What are the chances that a nation is going to develop such fanatical fever that it thinks nuking the US and promptly getting glassed over in response is a good idea? The US position on nukes is pretty clear. Nuke us, and we are going to glass you, so it isn't like they are going to be confused by the response.
The problem is, there are people out there these days that MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction) doesn't work for. There are rogue groups out there that really don't care if they die, they expect to die (don't mean to sound condescending here, but did you miss 9/11 and all the suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine?), they hope to die for their cause so they can join Allah or whoever (there are others, not just Muslims, with such fanaticism). Granted someone who rises to power for a whole nation possibly doesn't share these views (witness the coward Taliban, running away and sending others to die for them), but I wouldn't rule it out completely (see Hamas, last week). I wish the world continued to be so simple where simply making sure it was understood nuking the US meant death, therefore you don't nuke the US, but I fear those days are long gone in my mind.
If done right it can be a positive thing, and people see that there are gay gamers out there.
Can I just ask why the heck it matters whether there are or are not gay gamers out there? What does sexual orientation have to do with any of it, why should any one care? I am asking this in all seriousness, this is just silly (to me).
Not RIGHT NOW but WAY BEFORE the US decided to bomb a totalitarian country and it's inhabitants back into stoneage NEARLY EVERYBODY EXEPT THE US/UK AND FOX NEWS said that it wasn't at least likely that the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that it was a very stupid and illegal idea to fight a war with the Iraq.
Alright, I am trying to deconstruct this sentence, and I believe you are trying to say that nearly everyone except the US/UK said Iraq didn't have WMDs. I have been saying this for years, and still haven't had anyone give me a good answer, but who? When? Do you have references? I'm not trying to "following talking points" or whatever, I seriously want to know who and when, because I sure didn't hear it back then and want to know if it was the US media not talking about it, or because it wasn't being said (which to be honest, I now believe given the lack of an answer).
I love how businesses always call a drop in revenue a "loss." Like they are rightfully entitled to ever-increasing profits and anything to the contrary is someone's fault.
Do me a favor and remember that the next time you hear all the talk about those vicious spending cuts being made to social programs and look at how much more money they are getting than the year before.
As someone else pointed out, it isn't the drop in revenue earning the title, it is the fact that revenue - costs 0.
Create projcet account and enter project URL they say? Ah, yes. But apparently there's some proxy issue since after doing so I get the "proxy configuration" screen.
You aren't alone, welcome to my hell. WTF? We don't have a proxy around here, we are on the net.
Just because your stupid software can't talk to your (apparently overloaded) servers doesn't mean we aren't on the net. Why don't you include some very, very simple tools to check if your stupid software can see anything, a simple ping would be nice since I can ping your damn webserver from the command line! Are you trying to cull your userbase?
I have managed to waste a couple hours fighting with that pile of dreck. I had it working for a while, then had to reboot, no idea why it can't see the internet (again) now. Not a stellar example of open source software...
Really AMD has faster CPUs, that use less power, and cost less than Intel. Do they need snotty marketing?
Well, maybe not snotty, but they need marketing. Intel still has a huge chunk of the market and perhaps more importantly, the mindshare outside the geek realm. Ask some of your non-technical friends what CPU they are using, and I would bet dollars to donuts they either know it is Intel, or don't know. After that, ask them if they know what AMD makes....
Vigilantes don't have any rights whatsoever to suppress any utterings they happen to disagree with, unless of course they do it by yelling louder than you.
Exactly, which is why after they beat the hell out of you, they would be arrested, you would then file a civil suit, after they serve their time they pay you back.....
The point of the original poster was that the government will not impede your speech, you have not offset that to my understanding.
You can just imagine them changing the taxes so you are taxed more the more you drive.
Newsflash: they can already do this. It's called the gasoline tax -- the more gas you buy, the more you pay in taxes.
