly Christian old lady you have ever met in your life. I have literally never seen her raise her voice or get angry. Except once, when she was talking about 21st century revisionist history and how smarmy academics sit around pontificating about how evil the U.S. was for using those bombs and stopping the war. Those two bombs brought her husband home alive and she has not felt a twinge of guilt for a single day since then.
It's easy for Japan to sit around now, after 70 years of not bothering anybody, and play the innocent victims. But war is ugly business, and nobody did it uglier than Japan up until 1945. The Japanese military machine was a scourge over the whole earth. Their warcraft was shocking in its depravity, even to other warmongers. They had been like that for many centuries before then. It may not be such a bad thing that we stopped them dead in their tracks, utterly stripped them of their warmaking ability, and turned them into a basically peaceful technocracy.
I am in awe of your rhetorical skills, sir. Your thorough, thoughtful analysis of the GP's post had me spellbound from the first word, to the very last, nearly a dozen words later. And you even managed to say the words "false dichotomy" twice! That's doubly impressive, because sometimes smart people who know what they're talking about also say those words one after the other.
Well, there's here. So somebody is using it, and it is the proper comparative form of "slippery."
I personally take every opportunity to resist the American English tendency to form comparitives and superlatives with "more" and "most" for any multi-syllable word. Pleasanter, pleasantest. Cleverer, cleverest. Those are perfectly serviceable words, and sound more dignified* than the "more" and "most" forms. Why are we so loathe to use them?
*Even I won't go for "dignifieder," though. That's just silly.
Okay, I should have mentioned that the Statue of Liberty thing was just ridiculous. One, I could see it coming from a mile away when the elevator in Winter Quay had a poster. And two, it was the kind of self-indulgent, bombastic overkill that has been the biggest flaw of the revived show. It was downright cartoonish (see also, "The Wedding of River Song," which looked like some kind of Loony Tunes mashup).
Other than that, I stand by my original opinion. They were back down to just a handful of (visible) angels. The angels were back to their proper attack (time shift instead of snapping necks, which made them basically just goofy space commandos). And the stakes were deeply personal (being separated from loved ones). Again, not anywhere near the level of "Blink," but at least enjoyable this time out.
This is where New Who fails. Anybody who grew up hiding behind the couch whenever the Daleks showed up knows that Daleks are NOT comedy. Daleks are poop-you-pants scary inhuman monsters. They were deliberately designed without familiar reference points to make them look more alien and unsettling. So the irony was funny when I heard a Dalek screech "WOULD YOU LIKE SOME TEA," because I remembered all the times that Dalek screech scared the crap out of me, but it was also kind of sad. I probably would have forgiven all if the Daleks had reacquired their traditional inhuman ruthlessness by the end of the episode, but when the new fruit-candy-colored Daleks showed up at the end, I wanted to hit something. It was like Doctor Who had suddenly become a self parody.
At least "Asylum of the Daleks" had mean Daleks again. Maybe somebody at BBC is getting a clue.
I think the worst abuse of the "magic wand" sonic screwdriver was evident in "The Power of Three." It was literally just a magic wand that fixed the problem with no explanation or cleverness on the Doctor's part. At least with Ten, things were sometimes "deadlocked" so the magic wand didn't work.
"Blink" was one of the finest DW episodes of all time. Up there with "Genesis of the Daleks," "The Deadly Assassin" or "The Caves of Androzani."
"The Time of Angels" was an overblown crapfest. More angels + More aggressive = LESS dramatic tension than you had in Blink. It was a twice-over waste of an episode. It took a great concept (the Weeping Angels) and ruined it the way "Victory of the Daleks" ruined the Daleks.
In "The Angles Take Manhatten," the angels were back to having a little dramatic tension. Not on the same level as "Blink," but pretty good.
Other than that, I'm with the GP. I am so happy to be rid of Amy and Rory for good (PLEASE, for good). I keep watching New Who because there are moments of excellence, like "The Empty Child" or "The Doctor's Wife," but then you get "Love and Monsters" or "The Power of Three," and you wonder why you're wasting your time.
