I can see more usefulness in using it after like you say. My only problem with that is with what you do with the information. If you use it to get a "repeat", great. If you're using it to decide you need to clear the building, not so great. I'm just basing my view on how it's being marketed and how I feel the powers that be will use it.
Sure... If you don't have UAV feed, live feed from a manned plane/rotary, satellite imagery, or something of that nature. Then of course the very nature of a tank, mortar, or artillery round makes for one of those times when "close is good enough". Your idea is at least more plausible though. I still would not want to be a soldier sitting outside a courtyard shooting that thing in though.
You know the answer to that... Because even if every guy in the room was a "bad guy", some liberal out there (a lot of them actually) would be crying because we didn't give them a chance to surrender. Even though the battle drill states to clear the room with a grenade, that's only under 100% hostile situations. Take a look at our current ROE in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If the "bad guys" didn't already hear you coming in, they really know when that ball comes flying in the room! Seriously, it's going to take a minute to analyze the feed and on the ground we don't have that time luxury. While there might be a few isolated cases where it could be useful, I'm not sure what they are.
I could be wrong, but most people don't like being killed. It's generally a better thing if you go out and find the enemy first and then destroy them. That's different from making yourself a target for the sake of starting a fight. If you join the military to get shot, you're... a bit weird to say the least.
Realizing your comment is flamebait - I'm still going to comment because I know others are thinking the same. I've been reading Slashdot since... around the time it started, and I grew to understand what to expect. As I stated in my original post:
When I first started reading, I was finding out about new and obscure stories and events left and right it seemed, but now I'm hearing stories like this on the local radio long before it his Slashdot.
So if you have half a brain, you can see at one time Slashdot had some bleeding-edge-brand-new-cool-stuff on it when I started reading, and now it's different. Since you don't know me, I'll point out I took about a 2 year hiatus when I first joined the Army and am just now getting back into it (just as we prepare to deploy - go figure). So, I had a chance to get away and compare then to now. Anyhow, I've gotten way off subject.
Slashdot isn't a news site,
You are joking, right? The title of the site includes the word "News". It would not say "news" if it wasn't a news site. Besides, that one word implies, well... New. Based on what I 'grew up with' on Slashdot - it's a lot more than just a news discussion site. Come on, if it wasn't about getting new stories they wouldn't update it so often and people wouldn't be able to submit stories. I love Slashdot, but I'm not going to make excuses like that for it. Especially when the title clearly has the word "News" in it! We can do better than this...
With such a gigantic user community, I am always amazed how long it takes Slashdot to pick up stories. When I first started reading, I was finding out about new and obscure stories and events left and right it seemed, but now I'm hearing stories like this on the local radio long before it his Slashdot. Is it because there literally are so many stories being submitted, or is the staff and community at Slashdot just that behind lately?
I do find it interesting. While I knew the general idea of what you were talking about, no one has ever given me the details on the 13th and such which your comment did. It's late to continue the conversation now, but I wanted to tell you I appreciate the info. The civil war subject intrigues me since I am from the South myself and now that I live in the north western part of the US, I often find myself in the middle of such conversations. There are a lot of misinformed people out there when it comes to US history - particularly in that era.
We're always going to see slavery as the reason because it was the most revolutionary change created by the war. You must remember southerners of the time (and many still today) saw the slavery debate as a hit to their pride rather than a moral issue. Most rich plantation owners would quickly cease to be rich if slavery were abolished. Point being turning against slavery at that moment only serves to make the rich southerners angrier while making yourself look good to the northerners. Slavery would have ended anyway eventually, and we would have had a civil war anyway. It was one straw (a heavy one perhaps), not the whole pile.
