Actually Jonah Goldberg had a much more reasonable much less FUD filled article on the truth behind Yucca mountain. What I find especially funny about the article you posted is the claim that Kerry is against the Yucca dump. If by against you mean he voted for it seven times then I guess this article is correct.
I'm sorry, but if the author couldn't do some basic background checking on someone's voting record why the heck should I trust their reporting on scientific matters? Especially when they've already shown a premeditated bias against what they're reporting on?
Chernobyl's left a dead zone that shows what Three Mile Island could have done if it had gone only slightly further.
Okay, someone else has already pointed out Cherynobyl's "dead zone" is nothing of the sort, but I have to take issue with your contention that Three Mile Island could have been as bad. Cherynobyl had its cooling systems cut for mere moments to make it blow. Meanwhile, Three Mile Island went without any coolant flow over the reactor for a SIGNIFICANT period of time and didn't blow. Why is that? Because American reactors are designed to become less efficient when heated while Russian reactors are designed to become more efficient when heated.
In this case of Three Mile Island, equipment failure and gross human stupidity led to the reactor core melting out of it's housing, but that's it! The reactor's design stopped any of the nuclear fuel from getting outside the reactor itself. It was BUILT for this contingency and the design proved solid. So no, Three Mile Island did not have the ability to become an American Cherynobyl.
Nevermind that this article is about Pebble Bed reactors that can neither be used to breed new Plutonium nor can it melt down. If anything, you could take all that stupid waste we have, put it in little glass pebbles, and use it for reaction material.
If I understand the question properly, then in answer I'd point to places like Homestar Runner, PvP, Penny-Arcade, etc. all of which grew up on free distribution of their art and have become well known both on and off the Internet. If you think they're not cultural icons, I'd offer Homestar Runner's 'Trogdor' character showing up in the Final Episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the infamous Cardboard Tube of Penny Arcade appearing in Legacy of Kain 3.
Your numbers say that there are literally millions of gamers who want online play.
And there are literally hundreds of millions of gamers who don't fscking care. This is not the generation of online console dominance. It's still a niche market. With broadband penetration breaking 50% in the US this year, I expect that the true online revolution will hit us in the next generation.
any company that would intentionally ignore that large of an audience... is just stupid and/or stubborn.
No, that company is neither stupid nor stubborn when they realize those wanting online gaming do not represent their core market, and also represent a population already well served and loyal to their competitor's offerings. Such a company only stands to lose significant money and face by pushing a competing online offering this late in the game. Better to try and perfect their own version for the next generation than launch a failure in this one. Besides that, even if Nintendo managed to get 7% penetration of an online service in their installed base (which is completely unlikely), that would still only net them right about 1 million users. The investment wouldn't pay off. It just doesn't make business sense.
two most successful console-makers right now
That depends on how you define success. If you define it by installed base or units shipped, yes, you'd be right. However, if you define it from any *sensible* business point of view, (ie: profit) then Nintendo is far and away the most successful console maker. They're the only one of the big three to report consistent profits in their gaming division the past couple of years. Microsoft can't even SEE profits from where they are, considering they essentially give away their system in hope of building market share. Sales do not equal profits; especially of consoles. Every console manufacturer (except maybe Nintendo, no one's sure about them) sells their consoles at a loss. It's called a loss leader. The hope is that you'll buy enough games for them to make up in licensing what they lost in giving you the hardware.
In the end, no matter how much you try to make it otherwise, you are for the time being irrelevent. Online gaming is not a force in the market in this generation that will decide the fates of companies and that's not going to change. Sony and Microsoft can run themselves into the hole trying to compete for the online market, and Nintendo can learn from their mistakes and show up with a winning service in the next generation. Don't think it can happen? Take a look at what Gamespy did to MPlayer and Kali sometime.
We'll see what the market looks like four years from now. *shrug*
You see, the post I was replying to interpreted The N64 had an add-on device called the 64DD. as a mathematical proof and said it was only true if we limit 'had' to a definition where actual consumers cannot purchase the device. My point '{Japanese Consumers} ==> {Consumers} must be false' simply means that the only way his proof can be correct is if the set of 'consumers' he refers to is not THE set {Consumers} but some subset of it that does not include Japanese consumers.
Which, as someone else pointed out, is silly to exclude the Japanese market from anything console related.
Now excuse me while I shoot myself in the face for being such a fscking geek.
