A lovely concept but what human operator generally has a full view of all the actors, events, relationships and their importance? No one operator is going to have all the pieces of the puzzle in their head which is why they have to write up Intelligence Information Reports to share information with other operators and analysts that try to put all the pieces together. Now you have a mountain of IIR's to either sift through by hand or you're right back to the data mining problem.
Key take away: Data Mining Issues and HUMINT aren't mutually exclusive
Are you saying it's different from VIEWING or ATTENDING a live performance or concert
Yes. It is.
Here's a tip,if your going to cut someone's quote off directly before the "OR" in their sentence and then argue against it you pretty much prove you're just being an asshole. I understand quite well a ticket to a concert is not a comparable good to a cd album hence me asking which one you were referring to.
However, we're not talking about pirating concerts which would be the equivalent of playing an artist's song at your own concert. We're talking about pirating CD's, the medium through which a musical artist sells their product.
A CD consists of ones and zeros. Therefore, it is a number. No one can own a number, therefore no one can own a digitised piece of music. Digitised music, as "real" as it may sound, is actually the most attenuated and alienated form of musical understanding.
So no one can own or sell a piece of software they write because they are just bunch of ones and zeros? Your image is just a bunch of ones and zeros that tell the computer screen what to display, so by that logic people could use it however they chose. If your going to say these things can't be copyrighted or even owned because you can break them down into ones and zeros then your saying pretty much no invention or product in this world can be copyrighted and owned because they can be broken down into base elements or base components such as a lever, inclined plane, or spring. This is the same argument Ford and Chrysler used while trying to STEAL inventions from a small time inventor and use themselves. What scares me is that you idiots that just want to be able to steal shit legally are going to convince enough people without realizing that the whole point of copyright is to PROTECT the little guy from the big industries stealing their idea and inventions and running with them thus leaving no profit and no incentive for inventors not operating inside a gigantic corporation with the resources to quickly produce and market their invention faster than anyone else can rip it off thus leaving us with nothing but monopolies
And if you truly believe nothing should be able to be owned or copyrighted there isn't really any point to continuing this discussion because your so far over the edge in trying to find moral justification of stealing songs that no ones going to be able to pull you back up.
I seem to remember the Somalians in Mogadishu being able to take down our choppers and engage our forces using tactics that were taught to them by Mujaheddin which they picked up fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. That's not to say there's not a lot of cannon fodder or that they're all trained and skilled fighters but the single largest mistake anyone can make in entering combat is to dismiss or underestimate your opponent. The country does not have a complete lack experienced fighters and with paydays we're talking about here it's going to draw the talent.
And as an employer, if these shipping companies put weapons in the hands of their sailors and tell them to resist rather than evade, hide, and lay low, then they are legally taking responsibility for their ability to fight. You don't hand someone a gun and say good luck. You give them that weapon and tell them to defend themselves you have to TEACH them how to defend themselves, give them tactics and training. That's a large investment in both time and money. A lot of people want the sailors armed because they want the pirates dead, but the shipping company's first priority is to not have ANY of their sailors killed, 2nd is to have the ships not hijacked, third is to have the ships not delayed on route, and the pirates being dead a distant fourth. They don't want to have to go into combat as a company, that's not their business. That's what the Navy's of the world should be taking care of.
Lastly, if you don't agree with what I've said about needing training, what makes in untrained maritime sailor with small arms a better combatant then a supposedly untrained pirate? Is the untrained sailor supposedly better at close quarter combat because he's white or has some level of education, high school or further? I don't remember any CQB training at my High School. I'm interested in what makes the untrained merchant sailor a better fighter then your theory of untrained pirates that have just experienced "random violence" which, by the way, does a lot of good during a firefight if it's not your first time seeing a buddies head get a hole blown through it.
My point is you can't open fire on a vessel without the criteria that YOU listed actually being met so it's not as black and white as slap some browning machine guns on there and light up any boat that comes close. Which means as you pointed out, there's a possibility that the pirates might get awfully close before they demonstrate intent. If you want to take the armed route you have to invest in trained professionals, not just put some guns in the hands of merchant sailors and say good luck with the close quarters combat you guys!
