Anecdotally speaking, the most destructive and disrespectful groups of people that I've ever met have generally been made up of drunken white teenage men (full disclosure: I am a white male who in the past has in the past also been a drunken teenager). For example - the riots that occurred in Boston after the Red Sox *won* the world series were nothing but pointless destruction.
I actually think a lot of these kids might benefit from the experience of living for a while in a third world country.
The point is that whether the producers make money and are encouraged to develop it depends on how much money they get.
The critical question for them is whether someone buys the product or not, not whether they download it illegally or not (and as others have pointed out, it actually is "how much money do they spend on all my products together).
So... you are saying that it's alright for *some people* to download without paying, because there will always be those *other* people who will pay for it instead, to ensure that the developers get *enough* money.
If everyone had your attitude, that it is other peoples' responsibility to pay, then *nobody* would pay. So where do you draw the line between who gets to think like you and download for free, and who needs to pay? And where do you draw the line at how much is enough?
By forbidding the download to everyone else in addition, you are depriving them of something without any good reason, at an overall cost to society
Again, we run into the problem here of drawing the line at who "everyone else" is that doesn't need to pay. In the absence of any such magical formula, the fairest thing that society has been able to come up with is to say "everybody needs to pay" and let those who really want it come up with the money.
Yeah, it's a downside that some people have to go without. But the reason that copyright rules were enacted is that people thought that the benefits would outweigh the risks. And to mitigate these downsides we have created things like public libraries, fair use, open source, public broadcasting, etc.
If you claim downloading is theft, then let me say that enforcing copyright on those who cannot afford to buy it is just as much "stealing" from society, copyright was granted to to increase the cultural wealth, hindering access to beyond the "necessary" is in conflict with that and exploiting a bad implementation just to hurt others.
How do you get people to follow the laws without enforcing them? Once again - where do you draw the line at what's "necessary"? I would say that "necessary" has been reached when the penalty for copyright infringement, taken into consideration with the probability of getting caught, is greater than the benefit derived from downloading content illegally. Given that millions of people are downloading illegal content every second of every day, I would say we probably have not arrived at "necessary" yet.
I can accept that those who really cannot afford the products are just "collateral damage" that we currently have no good way of avoiding
That's pretty much the way I feel. Inequality sucks - but I can't think of any way to avoid it. One the plus side, I don't think that there is ANYBODY in the United States these days (or any other developed country) who is starving for information. Much the opposite, really.
but I can't imagine that someone who really understands that would label everyone a "thief" and use similarly strong language since they would realize they really are not in a position to feel particularly superior since they are willing to hurt others as well to get what _they_ want.
I'm willing to replace the terms "stealing" and "thief" with "downloading illegally" and "criminal" - which are both accurate terms for someone who breaks the law but do not imply "theft" of any sort.
Interesting. So if we were to strip away the profit element on my side - maybe only accept donations from customers which would go directly to hosting costs - and offer your game for free downloads on my website, would that be ok? If my site received a lot of traffic - equivalent to SourceForge for example - that could make an appreciable impact on your profits.
If you're not comfortable with that setup, then I would ask where do you draw the line between a site like I just mentioned and P2P sharing - where each individual downloader is also acting as a host and making your game available to download from others.
I think that by framing the argument in the context of a single person pirating a single work, you are taking too narrow a viewpoint.
Uh, no, I didn't. If a bunch of people who do something that in reality deprives no one of anything are looked upon as criminals simply because an artist might not receive enough money (and therefore not be able to do what they love any longer), then that sounds like the failing of a broken system, not of random people who are doing something that hurts no one.
Umm, yeah you did, and you still are. I'm not talking about stealing or trying to defend the poor starving artists. I don't think that illegally downloading a song is "stealing" any more then failing to pay your taxes is "stealing". But there's a *reason* we have laws that force people to pay taxes, and I'm trying to get you to think about the *reason* society has created laws to that allow artists to charge money when people want to consume their creations.
Copyright laws were created by society to stimulate innovation.
They were created to be used in a system which was broken to begin with.
I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Care to elaborate why you think that your statement follows from mine?
The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance.
Upon taking that stance, according to the potential profit argument, they have 'hurt' the artist because if they would have bought the product, the artist would have been better off, and therefore would likely have been able to produce more content.