Hmm okay let's see... The most recent statistics I have state the installed base for the PS2 is 70-71 million units and the XBox is 15.5 million units. The last figures I saw was that 7% of the X-Box's userbase was using Live!... Meanwhile, 3% of the PS2's userbase is using online content. (But since the PS2's installed base is 7 times that of the XBox, they're still winning. The amount of time spent playing SOCOM II outpaces XBox Live! usage by itself...) Now that means that 1 million people are using X-Box Live and just over two million people are using their PS2 online. These may seem like huge numbers, but they're pathetically small compared to the entirety of the market. So no, 'everyone' does not want Online gaming. The majority of gamers don't give a rat's ass about online gaming for this generation. That may change in the next generation, but since no one knows what the capabilities of everyone's next console is we have no way of knowing how seriously each company is taking it. A few rabid fanboys and early adopters do not market forces make.
Let's see... there was the Famicom Modem. The Super Famicom Modem. The Satallaview and of course the X-Band Modem (which, admittedly, was not a Nintendo product and was also available on the Genesis). And of course the 64DD (which is what I believe these patents were filed for) connected to RandNet, which let them purchase/download games, use e-mail, and chat.
Historically trying to forcibly kill a cultural viewpoint has done nothing of the sort.
I guess you're not familiar with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Imperial Japan, then...
Likewise in the middle east every attempt to control terrorism by blowing up towns, farms and houses (often of people unrelated to the problem) has caused nothing but an escalation of violence.
Actually, from what I've seen in Isreal, blowing up Hamas and Islamic Jihad leadership seems to be pretty effective at shrinking (though, no eliminating) the violence. You're right if your point is that we can't just blow up the terrorists and hope they go away. That's why we didn't just carpet bomb Iraq and most of the middle east. Instead, we're trying to eliminate terrorists where we can AS WELL as set up a free state in the middle of the region to act as a beacon to bring liberty and peace to the rest of the region.
Is this going to work overnight? Hell no! It took half a decade (and in some cases longer) to pacify post-WWII Germany and Japan, and even longer than that for them to become viable world powers. Likewise, it will take us just as long if not longer to achieve the same in Iraq. However, assuming we don't cut and run, it will be achieved.
Read the articles of 1946 in magazines such as Time... They sound eerily familiar with headlines such as "America Won the War; May Lose the Peace"... Funny in light of the situation of today, where two of our 'occupied' countries both are on friendly terms with us and compete with us economically.
I don't know about the heavy-weight credit (researching it right now) but I know a hefty tax credit was put in via the Bush tax plan for people driving cars that meet certain fuel efficiency standards (ie: hybrids).
That still doesn't change the fact that the person driving that Hummer has paid for it, paid for the gas it's burning, and has via sales tax alone paid more towards the construction of the roads it's driving on than a person driving a Yugo. The anti-hummer rant sounds more like typical anti-wealthy rants than any sane reasoning.
You mean like this hate speech? Or this hate speech? Or maybe this hate speech?
Hate speech laws are stupid, plain and simple. Anything that's unpopular to the majority or damaging to those in power can be interpreted as hate speech just as easily as speech directed towards minorities. "Hate Speech" does nothing. It's when people act on what they say that is a problem. Does this mean we have to listen to the KKK rant? Yes. But it also means we have to listen to the Nation of Islam, MoveOn.org, ANSWER (My favorite quote: "It's GOOD to hate Bush!"), watch our flag torn and burned, and deal with gay pride parades. Personally I don't really care about any of these things even though I disagree with all of them (I lie, I severely dislike flag burners, but won't move to stop them...) and the idea of passing a law abridging their right to do what they do is not only positively ludicrous it's also COMPLETELY incompatible with the first amendment. The grandparent poster was right, free speech can't just be applied to those who we agree with; it has to be applied to everyone.
~ Troll rhymes with Truth: "THE DRAFT IS COMING BACK, National Service Act of 2003 - 2004, S.89, H.R.163"
You realize both those bills don't have a single Republican sponsor and will never get out of committee, right? Check for yourself. Both bills have sat in committee since January/Feruary of 2003; they're not going anywhere.
What this curtails is the ability of Universities to conduct such research, which will end up with the situation that you are concerned about actually coming to fruition.
Considering there's private charities that fund research for heart disease, asthma, diabetes, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, lupus, and every various form of cancer in addition to numerous others, why should we expect stem cell research to be any different? If people really believe stem cell research should be funded they can always give money themselves instead of having the Federal Government force others to give it.