I'm all for having security details on ships and killing the pirates, but you have to go about it the right way. The article you linked to with the security detail? Probably ex navy seals. I know some companies have started placing details of these guys on ships in that area and they're probably as dangerous without a gun as with one. That's who you need defending ships, not some overweight sailor that's never seen combat scrambling to unlock a weapons case and fight off hardened Somalians who have grown up in a world of violence. That's a recipe for getting people killed, and in that case, it's better to lock yourself in the engine room and let the navy cap the pirates when they show up to help.
Right, any price I want. And being a sane, self-interested individual that wants to make money I would sell the product at whatever price-level I believe would make me the most money. I never said anything about entitlement. And while I agree, copyright isn't purely capitalist it's better then the alternative of small inventors and companies not being interested in innovating because some larger company or person with more resources will just carbon copy their idea and out market and out produce them leaving them high and dry with no incentives.
Either way, what I was arguing against in the sentence you quoted was the idea that once I made a profit that I should somehow be forced no longer to sell my product at all at a price I'm allowed to determine, but should be forced to give it away for free which I think you and I can both agree would be a ludicrous government intervention.
Are you saying it's different from VIEWING or ATTENDING a live performance or concert or are you saying it's completely different from any auditory medium the artist provides and therefore the artist has no rights over your 'work' of the recording of his song?
I would say if a recording captures and replicates the auditory inputs created by an artist to a sufficient level, certainly to the same level of any product the artist can produce and sell himself, then it IS in fact the song. If you disagree I'd be interested in knowing how you define the song itself.
My Hope is that this technology can one day provide us with cheap easily produced bacon-wrapped steak and other meats. My true hope is that some sort of animal will be produced that will grow in some sort of bacon wrapped configuration because I want to gaze upon this delicious animal frolicking mouth-waterlingly in an open field before I eat it.
the studio that produces a movie ALREADY makes profit most of the time in just the first day of screening of the movie. in a week, they go over 25% or 50% of their costs or more depending on the movie.
why the FUCK they should be able to continually make more money on the SAME product, despite they made a product and sold it for up to 50% profits in the first week of its operation already ? why the fuck should i continue to pay to see the same movie, if its to be on dvd, online or whatever ?
So if I spend a year to produce a product and then make a monetary profit in the first week it goes on sale then my product should immediately become free and I shouldn't receive any more money for it? Who decides how much profit I should make before my product becomes free, the state? It was my understanding that in a capitalist economy that I make a product, and sell it at whatever price I think will make me the most money based upon demand.
are car factories allowed to keep charging you on the car you buy ? every time ? without rendering you a new service/addition with it, or without giving you a new car ?
Yes. I don't know where the hell your from, but here EVERY time I go down to the Nissan dealer and try to get another copy of an XTerra they charge me for it. Even if I just want a backup copy.
I'm not really sure what the analogy is you're trying to make here. You pay once for a song and then you can listen to it as much as you please. If you're buying the same exact song more then once then your doing it wrong.
explain me, why the FUCK should content industries should be slighted favorably in that regard. and why the fuck should production industries, who produce and sell products ONE TIME to a customer, should have to keep producing a product every time they need to make a sale ?
Because a digital picture of a car is not a car. A digital recording of a song IS a song. What is your suggestion, that a band play one concert, an artist paint one painting, a movie have one showing, and charge enough for it to make up for the production costs and then let digital replicas be free thereafter?
Or does it make just a wee bit more sense that if you want their digital product that you pay for that file with the agreement you won't share it with other people, and if the price is more then you wish to pay, then you simply don't buy it until price is lowered to a value YOU deem acceptable? In your case apparently, you should wait until they offer it for free.
Homer didn't have to invest thousands or even millions of dollars in special effects or recording studios in order to "write" the Odyssey and Shakespeare wasn't worried about people showing up to his plays with video cameras. Honestly, I don't understand how pirates say artists and the entertainment industry just "doesn't get" how technology has changed the world and then use defenses like that.
It's simple, there's stealing a good or service, and there's paying for it. Pirating is stealing. People need to just be honest: They're stealing because technology makes it easy and safe.