I have completely responded to your points. You just choose not to see it. The problem is that you fundamentally misunderstand the difference between a policy preference and a principle. Take another example. Let's say that I have a client who makes wooden arrows, and I know that there is a special tax incentive for makers of wooden arrows. I think that tax incentive is stupid. I think that as a matter of policy, it is completely ridiculous. But I must and I will advise my client of the tax incentive and advise him to take full advantage of it. To quote Top Gun, I don't make policy. I am an instrument of that policy. In my private time, I am completely free to work tirelessly to change policies I don't like. But when I am on my client's clock, my function is to get him the best possible result under the current state of the law.
But again, matters of principle far transcend mere copyright policy. Indeed, I believe that viewing something as ultimately trivial as copyright through this distorted lens is symptomatic of the larger problem that we live in a society that has largely abandoned the ideas of anything being "right" or "wrong." The very moral relativism you accuse me of is abundantly evident in the premium you place on intellectual property law. A society with no moral copmass quickly begins to mistake policy preferences for moral imperatives.
Those things that are a matter of principle to me are important enough that I will refuse to represent a client who stands for those things. If your industry is prostitution, pornography, or abortion for example, I will not represent you. I will not help you get the benefit of even laws I agree with, because as a matter of principle I will not further industries I believe to be truly destructive to society. We do not look back on ancient Rome and judge its downfall based on its intellectual property regime (or lack thereof). We judge it based on its depravity and self-destructiveness. 1,000 years from now, nobody will care what our copyright laws were.
Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think porn and prostitution are the greatest things ever to grace the face of the earth, and you truly believe in your heart that copyright term is a matter of moral imperative. If you want to worship at that altar, you are entitled to. But don't mistake my refusal of your invitation to join in for a lack of principles. All you have really hit on is that you and I have very different values.
I don't represent laws. I represent people. The DMCA and the copyright term are a legal fact, whether I personally like them or agree with them. It would be grossly unethical for me, in the course of representing a client, to say, "It's true that my client could benefit from the DMCA, but I personally dislike the DMCA, so I refuse to apply its full effect on my client's behalf." Nor can I go willy-nilly firing every client who has an issue that touches on some law I find personally distasteful; it would be a breach of my fiduciary duty to my firm (also, I would quickly get myself fired).
"Unethical" would be filing a DMCA lawsuit against a party that I knew had not violated the DMCA, simply because I know I could get away with it. "Unethical" would also be filing a lawsuit against a party that I knew had violated the DMCA, but quietly failing to inform my client of the fact because I don't like the DMCA.
Regarding my alleged lack of principles, I assure that there are many things that I consider a matter of principle on which I would decline to represent a client if it arose. For example, if a Nevada brothel operator approached me wanting to know how to protect his IP, I would politely ask him to find some other attorney. Prostitution is a gross abuse of women as a matter of principle, and I will not in any way aid anybody in promoting it. Copyright, on the other hand, is a mere matter of policy preference, and is less important than my principles by at least an order of magnitude, unless somebody is asking me to help him copyright his porn collection or something.
As a counterpoint to his specious argument about Ancient Greece being the pinnacle of human evolution, we could look at all the foolish endeavours, demagogy, rotten politics, incessant warfare, slavery, genocide and ignorance which prevailed at the time, and feel that we have collectively come a long way.
Yes, because, ALL--- no wait, MOST--- well, no, not really, SOME--- ah, screw it.
Absolutely, because we're much better at pretending we've eradicated those things than the ancients were.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's prudent to be launching a new RPG in this over-saturated market. Maybe if it's got first class licensed material and is connected to a top notch company, but wasn't there a LOTR MMO that died recently?
I think action-adventure is the way to go in the current market. Maybe even something pure adventure with a more in-depth storyline. What was the budget behind the Walking Dead game, anyway? Makes me wonder what other first-rate games are out there this year that aren't based on just shooting things.
But this one has a special "hardcore" mode. You have to play through to the end without dying. No extra lives, no save states. In fact, if you get killed, you don't even get to start over.* If you want to win, you must win on the first play-through. Kind of a niche market, but for those who go for that kind of thing, nothing beats SHAM II.
*(Unless you install the "reincarnation" mod, which is pretty popular in India.)
Doctor Who was pretty terrible by the time Sophie joined the show, but she's the best.
