"Civilians" and "Military" personnel are no longer that well defined. How do you re-define that? How about "combatants"; or do you prefer "terrorists"?
'Ya know, I thought about your last statement and you're right. It's not just the job of the military personnel to die; it's all of ours. It wasn't a tech heavy coordinated event with veteran combat soldiers that drove Britain out of the (just beginning) US. It was farmers, children and idealists. The result? A lot of dead non-soldiers and a new start for a burgeoning country. I'm not speaking of the US 2004, rather than the actual day we became independent. That must have been quite a sight that day. Now, we have the privilege of volunteering for military service; that wasn't the case then. Now, people die in combat as they did back then; same ol', same ol'. I wonder if you would think that way if America were somehow invaded. Unlikely, yes; but we didn't think 4 jets would take down 2 mega-structures and a portion of the Pentagon either. Bottom line: if you join the military then expect to perform a job that may be unpopular and expect to die at the request of the Commander and Chief; right or wrong. As ex-military myself, I wish I could go but apparently I'm too damn old. Things may change with another attack though; God forbid. I'm still here though and willing to go the distance. I also agree that we can support our troops without supporting the war; however soldiers in the field don't have that luxury. Anti war demonstrations, speeches from un-informed college students and POS politicians all have an effect on personnel serving during wartime. They may not get spit upon (Vietnam? Thanks Jane) when they return, however they can still hear and read comments from the very people they're fighting for. Do I want our servicemen to die? NO; but they did sign up and it's the duty of this populace to give any kind of support necessary to ensure that one less military person dies; including shutting the hell up when necessary. Give 100% or nothing because that's what the troops need; not someone saying "Hey, I love you guys but you're fighting for a POS cause and the person sending you off to war is a POS; do you need any cookies?". Outside of that it's just another Vietnam and we lost that one at home; not in the the paddy fields or jungles.
So once again the people who want to listen have more rights than the person who doesn't. It's circular theory: where do your rights begin and mind stop; or vice verse? What ever happened to common sense and courtesy? That's what this whole issue boils down to: courtesy. If I'm in an obviously loud social environment then I have no expectation that the majority will (or should) "tone things down". However, in an environment of expected peace I see and hear nothing but cell phones, TVs and children screaming I have a legitimate complaint. Once again; it boils down to common courtesy and I've certainly seen less of it in the US since everyone has discovered their "rights" and is eager to sue at the drop of a hat. It really has nothing to do with legal or ethical responsibility (Lord knows we excel in THOSE areas) rather than trying to deal with a society who believes that their rights are more important than yours. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.
I disagree. Anyone with kids will tell you that you can't watch them 24/7, which is usually how they get to see this stuff to begin with. Just because you, as a parent, don't allow it doesn't mean they don't do it. To me this is just another form of enforcing something that's already in place as a mechanism to assist otherwise "good" parents. The bad seeds will always do what they're 'gonna do but they usually end up in prison anyway. Keeping those demons from a "mature" game is a moot point.
Oh yeah, I want to be "rewarded" with profits by being known in a local community as one of the 10% of retailers that takes money from minors to sell them "adult" games. It may not be a moral stance on the industry but it's certainly an ethical one. Ach, maybe both; I also don't want to be known in that same community as the only one who "services" minors for money.
Maybe not society, however I personally know of a few children in my own family who would have been better served by not being allowed to do so. That affects me directly so I'm in favor of enforcement.
There have always been "work-arounds" for children to obtain items that only "adults" can legally buy; that's nothing new. It just makes things a little more difficult.
Dude, yes. If you fix your own flat tire it has a net sum of zero value to anyone else. If you choose to fix your neighbor's computer the net sum is still zero except for her. The bottom line here is choice....if you choose to give away your time then your net value is nothing. If you choose to market yourself in the form of a job than your time is worth something. Maybe you should become a car mechanic....or a politician.
