IMHO, Historically it seems every few decades the movie industry changes media in order to force consumers to re-buy old movies to play in new machines. My wife has pretty much the entire animated Disney collection from before 2004 on VHS. A lot of good they do us seeing as we no longer own a working VCR. If we want our kids to see these movies we'll have to re-buy them on the popular format of the day when our kids are old enough to watch them. My wife started to re-buy some on the movies on DVD, but I told her to stop because of the imminent change in format. The VHS tapes might be worth something some day to collectors.
This type of thing is what turns me off of buying movies. What I buy today will be no good tomorrow. That being said, the difference in quality between Blu-Ray movies and VHS tapes is considerable, I just wish there was a way that when you buy a movie you could automatically get the upgraded content when it gets "re-released" in a new format.
As for the "serve movies from a central server" idea. What will happen in 30 years? Will they still allow me to watch a movie I bought in 2010? Will there be limitations to how often or how many times I can watch a movie I've purchased? I think the central server idea will become more of a convenient pay-per-view service where you can quickly access favorite movies that you "own".
That in turn would mean a considerable reduction in the variety of what is being published
I don't think so. I see way more variety in music and movies from independent artist and companies now then I did 10 - 15 years ago. Independent artist can do their own publishing and can produce music and films themselves. All they need is a digital camera and an internet connection. The thing I like the most is instead of getting the same old, same old people who go into entertaining simply because they can make a lot of money, more talented people who produce something different simply because they love to do it and otherwise would be crushed by a record label not will to take the risk are putting out stuff that's great for free. The record companies aren't in charge of what I get to view and listen to any more; I can listen to Japanese pop, Russian rap, Korean rock and all kinds of other stuff I didn't even knew existed 20 years ago.
I also feel the professional industry is stepping it up in order to complete for dollars people now think more seriously about before spending. I still go see movies in theater because I like to go to the theater to see epic movies (Lord of the rings, Wall-e, Avatar, etc...). If a movies looks so so or my wife just happened upon something foreign, we'll download it and if it's good we'll buy it... or at least try to buy it. What pisses me off is when my wife or I find a movie we really like and can't buy it because it's in a different region code. My wife loved Secret of Moonarcher Valley, which I wasn't able to find in a North American region code. DRM's punish the people who legitimately own or what to own something, but don't really affect people who pirate the material at all since they just get rid of the DRM.
In another discussion a while back I once read a post about the "You wouldn't steal a..." commercial that use to be at the beginning of DVD's that you couldn't skip over. The poster said something to the effect, "I feel stupid for having bought the stupid movie thinking that the guy next door who downloaded it is getting on with watching the movie, while I'm forcefully reminded every time I watch the bloody thing that I should have stolen it."
So what do you propose to do about it? Are you going to lead the revolution that brings down the corrupt government and forces them to be accountable to the people that voted them in and not to the corporations that line their pockets?
The problem with politicians is they have the police and military on their side. The problem with people is we have the freedom to speak out, but won't. I'd join a group so my voice could be heard anonymously, but I'm not going to jail because the government knows I disagreed with them.
I hate to burst your bubble, but this is how society has always been. There have always been indecent people lurking in the shadows of a back ally, children being sold in to slavery and prostitution and pedophiles (da Vinci to name one)
I'll bring up the "what if there was no bad" argument here. suppose there was no bad in the world. If there was no bad how would you define something that is good? Either you can't, or you define good as something that is better then less good. That makes less good the bad. Our world today is in fact much better then it use to be, people are living longer, there's more entertainment readily available and people are more comfortable in general at least in developed countries. Humans are always trying to increase their standard of living by eliminating bad things and because there are less really bad things in our society people are starting to focus in on the less bad things. Which unfortunately means taking away rights to protect "those that cannot protect themselves" (I all the sudden feel kind of sick)
Also if the people who make laws weren't making new laws or expanding old ones, what would they do?
Maybe you should tell the judge that. According to the second article I linked to
Judge Theodore Tax said that imposing a minimum sentence would not make clear that anime child pornography was illegal in Canada.
“The images creates a market, whether anime or live images, and victimizes the people that are most vulnerable,” said Tax.
Prohibition covers the visual representations of sexual activity by persons (real or imaginary) under the age of 18 years and the depiction of their sexual organ/anal region for a sexual purpose, unless an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical justification can be provided and the court accepts it.
