Movie trailers don't bother me too much personally, I think they are a part of the experience. There have been a few DVDs where the "User Prohibitions" technology is used to prevent you skipping them though. That's unacceptable. They don't belong at the start of the film, they should only be available as a bonus feature.
What I object to are the commercials for normal products, you know beers, aftershaves etc. The point of commercials on television is to pay for the programming. Many might even say that the programs only exist to pad out the commercials. Either way, they have no place in a movie that everyone in the room has paid for.
If you want to have commercials in movies, stop charging people to watch them. And for the love of God, stop product placement, it's soooo bad.
Movie trivia: Ghostbusters was produced by Columbia, who were (at the time) owned by Coke. All their movies from then have prominent coke products in them. In the scene where Venkman and Dana open the fridge, they were forced to put a can of Coke in there. Hence the line "look at all the junk food", putting Coke down. Genius!
Or petrol in a car, that could be dangerous. I've seen those American cars on TV, as soon as you crash there is always an almighty explosion. I'm buying Asian next time, you don't see cars blowing up much in Jackie Chan movies...
Three or fours hours? Sorry, but I still think that's still very poor. My laptop just died 1 hours 50 mins into a meeting (after a full charge), so it's at least a step in the right direction.
If I'm out for the day or a weekend, I'd rather not be carting the power supply with me. Even if I had to pay for a quick top up in a shop, I'd be happy with that. I'm looking forward to this new technology...
Re:Immediate US Security Threat...Tempest Everywhe
on
First US Camera/Phone
·
· Score: 1
So? For years people used to remember these documents instead. They used to teach spies how to read upside down!
Yet another example of technology making something easier. Blame the technology! Ban it, I tells ya!!
When he says "flash", perhaps he means a traditional camera flash?
Without one, any "fun" camera is useless for the purpose it is intended. Sure, you can live without one with an SLR and the right film, but for a camera like this, the emphasis is surely on quick snaps taken by the 16-30 year old market.
I've got one of the Sipix Blink cameras which also has no flash. You need bright daylight to get a decent picture out of it. A very bright room is fine, but you get blurryness if you move the camera during the picture.
However, in an average to mellow lighted room, you'll be lucky if you get anything. In a nightclub; leave it at home.
I'd never buy a digital camera again of any sort without it having a flash.
Contrast them with modern-day terrorists such as the IRA who focus their attacks primarily on the civilian population.
Minor quibble, but the IRA generally go for military targets. What constitues a "military target" is the subject of some debate e.g. a soldiers pub in Gillford. The more recent events, such as the bombing of a shopping "high street" have been blamed on splinter groups that disagree with the peace process. The IRA actually started out as a ligitamate army. The problem is that they want something that is never going to happen; the removal of Northern Ireland from Great Briton, and some of their members will never stop until this happens.
Wars are a thing of the past. Essentially a war was about stealing someone elses resources. Why go to the bother when you can have big business do it for you? Oil is the lifeblood of the world; why invade Saudi Arabia and fight a long war and occupation to access their oil when you can buy the government to do the same thing?
When you look at as-Queda, they essentially targeted a ecconomic target, the World Trade Centre. In some ways, it was a valid target. I doubt that the thousands who perished would agree with that though.
No seriously, right after Fidel Castro compenstates taking away Cuba from the natives.
If they were true communists, he would have actually been giving it back to them!
Of course, it was never theirs to begin with. One of the main drivers behind the revolution was the existing corrupt military government that had sold Cuban industry to foreigners for a song. The US started hating Cuba when Castro threw the old government out and told the big industry where to go. Let's face, most countries foreign policy revolves around the interests of their own ecconomics, not what's best for the local population.
I'd check that out first. Most US TVs can't display PAL colour but maybe more modern TVs will handle it. If they didn't support full PAL, you'd get a black and white picture.
On the other hand, I've a Wallace and Gromit DVD at home that has all 3 films and the Creature Comforts on it. I'm pretty sure it's a Canadian/US DVD, but it's at home and I'm not.
Here, as in England, daily newspapers carry a naked women on the cover page every day
Not quite. The ones on the cover have the naughty bits covered up with bikinis etc. You have to buy the newspaper to get to see the whole traditional "page 3 girl".