Good point, I'm sure they can't afford any crazy technology like a box or towels or have made any sort of scientific discoveries that might correlate distance and nighttime with the ability to see well.
Your argument seems to be a tad circular. Pirates have demonstrated those three things because they are pirates? The question at hand is how do you know they are pirates? How do you know they have AK-47's unless their waving them in the air before they get there or are they wearing a "Surrender the Booty!" T-shirt and flying a pirate flag?
Your right, I feel much safer with our current approach of building, out in the open, temporary targets -er... storage next to all the power plants and having it just sit there on-site. After all, if it never leaves the plant grounds we can't see it so its not a problem right?
Governor Perdue, so nice of you to chime in. By your logic if your boss said "you can have sex with me or you can quit" then nothing bad happened because you had the choice to quit. I think your missing the fact that you don't leave a teaching job midyear. It hardly pays enough to cover the bills so you probably don't have enough money bankrolled to tide you over a year till when teachers usually switch jobs. When you quit you lose your salary level for state jobs, you lose your health-care coverage until you find a new job, and you sure as hell don't have one lined up because this came up rather suddenly.
Compare what to what? You're saying that the same teacher in New York provides better eduction then he or she would in North Carolina because the salary is higher. I don't see how you reached that conclusion.
That would be because I didn't reach that conclusion. In fact I didn't really reach any conclusion. The idea I was trying to point out however, was that higher pay attracts more highly skilled workers. That is true for engineers, scientists, and teachers alike. and in states like New York where teachers are allowed to unionize you generally find they are better paid.
And teachers in North Carolina have the North Carolina Educators Association. Their top agenda item is "Move teacher salaries beyond the national average". Think about what would happen if the NEA tried to push that agenda in every state...
Funny, I have the same agenda item down for myself. Sadly I probably have more bargaining power then the NCEA. You see, all of me can threaten to quit or stop working if my pay is not increased to suitable levels. The NCEA cannot make such demands, and therefore has no bargaining power. All they can do is lobby and try to convince people that teachers should be paid more. They have no where near the power of unions. I mean really: Retroactive Pay cuts. There is no unionized industry on this planet where the employer could say "hey, we decided to cut your salary by 5% for the last year, so we need you to pay us 5% of the money we gave you during the last 5 months back.
On the flip side in states where you can't unionize, North Carolina for example, in order to balance the budget they gave teachers a retroactive pay cut which means your next paycheck gets docked all the money you got payed earlier in the year to bring it down to your new lower salary level. For all you people who think I typed something wrong because that sounds too illegal and crazy to be true, it is, and it did happen. The Governor apparently has broad constitutional rights to balance the state budget. Teachers that had a lot of money already taken out for things like medical spending and the like actually had to PAY the state back. That sorta thing doesn't exactly help get good teachers in our state.
Now compare that to the quality of education in the state of New york where I first lived and they did have teacher unions....
Having teachers that actually know science is also somewhat necessary, and for that to happen you need to pay people that know science enough that it's worth it for them to teach. I would argue rather than huge cash prizes for scientists you need huge cash prizes for teachers of science at the High School levels. I guess preferably there should be a lot of crossover.
But the fact is, you can make a lot of money as an engineer and scientist as it is. Partly because so few people get interested in doing it and even less of those are able to hack it. The money making ability isn't missing, the aptitude and attitude is, and that needs to be instilled at a younger level.
The same could be said for missiles and bullets but when a plane carrying ordinance is trying to hit targets inside your borders you don't really give a shit about a house or two.
In exactly what sort of scenario do you envision citizens coming down the street during a full scale air assault and complaining: "Listen, military, I know your trying to defend our country from being conquered and all but your kinda messing up my house, would you mind not shooting at any planes coming to kill us if their kinda low to the ground? K, thanks!
I don't think anyone is accusing Amazon of being guilty of anything, I think they just recognize that there is no way in hell people are going to properly report things they buy online so their trying to move to method that might actually work.
Just because someone can be blamed for the situation according to the current law doesn't mean that the current law is a good working model that shouldn't be done away with
I'm curious what America's response would be to their people being demonized. I'd love to see a game set in Iraq or Vietnam where America invades your country, kills your people and attempts to rest control of your homeland away from you.