First - I wasn't arguing the "potential profit" argument. Second - if an artist is producing shit content, then I am perfectly happy to let him go unrewarded.
and steals it
You and others keep saying this, and it's wearing thin. You have never once explained what exactly is being stolen. Not the media itself, as they merely copied that. They never had the money in the first place, so it's obviously not that. What is being stolen?
"and illegally downloads it". Does that wording make you happier?
So now I've responded to all of your points. But I see that you conveniently ignored my main point:
By disobeying copyright law, you are contributing to the destruction of that system, which is the moral equivalent of saying "I would prefer to live in a world without copyright law". However, by downloading and consuming copyrighted works, you are also implicitly acknowledging that the copyright system produces something of value to you. How do you personally resolve these conflicting viewpoints when illegally downloading copyrighted material?
To rephrase - if all of the content that you are illegally downloading today were to disappear from the world tomorrow, would you miss it?
If yes, then how would you propose that society creates incentive for artists to create such content *without* copyright laws?
If no, then why are you illegally downloading that content in the first place?
I wonder what percentage of your customers who are paying for your games are doing so because they actually want to support you. And what percentage are paying for your games because copyright laws and enforcement thereof, though badly broken, are still effective enough to make buying a legal copy of the game worth their while.
For example, let's say that copyright laws didn't exist. And whenever you release a new game, I make an exact copy of your game including all of the CD art, instruction manuals, and other packaging, and sell it to retail stores for a fraction of the price that you are charging. Since copyright laws don't exist, the stores are free to sell my version of the game without fear of legal punishment, and buyers are free to buy it. For customers who don't care to own the CD or the box, I'll throw it up on my website, guaranteed to install without a hitch and virus free, for 99 cents a download.
Do you think that in a world like this you would still have a job writing videogames? Could such a world produce big name titles like Halo, Grand Theft Auto, etc.?
I think that by framing the argument in the context of a single person pirating a single work, you are taking too narrow a viewpoint. Copyright laws were created by society to stimulate innovation. What would be the overall effect if copyright laws did not exist - if *everyone* were able copy and resell any book, newspaper, song, movie, TV show, or software title that they wanted? Would we see a decline in the number and quality of "artists" producing new works?
By disobeying copyright law, you are contributing to the destruction of that system, which is the moral equivalent of saying "I would prefer to live in a world without copyright law". However, by downloading and consuming copyrighted works, you are also implicitly acknowledging that the copyright system produces something of value to you. How do you personally resolve these conflicting viewpoints when illegally downloading copyrighted material?
You said:
Whether the pirate has the product or not is irrelevant.
But I disagree. The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance. On the other hand, the person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product" - and steals it - that person has some explaining to do.
Actually, yes. But I'm not really sure that matters. I would never be so presumptuous as to assert that having Asian relatives makes me an expert on all things Asia.
I do have asian relatives who grew up in their native countries before moving to the US, so I'm aware of how they're expected to act
Define "Asian" in this context. Do you realize that there is an enormous amount of cultural diversity between different countries in Asia? And within a given country as well? If a person in Japan had a *Mexican* relative, would that qualify him as an expert on *American* culture?
and yes, it IS like a robot - someone who unthinkingly does what they're told by their boss / parent / spouse and "brings shame" if they dare to do what they want instead of what they're told.
So you are making generalizations about all of Asia based on the few relatives that you know? This is a type of logical fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization. My personal experiences living in Japan directly contradict your claim that Asian people are like robots. I met hundreds of people who I would describe as rebellious, who were doing what they wanted rather than what they were told. Many were way more rebellious than I was growing up in America. So I would say that our personal anecdotes would cancel each other out.
I would question whether you even understand your relatives as well as you think you do. Your "brings shame" quote sounds like something out of "The Last Samurai" rather than anything that anyobody would *actually* say. Is it possible that you are just projecting a popular stereotype of Asian culture onto your relatives instead of actually getting to know them? If you said to your Asian cousins, "Asians are like robots", what do you think they would say in response? Would they beep affirmatively and walk away? Or might they actually exercise some free will and disagree with you?
And I've got news for you - Americans do what their bosses, parents, and spouses tell them to do all the time. How is it that when Americans follow orders it is "thinkingly" but when Asians do it, it is "unthinkingly"?
If we all followed traditions, women would be stuck in the kitchen or relegated to only jobs like being a teacher, nurse, or secretary. Blindly following tradition is the exact opposite of thinking freely. A free thinker says "why" and rejects the notion of tradition for the sake of tradition. You don't understand this though and think that it's somehow possible to combine "no free will" with "free thinking".