You know, I'll concede to you the fact the military is screwed up. I signed up to be Infantry, and I've spent more time picking up leaves than training (however - I have done plenty of that too). The only thing these articles tell me is that you might have to fight back if attacked. Come on, isn't that common sense? The Air Force articles main emphasis is the Security Forces/Force Protection job anyway - one where you can expect to be guarding convoys and what-not. The Navy article doesn't specify what jobs the guys have. I think in the end it depends on what you call 'combat'. Granted, if you have to fight back in defense it is technically 'combat', but that's a far cry from the job combat arms jobs are doing. We need everyone, but seriously... When we're talking about combat, I thought you were talking about kicking in doors and doing raids and what-not. I have yet to talk to a radar technician who ever had to clear a room or take an active role in any sort of offensive operation. Is shooting back when someone tries to blow you up 'immoral'?
Combat positions? You're joking, right? No - I'm not about to joke about the AF/Navy and combat, because there are a lot of guys in both who do some pretty crazy completely-combat-oriented jobs. However, the only way you're going to get in a combat-oriented job with the Navy and Air Force is if you sign up for it. They aren't going to take Joe who enlisted as an aircraft engine mechanic and send him with an Infantry unit into combat or something crazy like that. Do all of the services want more combat jobs filled up? Of course they do - they're generally the hardest to fill even in peace time. The thing is, the only way you're going to see real combat in the Navy or Air Force is if you sign up for their special forces type units (pararescue, combat controller, SEAL, etc). Show me some examples of people who signed up to be mechanics and whatnot getting sent to combat units.
This may be a retarded solution, but don't the vast majority of these wires used to detonate IEDs remotely need some copper or other such metal running through them? Would it be feasible to setup a simple metal detector to the front of a bomb detonator atattched to the front of a hummer/APC to look/scan for long skinny footprints of metal based material that would be associated with the hardwire used to detonate these sorts of IEDS?
Sounds good at first, but you have to take a few things into consideration. One, Iraq is full of random trash everywhere. It's going to be difficult to detect bomb-detonating-copper/whatever in all that garbage. Two - electrical detonation is only one way of doing it - another way is a non-electric system like our military uses involving det cord or shock tube (which could be detectable too I suppose, but just pointing it out). Lastly, a lot of IEDs are so big you'd need to detect them from so far away it wouldn't be practical/possible.
Makes since to me, since we have no right to be there in the first place!
So, next time you steal someone else's parking spot... I suppose it's okay for them to blow up your car, right? Maybe Native Americans should start shooting up our small towns and neighborhoods because they were built on the same area they used to live and worship. Why are you trying to justify their actions? Even you agree they think we're infidels, so what do we do next time they want something from us?
Oh yeah, because American oil companies need someone to push around those governments so we can make money.
Uhm... Right... The oil companies... Which explains why gasoline is $2.00-$3+ a gallon... Which explains why these middle eastern oil barons are making billions upon billions of dollars. I only wish this conspiracy was true.
I'm glad you don't wish to debate it any longer. Actually, it never was a debate since it's obvious you are incapable of rational intelligent conversation. I'm not a Bush apologist, but I will apologizing for attempting to make you argue a point beyond namecalling and labeling.
It's difficult, but I'll ignore most of your silly attacks and try to focus on the actual argument. Next time, do me a favor and try to stick with facts instead of pretending you know anything about who I am. Your attacks against the Republican party and the childish namecalling might impress your friends, but it's not going to help you much in a real debate with calm intelligent people.
Now, let's see, the CIA is a Democrat front, which sent Wilson to Niger to... defend Saddam Hussein? Because Wilson is a Democrat?
Who even said that? Is your rage really making you that blind? His WIFE got him assigned to go on this fact-finding mission. They're both registered democrats who regularly donate to the Democrat party. Why did I mention this? Because Joe Wilson lies and pretends to be bipartisan. Never did I say anything about a CIA conspiracy - I'll leave it up to you to come up with the conspiracy theories. The point here is Wilson has been hiding how/why he got sent, and then lies about his affiliations. Your taking that as trying to say he's protecting Saddam just shows me how suspicious it actually is.
The "new information" he dug up was that the Niger/Iraq uranium document was a forgery, a lie.
