The response by marketing to the increasing resistance against ads is to make the ads bigger and more intrusive.
Don't forget product placement. It's not really new but when people start tuning out traditional ads companies start looking at ways to make advertisements that you won't tune out.. and product placement is the big answer there.
That's one of the reasons I think these new hollywood blockbuster movies usually suck.. they're basically one big commercial anymore (Josie and the pussy cats, IRobot etc..)
What would you say the difference is between "exposure" and "popularity" ?
Is popularity when people know of your name and music but don't necessarily listen to your music personally ? I don't see why they would download your music in that case.
I guess downloading music isn't a hard measurement of exposure since there's people who may download your music for purposes other than listening to it (compiling collections, a DJ using it for mixing etc.)
But still.. I think it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people who download your songs are doing so to listen to them. That would be "exposure" in my opinion.
I can't remember who it was but recently I heard an "industry insider" claim that the majority of the movie industry's profits are from DVD sales now. I think he/she claimed 60% of profit comes from DVDs.
With that said, I totally agree with you. I don't go to the theaters anymore.. but I buy more DVDs than anyone I know (3 - 5 / week to watch on the weekends). I prefer buying DVDs to renting because, although it's more expensive, I don't have to worry about returning the movies and I can watch them when I'm in the mood.
I'm anxiously awaiting Batman Begins and Revenge of The Sith because I haven't seen either. Yet I have to wait until October / November for the DVDs to come out. If they came out sooner after being released in theaters I'd have bought them by now.. and if DVDs really do fuel the industry more than theaters I don't understand why they take so long to come out.
Re:Better porn?
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I had access to porn at a very young age (10 - 11 years-old)
I don't think it has affected my view of women and sexuality at all. Or if it has it has done so positively.
I have never forced myself on a woman. I have never hit a woman etc. I have never even gone out to a club with the express intent of getting laid.
I met my wife when I was 15, we became high school sweethearts and have been together for the last 8 years and have two children together. I have never cheated on her. Never forced myself on her etc.
I don't understand how my views and expectations were skewed or affected at all due to looking at porn when I was 10 years-old. If anything I think I am a better lover. We have a very healthy sex life.. we're comfortable experimenting and asking eachother for 'favours' or trying new things etc.
Honestly.. how has porn given me a negative view on women and changed my expecatations? I don't understand where this argument comes from.
I'm certainly not a philanderer and I have great respect for women. If anything porn has taught me to make sure that I'm always concerned about my partners pleasure rather than just getting myself off quickly.
I've always wondered why more restaurants don't pay their waiters/waitresses more.
The waiters / waitresses are often the only people to deal directly with the customers. Therefore, it would make sense to pay them generously. Better wages for the employees means happier employees and better service for the customers which directly translates into better business.
I'm not in the restaurant business so I might be missing something very important.. but if I ran a restaurant one of the most important points in my business plan would be to pay my waiters / waitresses more than minimum wage.. even though the law allows me to pay them less. I would have no trouble finding decent help... and my customers would be happier because my employees are happier.
I gave up coffee about a year ago for health reasons. Mostly because I have a history of heart disease and diabetis in my family. I don't honestly know if coffee will increase my risk of those, but I figured caffiene is still a stimulant, I'm addicted to it.. so lets cut it out of my diet just for the heck of it.
So this article isn't without a bit of irony:)
Anyway the other day I was going on 3 hours of sleep so I decided to make myself a cup a coffee and I became curious as to the calorie content of a cup of black coffee, assuming there are any calories in black coffee. I came across this page:
I'm not sure how reliable it is... but it claims that coffee renders Vitamin B inactive. Not being a nutritionalist or a doctor I did a bit of research on what the B vitamins are good for and found out that they're pretty essential.
"The B-complex vitamins are actually a group of eight vitamins, which include thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), pyridoxine (B6), folic acid (B9), cyanocobalamin (B12), pantothenic acid and biotin. These vitamins are essential for:
* The breakdown of carbohydrates into glucose (this provides energy for the body)
* The breakdown of fats and proteins (which aids the normal functioning of the nervous system)
* Muscle tone in the stomach and intestinal tract
* Skin
* Hair
* Eyes
* Mouth
* Liver"
So.. while the article may have some truth to it, it seems like it's a pretty big trade off. You gain some anti-oxidants but you lose your Vitamin B and Calcium absorption.. which really sucks.