Finally, someone makes the point I wanted to. My understanding is that Europe and the UK have HUGE gas taxes vs. the US (and judging from the pump prices I see over there, that better be the case!). I would think they would want to encourage speeding given the dramatic drop in efficiency as you increase speed (don't have the reference on hand, but it was 1%/mph above 55 or so, getting worse after crossing 70 mph I believe), so let them drive faster, use more gas, get more revenue.
No other animal writes poetry, or commits suicide, or contemplates philosophy.
Completely off topic, but as a side note, lemmings do commit suicide, as do some ants and bees when tough times ensue. Not that I disagree with your counter post, but suicide isn't the best example of uniquely human behavior.
Yes, because 51% percent of voters prefer Bush to Kerry, we should have an all-conservative-all-the-time goverrnment. I scoff.
While I'm scoffing, let me take up the senate. Do me a favor: go figure out what percentage of the population are represented by Republicans and Democrats in the senate. Okay, I'll give you the answer: you'll figure out that Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority.
Just because you are so busy raising your nose in the air claiming such brilliance....care to check the representation in the House? Let's see, the 108th Congress consisted of 227 Republicans and 205 Democrats, the 109th Congress moved to 231 Republicans and 202 Democrats. So, what exactly was your point again? It went from 52.18% of the populace being represented by Republicans (there are 435 seats) to 53.10% in 2004.
Well, no, I'd mod you down because you're a thoughtless shill.
It is a shame the moderators haven't done the same to your post since it is not founded on facts and is hardly insightful (at least on this point). I agree with you that we (I assume you too are an American) shouldn't have a one sided government, but please debate with accurate statements.
I still don't thik that the actions of an individual or a group of individuals would mean an act of war. But I also thik it's correct that if a state supports them it's an act of war.
Isn't clear to me that the denial of extradition would be a support to OBL war.
Very true, I guess an act of war by definition implies a nation-state, which Al Qaeda certainly doesn't qualify as. Also, my opinions of the Taliban's position may be clouded by the years that have past and the demonization that has occurred since then, but my sense is that they (well, that Omar dude, their leader) publicly stated they supported OBL and encouraged others to join. Again, may not be accurate.
Anyway it would be wiser to talk about this point with a beer (or coffe or [insert favorite discussion beverage here]) and a lot of time.
Agreed, sadly I fear I won't be able to head to Latin America any time soon (two young kids, work, all that good stuff):(
You certainly have helped remove some of the clouds of "Americanism" I suffer from in my views, which is always appreciated.
Also I think that the most rediculous language to be esperanto (I don't know the name in english, so I put it in spanish)
Also known as Esperanto in English (at least it rings a bell to me). I thought that was supposed to be a "sensible" language with "normal" grammar rules. That's what makes me happy English is my native language, I can't imagine trying to make sense of all the idiocies if I hadn't grown up with them.
Why do you care if Sony decides to play or not? There are many other options out there, support them, forget about Sony if they don't want to catch a ride.
He found out that the original lack of DST isn't due to smarts, but due to lobbying from, get this, the drive-in theatre owners in days gone by.
Interesting bit of info I didn't know, but am thankful for. Didn't mean to imply the reasons for rejecting it were smart at first, but it sure seems smart to me to not mess around with the clocks (as I said before).
Honestly, who cares if it's a bit darker when you go to work. When you go home, wouldn't it be nice to have it be light outside?
Hmmm, where do I start? I guess with me. I care. I loath trying to get out of bed when it is dark outside (my alarm goes off at 5:15 AM). I hate trying to get my nearly 3 year old and 18 month old to eat dinner when they want to play outside instead because "the sun isn't sleepy yet daddy." Because trying to get them to go to bed at 8:30 PM is hard enough as it is, let alone with sunshine ("daddy, it isn't sleepy time, it isn't dark yet," yes, my almost 3 year old has said these things). Personally, I think DST is one of the stupided concepts ever created (so yes, I am biased, grew up in Indiana where we are smart enough to leave our clocks alone). I get so frustrated and depressed after we switch the clocks and I again have to drive with the sun in my eyes in the morning, wake up in the pitch black, grrr! (sorry for the mini rant there)
I find it interesting that the Democrats (or at least the candidates) didn't really seem to mention this [I assume you mean that Bush knew he was going to war based on bad intelligence] much during the last election.