Wikipedia goes on to list several cases in the last 10 years where the person involved was found guilty, and 1 in 1993 who was an artist and was let off because "his work was considered artistic enough to be justified as protected speech". You'll have to trust me on this, I would be quite happy if you were right.
Sorry, I'm sure you're wrong on the pedophilia thing in Canada. It is an offense in Canada to have any material depicting children in sexual situations. Real, illustrated or other wise. Just a month ago I read an article in the Herald about two men being arrested for possessing manga. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1148912.html The story has expired, but a quick Google search turned up other results including this one http://www.ngnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=296576&sc=49 which tells the story differently then it was on the 5 o'clock news. Originally there was no mention that the twins had any images of real children. The second article I linked to says that 90% of the images were manga, but some were real.
I'm pretty sure the way the law is worded is intended to be a compounded offense rather then one you would be arrested for, but it's still an offense and you could be arrested for it. E.G. You get caught downloading real children for which you are arrested. When the cops do a search of you're computer they find you have anime, hentai or manga (of kiddy port sort). The additional images would be used as to extend you're sentence/fine/whatever they decide to do to you, but wouldn't be the real reason you were arrested in the first place.
Kind of like if you hit a pedestrian in a cross walk. You might be arrested for vehicular manslaughter, but they would also tack on failing to yield to a pedestrian in a marked crossing.
I might as well add, I find this disturbing because I am an Anime fan. Recently I watched a series called "Girls Bravo", which was hilarious, but does depict some "Adult" situations, not sex, but it's implied. Then this twin court case came up and I realized, I could be arrested for owning that series, along with half a dozen other series I own including Family Guy.
Hmmm... I wonder how the TV networks get away with playing shows Family Guy in Canada. I like Family guy, but I seem to remember several episodes where Stewie is in sexually compromising situations.
I wonder why is it okay for TV to networks to choose what is ok to play and not us? I wonder if I could be arrested for watching and/or not reporting the violation?
Not really sure I want to point that out to anyone who might be able to arrest me.
If it wasn't well documented when it was being developed it falls on someone else to do it later. That someone has no real vested interest in documenting something they didn't write.
I'm a developer and have had to deal with several legacy applications that contractors had previously written. When I first started my job I was pretty much given one of these applications and told it needed some documentation updating. I feel extremely annoyed when I look back and realize that for pretty much the first year of my job I was writing developer, security and user doc's for someone else poorly coded system. The result is the documentation I wrote for the other systems is probably incomplete or doesn't make perfect sense in the grand scheme. It seems a little arrogant, but I no longer accept responsibility for applications written by other people, epically contractors that were hired to write an application, which should have taken one to two years to develop, in six months. If someone insist I take over a project I tell them I want to see to documentation and code first if it's good I'll accept, if it's bad I'll accept on the condition I get to redevelop the whole project because it takes less time then writing, rewriting or expanding existing documentation while fumbling through someone else hacked together code.
Sorry for the rant. I read this saying somewhere, "Document your code like the person who will maintain it after you is a psycho pathetic killer who knows where you live".
I have to agree. Either you're all for censoring anything offensive or you're not.
The only way to make sure you can say and do what you want is to make sure the person you disagree with can say and do what they wants.
That's not to say what the other person is doing is right, but if you stop them others like you will eventually come back to lock you up for doing something someone else has deemed offensive.
You really have to face facts here, either you let the government censor everything including you, or you turn a blind eye to people that do stuff you don't like.
I haven't rented a PC game in a long time. I use to be able to rent them from a place called Floppies. I'm sure they've gone out of business by now. I guess I just don't play many PC games anymore.
When I first got into WoW they had a three month free subscription. I imagine most MMORPGs would have a similar system so that pretty much covers the genera of games available on the PCs these days. I haven't seen a good RTS that I've been interested in since Starcraft came out.
I always rent games I think I might like. You can't trust reviewers to give accurate reviews because 1) they could be in someone's pocket and 2) they normally have completely different taste. So I rent and decided if I like a game for myself... Of course if I saved the money I've spent renting games I felt were crappy or just knock offs of other games (after playing them) that are out there I could pretty much buy a new computer every other year. I find myself longing for the Super Nintendo days, there was such a large variety of different games and genres out there, now is seems games are first/third person shooters or sports.