I actually thought Sylvester McCoy was a pretty good Doctor. The real problem was that they were trying to make the Doctor More Than Just an Ordinary Time Lord(tm). He didn't need to be any more awesome than he already was. But anyway, McCoy himself was probably the -- well, hmm, let's see:
1. Tom Baker
2. David Tenant
3. Patrick Troughton
4/5. Chris Eccleston & Peter Davison (tied)
6. Jon Pertwee
7. Matt Smith
8/9. William Hartnell/Sylvester McCoy (tied)
10. Colin Baker
11. Paul McGann? Who's that?
Okay, so he was like the 9th best doctor out of 11. But I actually draw a big, fat line between 9th place and 10th place. The top 9 were all very enjoyable. Colin Baker---well, it wasn't all his fault that the producers screwed up the character. The 1997 TV movie was embarrassing.
Yep. The Lunar module was built by Grumman (way before Northrop got involved with them)
And Grumman subcontracted the rockets on the LEM to TRW. So when you see the Grumman weenie on "Apollo 13" whining about how the LEM rockets weren't designed to fire and cold soak, fire and cold soak, but it worked out fine anyway, it's because TRW made awesome rockets that were better than they needed to be.
Then Northrop and Grumman merged, then I worked for TRW and was really proud of working for the company that made the awesome better-than-they-needed-to-be rockets instead of the company with the whiny "Can't do it" engineer interfacing with NASA, then Northrop Grumman bought TRW, so we were both the company with the better-than-they-needed-to-be rockets AND the company with the whiny engineer, then I went to law school and it didn't matter anymore.
I think I had a point in there somewhere.
The dust was in fact a very large problem for the Apollo missions. It clung to everything electrostatically, and got into just about everything.
Which is why, for the Mars mission, they should set the sound stage up in a clean room.
That's just sad. How can posting on /. be even momentarily more interesting than old Dr. Who from the 80s? Unless you're watching Colin Baker, in which case I can understand it.
IANAPsychologist, but intuitively I suspect that there's some feedback going on. A person is unhappy or lonely, so he seeks stimulus from multiple media inputs to try to fill the emptiness. It's gratifying for a while, but he quickly reaches diminishing returns and the endorphin rush peters out. Then he feels more depressed and lonely, so he seeks even more stimulus, and so on.
All the Democrats have to do is not screw up too badly.
In other words, both parties are royally screwed.
I'm honestly curious which candidate you think was better than Romney. Romney wasn't exactly my ideal candidate, but compared to the likes of Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, he looks positively statesman-like. I consider Barack Obama a trainwreck of a president, but I would not have voted for any one of those clowns.
In fact, when SOPA failed because people made it clear that they didn't want it, Chris Dodd threw a freaking tantrum, publicly reminded all the Democrats in his pocket where the gravy train was, and basically said, "You don't work for the people. You work for US." Wasn't exactly his finest moment.
Republicans are in favor of big business running your life. Democrats are in favor of big government running your life.
Neither major party is in favor of you running your life.
It's more of an R problem
Wow, somebody's not paying attention. Look, I know that on Slashdot it's hip to bash Republicans at every turn, but this is so wrong it's not even funny. Insane copyright laws is a bipartisan problem, but Democrats lead the charge. They're all in the pocket of Big Media in places like California and New York that lean heavily Democratic. Chris freaking DODD is running the MPAA now.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of the Republican party, and they're certainly not clean on this issue. But to say that they're worse than Democrats on copyright just sounds like uninformed Republican bashing.
Bombing an uninhabited area first was considered and rejected because U.S. leaders believed it would simply look to the war-crazed Japanese that we had a superweapon but were too soft to use it. It would be a waste of a bomb, and those were already in short supply (so the thinking went). Turns out that was probably a spot-on analysis, because after Hiroshima, the Emporer (who had already been leaning toward a conditional surrender), was pretty much ready to toss in the towel. But the senior military leaders wouldn't let it happen, and were ready for a coup if he tried. Their theory was, "America probably only has one of those. And even if they have more than one, they're too soft to use it twice." Then we dropped one on Nagasaki, and Japan suddenly lost all its will to fight. They were prepared to have every man, woman, and child in Japan fight to the death, but only if they could take a whole bunch of Yanks with them. Once we demonstrated that we could wipe them out without any of our own casualties, and that we had the will to do it, even they quit.
We did, however, blanket Hiroshima and Nagasaki with leaflets warning the people to leave because the city was about to be destroyed.