I would bet it is because most were on record as supporting the concept of war in response to the perceived threat. They (the democrats, although personally I think they are democans and republicrats the way both sides seem to simply be after my money) were having enough trouble with the flip-flop label, politically they couldn't really say much about it since they had all supported it, and Kerry in particular should have known just as well as Bush being on the Intelligence Committee (which he was catching flak for his attendance record as it was, so pointing out he was just as clueless would have been extremely bad).
I think your first couple comments highlight what I was trying to say; I'll have to work on my wording. You state that "absent the $0 option, they were willing to pay" which is my point; the assumptions change as soon as you introduce the other option. I won't belabor that idea though.
I think you are right, we are talking past each other. My original point was attempting to justify the comment of "lost sales," where the sales are lost to the second option, as you point out.
I'm also not sure I agree with your statement that you always have a market, even if the population is zero. This could be pedantic, but if the "market" is zero interested parties, then I'd argue that there is no market.
Re-reading my comment, I sure can't disagree with you there. I guess economics says you have the right "to market," as in the verb, but you may not secure the noun as a result.
I would say, though, that some methods of controlling distribution are of more merit than others.
I think we are on the same page there.
As far as the GPL or BSD licenses: While I don't know that I would personally use those licenses, I support them as the copyright holders (within our current legal system) should be able to pick whatever distribution scheme they desire.
So do you support the (in our discussion) game makers in attempting to sell their product, and not allow the illegal zero cost option? From your original post it seemed to me that you did not feel they should be allowed to do that, which now seems to be a gross misinterpretation of your post (and caused my wonder of your opinions of the GPL).
My original post: but the comment "We lost $n last year due to downloads" certainly can be true. There is a group of 10 people who all want to play a game together. All 10 are willing to buy the game, it is worth it to them.
Your reply:
Your example has an inconsistent set of assumptions: if the gamers opted to pirate the game instead of purchasing it, that means they were not willing to purchase the game at its price (the "cost" of the risk of getting caught was lower than the monetary "cost"); if they were, they would have.
No, my set of assumptions are not inconsistent. I stated that all 10 were willing to pay the price, it was worth it to them for the game. Absent the (like it or not) illegal option of a $0 option (talking opportunity costs since you like economics, the opportunity cost is darn near zero since odds of being caught "stealing" the copy is near zero), the company had sales of 10, now they have sales of zero. Where is your reply refuting my statement?
Later on you say: If people are not willing to pay the price for a piece of software, music, a book, or whatever, then they are saying with their money that it has very little value, so if it wasn't there they would not feel like they were missing out.
Again, you are ignoring that these 10 people were willing to spend the money on the software, it was that valuable to them, but when presented with a zero cost (in their minds) option, of course they took it, they are bargin shoppers like the rest of us.
Nowhere in economics does it state that you are entitled to always have a market for the thing you want to produce.
I disagree, in economics you always have a market for what you produce, it may have a population of zero, but you can try to sell whatever you want (yes, in the world of economics prostitution is allowed). To support this concept in the laws of the United States (and most other countries) do state that you can control the distribution of what you have produced, and others are not allowed to take what you have produced and offer it for nothing without your consent (in the case of the GPL), or compensation to you (they originally purchased it from you if it is hard goods, or a license you agree is transferrable).
The system doesn't need "copyright protection" to function for non-exclusive goods/services; if it was indeed a free market it would be self-balancing.
Sort of a tangential question, and not intended as a troll or inflamator, but does this mean you don't support the GPL or BSD licensing?