If any part of the disk won't play then you should take it back.
That's not so much a quality issue to me as a defection. When someone says "quality" I assume they mean picture and sound quality etc. That's clearly my problem and interpretation.. but I don't care if I only paid $2 for something.. if it won't play I take it back and exchange it or get a refund. And AFAIK no store is allowed to refuse a refund if the product is defective. Even if they have a no refund policy (they can only refuse refunds on working products).
I don't really care how good the quality is, $135 - $150 (canadian) for the seasons is just too insanely expensive.
I buy a shit load of DVDs. I have seasons 1 - 6 of the Simpsons. 1 - 2 of That 70's Show. The 1st season of The Flintstones and Married With Children. All of those costed $35 - $50 CAD each... and that's about right for me.
If TNG seasons were around $50 I would own all 7 seasons by now. But so far I haven't bought a single season.
I'm sure Paramount isn't losing much money because there's going to be a ton of die hard fans who are willing to shell out that money... and that pisses me off because TNG was probably my all time favourite tv show ever... but until the prices come down closer to reality I will never, ever buy a single season.
But in virtually every Linux distro, there's far more GNU code running than Linux code.
The key word here is "distro".
What I find ridiculously funny is that whenever RMS opens his mouth it seems to be directed at Linus. Linus develops Linux.. the kernel.. and when referring to the kernel there is absolutely nothing to do with GNU what-so-ever.
I could understand if RMS was putting pressure on Redhat, Mandriva, Suse etc. to prepend GNU/ to their names... but why should Linus have anything to do with this debate at all? He doens't package any distros. He doesn't distribute any GNU software at all. He simply develops the kernel which is called Linux. And I don't think anyone would argue, including RMS (I hope), that the kernel itself should be called GNU/Linux.
So leave Linus alone. He has nothing to do with any software distributions or packages. Go after the distros who are actually distributing GNU software.
If embryonic stem cell research is the panecea everyone claims it to be, why aren't more companies coming out of the woodwork to fund it. The patent rights to a cure for all the deceases this can supposedly cure would be a license to print money.
Probably because if the other side of the debate wins, and stem cell research is made illegal, billions upon billions of dollars will have been wasted.
But yeah, the killer is power-off safety. There's no good answer for that one. Unless...an emergency release panic-button on the inside that somehow allowed the door to spring open electricity-free?
I don't see why that's not a viable option. Also, as in many windows on buses and trains, you could have an emergency lever that knocks the entire door out at the frame. Pull lever + push door down kind of concept.
and the sad thing this guy is getting 15 months for 'stealing' the list of addresses, not for spamming.
Why is that sad ?
I agree that the guy should be punished.. and I agree with stiff penalties for spammers.. but I'm not so sure that I believe this guy should be held responsible for any spamming.
I was going to link this to analogy about someone who sells guns being held responsible for any deaths caused by that gun. But for all know there may be laws that hold gun retailers accountable under certain circumstances. I know I would feel partly responsible if I sold a gun to someone whom I didn't do a background check on first if that person went on a killing spree with that gun.
But either way I think it's not very fair to demand that the guy be charged with spamming. He didn't spam. He was selfish and greedy and was indirectly responsible for the spam.. but he wasn't the one who sent out any e-mails. So to charge him with such wouldn't be fair IMO.
AFAIK the US is the only country in the world that allows prescription medications to be advertised on television.
I live in Canada but I'm close enough to the border that I get lots of American channels. No Canadian channel ever advertises for prescription medications.. yet when I watch a US channel it seems that every other commercial nowadays is telling me to ask my doctor about this or that.. without even telling me what this or that is FOR!
I've asked some of my friends in Europe how medications are dealt over seas and they've told me that they don't even know the brand of a prescription. That all medication they get comes in a plain green box etc.
Here in Canada we're starting to get some medications coming in branded boxes.. but for the most part we still get "organge / brownish" transluscent containers with a label that says the name of the medication, pharmacy info etc.