I agree but one does not create wealth; one EARNS it. I was so-so on Metallica until, well...you know. I for one, spend my hard earned "wealth" on artists that don't sell their soul; for 3 years anyway. I never thought I'd listen to the indie crowd (frankly most of it is shit), however with enough surfing and trying I've located some bands and performers I like and have donated to their websites. They mostly never make it to my town for a concert so I have to be polite and send an email expressing to them I'd like them to play our quiet little town. Some have replied and respectfully declined while others have expressed a willingness to do so for a concert fee. Either way I'm silently impressed with their efforts and continue to donate because they, for the most part, have taken a personal interest in replying to my correspondence. Kinda' nice either way.
I guess as a "non-artist" my input has to go with #2. Up until the advent of mass distributed media (radio, tv, internet, etc) "artists" worked in this way to distribute their work; whether it be audio, written or visual. Probably resulting in the phrase "starving artist". However, in that same time frame more than the majority of those "starving artists" were not endentured into their profession. Sounds like art to me if you can succeed in that industry under your own merits without selling your soul.
What would be really interesting is a 2^20 DOE study on your hypothesis. I'm betting it would get some great results; assuming the collected data was accurate.
There have been numerous laws in the US that have been changed because the general population didn't agree with them; several in the last 10 years that I can think of off the top of my head. Several more in the last 100 that changed the shape of our country. Just because it's law doesn't make it right or just....especially in America.
Jesus H Murphy....stealing is removing a physical piece of property from someone without their consent. That's why there's copyright, which is based on a whole other set of "intangibles" within the legal system. Besides (since you seem to create intellectual property) do you copyright it? If so, I advise pursuing your rights under the full extent of the law. You might have a better chance though with someone who owns a congressman or twelve.
Slashdot Mirror
Right on brutha'!
"Civilians" and "Military" personnel are no longer that well defined. How do you re-define that? How about "combatants"; or do you prefer "terrorists"?
you wouldn't support the troops either way. If there were a draft you'd be singing about how much THAT sucked.
Oh God...that was moderated "insightful". Now I know why people suck.
'Ya know, I thought about your last statement and you're right. It's not just the job of the military personnel to die; it's all of ours. It wasn't a tech heavy coordinated event with veteran combat soldiers that drove Britain out of the (just beginning) US. It was farmers, children and idealists. The result? A lot of dead non-soldiers and a new start for a burgeoning country. I'm not speaking of the US 2004, rather than the actual day we became independent. That must have been quite a sight that day. Now, we have the privilege of volunteering for military service; that wasn't the case then. Now, people die in combat as they did back then; same ol', same ol'. I wonder if you would think that way if America were somehow invaded. Unlikely, yes; but we didn't think 4 jets would take down 2 mega-structures and a portion of the Pentagon either. Bottom line: if you join the military then expect to perform a job that may be unpopular and expect to die at the request of the Commander and Chief; right or wrong. As ex-military myself, I wish I could go but apparently I'm too damn old. Things may change with another attack though; God forbid. I'm still here though and willing to go the distance. I also agree that we can support our troops without supporting the war; however soldiers in the field don't have that luxury. Anti war demonstrations, speeches from un-informed college students and POS politicians all have an effect on personnel serving during wartime. They may not get spit upon (Vietnam? Thanks Jane) when they return, however they can still hear and read comments from the very people they're fighting for. Do I want our servicemen to die? NO; but they did sign up and it's the duty of this populace to give any kind of support necessary to ensure that one less military person dies; including shutting the hell up when necessary. Give 100% or nothing because that's what the troops need; not someone saying "Hey, I love you guys but you're fighting for a POS cause and the person sending you off to war is a POS; do you need any cookies?". Outside of that it's just another Vietnam and we lost that one at home; not in the the paddy fields or jungles.
It's funny you said that. 100% of the Apple owners I've ever met ARE snobs.