This is like folks saying, "We lost $5M last year due to downloads"; that's not true, that's "we couldn't convice people to pay us for our product." That's not "lost sales" or anything, that's "poor marketing" (I include price setting in "marketing").
I agree pirating isn't stealing in the traditional sense (someone else losing usage of the item), but the comment "We lost $n last year due to downloads" certainly can be true. It certainly could be lost sales. Imagine this scenario I suspect is not all that uncommon: There is a group of 10 people who all want to play a game together. All 10 are willing to buy the game, it is worth it to them. Instead, one of them discovers a cracked copy online and downloads it, and then distributes it to the other 9. Had that illegal download not been available, the company would have had 10 sales, now they have 0. Is that not "lost sales" vs. "poor marketing?" The marketing had worked, they had 10 willing customers that decided instead to infringe on the copyrights and not purchase the product. Do you honestly think this type of scenario doesn't occur? I agree (especially with the music folks) that their numbers are probably quite inflated and many of the those downloading/copying games wouldn't buy them otherwise (I have fallen in that catagory many times), but to say they don't "lose sales" to illegal downloads does not line up with my sense of reality.
all my desktops are AMD, from the K3 (?) to my A64.
I expect you mean K6-3. If there had been a K3, it would have been the 386 class processors, but back then, they were called 386's, and eventually let Intel to the Pentium nomenclature to differentiate their products.
I post this everytime people say this, and I continue to wait for an answer:
Show me anyone who said this before the war. You will find none, all you will find are people saying, "let the inspectors do their job." Well, eventually you have to decide the inspectors aren't able to do their job and find an alternate route. So, as soon as you are ready to show me someone that knew there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the war, I will listen to your arguments. I am waiting....
Slashdot Mirror
What are the chances that a nation is going to develop such fanatical fever that it thinks nuking the US and promptly getting glassed over in response is a good idea? The US position on nukes is pretty clear. Nuke us, and we are going to glass you, so it isn't like they are going to be confused by the response.
The problem is, there are people out there these days that MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction) doesn't work for. There are rogue groups out there that really don't care if they die, they expect to die (don't mean to sound condescending here, but did you miss 9/11 and all the suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine?), they hope to die for their cause so they can join Allah or whoever (there are others, not just Muslims, with such fanaticism). Granted someone who rises to power for a whole nation possibly doesn't share these views (witness the coward Taliban, running away and sending others to die for them), but I wouldn't rule it out completely (see Hamas, last week). I wish the world continued to be so simple where simply making sure it was understood nuking the US meant death, therefore you don't nuke the US, but I fear those days are long gone in my mind.
If done right it can be a positive thing, and people see that there are gay gamers out there.
Can I just ask why the heck it matters whether there are or are not gay gamers out there? What does sexual orientation have to do with any of it, why should any one care? I am asking this in all seriousness, this is just silly (to me).
Not RIGHT NOW but WAY BEFORE the US decided to bomb a totalitarian country and it's inhabitants back into stoneage NEARLY EVERYBODY EXEPT THE US/UK AND FOX NEWS said that it wasn't at least likely that the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that it was a very stupid and illegal idea to fight a war with the Iraq.
Alright, I am trying to deconstruct this sentence, and I believe you are trying to say that nearly everyone except the US/UK said Iraq didn't have WMDs. I have been saying this for years, and still haven't had anyone give me a good answer, but who? When? Do you have references? I'm not trying to "following talking points" or whatever, I seriously want to know who and when, because I sure didn't hear it back then and want to know if it was the US media not talking about it, or because it wasn't being said (which to be honest, I now believe given the lack of an answer).
I love how businesses always call a drop in revenue a "loss." Like they are rightfully entitled to ever-increasing profits and anything to the contrary is someone's fault.
Do me a favor and remember that the next time you hear all the talk about those vicious spending cuts being made to social programs and look at how much more money they are getting than the year before.
As someone else pointed out, it isn't the drop in revenue earning the title, it is the fact that revenue - costs 0.