What are you basing this on? More of Wilson's lies? He even told the Senate Intelligence Committee he may have misspoke to reporters about what he found. The best he could do was claim that some dates and names on the documents were wrong. Of course, he hadn't even seen those names and dates - something you usually have to do in order to prove they're incorrect.
"I never claimed to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa." - Joe Wilson
Which Bush was told was probably the case by the CIA, but he used it in the State of the Union speech anyway, to send us to war.
Last I checked, other intelligence organizations still stand by reports that Iraq attempted to buy uranium. We also know that Iraq was at least interested in it and wanted to buy the yellowcake. The Nigerians stated Iraqis tried to bring it up, but they weren't willing to deal due to UN sanctions. This is all not to mention you act as if the entire war was based on the yellowcake argument. Half the people in this country don't even know what it is, and more than that wouldn't know if it wasn't for democrats screaming about it. Give me a break.
Ad hominem attacks really don't help your argument out a whole lot. I can call you a blathering idiot all day long, but that won't prove you're wrong. I don't worship Ann Coulter or anything, but calling her names isn't going to do much other than amuse the people who already agree with you. If you really want people to take your side, maybe you should try arguing the facts like an adult.
If we're going to call anyone a liar, don't you think it should be Joe Wilson since he cannot even seem to get his facts straight about why he went to Africa or who sent him there? There's also the little issue of him pretending to be bipartisan even though we know he's a registered democrat who enjoys making monetary contributions to their party. So we have a democrat getting orders suggested by his wife to go to Niger and he comes back unable to prove anything new. Somehow this doesn't do a lot for me... Even if you overlook the bias, it doesn't surprise me one Ambassador couldn't dig up any information in such a short amount of time. It'd be like me throwing a needle in a haystack and saying you have five minutes to find it or apparently it's not there.
ooh wargames!;p Rules enforcing a good password the first time seems better than random passwords every month. I can force myself to learn something like "A..2zY30?g!.Eo9" if I have to use it for the next year or so.
First example is wrong because since you only make 50% extra because employee X can do the same task without a raise(that means you don't have to do it).
What you just said makes no sense whatsoever. I think you're missinterpreting what I stated. My example was to show how it feels to get money taken away from you even though it wasn't actually in your pocket. Real world scenario: Record stands to make $100m (random), but a large amount of people decide to get their music online or from friends and it only makes $75m. Nothing was ever taken from the record company because they still have $75m. This applies directly to my analogy. Guy was going to get X amount, but company decided to use other guy instead so he didn't get as much.
He as to do manual labour.
True, but we aren't talking about life threatening work here. Maybe he just had to plug in a computer and switch out some sensors. In any case, he wasn't doing anything anyway. Hell, maybe he was going to go work out for a while since he didn't have anything keeping him active. Should you now not have to pay since he didn't have to go to the gym for a workout?
Your Car is unique, it has a unique problem, the mechanic has to specifically work on his car. Moreover just cause he worked & fixed his car doesn't mean no other car will have the same problem. Difference in both examples and Copyright infringement is, that they both are specific to the task, you do task a and you get $$$, you don't do it you don't get $$$. Moreover both cases are imperative, the boss still wants his work done, so he'll get it done, even if he has to pay someone else and obviously the car still needs to get fixed to be usable.
None of this is even relevant to the discussion, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I mean it's all true, but it doesn't really do anything to argue against my case. The boss still wants his work done? The car is unique? Are you just trying to make this harder than it has to be? Honestly, in both my analogies you looked at an irrelevant point that I wasn't trying to stress yet you missed the big picture.
If Joe SixPack is true to his work, the author of copyrighted material isn't going to see any $$$ regardless of the fact if Joe SixPack downloads/pirates/borrows/copies blah blah his stuff.