Is it really relevant whether the worst President in history came to power legitimately?
I'd really love to see you qualify that statement. I mean, honestly, back it up!
With all the presidential history of corruption, rounding up of undesirable persons into concentration camps; bringing us into wars much more questionable than this one; public and blatant felonies while serving in office; theft from, mistreatment, and genocide of the Native Americans; subjugation and annexation of foreign nations and colonies; public support and practice of slavery; economic and environmental disaster; along with numerous other mis-steps and lousy behavior spread out across the previous 42 Presidents of our Great Nation, how can you honestly claim this is the worst President in history?
if someone wants to stop my speech because of its content that's censorship period.
Except that no one's stopping their speech, they're just refusing to let them put an image on a billboard. They can say it all they want. They can hold it up on picket signs at the RNC. They can print it out on leaflets and hand them out. They can fly it on a plane over New York. They can also have major media (like the New York Times) cover it across the entire nation and expose their image to a National Audience, for FREE, with no repercussion. If it were censored, we would never hear of or see this ad, but it's not. Much like the cries of 'fascism!' that waft up from protest marches when they're presented with an opposing view, often many angry reactive groups in this country don't truly understand concepts such as 'censorship', 'racism', or even 'freedom of speech', 'democracy' and 'representative government'.
what is important is that you have an entity that controls a large portion of the public airwaves that takes sides in elections - that is not in the interests of a healthy democratic society
This is so laughable to the point of making me choke on my root beer! Someone SPEAKING their MIND is not HEALTHY for DEMOCRACY!? Do you realize what you're saying!? They have a right to their opinion just the same as you! If enough people agree with you, you can all hand out flyers and stage marches and do whatever the hell else you want to get your opinion out and no one can stop you! Freedom of expression is the most necessary of all freedoms to maintain liberty. It cuts both ways, though! The same right that lets you criticize your government RIGHT NOW also gives anyone else the right to agree with it.
In this case we are dealing with politically motivated censorship of the public airwaves by a corporation in an effort to silence political dissent.
No, if you'd RTFA instead of playing back your canned response you'd know we were dealing with a corporation who is preventing a protest group from running a certain image on their billboard both at the behest of their executives AND the hotel it would have been run in front of. A company owned billboard is NOT public airwaves.
kind of like the last stolen election
Oh hah hah, still hung up on ancient conspiracy theories, I see. Old news sparky, Gore lost, no question about it. Thus proving your ignorance and inability to accept truth, and due to the fact I need to get my fiance some lunch before she goes to work, I'm not going to bother further. I'll check back in later and see if you still have the appetite for debate.
See, here's the problem, Clear Channel can't censor anyone because they're NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Clear Channel can decide whoever the hell they want to do business with and under whatever terms they wish. The only thing this group has any valid argument on is breach of contract, not censorship, and even that's sketchy.
If Clear Channel doesn't want to display an advertisement because they believe it will negatively affect their business, that's their decision. If they have a choice between listening to a few misinformed, whiney protestors cry about "censorship" or possibly losing REAL advertisers and/or viewers, I think they're going to worry about the one that hits them in the pocketbook.
Now I don't know where the San Francisco Chronicle gets their data, but opensecrets.org (the defacto source for Slashbots) paints a very different picture of contributions... They still gave more to Republicans, but not significantly more... Heck, excluding the whole anti-trust thing, tax cuts are business friendly. That's enough to earn Bush support, really.
Besides, the person who really lost the antitrust case was Judge Jackson. If he hadn't gone on about Microsoft being a bunch of evil bullies his breakup order would've stood. However, when an appeals court sees a lower Judge out spouting off belligerence in public interviews while a case HE is working on is winding through the legal system, they tend to act in favor of the person being punished.
Or instead of getting more money involved, people could just get involved with their government, tell their Senators they're displeased, actually go out and VOTE instead of sitting around and bitching (preferably for someone more in line with their views). Hell, they could run for office themselves if they wanted to.
If enough people cared about this to matter, something would be done. But 99 out of 100 people you ask on the street will tell you that filming in a theatre should be a criminal offense, and I imagine most of them will be surprised it wasn't already.