Create projcet account and enter project URL they say? Ah, yes. But apparently there's some proxy issue since after doing so I get the "proxy configuration" screen.
You aren't alone, welcome to my hell. WTF? We don't have a proxy around here, we are on the net.
Just because your stupid software can't talk to your (apparently overloaded) servers doesn't mean we aren't on the net. Why don't you include some very, very simple tools to check if your stupid software can see anything, a simple ping would be nice since I can ping your damn webserver from the command line! Are you trying to cull your userbase?
I have managed to waste a couple hours fighting with that pile of dreck. I had it working for a while, then had to reboot, no idea why it can't see the internet (again) now. Not a stellar example of open source software...
There's not a bunch of guys who play test every xbox 360 for a couple of hours before it's shipped. Please don't tell me you thought there were....
Can I submit my resume?
Really AMD has faster CPUs, that use less power, and cost less than Intel. Do they need snotty marketing?
Well, maybe not snotty, but they need marketing. Intel still has a huge chunk of the market and perhaps more importantly, the mindshare outside the geek realm. Ask some of your non-technical friends what CPU they are using, and I would bet dollars to donuts they either know it is Intel, or don't know. After that, ask them if they know what AMD makes....
Vigilantes don't have any rights whatsoever to suppress any utterings they happen to disagree with, unless of course they do it by yelling louder than you.
Exactly, which is why after they beat the hell out of you, they would be arrested, you would then file a civil suit, after they serve their time they pay you back.....
The point of the original poster was that the government will not impede your speech, you have not offset that to my understanding.
You can just imagine them changing the taxes so you are taxed more the more you drive.
Newsflash: they can already do this. It's called the gasoline tax -- the more gas you buy, the more you pay in taxes.
Finally, someone makes the point I wanted to. My understanding is that Europe and the UK have HUGE gas taxes vs. the US (and judging from the pump prices I see over there, that better be the case!). I would think they would want to encourage speeding given the dramatic drop in efficiency as you increase speed (don't have the reference on hand, but it was 1%/mph above 55 or so, getting worse after crossing 70 mph I believe), so let them drive faster, use more gas, get more revenue.
Interesting, I don't believe I have ever seen Hillary as being fundamentally honest. Have you watched and listened to her over the past 13 years?
Completely off topic, but as a side note, lemmings do commit suicide, as do some ants and bees when tough times ensue. Not that I disagree with your counter post, but suicide isn't the best example of uniquely human behavior.
Yes, because 51% percent of voters prefer Bush to Kerry, we should have an all-conservative-all-the-time goverrnment. I scoff.
While I'm scoffing, let me take up the senate. Do me a favor: go figure out what percentage of the population are represented by Republicans and Democrats in the senate. Okay, I'll give you the answer: you'll figure out that Democrats represent more than 50% of the population in the senate, even though they're in the minority.
Just because you are so busy raising your nose in the air claiming such brilliance....care to check the representation in the House? Let's see, the 108th Congress consisted of 227 Republicans and 205 Democrats, the 109th Congress moved to 231 Republicans and 202 Democrats. So, what exactly was your point again? It went from 52.18% of the populace being represented by Republicans (there are 435 seats) to 53.10% in 2004.
Well, no, I'd mod you down because you're a thoughtless shill.
It is a shame the moderators haven't done the same to your post since it is not founded on facts and is hardly insightful (at least on this point). I agree with you that we (I assume you too are an American) shouldn't have a one sided government, but please debate with accurate statements.
Is this another phishing scam? Hoping people will post their information for a deposit?
I still don't thik that the actions of an individual or a group of individuals would mean an act of war. But I also thik it's correct that if a state supports them it's an act of war.
:(
Isn't clear to me that the denial of extradition would be a support to OBL war.