The atomic bombings are seen as a great tragedy in Japan, as were the fire bombings of other cities. ...
The prevailing view in Japan seems to be that the bombings were a test of the technology. At that time no-one knew what the effects on people and a city would be, and the US realized that eventually other countries would develop their own atomic weapons so they needed to find out.
I have two grandfathers who served in the Pacific theater. One is still alive, and the other lived to almost 90. They lived long, happy lives after the war ended. My grandmother is the kindest, sweetest, most thoroughly Christian old lady you have ever met in your life. I have literally never seen her raise her voice or get angry. Except once, when she was talking about 21st century revisionist history and how smarmy academics sit around pontificating about how evil the U.S. was for using those bombs and stopping the war. Those two bombs brought her husband home alive and she has not felt a twinge of guilt for a single day since then.
It's easy for Japan to sit around now, after 70 years of not bothering anybody, and play the innocent victims. But war is ugly business, and nobody did it uglier than Japan up until 1945. The Japanese military machine was a scourge over the whole earth. Their warcraft was shocking in its depravity, even to other warmongers. They had been like that for many centuries before then. It may not be such a bad thing that we stopped them dead in their tracks, utterly stripped them of their warmaking ability, and turned them into a basically peaceful technocracy.
I am in awe of your rhetorical skills, sir. Your thorough, thoughtful analysis of the GP's post had me spellbound from the first word, to the very last, nearly a dozen words later. And you even managed to say the words "false dichotomy" twice! That's doubly impressive, because sometimes smart people who know what they're talking about also say those words one after the other.
Well, there's here. So somebody is using it, and it is the proper comparative form of "slippery."
I personally take every opportunity to resist the American English tendency to form comparitives and superlatives with "more" and "most" for any multi-syllable word. Pleasanter, pleasantest. Cleverer, cleverest. Those are perfectly serviceable words, and sound more dignified* than the "more" and "most" forms. Why are we so loathe to use them?
*Even I won't go for "dignifieder," though. That's just silly.
Okay, I should have mentioned that the Statue of Liberty thing was just ridiculous. One, I could see it coming from a mile away when the elevator in Winter Quay had a poster. And two, it was the kind of self-indulgent, bombastic overkill that has been the biggest flaw of the revived show. It was downright cartoonish (see also, "The Wedding of River Song," which looked like some kind of Loony Tunes mashup).
Other than that, I stand by my original opinion. They were back down to just a handful of (visible) angels. The angels were back to their proper attack (time shift instead of snapping necks, which made them basically just goofy space commandos). And the stakes were deeply personal (being separated from loved ones). Again, not anywhere near the level of "Blink," but at least enjoyable this time out.
Daleks are comedy, angels are true monsters.
This is where New Who fails. Anybody who grew up hiding behind the couch whenever the Daleks showed up knows that Daleks are NOT comedy. Daleks are poop-you-pants scary inhuman monsters. They were deliberately designed without familiar reference points to make them look more alien and unsettling. So the irony was funny when I heard a Dalek screech "WOULD YOU LIKE SOME TEA," because I remembered all the times that Dalek screech scared the crap out of me, but it was also kind of sad. I probably would have forgiven all if the Daleks had reacquired their traditional inhuman ruthlessness by the end of the episode, but when the new fruit-candy-colored Daleks showed up at the end, I wanted to hit something. It was like Doctor Who had suddenly become a self parody.
At least "Asylum of the Daleks" had mean Daleks again. Maybe somebody at BBC is getting a clue.
The last Episode with the Angels is quite good really EXCEPT THE ENDING SUCKS.
Huh? Amy and Rory disappear from the Who universe, apparently for good (finally). What's not to like?
I think the worst abuse of the "magic wand" sonic screwdriver was evident in "The Power of Three." It was literally just a magic wand that fixed the problem with no explanation or cleverness on the Doctor's part. At least with Ten, things were sometimes "deadlocked" so the magic wand didn't work.
"Blink" was one of the finest DW episodes of all time. Up there with "Genesis of the Daleks," "The Deadly Assassin" or "The Caves of Androzani."
"The Time of Angels" was an overblown crapfest. More angels + More aggressive = LESS dramatic tension than you had in Blink. It was a twice-over waste of an episode. It took a great concept (the Weeping Angels) and ruined it the way "Victory of the Daleks" ruined the Daleks.