This whole big drug / pharmeceutical industry thing in the states is getting ridiculous. Let the medications be dealt out by the doctors. As soon as you start asking your doctor for specific pills etc. doesn't he then become your dealer ?
"* P.S - In case anyone misinterprets my examples above.. I'm not trying to claim that those companies have monopolies.. just that they don't resort to illegal or unethical practices to advance their positions."
Your point, "there's nothing wrong with a monopoly" strikes me as naive.
I never said there's nothing wrong.. I said there's nothing illegal about a monopoly.
However, your post strikes me as the same old 'anti-corporate anything' sentiment that's just all too common on/.
If a company abuses it's powers, harms consumers, destroys potential competition etc. then of course there is something wrong that. But to dismiss ALL companies or corporate entities as being malicious is also naive. Of course, it's not hard to make that assumption based on the fact that we constantly hear about MS, Intel, Enron, Martha Stewart etc. But there's even a few examples of the opposite that we hear about on/. all the time too... Google, AMD, Apple * etc.
Just because a company is profit-driven or has a monopoly doesn't automatically make it evil. A companies actions are what it should be judged on, not it's position in the market.
* P.S - In case anyone misinterprets my examples above.. I'm not trying to claim that those companies have monopolies.. just that they don't resort to illegal or unethical practices to advance their positions.
Say for instance you develop a unique product that no one else has ever developed before. As long as your company is the only one to develop that product you automatically have a monopoly on that product. How can you be punished for something that's beyond your control ?
Microsoft has done a lot of shady business practices.. no one is arguing that. But having the monopoly alone does not make them criminals. It's how they abused their monopoly to wipe out future competition and to screw over their customers that got them in trouble.
No, we cannot. The "free beer" aspect of free software was not supposed to be an impediment or excuse to missing features or low quality. In fact, free software was supposed to be better because people wrote it for the love of the art without real world constraints like time or money.
Not to mention that the last time I checked, IE was given away for free too.
Aside from the obvious (big brother, nanny state etc.), my problem with the tax is that it is punishing legitimite pornography businesses for child porn.
Most adult businesses already donate to organizations like ASACP annually to help fight child porn. It's already a huge offense that something so inhuman like child porn is given the name 'porn' to begin with, as it leads people to make connections between consentual, legal, adult porn and child porn.
This tax would help strengthen that connection and it would also punish legal business because of unrelated scum that prey on children.
Why should legal business be forced to give up 25% of their profits to compensate for a crime that's entirely unrelated ? It could end up taking away money from non-profit organizations that rely on donations to help protect children.
Plus, as someone else already mentioned, maybe they should start taxing gun manufacturers 25% for gun related murders. Tax the food industry 25% to help fight obesity etc.
I'm curious. I have never had a chance to speak to someone who was addicted to porn and I'd really like to ask you one thing if you don't mind.
Do you view porn as being addictive, or do you view yourself as having an addictive personality?
I have to admit, I'm a little defensive and biased since I run adult sites for a living. I've had easy access to porn for over 10 years online and I look at porn every day as part of my business.. and I've never had any problems with addiction, or my relationships etc.
I have suffered a serious drug addiction to speed in my past, and so I understand how powerful and devastating addiction can be. It caused me to steal from people I love, it kept me up all night on binges, it affected my work life and my social life etc. I had to go through rehab and group therapy etc. Yet I've never experienced any of the warning signs that might lead me to believe that I could be addicted to porn. I've never thought about porn (at least excessively) while away from it. I've never neglected any responsibilities so I could look at porn (never left work, never missed a bill so I could pay for porn etc.) I've never once gotten bored of my wife or turned her down for sex so that I could go jack off to 20 different girls instead etc.
I'm not trying to downplay your addiction. I am fully aware that there are people who suffer through addictions to porn. And, as someone who suffered drug addiction, I understand the power of addiction and I understand how serious it can be on ones life.
I'm just wondering, do you think porn is addictive ? Or are people who get addicted to porn the type of people who would also easily get addicted to gambling, video games, hookers etc. ?
In fact, she spoke quite a bit to me about sex, when I was little. As soon as it mattered she pretty much assumed that she didn't need to talk to me about it anymore.
