Do you think before you post? The problem isn't the abundance of entertainment, but the type of entertainment.
If I'm poor, sure I can pick up a free copy of People from the dumpster outside the Doctor's office. But I don't want to read people, I want to read Retrogamer. If I don't have the money to buy Retrogamer, it doesn't get made, and I only get the kind of entertainment rich people want me to have.
I agree. But we're not talking about truth in advertising here. We're talking about prohibition. Those foreign pharmaceuticals are prohibited, whether they are accurately labeled or not.
Nonsense, it's all the same thing. All substances are legal if you have the proper paperwork, so the war on drugs is absolutely a war on illegally sold legal substances. And the motivating factor for the bans isn't safety, it's securing industry profits.
You can come up with all the bullshit excuses you want, but the fact is the war on drugs is far more harmful than you could ever reasonably expect drugs to be. Even if you don't use drugs, you've lost civil liberties because of it.
What exactly is immoral about helping your fellow citizens fill a need? The only immoral action here is the US government enforcing anti-competetive, and frankly oppressive laws.
Why would you believe the word of a convicted criminal who is being rewarded for his "cooperation"? You don't think this reward might bias his information some?
Yes, this is complete speculation at this point. Forgive me if I give no credence to unnamed sources from kotaku.
Any game company would be stupid to do this. Lots of people finance their next AAA game by selling their previous AAA game. Prevent that, and you'll see fewer sales.
at this point, even a lunatic would get my vote if he's a true outsider. insiders are all messed up and voting for the same-old is not working. get some crazy guy in there as long as he's not R or D crazy. we've all had enough of that fake R/D choice, haven't we?
Indeed. Who's the better doctor, the guy who misdiagnoses the terminally ill patient, or the guy who gives him a clean bill of health?
Before too long, there won't be any choice but patronage. Increasing wealth inequality will leave the lower class with nothing to spend on entertainment.
Thanks for the acknowledgement. I suspect it's mostly because people are staying inside using the internets instead of getting into trouble. We've even avoided the typical increase in (blue collar) crime seen during recessions.
Vote yes for more expansive government authority to protect you from something that would be no danger if you could just keep your mouth shut. Governments shouldn't be about protecting you from yourself.
Another issue is that of culture. How many parents are involved in their child's life today compared to a post WW2 family? I content that family values have dropped which is at the root of our youth crime rate. It basically has led us into a destructive positive feed-back cycle from a cultural standpoint.
If the loss of family values are responsible for the youth crime rate, we need to divest ourselves of family values as quickly as possible. The trend in youth crime has been decreasing since the mid 90s.
The really funny part is that you just committed the same error you accused me of making. That is, mistaking your own increased perception of a problem for an actual increase in incidence. In both cases if you care to dig up data you'll see that I'm right.
No, if you do it that way you just end up with flat cardboard scenes with a bit of depth. If I can't observe parallax, say a slight rotation of someone's head, when I switch eyes, it's not real 3d.
As well it should. Internet access should be a utility. Every place I'm aware of that has municipal internet access has a superior connection than neighboring areas without municipal internet. This is what municipal governments are for.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the fact that charges have been made against Google means they are guilty? Really?
Do you think before you post? The problem isn't the abundance of entertainment, but the type of entertainment.
If I'm poor, sure I can pick up a free copy of People from the dumpster outside the Doctor's office. But I don't want to read people, I want to read Retrogamer. If I don't have the money to buy Retrogamer, it doesn't get made, and I only get the kind of entertainment rich people want me to have.
I agree. But we're not talking about truth in advertising here. We're talking about prohibition. Those foreign pharmaceuticals are prohibited, whether they are accurately labeled or not.
Prosecutors are always biased. That's the basis of our adversarial justice system.
Nonsense, it's all the same thing. All substances are legal if you have the proper paperwork, so the war on drugs is absolutely a war on illegally sold legal substances. And the motivating factor for the bans isn't safety, it's securing industry profits.
is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
Then how do you explain the behavior of most US corporations?
I'm sure the DOJ has all sorts of ways to confirm information. I don't trust them to accurately convey that information to the public.
Oh, well it's not like the prosecutor could be biased in any way...
You can come up with all the bullshit excuses you want, but the fact is the war on drugs is far more harmful than you could ever reasonably expect drugs to be. Even if you don't use drugs, you've lost civil liberties because of it.
They were (pretending to) ship RU-486, the abortion drug, along with steroids and human growth hormone into the US, which is illegal.
Illegal, but not immoral or unethical. Laws that conflict with our natural right to biochemical self-determination are unjust.
What exactly is immoral about helping your fellow citizens fill a need? The only immoral action here is the US government enforcing anti-competetive, and frankly oppressive laws.
Why would you believe the word of a convicted criminal who is being rewarded for his "cooperation"? You don't think this reward might bias his information some?
Yes, this is complete speculation at this point. Forgive me if I give no credence to unnamed sources from kotaku.
Any game company would be stupid to do this. Lots of people finance their next AAA game by selling their previous AAA game. Prevent that, and you'll see fewer sales.
Absolutely correct. The way to freedom is to merge the systems in the opposite way. That is democratic communism.
at this point, even a lunatic would get my vote if he's a true outsider. insiders are all messed up and voting for the same-old is not working. get some crazy guy in there as long as he's not R or D crazy. we've all had enough of that fake R/D choice, haven't we?
Indeed. Who's the better doctor, the guy who misdiagnoses the terminally ill patient, or the guy who gives him a clean bill of health?
Before too long, there won't be any choice but patronage. Increasing wealth inequality will leave the lower class with nothing to spend on entertainment.
Thanks for the acknowledgement. I suspect it's mostly because people are staying inside using the internets instead of getting into trouble. We've even avoided the typical increase in (blue collar) crime seen during recessions.
Vote yes for more expansive government authority to protect you from something that would be no danger if you could just keep your mouth shut. Governments shouldn't be about protecting you from yourself.
Another issue is that of culture. How many parents are involved in their child's life today compared to a post WW2 family? I content that family values have dropped which is at the root of our youth crime rate. It basically has led us into a destructive positive feed-back cycle from a cultural standpoint.
If the loss of family values are responsible for the youth crime rate, we need to divest ourselves of family values as quickly as possible. The trend in youth crime has been decreasing since the mid 90s.
The really funny part is that you just committed the same error you accused me of making. That is, mistaking your own increased perception of a problem for an actual increase in incidence. In both cases if you care to dig up data you'll see that I'm right.
Sure. Just try owning a house and raising a family on one salary like your parents did.
I suppose you're against public libraries too then. Figures.
I was curious if this petition actually hit the required number by the required date(11/27/11). I scrolled back through the signatures to make sure:
So, uh, thanks Max Y. Too bad it didn't do any good.
No, if you do it that way you just end up with flat cardboard scenes with a bit of depth. If I can't observe parallax, say a slight rotation of someone's head, when I switch eyes, it's not real 3d.
If you can't run your own VPN, buy one. I can't recommend a provider, because I run my own.
As well it should. Internet access should be a utility. Every place I'm aware of that has municipal internet access has a superior connection than neighboring areas without municipal internet. This is what municipal governments are for.