You are putting the word *blindly* in my mouth, and then attacking me for saying that we should *blindly* follow rules and traditions. This is an example of the Straw Man logical fallacy. In reality, I agree with you that we should challenge laws and traditions that are harmful to society. For example, I would support challenging the TSA's new laws requiring passengers to either pass through a backscatter x-ray machine or be pat down before boarding a flight - on the grounds that the law does more harm than good.
I merely said that sometimes we might choose to *follow* a rule or tradition, without in any way sacrificing our ability to *think* freely.
You cannot tolerate the notion that someone might choose differently than you do and thus try to insult them and call them moron's simply because they don't bow to your infinite wisdom.
You just said that Asians are like robots, and your are calling me intolerant?
I welcome opposing opinions - as long as they have some basis in logical thought. Your arguments do not. If you are going to respond to me again, please try to do so without committing any more
Daniel Andreas San Diego is wanted for his alleged involvement in the bombing of two office buildings in the San Francisco, California, area. On August 28, 2003, two bombs exploded approximately one hour apart at the Chiron Corporation in Emeryville. Then, on September 26, 2003, one bomb strapped with nails exploded at the Shaklee Corporation in Pleasanton. San Diego was indicted in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, in July of 2004.
San Diego has ties to animal rights extremist groups. He is known to follow a vegan diet, eating no meat or food containing animal products. In the past, he has worked as a computer network specialist and with the operating system LINUX. San Diego wears eyeglasses, is skilled at sailing, and has traveled internationally. He is known to possess a handgun.
The TSA is on the lookout for people running LINUX. Slashdotters had better plan on getting to the airport at least 5 hours ahead of their flight this holiday season - and be prepared for anal cavity searches.
So I have to ask - which of the following is true in regards to your unique manner of spelling:
English is not your first language.
You intentionally misspell a lot of words as some sort of edgy joke to draw out grammar nazis on Slashdot.
You are posting via some sort of speech-to-text software or mobile device which makes spelling words correctly very time consuming or outright impossible.
You suffer from a physical or learning disability which makes it very difficult for you to spell words correctly (in which case I am genuinely sorry if my comments are hurtful or offensive).
You just don't give a shit about proper spelling and grammar.
I'd rather have a society with the occasional violence and people are free to do what they want and have their own thoughts an opinions that one that's violence free and everyone is an unthinking robot.
You can respect laws and traditions AND think freely. The two are not mutually exclusive. Alternatively, you can be a complete moron - a "robot" programmed to follow primitive instincts and incapable of higher order thought - AND be a rebel.
Given your rebellious signature, along with your fondness for tired generalizations and false dichotomies - I would say that you probably tend toward the latter category.
I call BS here. I don't think you got modded into oblivion for "mentioning that logic should dictate the outcome of a decision and not political motivations." Hell - I'm an extreme liberal and I agree 100% with that statement. I'm thinking it was probably something else that you said.
Show us the post that got you modded out of existence.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
I suppose that genetic predisposition and lifestyle choices (how well you take care of yourself outside of the office) would likely play a large part in determining who develops RSI and who doesn't. As such, a "poor setup" is probably relative to the person who is using it.
"Even if you feel that you are correct and the opposition is overreacting - sometimes it's in your own best interest to avoid upsetting other people. "
That is how you can turn a democracy into a dictatorship.
What I was describing above was "compromise". Compromise is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy.
Just look at the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty : people spoke up against them , the EU basically told them to shut up , and they just carried on with implementing it , as if nothing happened.
Granted , it's a bit far fetched for a game , but it's the same idea
It's completely far fetched. You might as well have compared the families of fallen soldiers who are protesting to Nazis, it would be the same sort of argument. Without demonstrating a causal link from "change 'Taliban' to 'Opposition Forces'" to "turn our democratic government into a dictatorship", you have also committed a logical fallacy. You are assuming that just because people have chosen to compromise on this particular issue, they will similarly compromise on every other issue that they face, which is just absurd.
To demonstrate, let me refute your argument with a similar technique: You are saying that people should refuse to be silenced. Al Qaida was refusing to be silenced when they bombed the world trade center on 9/11. Therefore, refusing to be silenced leads violent acts of terrorism. If EA didn't compromise on this particular issue, then the world would have been overrun by violent terrorists. (See what I just did there?)