You cannot tell me that every one of the millions of file sharers out there would not buy their music if they didn't have the ability to get it for free. That's simply naive and I'm not going to believe it. Maybe 75% of the stuff wouldn't be bought, but don't believe those guys who have 100,000 mp3s when they say they wouldn't buy any of it from the store. Right. I'll admit to it myself, when I was younger I downloaded music all the time that I would have had to buy otherwise. I could either download my music for free and buy something cool, or I could spend $30 for a couple of cds. What's a 16-18 year old going to do? A lot of my friends bought cds their whole lives until they were introduced to Kazaa or whatever. Only an idiot would believe that 100% (or even 90%) of the file sharing going on is being done by poor college kids that wouldn't buy it anyway.
but to me it is human nature and very much capitalistic to pirate stuff. If you can get it for free why pay for it,
Thanks for supporting my point. Got $100 and want to spend it? Get your music for free and buy something to impress your new girlfriend, or spend all your money on CDs? Exactly right, you're going to take your money elsewhere. Remember the analogy where the guy was getting a raise, but instead didn't get any money because someone else could do it for free/less? Oh, nevermind...
doesn't that sound capitalism to you, how is that any different from Enron Execs
You're going to say Enron is a good example of how capitalism is supposed to work? Oookay...
Only explanation I could/would buy for not doing copyright infringement, is th
Only if you would have never bought the song, album, movie, or piece of software had the downloadable copy not existed. Not to mention, I think the definition of theft actually extends to 'services' as well as physical property. In any case, I know people like to say, "Oh, I wouldn't have paid for it anyway...", but I find that hard to believe for most people. Maybe you wouldn't have bought it as soon as you did or maybe you wouldn't have bought everything you downloaded, but I'm sure you would have bought some of it.
To me, it's like your boss saying he's going to raise your salary by $10,000 since you can do XYZ task, but then the next week saying you're only getting half because Employee.X said he can do the same task without a raise. You're still making the same money, the extra wasn't technically stolen from you, but is it right? That 10,000 was never in your pocket, but does that matter?
If a mechanic (let's say he also happens to be rich) has no other jobs lined up from 1100-1200, does that give you the right to have him/her work on your car from 1100-1200 and then not pay for labor? What would you call that if not theft? I mean, the mechanic didn't have anything better to do, makes enough money anyway, and you paid for any materials he used... Does that make it right? Sure, I want to get things for free too and I think this whole crackdown is retarded, but still.
So... What do you call someone who commits a crime and is never caught? Say I watch someone steal a watch, but the cops can't find enough evidence to convict. Is that person not a criminal who just got lucky?
Hmmm. Considering Bush handling of the economy, I think his "Fuzzy Logic" was a blatant lack of understanding of the subject, and the inability to reply in a meaningfull manner.
After the bubble burst and 9/11, he's doing pretty well for someone who doesn't understand it then.
I am sorry if I am having trouble seeing the logic behind LIKING that the president cannot think on his feet without his handlers to consult.
Well, I reject the idea that he can't think on his feet at all. I'm saying there is more to it than that. I'd rather have a president who prefers to consult before he talks rather than someone who says something different every time he gets asked about tough issues.
I can understand where you want him to consult his industry representatives so that he doesnt do anything wrong.
Hilarious. Do you write your own material? After reading your sig and noticing you quoted yourself, I though you might be an aspiring comedian.
The problem is, when Bush is in a foriegn country, he has to be able to think independantly because he cant ship everyone he asks for help with him. This is perhaps why we are not having good relationships with other countries.
First of all, the President has secretaries and ambassadors to do a lot of the talking. When he goes and meets with someone, it's generally composed of short meetings filled with a lot of pre-prepared lines and such. This is not something new to Bush, it's just the way things are done. We should assume that both sides want to have a good relationship, so if the other dignitary is using 'fuzzy logic' and trying to screw us over, then the President should point it out as such.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see more usefulness in using it after like you say. My only problem with that is with what you do with the information. If you use it to get a "repeat", great. If you're using it to decide you need to clear the building, not so great. I'm just basing my view on how it's being marketed and how I feel the powers that be will use it.