But, at least these newspapers are 100% honest about what they stand for. The ones I can't abide are the similar ones (minus nudity) aimed at the same brain-dead market, that actually pretend to be a reputable publication. With the tits & arse papers you know where you stand.;-)
You know, I prefer regular TV/movies to be relatively deviod of serious sexual material
Same here. It reached a point where every movie had to have the obligatory sex scene. If I want that sort of thing, there is a large volume of the stuff on the net, especially WinMX.
Maybe with the popularity of the net becoming ever greater, the movie producers might start doing this less. Or maybe more, when they realise how popular sex is...
PS Am I the only one that thinks that the Vin Diesel film was named XXX to make it next-to-impossible to download over p2p?;-)
Well, if you can count friends saying "have you heard this", then maybe. I don't buy magazines or listen to the radio much, especially not on a Sunday (chart day here). Most of my web-browsing revolves around slashdot and my musical bible Allmusic, so I'm not receiving hype over the web, but even then it's a valid hype as you choose to be there. Most of the music I do hear comes from complimation albums made my smaller labels, which contain some really obscure acts. If I like a track on one, I'll check out the artist to see what else they have done. Then I'll recommend some to friends and so on.
I'm currently listening to Fila Brazillia, Zero 7, Royksop, Thievery Corperation and just about any Ninja Tune act. None of them are heavy on promotion and the chances are you won't have heard of any; I heard about them by hearing tracks they have made being played in independant internet radio. Thanks to p2p, I know I like the rest of their stuff. When they play near me, I go along. A couple of them are beginning to get big, again through word of mouth. Strangly, I've noticed that these types of music feature heavilly on TV commercials/background music; I know that if you lived in the UK and I was to play you each of these albums, you would recognize quite a few of the tracks.
It's a taste thing, not thru hatred of the industry. As I said, that came later for me. I just got fed up with commercial radio playing the same crap every hour/on the hour, so I started listening to net radio in work. It sorta moved on from there...
Essentially, the industry has poisoned itself, by getting too greedy. If it wasn't for the constant stream of manufactured "bands", I'm sure commercial music might hold some interest for me. But I can't sit through anymore inane love songs by a bunch of pretty kids who have been trained to sing, aiming their music at emotional pubesant kids. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for the music industry, and it's not music IMO.
people that haven't bought a CD since Napster went beta.
I'm one of them. And you know what: I don't care. Here's why:
Music is our birthright. It has been around for far longer than any of us have. Every culture has developed their own music, often very unique and distinctive. It is a human heritage we should be proud of, music can inspire and influence many emotions and express our dreams and fears. It joins people together in a common bond that we all enjoy.
In the past 100 years, technology has been developed to deliver pre-recorded music. From these inventions an entire industry has grown. The term "record label" comes from the fact that artists would go to the labels (who had the required equipment) to get their music cut to vinyl. The label would then reproduce the record and give the artist a good cut of the profits. The "label" attached indicated who had produced the record.
Fast forward to the 60s. Pre-recorded music is getting very popular, e.g. The Beatles. Live musical performances are becoming rarer as alternatives to live music are becoming cheaper and more accepted into society.
As the labels gain more and more power over the next 30 years, they start to realise that they have a large influence in what people listen to. Shops begin to be forced to promote certain albums with threats like "sure, you can sell this, but you must also sell this other product in a prominent place in your store". Eventually radio is given the same blow, the stations begin to lose control of what they can play. Currently, Clear Channel control/own an unbelievable chunk of the radio market. You can't play their music unless you stick to their rules. You can't have your music played on their stations unless you paid them. When was the last time you heard a discussion or even the mention of p2p technology on commercial radio?
This control of the market leads to the "industry" we have today. There are only 7 companies that control almost all of the media you can access. Everything is controlled and managed. Have you ever listened to the radio to hear a song from an artist that you haven't heard from in a while, only to find that they have new material that gets announced a few days/weeks later? That's them at work, playing the older stuff to get you ready for the marketing.