All I'm saying is: try to focus on the issue at hand instead of making every little decision into a matter of life and death.
Try speaking in general and wait for someone to respond to you, personally, describing their specific situation.
Better yet, try not to speak in general terms. If you go around making unqualified statements like "I've come to notice that there is a large segment of the population that...", you're really setting yourself up for a bunch of anecdotal responses.
Write a letter to EA and tell them that because the changed the word "Taliban" to "Opposition", you feel they are being "totally irresponsible with regards to the principle behind the US constitution and the civic liberties in general", and you will never buy another EA game again.
Maybe they will listen to you and change it back. They might even offer you a senior management position. Because, clearly, you are more capable of rational and pragmatic decision making than anyone currently working at EA.
Or they also have the right to protest - which is what they did. If EA really wanted to press the issue, I am sure that there is very little that anyone could have done to legally require them to alter or halt production of the game.
In EA's own words: the voice of friends and families of fallen soldiers "is a very important voice to the Medal of Honor team". Maybe this is true, and the developers had a change of heart - something which is perfectly within their right to do. Perhaps more likely is that they were worried about the negative publicity and decided that this token gesture might lead to more games being sold - another decision that EA has the right to make.
My point is this: having the right to say or do something does not make it a good idea to do it. Even if you feel that you are correct and the opposition is overreacting - sometimes it's in your own best interest to avoid upsetting other people.
I can understand why some people would be upset about this game. I can understand why EA would make the decision that they did. The only thing I can't understand is why you would be upset at the sight of two opposing parties expressing their freedom of speech, and making concessions to the other party where appropriate.
It sounds like in the case of Suntech, there have also been some technological innovations that allow them to produce solar panels cheaply. From the TR profile that I referenced above:
The company has broken an efficiency record for multicrystalline cells that had stood for 15 years; one key to the accomplishment was to increase the amount of light the cells absorb by texturing their surface and decreasing the thickness of electron-conducting wires.
They have also been able to reduce costs by assembling panels with manual labor where possible, whereas in the United States and Japan labor is so expensive that it's more economical to assemble panels with robots (which is still very expensive).
Yes - they received funding from the Chinese government (and indirectly from the German government, who have apparently enacted a ridiculously progressive and expensive renewable energy policy in recent years). But if a growing market and government subsidies were all that were required - why haven't other countries been able to keep up?
Slashdot Mirror
Anecdotally speaking, the most destructive and disrespectful groups of people that I've ever met have generally been made up of drunken white teenage men (full disclosure: I am a white male who in the past has in the past also been a drunken teenager). For example - the riots that occurred in Boston after the Red Sox *won* the world series were nothing but pointless destruction.
I actually think a lot of these kids might benefit from the experience of living for a while in a third world country.
Now you just need a programmer!
The point is that whether the producers make money and are encouraged to develop it depends on how much money they get.
The critical question for them is whether someone buys the product or not, not whether they download it illegally or not (and as others have pointed out, it actually is "how much money do they spend on all my products together).
So... you are saying that it's alright for *some people* to download without paying, because there will always be those *other* people who will pay for it instead, to ensure that the developers get *enough* money.
If everyone had your attitude, that it is other peoples' responsibility to pay, then *nobody* would pay. So where do you draw the line between who gets to think like you and download for free, and who needs to pay? And where do you draw the line at how much is enough?
By forbidding the download to everyone else in addition, you are depriving them of something without any good reason, at an overall cost to society
Again, we run into the problem here of drawing the line at who "everyone else" is that doesn't need to pay. In the absence of any such magical formula, the fairest thing that society has been able to come up with is to say "everybody needs to pay" and let those who really want it come up with the money.
Yeah, it's a downside that some people have to go without. But the reason that copyright rules were enacted is that people thought that the benefits would outweigh the risks. And to mitigate these downsides we have created things like public libraries, fair use, open source, public broadcasting, etc.
If you claim downloading is theft, then let me say that enforcing copyright on those who cannot afford to buy it is just as much "stealing" from society, copyright was granted to to increase the cultural wealth, hindering access to beyond the "necessary" is in conflict with that and exploiting a bad implementation just to hurt others.
How do you get people to follow the laws without enforcing them? Once again - where do you draw the line at what's "necessary"? I would say that "necessary" has been reached when the penalty for copyright infringement, taken into consideration with the probability of getting caught, is greater than the benefit derived from downloading content illegally. Given that millions of people are downloading illegal content every second of every day, I would say we probably have not arrived at "necessary" yet.