Very true, I guess an act of war by definition implies a nation-state, which Al Qaeda certainly doesn't qualify as. Also, my opinions of the Taliban's position may be clouded by the years that have past and the demonization that has occurred since then, but my sense is that they (well, that Omar dude, their leader) publicly stated they supported OBL and encouraged others to join. Again, may not be accurate.
Anyway it would be wiser to talk about this point with a beer (or coffe or [insert favorite discussion beverage here]) and a lot of time.
Agreed, sadly I fear I won't be able to head to Latin America any time soon (two young kids, work, all that good stuff)
You certainly have helped remove some of the clouds of "Americanism" I suffer from in my views, which is always appreciated.
Also I think that the most rediculous language to be esperanto (I don't know the name in english, so I put it in spanish)
Also known as Esperanto in English (at least it rings a bell to me). I thought that was supposed to be a "sensible" language with "normal" grammar rules. That's what makes me happy English is my native language, I can't imagine trying to make sense of all the idiocies if I hadn't grown up with them.
Sony, please wake up!
Why do you care if Sony decides to play or not? There are many other options out there, support them, forget about Sony if they don't want to catch a ride.
He found out that the original lack of DST isn't due to smarts, but due to lobbying from, get this, the drive-in theatre owners in days gone by.
Interesting bit of info I didn't know, but am thankful for. Didn't mean to imply the reasons for rejecting it were smart at first, but it sure seems smart to me to not mess around with the clocks (as I said before).
Honestly, who cares if it's a bit darker when you go to work. When you go home, wouldn't it be nice to have it be light outside?
Hmmm, where do I start? I guess with me. I care. I loath trying to get out of bed when it is dark outside (my alarm goes off at 5:15 AM). I hate trying to get my nearly 3 year old and 18 month old to eat dinner when they want to play outside instead because "the sun isn't sleepy yet daddy." Because trying to get them to go to bed at 8:30 PM is hard enough as it is, let alone with sunshine ("daddy, it isn't sleepy time, it isn't dark yet," yes, my almost 3 year old has said these things). Personally, I think DST is one of the stupided concepts ever created (so yes, I am biased, grew up in Indiana where we are smart enough to leave our clocks alone). I get so frustrated and depressed after we switch the clocks and I again have to drive with the sun in my eyes in the morning, wake up in the pitch black, grrr! (sorry for the mini rant there)
I find it interesting that the Democrats (or at least the candidates) didn't really seem to mention this [I assume you mean that Bush knew he was going to war based on bad intelligence] much during the last election.
I would bet it is because most were on record as supporting the concept of war in response to the perceived threat. They (the democrats, although personally I think they are democans and republicrats the way both sides seem to simply be after my money) were having enough trouble with the flip-flop label, politically they couldn't really say much about it since they had all supported it, and Kerry in particular should have known just as well as Bush being on the Intelligence Committee (which he was catching flak for his attendance record as it was, so pointing out he was just as clueless would have been extremely bad).
I think your first couple comments highlight what I was trying to say; I'll have to work on my wording. You state that "absent the $0 option, they were willing to pay" which is my point; the assumptions change as soon as you introduce the other option. I won't belabor that idea though.
I think you are right, we are talking past each other. My original point was attempting to justify the comment of "lost sales," where the sales are lost to the second option, as you point out.
I'm also not sure I agree with your statement that you always have a market, even if the population is zero. This could be pedantic, but if the "market" is zero interested parties, then I'd argue that there is no market.
Re-reading my comment, I sure can't disagree with you there. I guess economics says you have the right "to market," as in the verb, but you may not secure the noun as a result.
I would say, though, that some methods of controlling distribution are of more merit than others.
I think we are on the same page there.
As far as the GPL or BSD licenses: While I don't know that I would personally use those licenses, I support them as the copyright holders (within our current legal system) should be able to pick whatever distribution scheme they desire.
So do you support the (in our discussion) game makers in attempting to sell their product, and not allow the illegal zero cost option? From your original post it seemed to me that you did not feel they should be allowed to do that, which now seems to be a gross misinterpretation of your post (and caused my wonder of your opinions of the GPL).