Sure... If you don't have UAV feed, live feed from a manned plane/rotary, satellite imagery, or something of that nature. Then of course the very nature of a tank, mortar, or artillery round makes for one of those times when "close is good enough". Your idea is at least more plausible though. I still would not want to be a soldier sitting outside a courtyard shooting that thing in though.
You know the answer to that... Because even if every guy in the room was a "bad guy", some liberal out there (a lot of them actually) would be crying because we didn't give them a chance to surrender. Even though the battle drill states to clear the room with a grenade, that's only under 100% hostile situations. Take a look at our current ROE in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If the "bad guys" didn't already hear you coming in, they really know when that ball comes flying in the room! Seriously, it's going to take a minute to analyze the feed and on the ground we don't have that time luxury. While there might be a few isolated cases where it could be useful, I'm not sure what they are.
Yes, it did.
I could be wrong, but most people don't like being killed. It's generally a better thing if you go out and find the enemy first and then destroy them. That's different from making yourself a target for the sake of starting a fight. If you join the military to get shot, you're... a bit weird to say the least.
So if you have half a brain, you can see at one time Slashdot had some bleeding-edge-brand-new-cool-stuff on it when I started reading, and now it's different. Since you don't know me, I'll point out I took about a 2 year hiatus when I first joined the Army and am just now getting back into it (just as we prepare to deploy - go figure). So, I had a chance to get away and compare then to now. Anyhow, I've gotten way off subject.
You are joking, right? The title of the site includes the word "News". It would not say "news" if it wasn't a news site. Besides, that one word implies, well... New. Based on what I 'grew up with' on Slashdot - it's a lot more than just a news discussion site. Come on, if it wasn't about getting new stories they wouldn't update it so often and people wouldn't be able to submit stories.
I love Slashdot, but I'm not going to make excuses like that for it. Especially when the title clearly has the word "News" in it! We can do better than this...
With such a gigantic user community, I am always amazed how long it takes Slashdot to pick up stories. When I first started reading, I was finding out about new and obscure stories and events left and right it seemed, but now I'm hearing stories like this on the local radio long before it his Slashdot. Is it because there literally are so many stories being submitted, or is the staff and community at Slashdot just that behind lately?
I do find it interesting. While I knew the general idea of what you were talking about, no one has ever given me the details on the 13th and such which your comment did. It's late to continue the conversation now, but I wanted to tell you I appreciate the info. The civil war subject intrigues me since I am from the South myself and now that I live in the north western part of the US, I often find myself in the middle of such conversations. There are a lot of misinformed people out there when it comes to US history - particularly in that era.
We're always going to see slavery as the reason because it was the most revolutionary change created by the war. You must remember southerners of the time (and many still today) saw the slavery debate as a hit to their pride rather than a moral issue. Most rich plantation owners would quickly cease to be rich if slavery were abolished. Point being turning against slavery at that moment only serves to make the rich southerners angrier while making yourself look good to the northerners. Slavery would have ended anyway eventually, and we would have had a civil war anyway. It was one straw (a heavy one perhaps), not the whole pile.
You know, I'll concede to you the fact the military is screwed up. I signed up to be Infantry, and I've spent more time picking up leaves than training (however - I have done plenty of that too). The only thing these articles tell me is that you might have to fight back if attacked. Come on, isn't that common sense? The Air Force articles main emphasis is the Security Forces/Force Protection job anyway - one where you can expect to be guarding convoys and what-not. The Navy article doesn't specify what jobs the guys have. I think in the end it depends on what you call 'combat'. Granted, if you have to fight back in defense it is technically 'combat', but that's a far cry from the job combat arms jobs are doing. We need everyone, but seriously... When we're talking about combat, I thought you were talking about kicking in doors and doing raids and what-not. I have yet to talk to a radar technician who ever had to clear a room or take an active role in any sort of offensive operation. Is shooting back when someone tries to blow you up 'immoral'?