Over the past 40 years, the profits to be made are staggering. CDs are incredibly cheap to manufacture, yet they are able to price-fix the market due to their control. This control of the industry keeps the small acts and labels (indies) down. Even the current "indies" in the "charts" are owned by the large companies and them using that name is an affront to what it means and stands for. The true indies are still there, but only a select few people ever hear about them, mostly through word of mouth. When was the last time you went to a record store and listened to music from an act you haven't heard of before?
In the past few years, things have only gotten worse. The Billboard charts is a catalogue of music for you to buy, nothing more. The acts that consistently make it are the same old drivel; bubble-gum pop for the masses. Yet, the makeup of these charts comes from sales and radio play. Limiting the data sources to only stick to major retailers that are already under control controls the "sales". The radio play is also very controlled as we have already seen. What sort of a system is that to run a popularity chart? A fixed and corrupt one.
What really gets to me the most however, is the fact that the artists get a ridiculously small cut of these revenues. They get tied into disgraceful contracts that control everything they do for years, and when it's over the industry, not the artists, own the rights to their work. Artists only really get rich through touring, that's where their profit lies. Many acts have had major hits/albums and ended up very poor or even owing the record labels money.
Over the past few years, technology has advanced to the point that anyone can easily record, promote and distribute music. This scares the music industry more than the loss of sales through piracy. Internet radio has turned people onto acts that they would have never heard of had they limited themselves to traditional media. My own personal tastes in music have evolved completely away from the commercial music out there. My hatred of the industry came long after I "abandoned" it, my tastes merely evolved based on what I have access to. They have now lost a customer. Me.
Every time you download a song instead of buying it, you are contributing to the downfall of this bastardisation of an industry. It interests me that they once compared p2p to "downloading communism". Cold War politics and the lack of understanding of the difference between Soviet totalitarism and true communism aside, the only thing that sounds like the negative impression they are trying to convey on p2p is ironically their own control of the industry. Downloading music is a statement against it. If the legal/moral issues bother you, don't download from the major labels. Get yourself onto Shoutcast Internet Radio and start listening to the genres that interest you. Grab a pen while you are at it and note down the names of the acts you like. Download some of their songs to see if you like them. If you do, support them by buying albums, merchandise and live performances. Especially the live performances.
But don't buy Brittany because it's "cool". It's not, your just following the rest of the sheep and "cool" is never defined by following other people. Even the "alternative" scenes, like the gothic Marylyn Manson culture is merely an extension of this market, but the kids into it believe they are expressing their individualism by dressing like each other and listening to the same music as each other!
A few companies should not be allowed to dominate the development of one of the most creative fruits of human culture. They should not be allowed to bribe government (what else are "campaign contributions"?) into making laws that protect their backward and repressive business models. Civil disobedience is a valid way to protest laws you don't agree with, as long you don't cause harm to others. It is technically impossible to stop p2p without complete centralised control and censorship of every single person in the worlds internet access. That is never going to happen. Anyone that doesn't get that belongs in the past like the dinosaurs they are. Where would we be today if the railroads had halted the development of the aeroplane because it harms their business model? Don't let the music industry do this to something as important as music. Please. Think of the children.
Yeah, HP didn't make that much money on it. Many other things with replaceable cartridges follow the same business model
Didn't the printer manufacturers recently get sued successfully for trying to implement anti-refill mechanisms? I tried to google for info on this, but "printer refill" doesn't really make the best search term...
It's a fine example of a company doing things to prevent competition and their business model then getting slapped by the courts and told not to.
Yep, look at the popularity of chipped DVD players in Europe. You get access to all region releases, meaning you can get the best version of a disk (the content differs between regions often), plus you can get the best value for money and the earliest release date. (though it's usually the old (1), (2), (3), pick two story)
That's an extremely large chipping market and it has absolutly nothing to do with piracy.
I think the fact that the tobacco companies were being sued in the first place pretty much disproves that.
They are getting sued because they deliberatly lied about the dangers and addictiveness of their product. No amount of lobbying could have stopped these cases. My only wonder is why it took so long...
Excuse me? They are saying it costs money that doesn't even exist yet? Riiiggggtttt. As long is there is unemployment, smokers dieing won't be causing the job not to be done...someone else will do it.