I can accept that those who really cannot afford the products are just "collateral damage" that we currently have no good way of avoiding
That's pretty much the way I feel. Inequality sucks - but I can't think of any way to avoid it. One the plus side, I don't think that there is ANYBODY in the United States these days (or any other developed country) who is starving for information. Much the opposite, really.
but I can't imagine that someone who really understands that would label everyone a "thief" and use similarly strong language since they would realize they really are not in a position to feel particularly superior since they are willing to hurt others as well to get what _they_ want.
I'm willing to replace the terms "stealing" and "thief" with "downloading illegally" and "criminal" - which are both accurate terms for someone who breaks the law but do not imply "theft" of any sort.
Interesting. So if we were to strip away the profit element on my side - maybe only accept donations from customers which would go directly to hosting costs - and offer your game for free downloads on my website, would that be ok? If my site received a lot of traffic - equivalent to SourceForge for example - that could make an appreciable impact on your profits.
If you're not comfortable with that setup, then I would ask where do you draw the line between a site like I just mentioned and P2P sharing - where each individual downloader is also acting as a host and making your game available to download from others.
I think that by framing the argument in the context of a single person pirating a single work, you are taking too narrow a viewpoint.
Uh, no, I didn't. If a bunch of people who do something that in reality deprives no one of anything are looked upon as criminals simply because an artist might not receive enough money (and therefore not be able to do what they love any longer), then that sounds like the failing of a broken system, not of random people who are doing something that hurts no one.
Umm, yeah you did, and you still are. I'm not talking about stealing or trying to defend the poor starving artists. I don't think that illegally downloading a song is "stealing" any more then failing to pay your taxes is "stealing". But there's a *reason* we have laws that force people to pay taxes, and I'm trying to get you to think about the *reason* society has created laws to that allow artists to charge money when people want to consume their creations.
Copyright laws were created by society to stimulate innovation.
They were created to be used in a system which was broken to begin with.
I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Care to elaborate why you think that your statement follows from mine?
The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance.
Upon taking that stance, according to the potential profit argument, they have 'hurt' the artist because if they would have bought the product, the artist would have been better off, and therefore would likely have been able to produce more content.
First - I wasn't arguing the "potential profit" argument. Second - if an artist is producing shit content, then I am perfectly happy to let him go unrewarded.
and steals it
You and others keep saying this, and it's wearing thin. You have never once explained what exactly is being stolen. Not the media itself, as they merely copied that. They never had the money in the first place, so it's obviously not that. What is being stolen?
"and illegally downloads it". Does that wording make you happier?
So now I've responded to all of your points. But I see that you conveniently ignored my main point:
By disobeying copyright law, you are contributing to the destruction of that system, which is the moral equivalent of saying "I would prefer to live in a world without copyright law". However, by downloading and consuming copyrighted works, you are also implicitly acknowledging that the copyright system produces something of value to you. How do you personally resolve these conflicting viewpoints when illegally downloading copyrighted material?
To rephrase - if all of the content that you are illegally downloading today were to disappear from the world tomorrow, would you miss it? If yes, then how would you propose that society creates incentive for artists to create such content *without* copyright laws? If no, then why are you illegally downloading that content in the first place?
I wonder what percentage of your customers who are paying for your games are doing so because they actually want to support you. And what percentage are paying for your games because copyright laws and enforcement thereof, though badly broken, are still effective enough to make buying a legal copy of the game worth their while.
For example, let's say that copyright laws didn't exist. And whenever you release a new game, I make an exact copy of your game including all of the CD art, instruction manuals, and other packaging, and sell it to retail stores for a fraction of the price that you are charging. Since copyright laws don't exist, the stores are free to sell my version of the game without fear of legal punishment, and buyers are free to buy it. For customers who don't care to own the CD or the box, I'll throw it up on my website, guaranteed to install without a hitch and virus free, for 99 cents a download.
Do you think that in a world like this you would still have a job writing videogames? Could such a world produce big name titles like Halo, Grand Theft Auto, etc.?
By disobeying copyright law, you are contributing to the destruction of that system, which is the moral equivalent of saying "I would prefer to live in a world without copyright law". However, by downloading and consuming copyrighted works, you are also implicitly acknowledging that the copyright system produces something of value to you. How do you personally resolve these conflicting viewpoints when illegally downloading copyrighted material?