You mean like a game where you play as a suspected American terrorist who murders hundreds of civilians in an airport of a superpower and then that superpower comes and fucks your country up? I played it this morning, it's called Modern Warfare 2, and we reacted to it by buying millions of copies. Any more questions?
That is hilarious. I have no idea how I've missed it until now, thank you. It also pretty much sums up the new MW2 experience with having to be in game chat.
If you read the thread I was asking what the "it" is and what it "doesn't do" so that I could communicate with him. He then told me I was an illiterate faggot so if I wanted to reply to his line of discourse I could either talk about my sexuality and relevant exploits or I could discuss why I couldn't understand what he wrote. Which would you have preferred? Well too bad, that was rhetorical!
If you have any idea exactly which point he was arguing with I'd be happy to have non grammatical-focused discourse on the subject
Ummmmm....no, your wrong, sorry. You're essentially suggesting that Nuclear power plants run their hot coolant through the body of water directly like a radiator through the wind. This would be disastrous to the ecosystem.
Water is pulled out of the body of water for cooling because you can't transfer all the heat to that body of water precisely because of the environmental damage that would cause. That water is then used for cooling equipment and cooling the closed-circuit coolant which you're likely referring to.
This water then has to be cooled off before it can be returned to that or any other natural body of water. Here's a direct quote from wikipedia about one such nuclear station:
"The Brunswick plants' proximity to the Cape Fear River and the Atlantic Ocean allowed the designers to take in cooling water from the Cape Fear river and discharge it into the Atlantic off the coast of Oak Island." Brunswick Nuclear Generating Station
Also, I believe what I've said because I've seen it with my own eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
A lovely concept but what human operator generally has a full view of all the actors, events, relationships and their importance? No one operator is going to have all the pieces of the puzzle in their head which is why they have to write up Intelligence Information Reports to share information with other operators and analysts that try to put all the pieces together. Now you have a mountain of IIR's to either sift through by hand or you're right back to the data mining problem.
Key take away: Data Mining Issues and HUMINT aren't mutually exclusive
Are you saying it's different from VIEWING or ATTENDING a live performance or concert
Yes. It is.
Here's a tip,if your going to cut someone's quote off directly before the "OR" in their sentence and then argue against it you pretty much prove you're just being an asshole. I understand quite well a ticket to a concert is not a comparable good to a cd album hence me asking which one you were referring to.
However, we're not talking about pirating concerts which would be the equivalent of playing an artist's song at your own concert. We're talking about pirating CD's, the medium through which a musical artist sells their product.
A CD consists of ones and zeros. Therefore, it is a number. No one can own a number, therefore no one can own a digitised piece of music. Digitised music, as "real" as it may sound, is actually the most attenuated and alienated form of musical understanding.
So no one can own or sell a piece of software they write because they are just bunch of ones and zeros? Your image is just a bunch of ones and zeros that tell the computer screen what to display, so by that logic people could use it however they chose. If your going to say these things can't be copyrighted or even owned because you can break them down into ones and zeros then your saying pretty much no invention or product in this world can be copyrighted and owned because they can be broken down into base elements or base components such as a lever, inclined plane, or spring. This is the same argument Ford and Chrysler used while trying to STEAL inventions from a small time inventor and use themselves. What scares me is that you idiots that just want to be able to steal shit legally are going to convince enough people without realizing that the whole point of copyright is to PROTECT the little guy from the big industries stealing their idea and inventions and running with them thus leaving no profit and no incentive for inventors not operating inside a gigantic corporation with the resources to quickly produce and market their invention faster than anyone else can rip it off thus leaving us with nothing but monopolies
And if you truly believe nothing should be able to be owned or copyrighted there isn't really any point to continuing this discussion because your so far over the edge in trying to find moral justification of stealing songs that no ones going to be able to pull you back up.
I seem to remember the Somalians in Mogadishu being able to take down our choppers and engage our forces using tactics that were taught to them by Mujaheddin which they picked up fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. That's not to say there's not a lot of cannon fodder or that they're all trained and skilled fighters but the single largest mistake anyone can make in entering combat is to dismiss or underestimate your opponent. The country does not have a complete lack experienced fighters and with paydays we're talking about here it's going to draw the talent.