So once again the people who want to listen have more rights than the person who doesn't. It's circular theory: where do your rights begin and mind stop; or vice verse? What ever happened to common sense and courtesy? That's what this whole issue boils down to: courtesy. If I'm in an obviously loud social environment then I have no expectation that the majority will (or should) "tone things down". However, in an environment of expected peace I see and hear nothing but cell phones, TVs and children screaming I have a legitimate complaint. Once again; it boils down to common courtesy and I've certainly seen less of it in the US since everyone has discovered their "rights" and is eager to sue at the drop of a hat. It really has nothing to do with legal or ethical responsibility (Lord knows we excel in THOSE areas) rather than trying to deal with a society who believes that their rights are more important than yours. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.
That is one of the most insightful posts I've read here; and I agree.
Proper respect to ANY politician is earned; not deserved.
Believe me, those shows get old too.
Try Modern Marvels on any given day.
I currently have mod points and I had to respond. I've always hated the car analogy on this site and your post is truly insightful. Thanks.
I disagree. Anyone with kids will tell you that you can't watch them 24/7, which is usually how they get to see this stuff to begin with. Just because you, as a parent, don't allow it doesn't mean they don't do it. To me this is just another form of enforcing something that's already in place as a mechanism to assist otherwise "good" parents. The bad seeds will always do what they're 'gonna do but they usually end up in prison anyway. Keeping those demons from a "mature" game is a moot point.
Oh great; there goes the Super Bowl. Fucking Timberlake should die.
Oh yeah, I want to be "rewarded" with profits by being known in a local community as one of the 10% of retailers that takes money from minors to sell them "adult" games. It may not be a moral stance on the industry but it's certainly an ethical one. Ach, maybe both; I also don't want to be known in that same community as the only one who "services" minors for money.
You're right.....stop carding at shopping centers and liquor stores. The problem will never happen. Sheesh.
Maybe not society, however I personally know of a few children in my own family who would have been better served by not being allowed to do so. That affects me directly so I'm in favor of enforcement.
There have always been "work-arounds" for children to obtain items that only "adults" can legally buy; that's nothing new. It just makes things a little more difficult.
Dude, yes. If you fix your own flat tire it has a net sum of zero value to anyone else. If you choose to fix your neighbor's computer the net sum is still zero except for her. The bottom line here is choice....if you choose to give away your time then your net value is nothing. If you choose to market yourself in the form of a job than your time is worth something. Maybe you should become a car mechanic....or a politician.
I agree but one does not create wealth; one EARNS it. I was so-so on Metallica until, well...you know. I for one, spend my hard earned "wealth" on artists that don't sell their soul; for 3 years anyway. I never thought I'd listen to the indie crowd (frankly most of it is shit), however with enough surfing and trying I've located some bands and performers I like and have donated to their websites. They mostly never make it to my town for a concert so I have to be polite and send an email expressing to them I'd like them to play our quiet little town. Some have replied and respectfully declined while others have expressed a willingness to do so for a concert fee. Either way I'm silently impressed with their efforts and continue to donate because they, for the most part, have taken a personal interest in replying to my correspondence. Kinda' nice either way.
MTV hasn't played music for years now....oops; except that gangsta rap crap. Like I said, no music.
I guess as a "non-artist" my input has to go with #2. Up until the advent of mass distributed media (radio, tv, internet, etc) "artists" worked in this way to distribute their work; whether it be audio, written or visual. Probably resulting in the phrase "starving artist". However, in that same time frame more than the majority of those "starving artists" were not endentured into their profession. Sounds like art to me if you can succeed in that industry under your own merits without selling your soul.
What would be really interesting is a 2^20 DOE study on your hypothesis. I'm betting it would get some great results; assuming the collected data was accurate.
There have been numerous laws in the US that have been changed because the general population didn't agree with them; several in the last 10 years that I can think of off the top of my head. Several more in the last 100 that changed the shape of our country. Just because it's law doesn't make it right or just....especially in America.
Jesus H Murphy....stealing is removing a physical piece of property from someone without their consent. That's why there's copyright, which is based on a whole other set of "intangibles" within the legal system. Besides (since you seem to create intellectual property) do you copyright it? If so, I advise pursuing your rights under the full extent of the law. You might have a better chance though with someone who owns a congressman or twelve.