I was just thinking the same thing about your post. Illegals hold a lot of jobs you say. But then you forget that our unemployment rate is above 10%. So wouldn't it be logical to remove the illegals, and hand those jobs to actual citizens? It would reduce unemployment below 5%.
I don't think math applies in this situation. The issue is a lot of illegals hold jobs normal Americans wouldn't do... At least not for the amount the employers are willing to pay for the service. It's fine to say in theory if we got rid of the illegals and gave those jobs to Americans that would solve our unemployment problem, but I doubt it. good luck finding an uneducated teen these days willing to work in a kitchen, as a house keeper or a full time nanny for less then minimum wage.
I have never paid $30 for a CD. Perhaps you should have gone to a cheaper store?
You’re assuming 1) there was a cheaper store in my area and 2) whatever you pay in your area is the norm.
And while iTunes is not financially successful, it demonstrates that your argument of wanting only certain songs is nor an excuse for stealing.
I’m pretty sure I said if I like something I buy it. When did paying for something become stealing? They use this concept in grocery stores; I had a mini-pizza the other day and bought a whole box of them.
And it seems the argument is that people now still steal because it took too long for an industry to provide content online.
I’m conceding this point to you. All we have here is speculation that IF Napster hadn’t made file sharing popular and IF the XYZ industry had of been the one to kick the snowball instead of the one trying to stop the avalanche things might have been different.
Yet now that they do, most people still steal. Does that really sound logical?
Yes it does, people have gotten use to doing something easy, doing things the “hard” way is illogical. Alienating them by imposing DRMs, ridiculous EULAs and making laws that will most likely only affect “innocent” people only makes things worse. Sorry the box is open you can’t put the bad things back in
So you think that everyone should have a cap on how much money they can make?
The cap is what the market is willing to pay.
That someone should say that at a certain point no one is allowed to make any more money?
The music industry makes an initial investment to record something, and then makes money indefinitely off distribution of the product. They recover the cost and then make profit hand over foot only having to pay for the media the product is distributed on. If only there was a magical way to distribute a product over a large “digital” network using other peoples machines as a place to store it.
What if someone decided that you make too much money now.
I picked a good profession, went to university and worked hard for the money I make. No one else has to decide for me that I make too much money, because I do. I’d do my job for free if I didn’t need to eat and live somewhere. Seems to me actors and musicians living in Hollywood live in Multi-million dollar homes and spend close to if not more what I make in a year on a dress/suit and jewellery for a night at an award ceremony.
Someone who made less money than you decided that it's unfair that you make more than them. Would you agree?
I worked my way through university at a fast-food restraint, I’m telling you, they have a right to complain about how much I make. Their jobs have to be 100 times more stressful then mine, they work harder hours and don’t get nearly the respect they deserve. Hopefully they will make as much as me eventually. Can I ever hope to make as much as Jessica Simpson, Our Lady Peace, Three doors down, etc!! No. What did they do to get where they are? Sure they must have worked hard, but harder then me It’s kind of an apples and oranges comparison.
Most artist don't make more than doctors.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha oh, you’re serious.
Does that mean we should all be able to steal from anyone who makes more money than teachers?
If by steal you mean make a copy of something they have without degrading it in anyway and leave them with the original so they can continue to use it sure.
If you make more money than a teacher, is it OK for me to steal from you?
I use to have to pay $30 for a CD that would have ONE song on it I liked, which I would have herd on the radio for the first time. I didn't have the ability to just pick and chose which songs I wanted. Using CDs I could only have ONE in my diskman at a time meaning I had to constantly swap them in and out.
When I hear a song I like I now have the ability to go and listen to other songs by an artist to see if I like what else they have. That allows me to make an informed decision about whether I should buy them or not. I get ALL the information rather then just what the radio thinks I should have. With an MP3 player I can put only songs I like on and just have a random shuffle.
If the music industry hadn't of been so anti-change, they might have been the ones to come up with an idea like the iTunes store. If they had I bet things would have turned out very different. Because they were making so much profit... Sorry, they were making so much "living" off CDs they didn't want to change.
I'm a developer, I love what I do. Sure I get paid, but it's pennies compared to what the software I write A) Saves my company and B) earns them in the end. Kind of funny since my software is for research and is given away instead of sold. You should love what you do and do it because you love it, not because you make tons of money for it.