The problem is that the elderly people dying of lung cancer are probably going to end up relying on the public dole for their medical bills
Bill Hicks had an excellent take on this. He pointed out the crazy belief that non-smokers believe that they are going to live forever. If anything, a smoker is helping the economy by checking out early. That's a lot of savings in pension and long-term health care for the old and infirm.
Non-smokers will still get ill, and they will still cost the healthcare systems of the world as much as the smokers, if not more. Instead, take a look at alcohol, which is morally and socially encouraged in Western society. It costs society far more. Putting aside the harm you can easily do to yourself (each time you get more-than moderatly drunk you are causing permanent liver and brain damage), it costs society a fortune. Most violence/killing is drink influnced, so your Police, court and prison systems are stressed by this. The majority of patients in Emergency Rooms / Accident and Emergency departments at the weekend have drink-related injuries. Drunk-drivers, well 'nuff said there. How about rape? Domestic abuse? Alcohol is another large factor there.
PS. I have nothing against alcohol, but society really needs to take a long hard look at the relative dangers of substance abuse. Most illegal substances cause problems due to their illegality, not the substance itself. Their illegality derives from racism as to who the main users of the drugs were in the 1930s. Back then, people thought tobacco was good for you! But then, alcohol and tobacco are white-drugs, not black/asian...
but for the rest of the world the US is definitely no longer first choice when considering migration
Very true. Here in the UK, I know only 1-2 people who have been or plan to spend time living in the states. On the other hand, I can easilly name 20 folk I know who have already lived in Austrailia or are currently planning to do so. I have at least 4-5 friends that are there right now. My flatmate is one who meets both of these conditions, she has spent 1.5 years there already, and would move back in an instant when she gets enough "points" for their imigration system.
Not many of these people know each other, it's not just a group of friends who get the bug from talking to each other. I'm starting to look into it myself...
I can also name 3-4 people who have similar sights set on Canada. Somehow, the USA only seems to be a vacation destination, which it is pretty popular for.
[From previous poster]We still give everyone the chance to make more of themselves here in the USA.
I'm interested in what opertunities that exist in the states, that don't exist elsewhere. Can any one suggest any? C'mon, persuade me to go stateside instead of Oz!;-)
Surely one of the retailers ships internationally? Put it on your credit card, no worries. If it doesn't arrive (never happened to me despite many international orders), then the credit card company gives you your money back.
The French, currently selling nuclear tech to Iraq and aiding and abetting other known terrorist states, are threatening to veto any UN resolutions unless we ensure that they will get lucrative oil contracts with the new regime.
I'm guessing you're from the USA. Ever taken a look at the history of your own country over the past 50 years...? Guilty on all charges.
They are a craven and pathetic people, beneath contempt.
That may apply to their government, but not the people. Same with the USA.
I'm thinking you were joking, or completely obvious to history that isn't taught in your schools or made into movies.
Slashdot Mirror
What I object to are the commercials for normal products, you know beers, aftershaves etc. The point of commercials on television is to pay for the programming. Many might even say that the programs only exist to pad out the commercials. Either way, they have no place in a movie that everyone in the room has paid for.
If you want to have commercials in movies, stop charging people to watch them. And for the love of God, stop product placement, it's soooo bad.
Movie trivia: Ghostbusters was produced by Columbia, who were (at the time) owned by Coke. All their movies from then have prominent coke products in them. In the scene where Venkman and Dana open the fridge, they were forced to put a can of Coke in there. Hence the line "look at all the junk food", putting Coke down. Genius!
Not to mention product comercials before a movie you have paid for...
Or petrol in a car, that could be dangerous. I've seen those American cars on TV, as soon as you crash there is always an almighty explosion. I'm buying Asian next time, you don't see cars blowing up much in Jackie Chan movies...
If I'm out for the day or a weekend, I'd rather not be carting the power supply with me. Even if I had to pay for a quick top up in a shop, I'd be happy with that. I'm looking forward to this new technology...
Yet another example of technology making something easier. Blame the technology! Ban it, I tells ya!!