And as an employer, if these shipping companies put weapons in the hands of their sailors and tell them to resist rather than evade, hide, and lay low, then they are legally taking responsibility for their ability to fight. You don't hand someone a gun and say good luck. You give them that weapon and tell them to defend themselves you have to TEACH them how to defend themselves, give them tactics and training. That's a large investment in both time and money. A lot of people want the sailors armed because they want the pirates dead, but the shipping company's first priority is to not have ANY of their sailors killed, 2nd is to have the ships not hijacked, third is to have the ships not delayed on route, and the pirates being dead a distant fourth. They don't want to have to go into combat as a company, that's not their business. That's what the Navy's of the world should be taking care of.
Lastly, if you don't agree with what I've said about needing training, what makes in untrained maritime sailor with small arms a better combatant then a supposedly untrained pirate? Is the untrained sailor supposedly better at close quarter combat because he's white or has some level of education, high school or further? I don't remember any CQB training at my High School. I'm interested in what makes the untrained merchant sailor a better fighter then your theory of untrained pirates that have just experienced "random violence" which, by the way, does a lot of good during a firefight if it's not your first time seeing a buddies head get a hole blown through it.
My point is you can't open fire on a vessel without the criteria that YOU listed actually being met so it's not as black and white as slap some browning machine guns on there and light up any boat that comes close. Which means as you pointed out, there's a possibility that the pirates might get awfully close before they demonstrate intent. If you want to take the armed route you have to invest in trained professionals, not just put some guns in the hands of merchant sailors and say good luck with the close quarters combat you guys!
I'm all for having security details on ships and killing the pirates, but you have to go about it the right way. The article you linked to with the security detail? Probably ex navy seals. I know some companies have started placing details of these guys on ships in that area and they're probably as dangerous without a gun as with one. That's who you need defending ships, not some overweight sailor that's never seen combat scrambling to unlock a weapons case and fight off hardened Somalians who have grown up in a world of violence. That's a recipe for getting people killed, and in that case, it's better to lock yourself in the engine room and let the navy cap the pirates when they show up to help.
Right, any price I want. And being a sane, self-interested individual that wants to make money I would sell the product at whatever price-level I believe would make me the most money. I never said anything about entitlement. And while I agree, copyright isn't purely capitalist it's better then the alternative of small inventors and companies not being interested in innovating because some larger company or person with more resources will just carbon copy their idea and out market and out produce them leaving them high and dry with no incentives.
Either way, what I was arguing against in the sentence you quoted was the idea that once I made a profit that I should somehow be forced no longer to sell my product at all at a price I'm allowed to determine, but should be forced to give it away for free which I think you and I can both agree would be a ludicrous government intervention.
Are you saying it's different from VIEWING or ATTENDING a live performance or concert or are you saying it's completely different from any auditory medium the artist provides and therefore the artist has no rights over your 'work' of the recording of his song?
I would say if a recording captures and replicates the auditory inputs created by an artist to a sufficient level, certainly to the same level of any product the artist can produce and sell himself, then it IS in fact the song. If you disagree I'd be interested in knowing how you define the song itself.
My Hope is that this technology can one day provide us with cheap easily produced bacon-wrapped steak and other meats. My true hope is that some sort of animal will be produced that will grow in some sort of bacon wrapped configuration because I want to gaze upon this delicious animal frolicking mouth-waterlingly in an open field before I eat it.
the studio that produces a movie ALREADY makes profit most of the time in just the first day of screening of the movie. in a week, they go over 25% or 50% of their costs or more depending on the movie.
why the FUCK they should be able to continually make more money on the SAME product, despite they made a product and sold it for up to 50% profits in the first week of its operation already ? why the fuck should i continue to pay to see the same movie, if its to be on dvd, online or whatever ?