You said:
Whether the pirate has the product or not is irrelevant.
But I disagree. The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance. On the other hand, the person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product" - and steals it - that person has some explaining to do.
I disagree with you. But I'm pretty sure you're not a Nazi.
Are you asian or do you have asian relatives? No?
Actually, yes. But I'm not really sure that matters. I would never be so presumptuous as to assert that having Asian relatives makes me an expert on all things Asia.
I do have asian relatives who grew up in their native countries before moving to the US, so I'm aware of how they're expected to act
Define "Asian" in this context. Do you realize that there is an enormous amount of cultural diversity between different countries in Asia? And within a given country as well? If a person in Japan had a *Mexican* relative, would that qualify him as an expert on *American* culture?
and yes, it IS like a robot - someone who unthinkingly does what they're told by their boss / parent / spouse and "brings shame" if they dare to do what they want instead of what they're told.
So you are making generalizations about all of Asia based on the few relatives that you know? This is a type of logical fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization. My personal experiences living in Japan directly contradict your claim that Asian people are like robots. I met hundreds of people who I would describe as rebellious, who were doing what they wanted rather than what they were told. Many were way more rebellious than I was growing up in America. So I would say that our personal anecdotes would cancel each other out.
I would question whether you even understand your relatives as well as you think you do. Your "brings shame" quote sounds like something out of "The Last Samurai" rather than anything that anyobody would *actually* say. Is it possible that you are just projecting a popular stereotype of Asian culture onto your relatives instead of actually getting to know them? If you said to your Asian cousins, "Asians are like robots", what do you think they would say in response? Would they beep affirmatively and walk away? Or might they actually exercise some free will and disagree with you?
And I've got news for you - Americans do what their bosses, parents, and spouses tell them to do all the time. How is it that when Americans follow orders it is "thinkingly" but when Asians do it, it is "unthinkingly"?
If we all followed traditions, women would be stuck in the kitchen or relegated to only jobs like being a teacher, nurse, or secretary. Blindly following tradition is the exact opposite of thinking freely. A free thinker says "why" and rejects the notion of tradition for the sake of tradition. You don't understand this though and think that it's somehow possible to combine "no free will" with "free thinking".
You are putting the word *blindly* in my mouth, and then attacking me for saying that we should *blindly* follow rules and traditions. This is an example of the Straw Man logical fallacy. In reality, I agree with you that we should challenge laws and traditions that are harmful to society. For example, I would support challenging the TSA's new laws requiring passengers to either pass through a backscatter x-ray machine or be pat down before boarding a flight - on the grounds that the law does more harm than good.
I merely said that sometimes we might choose to *follow* a rule or tradition, without in any way sacrificing our ability to *think* freely.
You cannot tolerate the notion that someone might choose differently than you do and thus try to insult them and call them moron's simply because they don't bow to your infinite wisdom.
You just said that Asians are like robots, and your are calling me intolerant?
I welcome opposing opinions - as long as they have some basis in logical thought. Your arguments do not. If you are going to respond to me again, please try to do so without committing any more
Daniel Andreas San Diego is wanted for his alleged involvement in the bombing of two office buildings in the San Francisco, California, area. On August 28, 2003, two bombs exploded approximately one hour apart at the Chiron Corporation in Emeryville. Then, on September 26, 2003, one bomb strapped with nails exploded at the Shaklee Corporation in Pleasanton. San Diego was indicted in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, in July of 2004.
San Diego has ties to animal rights extremist groups. He is known to follow a vegan diet, eating no meat or food containing animal products. In the past, he has worked as a computer network specialist and with the operating system LINUX. San Diego wears eyeglasses, is skilled at sailing, and has traveled internationally. He is known to possess a handgun.
The TSA is on the lookout for people running LINUX. Slashdotters had better plan on getting to the airport at least 5 hours ahead of their flight this holiday season - and be prepared for anal cavity searches.
Statistical analysis of the data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that the law reduced the rate of home burglaries in Kennesaw
But I can understand how you would choose to ignore this point given that it doesn't confirm your beliefs.
I'd rather have a society with the occasional violence and people are free to do what they want and have their own thoughts an opinions that one that's violence free and everyone is an unthinking robot.