Phone, PDA, camera and wireless.
I wouldn't mind using a wire for the headphone, if you were doing videoconferencing you'd need to. Unless you had an ear fetish going on... ;-)
Without one, any "fun" camera is useless for the purpose it is intended. Sure, you can live without one with an SLR and the right film, but for a camera like this, the emphasis is surely on quick snaps taken by the 16-30 year old market.
I've got one of the Sipix Blink cameras which also has no flash. You need bright daylight to get a decent picture out of it. A very bright room is fine, but you get blurryness if you move the camera during the picture.
However, in an average to mellow lighted room, you'll be lucky if you get anything. In a nightclub; leave it at home.
I'd never buy a digital camera again of any sort without it having a flash.
Minor quibble, but the IRA generally go for military targets. What constitues a "military target" is the subject of some debate e.g. a soldiers pub in Gillford. The more recent events, such as the bombing of a shopping "high street" have been blamed on splinter groups that disagree with the peace process. The IRA actually started out as a ligitamate army. The problem is that they want something that is never going to happen; the removal of Northern Ireland from Great Briton, and some of their members will never stop until this happens.
Wars are a thing of the past. Essentially a war was about stealing someone elses resources. Why go to the bother when you can have big business do it for you? Oil is the lifeblood of the world; why invade Saudi Arabia and fight a long war and occupation to access their oil when you can buy the government to do the same thing?
When you look at as-Queda, they essentially targeted a ecconomic target, the World Trade Centre. In some ways, it was a valid target. I doubt that the thousands who perished would agree with that though.
Well, forest fires are a natural thing (except those started by humans obviously) AND they are good for the land.
I have no sympathy for those who:
There are many advantages to breaking the above rules, but when you take a risk you cannot whine when it doesn't go your way.
If they were true communists, he would have actually been giving it back to them!
Of course, it was never theirs to begin with. One of the main drivers behind the revolution was the existing corrupt military government that had sold Cuban industry to foreigners for a song. The US started hating Cuba when Castro threw the old government out and told the big industry where to go. Let's face, most countries foreign policy revolves around the interests of their own ecconomics, not what's best for the local population.
On the other hand, I've a Wallace and Gromit DVD at home that has all 3 films and the Creature Comforts on it. I'm pretty sure it's a Canadian/US DVD, but it's at home and I'm not.
Not quite. The ones on the cover have the naughty bits covered up with bikinis etc. You have to buy the newspaper to get to see the whole traditional "page 3 girl".
But, at least these newspapers are 100% honest about what they stand for. The ones I can't abide are the similar ones (minus nudity) aimed at the same brain-dead market, that actually pretend to be a reputable publication. With the tits & arse papers you know where you stand. ;-)
Same here. It reached a point where every movie had to have the obligatory sex scene. If I want that sort of thing, there is a large volume of the stuff on the net, especially WinMX.
Maybe with the popularity of the net becoming ever greater, the movie producers might start doing this less. Or maybe more, when they realise how popular sex is...
PS Am I the only one that thinks that the Vin Diesel film was named XXX to make it next-to-impossible to download over p2p? ;-)
I'm currently listening to Fila Brazillia, Zero 7, Royksop, Thievery Corperation and just about any Ninja Tune act. None of them are heavy on promotion and the chances are you won't have heard of any; I heard about them by hearing tracks they have made being played in independant internet radio. Thanks to p2p, I know I like the rest of their stuff. When they play near me, I go along. A couple of them are beginning to get big, again through word of mouth. Strangly, I've noticed that these types of music feature heavilly on TV commercials/background music; I know that if you lived in the UK and I was to play you each of these albums, you would recognize quite a few of the tracks.
It's a taste thing, not thru hatred of the industry. As I said, that came later for me. I just got fed up with commercial radio playing the same crap every hour/on the hour, so I started listening to net radio in work. It sorta moved on from there...
Essentially, the industry has poisoned itself, by getting too greedy. If it wasn't for the constant stream of manufactured "bands", I'm sure commercial music might hold some interest for me. But I can't sit through anymore inane love songs by a bunch of pretty kids who have been trained to sing, aiming their music at emotional pubesant kids. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for the music industry, and it's not music IMO.