The problem remained, however, that I couldn't predict what her reaction would have been had I confronted her about me having sex and needing contraception etc. Particularly the fact that I was having sex in her house while she was home.
And what I've since learned about her (from her decisions regarding little brother, who is 9 years younger than me and is now in the same position that I was in when I lost my virginity etc.) is that although she never really censored or controlled what we watched on television or what video games we played, she's still very paranoid about whether or not we're sexually active or doing drugs etc.
I don't blame society or my mother for my actions. I'm just saying that I definitely would not have impregnated my girlfriend had I had access to contraception (we did use condoms when we had them). Obtaining them was extremely difficult.. and I do blame society for that. Condoms are expensive and kids are affraid to ask their parents for them.
But if society wants to take an active role in reducing teenage pregnancy I can, and do, offer a few suggestions. My #1 suggestion is to lighten the fuck up about sex. Kids shouldn't be afraid to ask questions and to ask for contraception.
What do you think would happen if most kids went to their parents and asked them to get them condoms or to get them on the pill ? Many parents would be thrilled that their children are being responsible but their kids would never predict that. They'd be scared shitless to admit to their parents that they're having sex.
I lost my virginity at 12 in a vacant house that was still being built with a girl that I had known for 3 hours. At age 16 I got my girlfriend (now wife) pregnant.
So I have something to say about this.
For starters, I understand where parents who are afraid of their children getting pregnant or impregnanting a girlfriend are comming from. As someone who has been down that road I am scared to death for the same thing happening to my daughters.
However, I put a large part of the blame on society shielding children from sex. The reason I got my girlfriend pregnant was because we didn't use condoms. The reason we didn't use condoms was because we didn't have any.
What were my options ? I could have gone out of my way to go to a teen health center where I could have gotten them for free (this was a 2 hour round trip bus ride.. not likely for lazy teenagers to pursue). I could have asked my parents to buy them for me which would have caused all kinds of problems. I could have stolen them. I could have bought them if I wasn't too embarrassed to do so or if I had the money ($12 for a pack of condoms is a lot for a teenager without a job). Or I could abstained from having sex all together.
Perhaps if society were a little less uptight about sex then my school could have been giving out free condoms in the nurses office. My mother would have offered to supply them for me. I could have been more comfortable asking my mother to supply them to me etc.
I'm looking at the package for my PC version of SA right now.
On the back it describes the reasons for being rated Mature. Here they are.
1. Blood and Gore 2. Intense Violence. 3. Strong Language. 4. Strong Sexual Content 5. Use Of Drugs.
With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence.
One can argue that shielding children from sex does more harm than good.
I lost my virginity at age 12... in a vacant house that was still being built. We used condoms. However, a couple years later (at age 16) I got my girlfriend, now wife, pregnant because we simply didn't have any condoms available.
Children have sex whether they see it on television or not. However, if society weren't so stuck up about sex. If my mother weren't so afraid of talking to me about it or supplying me with condoms for when the inevitable occasions occur then perhaps we would be able to reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by providing an open and safe outlet for children to express their curiosity, get answers to questions and, most importantly, have access to contraception.
I had two problems getting access to contraception when I was a kid. 1) Since sex was 'taboo' and private I was embarrassed to buy condoms and 2) With #1 aside, $10 - $15 (canadian) is a lot for a 14 year-old without a job or allowance to shell out.
Maybe a little sex on television would help lighten up society and kids won't face these problems anymore.
"Do you not feel any empathy for the THOUSANDS of lives destroyed by this man's greed? Just because no blood was shed, doesn't mean lives were destroyed."
Yes I do. But putting him in jail will not return their money. Speaking of myself, 2 or 3 years of my life lost to jail is plenty to make me never want to commit the crime again.
25 years isn't a punishment. It's removing someone from society so that they don't have the chance to commit the crime again. You made it absolutely clear that that's what you want.. and while I understand where people who feel that way are comming from, I don't agree that it's the best solution.
I believe in rehabilitation and punishment. Not removing people from society all together.
Slashdot Mirror
The response by marketing to the increasing resistance against ads is to make the ads bigger and more intrusive.
.. and product placement is the big answer there.