Why should an "artist" make more money then a doctor or a teacher. I think they've been making a "living" for a very long time. They're just bitter because now they can't waste hundreds of thousands on diamond encrusted watches anymore.
It's not going to matter who you vote for. A politician is a politician, they can be bought by anyone with enough money and they only have to be elected once in order to A) screw things up and B) reap the benefits of being in power. It seems to me at least that it doesn't matter what "Democratic" society you're from the government is showing more and more interest in absolute control over everything everyone does. Sure we need laws and protection from "stuff", but what stuff do we need to be protected from?
Someone breaking into my car and steeling my CD's... Yeah.
Me willingly sharing my music collection with other... ?
Maybe it's time for a global movement where "The people" decide what the limits of government should be, but how do we effect the system so that government listens to us? Elections are only held so often and by the time they roll around "The people" have forgotten who is screwing them over, and again, you get rid of one politician that screwing you only to elect another with a bigger ****
this is a serious issue for everyone. I'm Canadian and I disagree with this being the fault of Britons, it's the fault of politicians. Before you know it this "Three strikes" rule will spread to Canada and to the US, especially if it "appears" to work in France and Briton.
Before I was able to download music, movies and other information I was locked into what was locally distributed. Someone else was deciding what I should have access to. I've discovered all kinds of new things I would have never even known existed. My policy is download to try, if I like it I try to buy it. And I have bought several movies and albums that weren't available here.
I don't want to go back to only having access to what someone else thinks I should like.
So, what I can the rest of us do to help stop this before it gets too out of hand?
I'm not sure how legislation works in England, but this could be a case of "those thieving, bastard, monopolies" lobbying to for the tax that would do damage to the little guys. It's a tactic I've seen, in Canada at least, large companies use where the little guys are eliminated by larger companies using legislation because the little guys are doing something the larger company might want to do or they just don't want the little guys to become competition.
Why does the ship have to come back to earth? Couldn't you just worry about getting it into space, then leave it there and have a secondary mode of transport to get people to and from the ship?
If we had a space station dedicated to constructing and maintaining ships in space, we'd only have to get the required ship building materials there. Not that this would ever happen in our lifetime. We can't make it to other solar systems to explore planets we could potentially live on and other then researching rocks on other planets in our solar system, which a robot can do, there is no real need to have a ship dedicated to flying around space. So a "ship dock" and exploration ship in space would be expensive and unnecessary.
Main point is, I doubt we would have trouble getting a ship or the materials to put together a ship into space and once there, there wouldn't be a need to land the main ship smaller shuttles could be used to ferry astronauts to the surface of planets.
I can't resist - They do it in star trek all the time
Like I said there are other factors that could contribute.
My wife's parents didn't believe in spanking and my wife turned out great... At least I think so. Her sister on the other hand is about as much of a female dog as someone could be. She's not violent, just conniving and has to make sure everyone around her is miserable. Coincidentally, my wife only likes the occasional chocolate, but her sister can't get enough of anything that has sugar in it.
I guess I have to say that I personally believe that there are too many factors contributing to how a person turns out to narrow it down to any one specific thing
Putting aside the fact that the stats don't seem to add up. I could see parents inadvertently training their kinds to be criminals using candy.
My older sister (29) and I (28) were smacked around by our stepfather when we got in to trouble when we were younger, my younger brother (21) wasn't. I became a developer, my older sister is a cop, and my brother became bodywork mechanic in a "custom work" chop shop. He's constantly getting in trouble, He had several drinking and driving charges one of which he crashed his friends truck, He was caught with a kilo of weed that he was trying to sell, multiple speeding tickets, assault charges and the list goes on. He always seems to weasels his why out of jail some how.
So from my own experience negative reinforcement is much more effective then bribery. That being said there are other factors that could contribute. My sister and I have the same father. My brothers father died years back from Cirrhosis of the liver. His family have a history of alcoholism, my father's doesn't. Being considerably younger then my sister and I he may feel like an outcast, which could also contribute to his "acting out".
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, Historically it seems every few decades the movie industry changes media in order to force consumers to re-buy old movies to play in new machines. My wife has pretty much the entire animated Disney collection from before 2004 on VHS. A lot of good they do us seeing as we no longer own a working VCR. If we want our kids to see these movies we'll have to re-buy them on the popular format of the day when our kids are old enough to watch them. My wife started to re-buy some on the movies on DVD, but I told her to stop because of the imminent change in format. The VHS tapes might be worth something some day to collectors.