You can respect laws and traditions AND think freely. The two are not mutually exclusive. Alternatively, you can be a complete moron - a "robot" programmed to follow primitive instincts and incapable of higher order thought - AND be a rebel.
Given your rebellious signature, along with your fondness for tired generalizations and false dichotomies - I would say that you probably tend toward the latter category.
Correction: you would be forced to choose between driving less than 70 MPH or burning gas.
I call BS here. I don't think you got modded into oblivion for "mentioning that logic should dictate the outcome of a decision and not political motivations." Hell - I'm an extreme liberal and I agree 100% with that statement. I'm thinking it was probably something else that you said.
Show us the post that got you modded out of existence.
Mod parent down.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
I suppose that genetic predisposition and lifestyle choices (how well you take care of yourself outside of the office) would likely play a large part in determining who develops RSI and who doesn't. As such, a "poor setup" is probably relative to the person who is using it.
"Even if you feel that you are correct and the opposition is overreacting - sometimes it's in your own best interest to avoid upsetting other people. " That is how you can turn a democracy into a dictatorship.
What I was describing above was "compromise". Compromise is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy.
Just look at the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty : people spoke up against them , the EU basically told them to shut up , and they just carried on with implementing it , as if nothing happened.
Granted , it's a bit far fetched for a game , but it's the same idea
It's completely far fetched. You might as well have compared the families of fallen soldiers who are protesting to Nazis, it would be the same sort of argument. Without demonstrating a causal link from "change 'Taliban' to 'Opposition Forces'" to "turn our democratic government into a dictatorship", you have also committed a logical fallacy. You are assuming that just because people have chosen to compromise on this particular issue, they will similarly compromise on every other issue that they face, which is just absurd.
To demonstrate, let me refute your argument with a similar technique: You are saying that people should refuse to be silenced. Al Qaida was refusing to be silenced when they bombed the world trade center on 9/11. Therefore, refusing to be silenced leads violent acts of terrorism. If EA didn't compromise on this particular issue, then the world would have been overrun by violent terrorists. (See what I just did there?)
All I'm saying is: try to focus on the issue at hand instead of making every little decision into a matter of life and death.
Try speaking in general and wait for someone to respond to you, personally, describing their specific situation.
Better yet, try not to speak in general terms. If you go around making unqualified statements like "I've come to notice that there is a large segment of the population that...", you're really setting yourself up for a bunch of anecdotal responses.
Once they've managed to take that inch, the mile inevitably follows.
It's a shame that you chose to wrap up your otherwise flawless argument with a direct restatement of the slippery slope logical fallacy.
Write a letter to EA and tell them that because the changed the word "Taliban" to "Opposition", you feel they are being "totally irresponsible with regards to the principle behind the US constitution and the civic liberties in general", and you will never buy another EA game again.
Maybe they will listen to you and change it back. They might even offer you a senior management position. Because, clearly, you are more capable of rational and pragmatic decision making than anyone currently working at EA.
Then they can choose to avoid the game.
Or they also have the right to protest - which is what they did. If EA really wanted to press the issue, I am sure that there is very little that anyone could have done to legally require them to alter or halt production of the game.
In EA's own words: the voice of friends and families of fallen soldiers "is a very important voice to the Medal of Honor team". Maybe this is true, and the developers had a change of heart - something which is perfectly within their right to do. Perhaps more likely is that they were worried about the negative publicity and decided that this token gesture might lead to more games being sold - another decision that EA has the right to make.
My point is this: having the right to say or do something does not make it a good idea to do it. Even if you feel that you are correct and the opposition is overreacting - sometimes it's in your own best interest to avoid upsetting other people.
I can understand why some people would be upset about this game. I can understand why EA would make the decision that they did. The only thing I can't understand is why you would be upset at the sight of two opposing parties expressing their freedom of speech, and making concessions to the other party where appropriate.
Damn you.
The company has broken an efficiency record for multicrystalline cells that had stood for 15 years; one key to the accomplishment was to increase the amount of light the cells absorb by texturing their surface and decreasing the thickness of electron-conducting wires.
They have also been able to reduce costs by assembling panels with manual labor where possible, whereas in the United States and Japan labor is so expensive that it's more economical to assemble panels with robots (which is still very expensive).
Yes - they received funding from the Chinese government (and indirectly from the German government, who have apparently enacted a ridiculously progressive and expensive renewable energy policy in recent years). But if a growing market and government subsidies were all that were required - why haven't other countries been able to keep up?