.. they're basically one big commercial anymore (Josie and the pussy cats, IRobot etc..)
Don't forget product placement. It's not really new but when people start tuning out traditional ads companies start looking at ways to make advertisements that you won't tune out
That's one of the reasons I think these new hollywood blockbuster movies usually suck
What would you say the difference is between "exposure" and "popularity" ?
.. I think it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people who download your songs are doing so to listen to them. That would be "exposure" in my opinion.
Is popularity when people know of your name and music but don't necessarily listen to your music personally ? I don't see why they would download your music in that case.
I guess downloading music isn't a hard measurement of exposure since there's people who may download your music for purposes other than listening to it (compiling collections, a DJ using it for mixing etc.)
But still
I can't remember who it was but recently I heard an "industry insider" claim that the majority of the movie industry's profits are from DVD sales now. I think he/she claimed 60% of profit comes from DVDs.
With that said, I totally agree with you. I don't go to the theaters anymore.. but I buy more DVDs than anyone I know (3 - 5 / week to watch on the weekends). I prefer buying DVDs to renting because, although it's more expensive, I don't have to worry about returning the movies and I can watch them when I'm in the mood.
I'm anxiously awaiting Batman Begins and Revenge of The Sith because I haven't seen either. Yet I have to wait until October / November for the DVDs to come out. If they came out sooner after being released in theaters I'd have bought them by now.. and if DVDs really do fuel the industry more than theaters I don't understand why they take so long to come out.
I had access to porn at a very young age (10 - 11 years-old)
I don't think it has affected my view of women and sexuality at all. Or if it has it has done so positively.
I have never forced myself on a woman. I have never hit a woman etc. I have never even gone out to a club with the express intent of getting laid.
I met my wife when I was 15, we became high school sweethearts and have been together for the last 8 years and have two children together. I have never cheated on her. Never forced myself on her etc.
I don't understand how my views and expectations were skewed or affected at all due to looking at porn when I was 10 years-old. If anything I think I am a better lover. We have a very healthy sex life.. we're comfortable experimenting and asking eachother for 'favours' or trying new things etc.
Honestly.. how has porn given me a negative view on women and changed my expecatations? I don't understand where this argument comes from.
I'm certainly not a philanderer and I have great respect for women. If anything porn has taught me to make sure that I'm always concerned about my partners pleasure rather than just getting myself off quickly.
I've always wondered why more restaurants don't pay their waiters/waitresses more.
.. but if I ran a restaurant one of the most important points in my business plan would be to pay my waiters / waitresses more than minimum wage.. even though the law allows me to pay them less. I would have no trouble finding decent help... and my customers would be happier because my employees are happier.
The waiters / waitresses are often the only people to deal directly with the customers. Therefore, it would make sense to pay them generously. Better wages for the employees means happier employees and better service for the customers which directly translates into better business.
I'm not in the restaurant business so I might be missing something very important
I gave up coffee about a year ago for health reasons. Mostly because I have a history of heart disease and diabetis in my family. I don't honestly know if coffee will increase my risk of those, but I figured caffiene is still a stimulant, I'm addicted to it.. so lets cut it out of my diet just for the heck of it.
:)
.. while the article may have some truth to it, it seems like it's a pretty big trade off. You gain some anti-oxidants but you lose your Vitamin B and Calcium absorption .. which really sucks.
So this article isn't without a bit of irony
Anyway the other day I was going on 3 hours of sleep so I decided to make myself a cup a coffee and I became curious as to the calorie content of a cup of black coffee, assuming there are any calories in black coffee. I came across this page:
http://www.dietbites.com/CalorieIndexDrinks.html
I'm not sure how reliable it is... but it claims that coffee renders Vitamin B inactive. Not being a nutritionalist or a doctor I did a bit of research on what the B vitamins are good for and found out that they're pretty essential.
According to this page: http://home.howstuffworks.com/vitamin-b.htm
"The B-complex vitamins are actually a group of eight vitamins, which include thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), pyridoxine (B6), folic acid (B9), cyanocobalamin (B12), pantothenic acid and biotin. These vitamins are essential for:
* The breakdown of carbohydrates into glucose (this provides energy for the body)
* The breakdown of fats and proteins (which aids the normal functioning of the nervous system)
* Muscle tone in the stomach and intestinal tract
* Skin
* Hair
* Eyes
* Mouth
* Liver"
So
If any part of the disk won't play then you should take it back.