This type of thing is what turns me off of buying movies. What I buy today will be no good tomorrow. That being said, the difference in quality between Blu-Ray movies and VHS tapes is considerable, I just wish there was a way that when you buy a movie you could automatically get the upgraded content when it gets "re-released" in a new format.
As for the "serve movies from a central server" idea. What will happen in 30 years? Will they still allow me to watch a movie I bought in 2010? Will there be limitations to how often or how many times I can watch a movie I've purchased? I think the central server idea will become more of a convenient pay-per-view service where you can quickly access favorite movies that you "own".
That in turn would mean a considerable reduction in the variety of what is being published
I don't think so. I see way more variety in music and movies from independent artist and companies now then I did 10 - 15 years ago. Independent artist can do their own publishing and can produce music and films themselves. All they need is a digital camera and an internet connection. The thing I like the most is instead of getting the same old, same old people who go into entertaining simply because they can make a lot of money, more talented people who produce something different simply because they love to do it and otherwise would be crushed by a record label not will to take the risk are putting out stuff that's great for free. The record companies aren't in charge of what I get to view and listen to any more; I can listen to Japanese pop, Russian rap, Korean rock and all kinds of other stuff I didn't even knew existed 20 years ago.
I also feel the professional industry is stepping it up in order to complete for dollars people now think more seriously about before spending. I still go see movies in theater because I like to go to the theater to see epic movies (Lord of the rings, Wall-e, Avatar, etc...). If a movies looks so so or my wife just happened upon something foreign, we'll download it and if it's good we'll buy it... or at least try to buy it. What pisses me off is when my wife or I find a movie we really like and can't buy it because it's in a different region code. My wife loved Secret of Moonarcher Valley, which I wasn't able to find in a North American region code. DRM's punish the people who legitimately own or what to own something, but don't really affect people who pirate the material at all since they just get rid of the DRM.
In another discussion a while back I once read a post about the "You wouldn't steal a ..." commercial that use to be at the beginning of DVD's that you couldn't skip over. The poster said something to the effect, "I feel stupid for having bought the stupid movie thinking that the guy next door who downloaded it is getting on with watching the movie, while I'm forcefully reminded every time I watch the bloody thing that I should have stolen it."
This was an extremely interesting read. I don't really believe it would go to the extent described, but I'd be very interested to see the sources.
I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but this is one of the best ideas I've heard yet.
So what do you propose to do about it? Are you going to lead the revolution that brings down the corrupt government and forces them to be accountable to the people that voted them in and not to the corporations that line their pockets?
The problem with politicians is they have the police and military on their side. The problem with people is we have the freedom to speak out, but won't. I'd join a group so my voice could be heard anonymously, but I'm not going to jail because the government knows I disagreed with them.
Get Mad, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNxoLJy3m3s
I hate to burst your bubble, but this is how society has always been. There have always been indecent people lurking in the shadows of a back ally, children being sold in to slavery and prostitution and pedophiles (da Vinci to name one)
I'll bring up the "what if there was no bad" argument here. suppose there was no bad in the world. If there was no bad how would you define something that is good? Either you can't, or you define good as something that is better then less good. That makes less good the bad. Our world today is in fact much better then it use to be, people are living longer, there's more entertainment readily available and people are more comfortable in general at least in developed countries. Humans are always trying to increase their standard of living by eliminating bad things and because there are less really bad things in our society people are starting to focus in on the less bad things. Which unfortunately means taking away rights to protect "those that cannot protect themselves" (I all the sudden feel kind of sick)
Also if the people who make laws weren't making new laws or expanding old ones, what would they do?
I don't know if it's that most people agree with them, but I think a lot of people are afraid to disagree with them. Lest they be branded a pedophile.
Maybe you should tell the judge that. According to the second article I linked to
Judge Theodore Tax said that imposing a minimum sentence would not make clear that anime child pornography was illegal in Canada. “The images creates a market, whether anime or live images, and victimizes the people that are most vulnerable,” said Tax.
And from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Canada
Prohibition covers the visual representations of sexual activity by persons (real or imaginary) under the age of 18 years and the depiction of their sexual organ/anal region for a sexual purpose, unless an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical justification can be provided and the court accepts it.