You evidently didn't read my post. Go back and read it. Then read yours. I hope your are as confused about your response as I am. ;-)
I'm one of them. And you know what: I don't care. Here's why:
Music is our birthright. It has been around for far longer than any of us have. Every culture has developed their own music, often very unique and distinctive. It is a human heritage we should be proud of, music can inspire and influence many emotions and express our dreams and fears. It joins people together in a common bond that we all enjoy.
In the past 100 years, technology has been developed to deliver pre-recorded music. From these inventions an entire industry has grown. The term "record label" comes from the fact that artists would go to the labels (who had the required equipment) to get their music cut to vinyl. The label would then reproduce the record and give the artist a good cut of the profits. The "label" attached indicated who had produced the record.
Fast forward to the 60s. Pre-recorded music is getting very popular, e.g. The Beatles. Live musical performances are becoming rarer as alternatives to live music are becoming cheaper and more accepted into society.
As the labels gain more and more power over the next 30 years, they start to realise that they have a large influence in what people listen to. Shops begin to be forced to promote certain albums with threats like "sure, you can sell this, but you must also sell this other product in a prominent place in your store". Eventually radio is given the same blow, the stations begin to lose control of what they can play. Currently, Clear Channel control/own an unbelievable chunk of the radio market. You can't play their music unless you stick to their rules. You can't have your music played on their stations unless you paid them. When was the last time you heard a discussion or even the mention of p2p technology on commercial radio?
This control of the market leads to the "industry" we have today. There are only 7 companies that control almost all of the media you can access. Everything is controlled and managed. Have you ever listened to the radio to hear a song from an artist that you haven't heard from in a while, only to find that they have new material that gets announced a few days/weeks later? That's them at work, playing the older stuff to get you ready for the marketing.
Over the past 40 years, the profits to be made are staggering. CDs are incredibly cheap to manufacture, yet they are able to price-fix the market due to their control. This control of the industry keeps the small acts and labels (indies) down. Even the current "indies" in the "charts" are owned by the large companies and them using that name is an affront to what it means and stands for. The true indies are still there, but only a select few people ever hear about them, mostly through word of mouth. When was the last time you went to a record store and listened to music from an act you haven't heard of before?
In the past few years, things have only gotten worse. The Billboard charts is a catalogue of music for you to buy, nothing more. The acts that consistently make it are the same old drivel; bubble-gum pop for the masses. Yet, the makeup of these charts comes from sales and radio play. Limiting the data sources to only stick to major retailers that are already under control controls the "sales". The radio play is also very controlled as we have already seen. What sort of a system is that to run a popularity chart? A fixed and corrupt one.
What really gets to me the most however, is the fact that the artists get a ridiculously small cut of these revenues. They get tied into disgraceful contracts that control everything they do for years, and when it's over the industry, not the artists, own the rights to their work. Artists only really get rich through touring, that's where their profit lies. Many acts have had major hits/albums and ended up very poor or even owing the record labels money.
Over the past few years, technology has advanced to the point that anyone can easily record, promote and distribute music. This scares the music industry more than the loss of sales through piracy. Internet radio has turned people onto acts that they would have never heard of had they limited themselves to traditional media. My own personal tastes in music have evolved completely away from the commercial music out there. My hatred of the industry came long after I "abandoned" it, my tastes merely evolved based on what I have access to. They have now lost a customer. Me.
Every time you download a song instead of buying it, you are contributing to the downfall of this bastardisation of an industry. It interests me that they once compared p2p to "downloading communism". Cold War politics and the lack of understanding of the difference between Soviet totalitarism and true communism aside, the only thing that sounds like the negative impression they are trying to convey on p2p is ironically their own control of the industry. Downloading music is a statement against it. If the legal/moral issues bother you, don't download from the major labels. Get yourself onto Shoutcast Internet Radio and start listening to the genres that interest you. Grab a pen while you are at it and note down the names of the acts you like. Download some of their songs to see if you like them. If you do, support them by buying albums, merchandise and live performances. Especially the live performances.