My original post:
but the comment "We lost $n last year due to downloads" certainly can be true. There is a group of 10 people who all want to play a game together. All 10 are willing to buy the game, it is worth it to them.
Your reply:
Your example has an inconsistent set of assumptions: if the gamers opted to pirate the game instead of purchasing it, that means they were not willing to purchase the game at its price (the "cost" of the risk of getting caught was lower than the monetary "cost"); if they were, they would have.
No, my set of assumptions are not inconsistent. I stated that all 10 were willing to pay the price, it was worth it to them for the game. Absent the (like it or not) illegal option of a $0 option (talking opportunity costs since you like economics, the opportunity cost is darn near zero since odds of being caught "stealing" the copy is near zero), the company had sales of 10, now they have sales of zero. Where is your reply refuting my statement?
Later on you say:
If people are not willing to pay the price for a piece of software, music, a book, or whatever, then they are saying with their money that it has very little value, so if it wasn't there they would not feel like they were missing out.
Again, you are ignoring that these 10 people were willing to spend the money on the software, it was that valuable to them, but when presented with a zero cost (in their minds) option, of course they took it, they are bargin shoppers like the rest of us.
Nowhere in economics does it state that you are entitled to always have a market for the thing you want to produce.
I disagree, in economics you always have a market for what you produce, it may have a population of zero, but you can try to sell whatever you want (yes, in the world of economics prostitution is allowed). To support this concept in the laws of the United States (and most other countries) do state that you can control the distribution of what you have produced, and others are not allowed to take what you have produced and offer it for nothing without your consent (in the case of the GPL), or compensation to you (they originally purchased it from you if it is hard goods, or a license you agree is transferrable).
The system doesn't need "copyright protection" to function for non-exclusive goods/services; if it was indeed a free market it would be self-balancing.
Sort of a tangential question, and not intended as a troll or inflamator, but does this mean you don't support the GPL or BSD licensing?
This is like folks saying, "We lost $5M last year due to downloads"; that's not true, that's "we couldn't convice people to pay us for our product." That's not "lost sales" or anything, that's "poor marketing" (I include price setting in "marketing").
I agree pirating isn't stealing in the traditional sense (someone else losing usage of the item), but the comment "We lost $n last year due to downloads" certainly can be true. It certainly could be lost sales. Imagine this scenario I suspect is not all that uncommon: There is a group of 10 people who all want to play a game together. All 10 are willing to buy the game, it is worth it to them. Instead, one of them discovers a cracked copy online and downloads it, and then distributes it to the other 9. Had that illegal download not been available, the company would have had 10 sales, now they have 0. Is that not "lost sales" vs. "poor marketing?" The marketing had worked, they had 10 willing customers that decided instead to infringe on the copyrights and not purchase the product. Do you honestly think this type of scenario doesn't occur? I agree (especially with the music folks) that their numbers are probably quite inflated and many of the those downloading/copying games wouldn't buy them otherwise (I have fallen in that catagory many times), but to say they don't "lose sales" to illegal downloads does not line up with my sense of reality.
all my desktops are AMD, from the K3 (?) to my A64.
I expect you mean K6-3. If there had been a K3, it would have been the 386 class processors, but back then, they were called 386's, and eventually let Intel to the Pentium nomenclature to differentiate their products.
I was rather vocal on that topic myself on that topic. You can stop waiting...
Care to share where you were vocal? I ask this in all seriousness, not an attempt to provoke.
And what threat did Iraq pose?? No WMD.
I post this everytime people say this, and I continue to wait for an answer:
Show me anyone who said this before the war. You will find none, all you will find are people saying, "let the inspectors do their job." Well, eventually you have to decide the inspectors aren't able to do their job and find an alternate route. So, as soon as you are ready to show me someone that knew there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the war, I will listen to your arguments. I am waiting....