The problem is not the accuracy of our weapons, it's our withholding of force. When the insurrection started in Fallujah by slaughtering four contracters and dragging their bodies through the street, we could have responded by simply leveling the city with a single bomb. No sensible person, however, thinks of this as a good solution. So, instead, we send in the Marines with the intention of engaging the "bad guys" one on one. In the process it takes longer and has less of a lasting effect on potential problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but if the author couldn't do some basic background checking on someone's voting record why the heck should I trust their reporting on scientific matters? Especially when they've already shown a premeditated bias against what they're reporting on?
Come on, wake up and look at the facts...
Okay, someone else has already pointed out Cherynobyl's "dead zone" is nothing of the sort, but I have to take issue with your contention that Three Mile Island could have been as bad. Cherynobyl had its cooling systems cut for mere moments to make it blow. Meanwhile, Three Mile Island went without any coolant flow over the reactor for a SIGNIFICANT period of time and didn't blow. Why is that? Because American reactors are designed to become less efficient when heated while Russian reactors are designed to become more efficient when heated.
In this case of Three Mile Island, equipment failure and gross human stupidity led to the reactor core melting out of it's housing, but that's it! The reactor's design stopped any of the nuclear fuel from getting outside the reactor itself. It was BUILT for this contingency and the design proved solid. So no, Three Mile Island did not have the ability to become an American Cherynobyl.
Nevermind that this article is about Pebble Bed reactors that can neither be used to breed new Plutonium nor can it melt down. If anything, you could take all that stupid waste we have, put it in little glass pebbles, and use it for reaction material.
If I understand the question properly, then in answer I'd point to places like Homestar Runner, PvP, Penny-Arcade, etc. all of which grew up on free distribution of their art and have become well known both on and off the Internet. If you think they're not cultural icons, I'd offer Homestar Runner's 'Trogdor' character showing up in the Final Episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the infamous Cardboard Tube of Penny Arcade appearing in Legacy of Kain 3.
:)
Or do they not count for some reason?
And there are literally hundreds of millions of gamers who don't fscking care. This is not the generation of online console dominance. It's still a niche market. With broadband penetration breaking 50% in the US this year, I expect that the true online revolution will hit us in the next generation.
any company that would intentionally ignore that large of an audience... is just stupid and/or stubborn.
No, that company is neither stupid nor stubborn when they realize those wanting online gaming do not represent their core market, and also represent a population already well served and loyal to their competitor's offerings. Such a company only stands to lose significant money and face by pushing a competing online offering this late in the game. Better to try and perfect their own version for the next generation than launch a failure in this one. Besides that, even if Nintendo managed to get 7% penetration of an online service in their installed base (which is completely unlikely), that would still only net them right about 1 million users. The investment wouldn't pay off. It just doesn't make business sense.
two most successful console-makers right now
That depends on how you define success. If you define it by installed base or units shipped, yes, you'd be right. However, if you define it from any *sensible* business point of view, (ie: profit) then Nintendo is far and away the most successful console maker. They're the only one of the big three to report consistent profits in their gaming division the past couple of years. Microsoft can't even SEE profits from where they are, considering they essentially give away their system in hope of building market share. Sales do not equal profits; especially of consoles. Every console manufacturer (except maybe Nintendo, no one's sure about them) sells their consoles at a loss. It's called a loss leader. The hope is that you'll buy enough games for them to make up in licensing what they lost in giving you the hardware.
In the end, no matter how much you try to make it otherwise, you are for the time being irrelevent. Online gaming is not a force in the market in this generation that will decide the fates of companies and that's not going to change. Sony and Microsoft can run themselves into the hole trying to compete for the online market, and Nintendo can learn from their mistakes and show up with a winning service in the next generation. Don't think it can happen? Take a look at what Gamespy did to MPlayer and Kali sometime.
We'll see what the market looks like four years from now. *shrug*
Of course explaining it ruins it...
You see, the post I was replying to interpreted The N64 had an add-on device called the 64DD. as a mathematical proof and said it was only true if we limit 'had' to a definition where actual consumers cannot purchase the device. My point '{Japanese Consumers} ==> {Consumers} must be false' simply means that the only way his proof can be correct is if the set of 'consumers' he refers to is not THE set {Consumers} but some subset of it that does not include Japanese consumers.
Which, as someone else pointed out, is silly to exclude the Japanese market from anything console related.
Now excuse me while I shoot myself in the face for being such a fscking geek.