Wikipedia goes on to list several cases in the last 10 years where the person involved was found guilty, and 1 in 1993 who was an artist and was let off because "his work was considered artistic enough to be justified as protected speech". You'll have to trust me on this, I would be quite happy if you were right.
Sorry, I'm sure you're wrong on the pedophilia thing in Canada. It is an offense in Canada to have any material depicting children in sexual situations. Real, illustrated or other wise. Just a month ago I read an article in the Herald about two men being arrested for possessing manga. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1148912.html The story has expired, but a quick Google search turned up other results including this one http://www.ngnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=296576&sc=49 which tells the story differently then it was on the 5 o'clock news. Originally there was no mention that the twins had any images of real children. The second article I linked to says that 90% of the images were manga, but some were real.
I'm pretty sure the way the law is worded is intended to be a compounded offense rather then one you would be arrested for, but it's still an offense and you could be arrested for it. E.G. You get caught downloading real children for which you are arrested. When the cops do a search of you're computer they find you have anime, hentai or manga (of kiddy port sort). The additional images would be used as to extend you're sentence/fine/whatever they decide to do to you, but wouldn't be the real reason you were arrested in the first place.
Kind of like if you hit a pedestrian in a cross walk. You might be arrested for vehicular manslaughter, but they would also tack on failing to yield to a pedestrian in a marked crossing.
I might as well add, I find this disturbing because I am an Anime fan. Recently I watched a series called "Girls Bravo", which was hilarious, but does depict some "Adult" situations, not sex, but it's implied. Then this twin court case came up and I realized, I could be arrested for owning that series, along with half a dozen other series I own including Family Guy.
Hmmm... I wonder how the TV networks get away with playing shows Family Guy in Canada. I like Family guy, but I seem to remember several episodes where Stewie is in sexually compromising situations.
I wonder why is it okay for TV to networks to choose what is ok to play and not us? I wonder if I could be arrested for watching and/or not reporting the violation?
Not really sure I want to point that out to anyone who might be able to arrest me.
I agree. If only all users were developers, then I might not have to continually explain what that little plus and minus signs on the calculator...
Wow I feel kind of bitter...
If it wasn't well documented when it was being developed it falls on someone else to do it later. That someone has no real vested interest in documenting something they didn't write.
I'm a developer and have had to deal with several legacy applications that contractors had previously written. When I first started my job I was pretty much given one of these applications and told it needed some documentation updating. I feel extremely annoyed when I look back and realize that for pretty much the first year of my job I was writing developer, security and user doc's for someone else poorly coded system. The result is the documentation I wrote for the other systems is probably incomplete or doesn't make perfect sense in the grand scheme. It seems a little arrogant, but I no longer accept responsibility for applications written by other people, epically contractors that were hired to write an application, which should have taken one to two years to develop, in six months. If someone insist I take over a project I tell them I want to see to documentation and code first if it's good I'll accept, if it's bad I'll accept on the condition I get to redevelop the whole project because it takes less time then writing, rewriting or expanding existing documentation while fumbling through someone else hacked together code.
Sorry for the rant. I read this saying somewhere, "Document your code like the person who will maintain it after you is a psycho pathetic killer who knows where you live".
I have to agree. Either you're all for censoring anything offensive or you're not.
The only way to make sure you can say and do what you want is to make sure the person you disagree with can say and do what they wants.
That's not to say what the other person is doing is right, but if you stop them others like you will eventually come back to lock you up for doing something someone else has deemed offensive.
You really have to face facts here, either you let the government censor everything including you, or you turn a blind eye to people that do stuff you don't like.
I haven't rented a PC game in a long time. I use to be able to rent them from a place called Floppies. I'm sure they've gone out of business by now. I guess I just don't play many PC games anymore.
When I first got into WoW they had a three month free subscription. I imagine most MMORPGs would have a similar system so that pretty much covers the genera of games available on the PCs these days. I haven't seen a good RTS that I've been interested in since Starcraft came out.
That aside you do have a good point
I always rent games I think I might like. You can't trust reviewers to give accurate reviews because 1) they could be in someone's pocket and 2) they normally have completely different taste. So I rent and decided if I like a game for myself... Of course if I saved the money I've spent renting games I felt were crappy or just knock offs of other games (after playing them) that are out there I could pretty much buy a new computer every other year. I find myself longing for the Super Nintendo days, there was such a large variety of different games and genres out there, now is seems games are first/third person shooters or sports.