So if I spend a year to produce a product and then make a monetary profit in the first week it goes on sale then my product should immediately become free and I shouldn't receive any more money for it? Who decides how much profit I should make before my product becomes free, the state? It was my understanding that in a capitalist economy that I make a product, and sell it at whatever price I think will make me the most money based upon demand.
are car factories allowed to keep charging you on the car you buy ? every time ? without rendering you a new service/addition with it, or without giving you a new car ?
Yes. I don't know where the hell your from, but here EVERY time I go down to the Nissan dealer and try to get another copy of an XTerra they charge me for it. Even if I just want a backup copy.
I'm not really sure what the analogy is you're trying to make here. You pay once for a song and then you can listen to it as much as you please. If you're buying the same exact song more then once then your doing it wrong.
explain me, why the FUCK should content industries should be slighted favorably in that regard. and why the fuck should production industries, who produce and sell products ONE TIME to a customer, should have to keep producing a product every time they need to make a sale ?
Because a digital picture of a car is not a car. A digital recording of a song IS a song. What is your suggestion, that a band play one concert, an artist paint one painting, a movie have one showing, and charge enough for it to make up for the production costs and then let digital replicas be free thereafter?
Or does it make just a wee bit more sense that if you want their digital product that you pay for that file with the agreement you won't share it with other people, and if the price is more then you wish to pay, then you simply don't buy it until price is lowered to a value YOU deem acceptable? In your case apparently, you should wait until they offer it for free.
Homer didn't have to invest thousands or even millions of dollars in special effects or recording studios in order to "write" the Odyssey and Shakespeare wasn't worried about people showing up to his plays with video cameras. Honestly, I don't understand how pirates say artists and the entertainment industry just "doesn't get" how technology has changed the world and then use defenses like that.
It's simple, there's stealing a good or service, and there's paying for it. Pirating is stealing. People need to just be honest: They're stealing because technology makes it easy and safe.
Good point, I'm sure they can't afford any crazy technology like a box or towels or have made any sort of scientific discoveries that might correlate distance and nighttime with the ability to see well.
Your argument seems to be a tad circular. Pirates have demonstrated those three things because they are pirates? The question at hand is how do you know they are pirates? How do you know they have AK-47's unless their waving them in the air before they get there or are they wearing a "Surrender the Booty!" T-shirt and flying a pirate flag?
Your right, I feel much safer with our current approach of building, out in the open, temporary targets -er... storage next to all the power plants and having it just sit there on-site. After all, if it never leaves the plant grounds we can't see it so its not a problem right?
Governor Perdue, so nice of you to chime in. By your logic if your boss said "you can have sex with me or you can quit" then nothing bad happened because you had the choice to quit. I think your missing the fact that you don't leave a teaching job midyear. It hardly pays enough to cover the bills so you probably don't have enough money bankrolled to tide you over a year till when teachers usually switch jobs. When you quit you lose your salary level for state jobs, you lose your health-care coverage until you find a new job, and you sure as hell don't have one lined up because this came up rather suddenly.
Compare what to what? You're saying that the same teacher in New York provides better eduction then he or she would in North Carolina because the salary is higher. I don't see how you reached that conclusion.
That would be because I didn't reach that conclusion. In fact I didn't really reach any conclusion. The idea I was trying to point out however, was that higher pay attracts more highly skilled workers. That is true for engineers, scientists, and teachers alike. and in states like New York where teachers are allowed to unionize you generally find they are better paid.
And teachers in North Carolina have the North Carolina Educators Association. Their top agenda item is "Move teacher salaries beyond the national average". Think about what would happen if the NEA tried to push that agenda in every state...
Funny, I have the same agenda item down for myself. Sadly I probably have more bargaining power then the NCEA. You see, all of me can threaten to quit or stop working if my pay is not increased to suitable levels. The NCEA cannot make such demands, and therefore has no bargaining power. All they can do is lobby and try to convince people that teachers should be paid more. They have no where near the power of unions. I mean really: Retroactive Pay cuts. There is no unionized industry on this planet where the employer could say "hey, we decided to cut your salary by 5% for the last year, so we need you to pay us 5% of the money we gave you during the last 5 months back.