In "The Angles Take Manhatten," the angels were back to having a little dramatic tension. Not on the same level as "Blink," but pretty good.
Other than that, I'm with the GP. I am so happy to be rid of Amy and Rory for good (PLEASE, for good). I keep watching New Who because there are moments of excellence, like "The Empty Child" or "The Doctor's Wife," but then you get "Love and Monsters" or "The Power of Three," and you wonder why you're wasting your time.
I have completely responded to your points. You just choose not to see it. The problem is that you fundamentally misunderstand the difference between a policy preference and a principle. Take another example. Let's say that I have a client who makes wooden arrows, and I know that there is a special tax incentive for makers of wooden arrows. I think that tax incentive is stupid. I think that as a matter of policy, it is completely ridiculous. But I must and I will advise my client of the tax incentive and advise him to take full advantage of it. To quote Top Gun, I don't make policy. I am an instrument of that policy. In my private time, I am completely free to work tirelessly to change policies I don't like. But when I am on my client's clock, my function is to get him the best possible result under the current state of the law.
But again, matters of principle far transcend mere copyright policy. Indeed, I believe that viewing something as ultimately trivial as copyright through this distorted lens is symptomatic of the larger problem that we live in a society that has largely abandoned the ideas of anything being "right" or "wrong." The very moral relativism you accuse me of is abundantly evident in the premium you place on intellectual property law. A society with no moral copmass quickly begins to mistake policy preferences for moral imperatives.
Those things that are a matter of principle to me are important enough that I will refuse to represent a client who stands for those things. If your industry is prostitution, pornography, or abortion for example, I will not represent you. I will not help you get the benefit of even laws I agree with, because as a matter of principle I will not further industries I believe to be truly destructive to society. We do not look back on ancient Rome and judge its downfall based on its intellectual property regime (or lack thereof). We judge it based on its depravity and self-destructiveness. 1,000 years from now, nobody will care what our copyright laws were.
Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think porn and prostitution are the greatest things ever to grace the face of the earth, and you truly believe in your heart that copyright term is a matter of moral imperative. If you want to worship at that altar, you are entitled to. But don't mistake my refusal of your invitation to join in for a lack of principles. All you have really hit on is that you and I have very different values.
Also, you still need eggs. Nobody is claiming to be "twenty years out" from that right now.
Yes, because, ALL [of those things have been eradicated, etc], ah, screw it.
we're much better at pretending we've eradicated those things...
So yeah, that was kind of the point.
I don't represent laws. I represent people. The DMCA and the copyright term are a legal fact, whether I personally like them or agree with them. It would be grossly unethical for me, in the course of representing a client, to say, "It's true that my client could benefit from the DMCA, but I personally dislike the DMCA, so I refuse to apply its full effect on my client's behalf." Nor can I go willy-nilly firing every client who has an issue that touches on some law I find personally distasteful; it would be a breach of my fiduciary duty to my firm (also, I would quickly get myself fired).
"Unethical" would be filing a DMCA lawsuit against a party that I knew had not violated the DMCA, simply because I know I could get away with it. "Unethical" would also be filing a lawsuit against a party that I knew had violated the DMCA, but quietly failing to inform my client of the fact because I don't like the DMCA.
Regarding my alleged lack of principles, I assure that there are many things that I consider a matter of principle on which I would decline to represent a client if it arose. For example, if a Nevada brothel operator approached me wanting to know how to protect his IP, I would politely ask him to find some other attorney. Prostitution is a gross abuse of women as a matter of principle, and I will not in any way aid anybody in promoting it. Copyright, on the other hand, is a mere matter of policy preference, and is less important than my principles by at least an order of magnitude, unless somebody is asking me to help him copyright his porn collection or something.
As a counterpoint to his specious argument about Ancient Greece being the pinnacle of human evolution, we could look at all the foolish endeavours, demagogy, rotten politics, incessant warfare, slavery, genocide and ignorance which prevailed at the time, and feel that we have collectively come a long way.
Yes, because, ALL--- no wait, MOST--- well, no, not really, SOME--- ah, screw it.
Absolutely, because we're much better at pretending we've eradicated those things than the ancients were.