I was just thinking the same thing about your post. Illegals hold a lot of jobs you say. But then you forget that our unemployment rate is above 10%. So wouldn't it be logical to remove the illegals, and hand those jobs to actual citizens? It would reduce unemployment below 5%.
I don't think math applies in this situation. The issue is a lot of illegals hold jobs normal Americans wouldn't do... At least not for the amount the employers are willing to pay for the service. It's fine to say in theory if we got rid of the illegals and gave those jobs to Americans that would solve our unemployment problem, but I doubt it. good luck finding an uneducated teen these days willing to work in a kitchen, as a house keeper or a full time nanny for less then minimum wage.
I have never paid $30 for a CD. Perhaps you should have gone to a cheaper store?
You’re assuming 1) there was a cheaper store in my area and 2) whatever you pay in your area is the norm.
And while iTunes is not financially successful, it demonstrates that your argument of wanting only certain songs is nor an excuse for stealing.
I’m pretty sure I said if I like something I buy it. When did paying for something become stealing? They use this concept in grocery stores; I had a mini-pizza the other day and bought a whole box of them.
And it seems the argument is that people now still steal because it took too long for an industry to provide content online.
I’m conceding this point to you. All we have here is speculation that IF Napster hadn’t made file sharing popular and IF the XYZ industry had of been the one to kick the snowball instead of the one trying to stop the avalanche things might have been different.
Yet now that they do, most people still steal. Does that really sound logical?
Yes it does, people have gotten use to doing something easy, doing things the “hard” way is illogical. Alienating them by imposing DRMs, ridiculous EULAs and making laws that will most likely only affect “innocent” people only makes things worse. Sorry the box is open you can’t put the bad things back in
So you think that everyone should have a cap on how much money they can make?
The cap is what the market is willing to pay.
That someone should say that at a certain point no one is allowed to make any more money?
The music industry makes an initial investment to record something, and then makes money indefinitely off distribution of the product. They recover the cost and then make profit hand over foot only having to pay for the media the product is distributed on. If only there was a magical way to distribute a product over a large “digital” network using other peoples machines as a place to store it.
What if someone decided that you make too much money now.
I picked a good profession, went to university and worked hard for the money I make. No one else has to decide for me that I make too much money, because I do. I’d do my job for free if I didn’t need to eat and live somewhere. Seems to me actors and musicians living in Hollywood live in Multi-million dollar homes and spend close to if not more what I make in a year on a dress/suit and jewellery for a night at an award ceremony.
Someone who made less money than you decided that it's unfair that you make more than them. Would you agree?
I worked my way through university at a fast-food restraint, I’m telling you, they have a right to complain about how much I make. Their jobs have to be 100 times more stressful then mine, they work harder hours and don’t get nearly the respect they deserve. Hopefully they will make as much as me eventually. Can I ever hope to make as much as Jessica Simpson, Our Lady Peace, Three doors down, etc!! No. What did they do to get where they are? Sure they must have worked hard, but harder then me It’s kind of an apples and oranges comparison.
Most artist don't make more than doctors.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha oh, you’re serious.
Does that mean we should all be able to steal from anyone who makes more money than teachers?
If by steal you mean make a copy of something they have without degrading it in anyway and leave them with the original so they can continue to use it sure.
If you make more money than a teacher, is it OK for me to steal from you?
It’s not stealing if I give it to you.
I use to have to pay $30 for a CD that would have ONE song on it I liked, which I would have herd on the radio for the first time. I didn't have the ability to just pick and chose which songs I wanted. Using CDs I could only have ONE in my diskman at a time meaning I had to constantly swap them in and out.
When I hear a song I like I now have the ability to go and listen to other songs by an artist to see if I like what else they have. That allows me to make an informed decision about whether I should buy them or not. I get ALL the information rather then just what the radio thinks I should have. With an MP3 player I can put only songs I like on and just have a random shuffle.
If the music industry hadn't of been so anti-change, they might have been the ones to come up with an idea like the iTunes store. If they had I bet things would have turned out very different. Because they were making so much profit... Sorry, they were making so much "living" off CDs they didn't want to change.