But don't buy Brittany because it's "cool". It's not, your just following the rest of the sheep and "cool" is never defined by following other people. Even the "alternative" scenes, like the gothic Marylyn Manson culture is merely an extension of this market, but the kids into it believe they are expressing their individualism by dressing like each other and listening to the same music as each other!
A few companies should not be allowed to dominate the development of one of the most creative fruits of human culture. They should not be allowed to bribe government (what else are "campaign contributions"?) into making laws that protect their backward and repressive business models. Civil disobedience is a valid way to protest laws you don't agree with, as long you don't cause harm to others. It is technically impossible to stop p2p without complete centralised control and censorship of every single person in the worlds internet access. That is never going to happen. Anyone that doesn't get that belongs in the past like the dinosaurs they are. Where would we be today if the railroads had halted the development of the aeroplane because it harms their business model? Don't let the music industry do this to something as important as music. Please. Think of the children.
Didn't the printer manufacturers recently get sued successfully for trying to implement anti-refill mechanisms? I tried to google for info on this, but "printer refill" doesn't really make the best search term...
It's a fine example of a company doing things to prevent competition and their business model then getting slapped by the courts and told not to.
That's an extremely large chipping market and it has absolutly nothing to do with piracy.
They are getting sued because they deliberatly lied about the dangers and addictiveness of their product. No amount of lobbying could have stopped these cases. My only wonder is why it took so long...
Excuse me? They are saying it costs money that doesn't even exist yet? Riiiggggtttt. As long is there is unemployment, smokers dieing won't be causing the job not to be done...someone else will do it.
Bill Hicks had an excellent take on this. He pointed out the crazy belief that non-smokers believe that they are going to live forever. If anything, a smoker is helping the economy by checking out early. That's a lot of savings in pension and long-term health care for the old and infirm.
Non-smokers will still get ill, and they will still cost the healthcare systems of the world as much as the smokers, if not more. Instead, take a look at alcohol, which is morally and socially encouraged in Western society. It costs society far more. Putting aside the harm you can easily do to yourself (each time you get more-than moderatly drunk you are causing permanent liver and brain damage), it costs society a fortune. Most violence/killing is drink influnced, so your Police, court and prison systems are stressed by this. The majority of patients in Emergency Rooms / Accident and Emergency departments at the weekend have drink-related injuries. Drunk-drivers, well 'nuff said there. How about rape? Domestic abuse? Alcohol is another large factor there.
PS. I have nothing against alcohol, but society really needs to take a long hard look at the relative dangers of substance abuse. Most illegal substances cause problems due to their illegality, not the substance itself. Their illegality derives from racism as to who the main users of the drugs were in the 1930s. Back then, people thought tobacco was good for you! But then, alcohol and tobacco are white-drugs, not black/asian...
Very true. Here in the UK, I know only 1-2 people who have been or plan to spend time living in the states. On the other hand, I can easilly name 20 folk I know who have already lived in Austrailia or are currently planning to do so. I have at least 4-5 friends that are there right now. My flatmate is one who meets both of these conditions, she has spent 1.5 years there already, and would move back in an instant when she gets enough "points" for their imigration system.
Not many of these people know each other, it's not just a group of friends who get the bug from talking to each other. I'm starting to look into it myself...
I can also name 3-4 people who have similar sights set on Canada. Somehow, the USA only seems to be a vacation destination, which it is pretty popular for.
[From previous poster]We still give everyone the chance to make more of themselves here in the USA.
I'm interested in what opertunities that exist in the states, that don't exist elsewhere. Can any one suggest any? C'mon, persuade me to go stateside instead of Oz! ;-)
Surely one of the retailers ships internationally? Put it on your credit card, no worries. If it doesn't arrive (never happened to me despite many international orders), then the credit card company gives you your money back.
Does he control any oil or other national resources that Bush wants?
I'm guessing you're from the USA. Ever taken a look at the history of your own country over the past 50 years...? Guilty on all charges.
They are a craven and pathetic people, beneath contempt.
That may apply to their government, but not the people. Same with the USA.
I'm thinking you were joking, or completely obvious to history that isn't taught in your schools or made into movies.