That's not so much a quality issue to me as a defection. When someone says "quality" I assume they mean picture and sound quality etc. That's clearly my problem and interpretation.. but I don't care if I only paid $2 for something.. if it won't play I take it back and exchange it or get a refund. And AFAIK no store is allowed to refuse a refund if the product is defective. Even if they have a no refund policy (they can only refuse refunds on working products).
I don't really care how good the quality is, $135 - $150 (canadian) for the seasons is just too insanely expensive.
I buy a shit load of DVDs. I have seasons 1 - 6 of the Simpsons. 1 - 2 of That 70's Show. The 1st season of The Flintstones and Married With Children. All of those costed $35 - $50 CAD each... and that's about right for me.
If TNG seasons were around $50 I would own all 7 seasons by now. But so far I haven't bought a single season.
I'm sure Paramount isn't losing much money because there's going to be a ton of die hard fans who are willing to shell out that money... and that pisses me off because TNG was probably my all time favourite tv show ever... but until the prices come down closer to reality I will never, ever buy a single season.
But in virtually every Linux distro, there's far more GNU code running than Linux code.
The key word here is "distro".
What I find ridiculously funny is that whenever RMS opens his mouth it seems to be directed at Linus. Linus develops Linux.. the kernel.. and when referring to the kernel there is absolutely nothing to do with GNU what-so-ever.
I could understand if RMS was putting pressure on Redhat, Mandriva, Suse etc. to prepend GNU/ to their names... but why should Linus have anything to do with this debate at all? He doens't package any distros. He doesn't distribute any GNU software at all. He simply develops the kernel which is called Linux. And I don't think anyone would argue, including RMS (I hope), that the kernel itself should be called GNU/Linux.
So leave Linus alone. He has nothing to do with any software distributions or packages. Go after the distros who are actually distributing GNU software.
If embryonic stem cell research is the panecea everyone claims it to be, why aren't more companies coming out of the woodwork to fund it. The patent rights to a cure for all the deceases this can supposedly cure would be a license to print money.
Probably because if the other side of the debate wins, and stem cell research is made illegal, billions upon billions of dollars will have been wasted.
But yeah, the killer is power-off safety. There's no good answer for that one. Unless...an emergency release panic-button on the inside that somehow allowed the door to spring open electricity-free?
I don't see why that's not a viable option. Also, as in many windows on buses and trains, you could have an emergency lever that knocks the entire door out at the frame. Pull lever + push door down kind of concept.
and the sad thing this guy is getting 15 months for 'stealing' the list of addresses, not for spamming.
.. and I agree with stiff penalties for spammers.. but I'm not so sure that I believe this guy should be held responsible for any spamming.
.. but he wasn't the one who sent out any e-mails. So to charge him with such wouldn't be fair IMO.
Why is that sad ?
I agree that the guy should be punished
I was going to link this to analogy about someone who sells guns being held responsible for any deaths caused by that gun. But for all know there may be laws that hold gun retailers accountable under certain circumstances. I know I would feel partly responsible if I sold a gun to someone whom I didn't do a background check on first if that person went on a killing spree with that gun.
But either way I think it's not very fair to demand that the guy be charged with spamming. He didn't spam. He was selfish and greedy and was indirectly responsible for the spam
AFAIK the US is the only country in the world that allows prescription medications to be advertised on television.
.. yet when I watch a US channel it seems that every other commercial nowadays is telling me to ask my doctor about this or that .. without even telling me what this or that is FOR!
.. but for the most part we still get "organge / brownish" transluscent containers with a label that says the name of the medication, pharmacy info etc.
I live in Canada but I'm close enough to the border that I get lots of American channels. No Canadian channel ever advertises for prescription medications
I've asked some of my friends in Europe how medications are dealt over seas and they've told me that they don't even know the brand of a prescription. That all medication they get comes in a plain green box etc.