Hmm okay let's see... The most recent statistics I have state the installed base for the PS2 is 70-71 million units and the XBox is 15.5 million units. The last figures I saw was that 7% of the X-Box's userbase was using Live!... Meanwhile, 3% of the PS2's userbase is using online content. (But since the PS2's installed base is 7 times that of the XBox, they're still winning. The amount of time spent playing SOCOM II outpaces XBox Live! usage by itself...)
Now that means that 1 million people are using X-Box Live and just over two million people are using their PS2 online. These may seem like huge numbers, but they're pathetically small compared to the entirety of the market. So no, 'everyone' does not want Online gaming. The majority of gamers don't give a rat's ass about online gaming for this generation. That may change in the next generation, but since no one knows what the capabilities of everyone's next console is we have no way of knowing how seriously each company is taking it. A few rabid fanboys and early adopters do not market forces make.
Actually it was sold in Japan. So your statement is false unless for some reason you believe {Japanese Consumers} ==> {Consumers} is false.
Let's see... there was the Famicom Modem. The Super Famicom Modem. The Satallaview and of course the X-Band Modem (which, admittedly, was not a Nintendo product and was also available on the Genesis). And of course the 64DD (which is what I believe these patents were filed for) connected to RandNet, which let them purchase/download games, use e-mail, and chat.
I guess you're not familiar with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Imperial Japan, then...
Likewise in the middle east every attempt to control terrorism by blowing up towns, farms and houses (often of people unrelated to the problem) has caused nothing but an escalation of violence.
Actually, from what I've seen in Isreal, blowing up Hamas and Islamic Jihad leadership seems to be pretty effective at shrinking (though, no eliminating) the violence. You're right if your point is that we can't just blow up the terrorists and hope they go away. That's why we didn't just carpet bomb Iraq and most of the middle east. Instead, we're trying to eliminate terrorists where we can AS WELL as set up a free state in the middle of the region to act as a beacon to bring liberty and peace to the rest of the region.
Is this going to work overnight? Hell no! It took half a decade (and in some cases longer) to pacify post-WWII Germany and Japan, and even longer than that for them to become viable world powers. Likewise, it will take us just as long if not longer to achieve the same in Iraq. However, assuming we don't cut and run, it will be achieved.
Read the articles of 1946 in magazines such as Time... They sound eerily familiar with headlines such as "America Won the War; May Lose the Peace"... Funny in light of the situation of today, where two of our 'occupied' countries both are on friendly terms with us and compete with us economically.
Yeah, 6000lb+ vehicles used SOLELY for business purposes have some special rules regarding depreciation under section 179. More info here.
The clean car credit applies to personal AND business vehicles, however.
I don't know about the heavy-weight credit (researching it right now) but I know a hefty tax credit was put in via the Bush tax plan for people driving cars that meet certain fuel efficiency standards (ie: hybrids).
That still doesn't change the fact that the person driving that Hummer has paid for it, paid for the gas it's burning, and has via sales tax alone paid more towards the construction of the roads it's driving on than a person driving a Yugo. The anti-hummer rant sounds more like typical anti-wealthy rants than any sane reasoning.
Not sure if anyone else pointed this out, but the actual website is here and includes a demonstration video.
Hate speech laws are stupid, plain and simple. Anything that's unpopular to the majority or damaging to those in power can be interpreted as hate speech just as easily as speech directed towards minorities. "Hate Speech" does nothing. It's when people act on what they say that is a problem. Does this mean we have to listen to the KKK rant? Yes. But it also means we have to listen to the Nation of Islam, MoveOn.org, ANSWER (My favorite quote: "It's GOOD to hate Bush!"), watch our flag torn and burned, and deal with gay pride parades. Personally I don't really care about any of these things even though I disagree with all of them (I lie, I severely dislike flag burners, but won't move to stop them...) and the idea of passing a law abridging their right to do what they do is not only positively ludicrous it's also COMPLETELY incompatible with the first amendment. The grandparent poster was right, free speech can't just be applied to those who we agree with; it has to be applied to everyone.
Here.
You realize both those bills don't have a single Republican sponsor and will never get out of committee, right? Check for yourself. Both bills have sat in committee since January/Feruary of 2003; they're not going anywhere.
Considering there's private charities that fund research for heart disease, asthma, diabetes, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, lupus, and every various form of cancer in addition to numerous others, why should we expect stem cell research to be any different? If people really believe stem cell research should be funded they can always give money themselves instead of having the Federal Government force others to give it.