On the flip side in states where you can't unionize, North Carolina for example, in order to balance the budget they gave teachers a retroactive pay cut which means your next paycheck gets docked all the money you got payed earlier in the year to bring it down to your new lower salary level. For all you people who think I typed something wrong because that sounds too illegal and crazy to be true, it is, and it did happen. The Governor apparently has broad constitutional rights to balance the state budget. Teachers that had a lot of money already taken out for things like medical spending and the like actually had to PAY the state back. That sorta thing doesn't exactly help get good teachers in our state.
Now compare that to the quality of education in the state of New york where I first lived and they did have teacher unions....
Having teachers that actually know science is also somewhat necessary, and for that to happen you need to pay people that know science enough that it's worth it for them to teach. I would argue rather than huge cash prizes for scientists you need huge cash prizes for teachers of science at the High School levels. I guess preferably there should be a lot of crossover.
But the fact is, you can make a lot of money as an engineer and scientist as it is. Partly because so few people get interested in doing it and even less of those are able to hack it. The money making ability isn't missing, the aptitude and attitude is, and that needs to be instilled at a younger level.
The same could be said for missiles and bullets but when a plane carrying ordinance is trying to hit targets inside your borders you don't really give a shit about a house or two.
In exactly what sort of scenario do you envision citizens coming down the street during a full scale air assault and complaining: "Listen, military, I know your trying to defend our country from being conquered and all but your kinda messing up my house, would you mind not shooting at any planes coming to kill us if their kinda low to the ground? K, thanks!
I don't think anyone is accusing Amazon of being guilty of anything, I think they just recognize that there is no way in hell people are going to properly report things they buy online so their trying to move to method that might actually work.
Just because someone can be blamed for the situation according to the current law doesn't mean that the current law is a good working model that shouldn't be done away with
I'm curious what America's response would be to their people being demonized. I'd love to see a game set in Iraq or Vietnam where America invades your country, kills your people and attempts to rest control of your homeland away from you.
You mean like a game where you play as a suspected American terrorist who murders hundreds of civilians in an airport of a superpower and then that superpower comes and fucks your country up? I played it this morning, it's called Modern Warfare 2, and we reacted to it by buying millions of copies. Any more questions?
That is hilarious. I have no idea how I've missed it until now, thank you. It also pretty much sums up the new MW2 experience with having to be in game chat.
If you read the thread I was asking what the "it" is and what it "doesn't do" so that I could communicate with him. He then told me I was an illiterate faggot so if I wanted to reply to his line of discourse I could either talk about my sexuality and relevant exploits or I could discuss why I couldn't understand what he wrote. Which would you have preferred? Well too bad, that was rhetorical!
If you have any idea exactly which point he was arguing with I'd be happy to have non grammatical-focused discourse on the subject
The great thing about online console play (the only thing, really, that it has over PCs) is their closed nature.
The correct anti-response would be: no it isn't.
It's much, much harder to cheat on a console than on a PC game.
The correct anti-response would be: no it isn't.
Don't get me wrong.
The correct anti-response would be: ...No I will?
I fully support their right to mod their own hardware.
The correct anti-response would be: ....No you don't?
But I don't want to play them online.
The correct anti-response would be: I do
That phrase doesn't make grammatical sense in reply to any single sentence in that post. What doesn't what do?
This should mean I'll never lose to some 12 year old in Halo or CoD again, cause I'm sure they were all modding. Yep, that's definitely it.
Ummmmm....no, your wrong, sorry. You're essentially suggesting that Nuclear power plants run their hot coolant through the body of water directly like a radiator through the wind. This would be disastrous to the ecosystem.
Water is pulled out of the body of water for cooling because you can't transfer all the heat to that body of water precisely because of the environmental damage that would cause. That water is then used for cooling equipment and cooling the closed-circuit coolant which you're likely referring to.
This water then has to be cooled off before it can be returned to that or any other natural body of water. Here's a direct quote from wikipedia about one such nuclear station:
"The Brunswick plants' proximity to the Cape Fear River and the Atlantic Ocean allowed the designers to take in cooling water from the Cape Fear river and discharge it into the Atlantic off the coast of Oak Island." Brunswick Nuclear Generating Station
Also, I believe what I've said because I've seen it with my own eyes.