Here in Canada we're starting to get some medications coming in branded boxes
This whole big drug / pharmeceutical industry thing in the states is getting ridiculous. Let the medications be dealt out by the doctors. As soon as you start asking your doctor for specific pills etc. doesn't he then become your dealer ?
Someone didn't read the footnotes...
.. just that they don't resort to illegal or unethical practices to advance their positions."
"* P.S - In case anyone misinterprets my examples above.. I'm not trying to claim that those companies have monopolies
Your point, "there's nothing wrong with a monopoly" strikes me as naive.
/.
/. all the time too ... Google, AMD, Apple * etc.
.. just that they don't resort to illegal or unethical practices to advance their positions.
I never said there's nothing wrong.. I said there's nothing illegal about a monopoly.
However, your post strikes me as the same old 'anti-corporate anything' sentiment that's just all too common on
If a company abuses it's powers, harms consumers, destroys potential competition etc. then of course there is something wrong that. But to dismiss ALL companies or corporate entities as being malicious is also naive. Of course, it's not hard to make that assumption based on the fact that we constantly hear about MS, Intel, Enron, Martha Stewart etc. But there's even a few examples of the opposite that we hear about on
Just because a company is profit-driven or has a monopoly doesn't automatically make it evil. A companies actions are what it should be judged on, not it's position in the market.
* P.S - In case anyone misinterprets my examples above.. I'm not trying to claim that those companies have monopolies
There is nothign illegal about having a monopoly.
Say for instance you develop a unique product that no one else has ever developed before. As long as your company is the only one to develop that product you automatically have a monopoly on that product. How can you be punished for something that's beyond your control ?
Microsoft has done a lot of shady business practices.. no one is arguing that. But having the monopoly alone does not make them criminals. It's how they abused their monopoly to wipe out future competition and to screw over their customers that got them in trouble.
No, we cannot. The "free beer" aspect of free software was not supposed to be an impediment or excuse to missing features or low quality. In fact, free software was supposed to be better because people wrote it for the love of the art without real world constraints like time or money.
Not to mention that the last time I checked, IE was given away for free too.
It's not like anyone's paying any money for it.
Aside from the obvious (big brother, nanny state etc.), my problem with the tax is that it is punishing legitimite pornography businesses for child porn.
Most adult businesses already donate to organizations like ASACP annually to help fight child porn. It's already a huge offense that something so inhuman like child porn is given the name 'porn' to begin with, as it leads people to make connections between consentual, legal, adult porn and child porn.
This tax would help strengthen that connection and it would also punish legal business because of unrelated scum that prey on children.
Why should legal business be forced to give up 25% of their profits to compensate for a crime that's entirely unrelated ? It could end up taking away money from non-profit organizations that rely on donations to help protect children.
Plus, as someone else already mentioned, maybe they should start taxing gun manufacturers 25% for gun related murders. Tax the food industry 25% to help fight obesity etc.
I'm curious. I have never had a chance to speak to someone who was addicted to porn and I'd really like to ask you one thing if you don't mind.
Do you view porn as being addictive, or do you view yourself as having an addictive personality?
I have to admit, I'm a little defensive and biased since I run adult sites for a living. I've had easy access to porn for over 10 years online and I look at porn every day as part of my business.. and I've never had any problems with addiction, or my relationships etc.
I have suffered a serious drug addiction to speed in my past, and so I understand how powerful and devastating addiction can be. It caused me to steal from people I love, it kept me up all night on binges, it affected my work life and my social life etc. I had to go through rehab and group therapy etc. Yet I've never experienced any of the warning signs that might lead me to believe that I could be addicted to porn. I've never thought about porn (at least excessively) while away from it. I've never neglected any responsibilities so I could look at porn (never left work, never missed a bill so I could pay for porn etc.) I've never once gotten bored of my wife or turned her down for sex so that I could go jack off to 20 different girls instead etc.
I'm not trying to downplay your addiction. I am fully aware that there are people who suffer through addictions to porn. And, as someone who suffered drug addiction, I understand the power of addiction and I understand how serious it can be on ones life.
I'm just wondering, do you think porn is addictive ? Or are people who get addicted to porn the type of people who would also easily get addicted to gambling, video games, hookers etc. ?
She didn't.