Godwin's Law, you lose.
I'd really love to see you qualify that statement. I mean, honestly, back it up! With all the presidential history of corruption, rounding up of undesirable persons into concentration camps; bringing us into wars much more questionable than this one; public and blatant felonies while serving in office; theft from, mistreatment, and genocide of the Native Americans; subjugation and annexation of foreign nations and colonies; public support and practice of slavery; economic and environmental disaster; along with numerous other mis-steps and lousy behavior spread out across the previous 42 Presidents of our Great Nation, how can you honestly claim this is the worst President in history?
Anxiously awaiting your reply...
Except that no one's stopping their speech, they're just refusing to let them put an image on a billboard. They can say it all they want. They can hold it up on picket signs at the RNC. They can print it out on leaflets and hand them out. They can fly it on a plane over New York. They can also have major media (like the New York Times) cover it across the entire nation and expose their image to a National Audience, for FREE, with no repercussion. If it were censored, we would never hear of or see this ad, but it's not. Much like the cries of 'fascism!' that waft up from protest marches when they're presented with an opposing view, often many angry reactive groups in this country don't truly understand concepts such as 'censorship', 'racism', or even 'freedom of speech', 'democracy' and 'representative government'.
what is important is that you have an entity that controls a large portion of the public airwaves that takes sides in elections - that is not in the interests of a healthy democratic society
This is so laughable to the point of making me choke on my root beer! Someone SPEAKING their MIND is not HEALTHY for DEMOCRACY!? Do you realize what you're saying!? They have a right to their opinion just the same as you! If enough people agree with you, you can all hand out flyers and stage marches and do whatever the hell else you want to get your opinion out and no one can stop you! Freedom of expression is the most necessary of all freedoms to maintain liberty. It cuts both ways, though! The same right that lets you criticize your government RIGHT NOW also gives anyone else the right to agree with it.
No, if you'd RTFA instead of playing back your canned response you'd know we were dealing with a corporation who is preventing a protest group from running a certain image on their billboard both at the behest of their executives AND the hotel it would have been run in front of. A company owned billboard is NOT public airwaves.
kind of like the last stolen election
Oh hah hah, still hung up on ancient conspiracy theories, I see. Old news sparky, Gore lost, no question about it. Thus proving your ignorance and inability to accept truth, and due to the fact I need to get my fiance some lunch before she goes to work, I'm not going to bother further. I'll check back in later and see if you still have the appetite for debate.
See, here's the problem, Clear Channel can't censor anyone because they're NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Clear Channel can decide whoever the hell they want to do business with and under whatever terms they wish. The only thing this group has any valid argument on is breach of contract, not censorship, and even that's sketchy.
If Clear Channel doesn't want to display an advertisement because they believe it will negatively affect their business, that's their decision. If they have a choice between listening to a few misinformed, whiney protestors cry about "censorship" or possibly losing REAL advertisers and/or viewers, I think they're going to worry about the one that hits them in the pocketbook.
Now I don't know where the San Francisco Chronicle gets their data, but opensecrets.org (the defacto source for Slashbots) paints a very different picture of contributions... They still gave more to Republicans, but not significantly more... Heck, excluding the whole anti-trust thing, tax cuts are business friendly. That's enough to earn Bush support, really.
Besides, the person who really lost the antitrust case was Judge Jackson. If he hadn't gone on about Microsoft being a bunch of evil bullies his breakup order would've stood. However, when an appeals court sees a lower Judge out spouting off belligerence in public interviews while a case HE is working on is winding through the legal system, they tend to act in favor of the person being punished.
Or instead of getting more money involved, people could just get involved with their government, tell their Senators they're displeased, actually go out and VOTE instead of sitting around and bitching (preferably for someone more in line with their views). Hell, they could run for office themselves if they wanted to.
If enough people cared about this to matter, something would be done. But 99 out of 100 people you ask on the street will tell you that filming in a theatre should be a criminal offense, and I imagine most of them will be surprised it wasn't already.
The problem is not the accuracy of our weapons, it's our withholding of force. When the insurrection started in Fallujah by slaughtering four contracters and dragging their bodies through the street, we could have responded by simply leveling the city with a single bomb. No sensible person, however, thinks of this as a good solution. So, instead, we send in the Marines with the intention of engaging the "bad guys" one on one. In the process it takes longer and has less of a lasting effect on potential problems.