I'm a developer, I love what I do. Sure I get paid, but it's pennies compared to what the software I write A) Saves my company and B) earns them in the end. Kind of funny since my software is for research and is given away instead of sold. You should love what you do and do it because you love it, not because you make tons of money for it.
Why should an "artist" make more money then a doctor or a teacher. I think they've been making a "living" for a very long time. They're just bitter because now they can't waste hundreds of thousands on diamond encrusted watches anymore.
but the government decides when you get to get rid if it.
It's not going to matter who you vote for. A politician is a politician, they can be bought by anyone with enough money and they only have to be elected once in order to A) screw things up and B) reap the benefits of being in power. It seems to me at least that it doesn't matter what "Democratic" society you're from the government is showing more and more interest in absolute control over everything everyone does. Sure we need laws and protection from "stuff", but what stuff do we need to be protected from?
Someone breaking into my car and steeling my CD's... Yeah.
Me willingly sharing my music collection with other... ?
Maybe it's time for a global movement where "The people" decide what the limits of government should be, but how do we effect the system so that government listens to us? Elections are only held so often and by the time they roll around "The people" have forgotten who is screwing them over, and again, you get rid of one politician that screwing you only to elect another with a bigger ****
this is a serious issue for everyone. I'm Canadian and I disagree with this being the fault of Britons, it's the fault of politicians. Before you know it this "Three strikes" rule will spread to Canada and to the US, especially if it "appears" to work in France and Briton.
Before I was able to download music, movies and other information I was locked into what was locally distributed. Someone else was deciding what I should have access to. I've discovered all kinds of new things I would have never even known existed. My policy is download to try, if I like it I try to buy it. And I have bought several movies and albums that weren't available here.
I don't want to go back to only having access to what someone else thinks I should like.
So, what I can the rest of us do to help stop this before it gets too out of hand?
I'm not sure how legislation works in England, but this could be a case of "those thieving, bastard, monopolies" lobbying to for the tax that would do damage to the little guys. It's a tactic I've seen, in Canada at least, large companies use where the little guys are eliminated by larger companies using legislation because the little guys are doing something the larger company might want to do or they just don't want the little guys to become competition.
Why does the ship have to come back to earth? Couldn't you just worry about getting it into space, then leave it there and have a secondary mode of transport to get people to and from the ship?
If we had a space station dedicated to constructing and maintaining ships in space, we'd only have to get the required ship building materials there. Not that this would ever happen in our lifetime. We can't make it to other solar systems to explore planets we could potentially live on and other then researching rocks on other planets in our solar system, which a robot can do, there is no real need to have a ship dedicated to flying around space. So a "ship dock" and exploration ship in space would be expensive and unnecessary.
Main point is, I doubt we would have trouble getting a ship or the materials to put together a ship into space and once there, there wouldn't be a need to land the main ship smaller shuttles could be used to ferry astronauts to the surface of planets.
I can't resist - They do it in star trek all the time
Like I said there are other factors that could contribute.
My wife's parents didn't believe in spanking and my wife turned out great... At least I think so. Her sister on the other hand is about as much of a female dog as someone could be. She's not violent, just conniving and has to make sure everyone around her is miserable. Coincidentally, my wife only likes the occasional chocolate, but her sister can't get enough of anything that has sugar in it.
I guess I have to say that I personally believe that there are too many factors contributing to how a person turns out to narrow it down to any one specific thing
Putting aside the fact that the stats don't seem to add up. I could see parents inadvertently training their kinds to be criminals using candy.
My older sister (29) and I (28) were smacked around by our stepfather when we got in to trouble when we were younger, my younger brother (21) wasn't. I became a developer, my older sister is a cop, and my brother became bodywork mechanic in a "custom work" chop shop. He's constantly getting in trouble, He had several drinking and driving charges one of which he crashed his friends truck, He was caught with a kilo of weed that he was trying to sell, multiple speeding tickets, assault charges and the list goes on. He always seems to weasels his why out of jail some how.
So from my own experience negative reinforcement is much more effective then bribery. That being said there are other factors that could contribute. My sister and I have the same father. My brothers father died years back from Cirrhosis of the liver. His family have a history of alcoholism, my father's doesn't. Being considerably younger then my sister and I he may feel like an outcast, which could also contribute to his "acting out".