In fact, she spoke quite a bit to me about sex, when I was little. As soon as it mattered she pretty much assumed that she didn't need to talk to me about it anymore.
The problem remained, however, that I couldn't predict what her reaction would have been had I confronted her about me having sex and needing contraception etc. Particularly the fact that I was having sex in her house while she was home.
And what I've since learned about her (from her decisions regarding little brother, who is 9 years younger than me and is now in the same position that I was in when I lost my virginity etc.) is that although she never really censored or controlled what we watched on television or what video games we played, she's still very paranoid about whether or not we're sexually active or doing drugs etc.
I don't blame society or my mother for my actions. I'm just saying that I definitely would not have impregnated my girlfriend had I had access to contraception (we did use condoms when we had them). Obtaining them was extremely difficult.. and I do blame society for that. Condoms are expensive and kids are affraid to ask their parents for them.
I don't blame society. I blame myself.
But if society wants to take an active role in reducing teenage pregnancy I can, and do, offer a few suggestions. My #1 suggestion is to lighten the fuck up about sex. Kids shouldn't be afraid to ask questions and to ask for contraception.
What do you think would happen if most kids went to their parents and asked them to get them condoms or to get them on the pill ? Many parents would be thrilled that their children are being responsible but their kids would never predict that. They'd be scared shitless to admit to their parents that they're having sex.
I lost my virginity at 12 in a vacant house that was still being built with a girl that I had known for 3 hours. At age 16 I got my girlfriend (now wife) pregnant.
.. not likely for lazy teenagers to pursue). I could have asked my parents to buy them for me which would have caused all kinds of problems. I could have stolen them. I could have bought them if I wasn't too embarrassed to do so or if I had the money ($12 for a pack of condoms is a lot for a teenager without a job). Or I could abstained from having sex all together.
So I have something to say about this.
For starters, I understand where parents who are afraid of their children getting pregnant or impregnanting a girlfriend are comming from. As someone who has been down that road I am scared to death for the same thing happening to my daughters.
However, I put a large part of the blame on society shielding children from sex. The reason I got my girlfriend pregnant was because we didn't use condoms. The reason we didn't use condoms was because we didn't have any.
What were my options ? I could have gone out of my way to go to a teen health center where I could have gotten them for free (this was a 2 hour round trip bus ride
Perhaps if society were a little less uptight about sex then my school could have been giving out free condoms in the nurses office. My mother would have offered to supply them for me. I could have been more comfortable asking my mother to supply them to me etc.
I'm looking at the package for my PC version of SA right now.
On the back it describes the reasons for being rated Mature. Here they are.
1. Blood and Gore
2. Intense Violence.
3. Strong Language.
4. Strong Sexual Content
5. Use Of Drugs.
With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence.
One can argue that shielding children from sex does more harm than good.
I lost my virginity at age 12... in a vacant house that was still being built. We used condoms. However, a couple years later (at age 16) I got my girlfriend, now wife, pregnant because we simply didn't have any condoms available.
Children have sex whether they see it on television or not. However, if society weren't so stuck up about sex. If my mother weren't so afraid of talking to me about it or supplying me with condoms for when the inevitable occasions occur then perhaps we would be able to reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by providing an open and safe outlet for children to express their curiosity, get answers to questions and, most importantly, have access to contraception.
I had two problems getting access to contraception when I was a kid. 1) Since sex was 'taboo' and private I was embarrassed to buy condoms and 2) With #1 aside, $10 - $15 (canadian) is a lot for a 14 year-old without a job or allowance to shell out.
Maybe a little sex on television would help lighten up society and kids won't face these problems anymore.
"Do you not feel any empathy for the THOUSANDS of lives destroyed by this man's greed? Just because no blood was shed, doesn't mean lives were destroyed."
Yes I do. But putting him in jail will not return their money. Speaking of myself, 2 or 3 years of my life lost to jail is plenty to make me never want to commit the crime again.
25 years isn't a punishment. It's removing someone from society so that they don't have the chance to commit the crime again. You made it absolutely clear that that's what you want.. and while I understand where people who feel that way are comming from, I don't agree that it's the best solution.
I believe in rehabilitation and punishment. Not removing people from society all together.