Combat positions? You're joking, right? No - I'm not about to joke about the AF/Navy and combat, because there are a lot of guys in both who do some pretty crazy completely-combat-oriented jobs. However, the only way you're going to get in a combat-oriented job with the Navy and Air Force is if you sign up for it. They aren't going to take Joe who enlisted as an aircraft engine mechanic and send him with an Infantry unit into combat or something crazy like that. Do all of the services want more combat jobs filled up? Of course they do - they're generally the hardest to fill even in peace time. The thing is, the only way you're going to see real combat in the Navy or Air Force is if you sign up for their special forces type units (pararescue, combat controller, SEAL, etc). Show me some examples of people who signed up to be mechanics and whatnot getting sent to combat units.
Sounds good at first, but you have to take a few things into consideration. One, Iraq is full of random trash everywhere. It's going to be difficult to detect bomb-detonating-copper/whatever in all that garbage. Two - electrical detonation is only one way of doing it - another way is a non-electric system like our military uses involving det cord or shock tube (which could be detectable too I suppose, but just pointing it out). Lastly, a lot of IEDs are so big you'd need to detect them from so far away it wouldn't be practical/possible.
So, next time you steal someone else's parking spot... I suppose it's okay for them to blow up your car, right? Maybe Native Americans should start shooting up our small towns and neighborhoods because they were built on the same area they used to live and worship. Why are you trying to justify their actions? Even you agree they think we're infidels, so what do we do next time they want something from us?
Uhm... Right... The oil companies... Which explains why gasoline is $2.00-$3+ a gallon... Which explains why these middle eastern oil barons are making billions upon billions of dollars. I only wish this conspiracy was true.
I'm glad you don't wish to debate it any longer. Actually, it never was a debate since it's obvious you are incapable of rational intelligent conversation. I'm not a Bush apologist, but I will apologizing for attempting to make you argue a point beyond namecalling and labeling.
It's difficult, but I'll ignore most of your silly attacks and try to focus on the actual argument. Next time, do me a favor and try to stick with facts instead of pretending you know anything about who I am. Your attacks against the Republican party and the childish namecalling might impress your friends, but it's not going to help you much in a real debate with calm intelligent people.
Who even said that? Is your rage really making you that blind? His WIFE got him assigned to go on this fact-finding mission. They're both registered democrats who regularly donate to the Democrat party. Why did I mention this? Because Joe Wilson lies and pretends to be bipartisan. Never did I say anything about a CIA conspiracy - I'll leave it up to you to come up with the conspiracy theories. The point here is Wilson has been hiding how/why he got sent, and then lies about his affiliations. Your taking that as trying to say he's protecting Saddam just shows me how suspicious it actually is.
What are you basing this on? More of Wilson's lies? He even told the Senate Intelligence Committee he may have misspoke to reporters about what he found. The best he could do was claim that some dates and names on the documents were wrong. Of course, he hadn't even seen those names and dates - something you usually have to do in order to prove they're incorrect.
"I never claimed to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa." - Joe Wilson
Last I checked, other intelligence organizations still stand by reports that Iraq attempted to buy uranium. We also know that Iraq was at least interested in it and wanted to buy the yellowcake. The Nigerians stated Iraqis tried to bring it up, but they weren't willing to deal due to UN sanctions. This is all not to mention you act as if the entire war was based on the yellowcake argument. Half the people in this country don't even know what it is, and more than that wouldn't know if it wasn't for democrats screaming about it. Give me a break.
Ad hominem attacks really don't help your argument out a whole lot. I can call you a blathering idiot all day long, but that won't prove you're wrong. I don't worship Ann Coulter or anything, but calling her names isn't going to do much other than amuse the people who already agree with you. If you really want people to take your side, maybe you should try arguing the facts like an adult.
If we're going to call anyone a liar, don't you think it should be Joe Wilson since he cannot even seem to get his facts straight about why he went to Africa or who sent him there? There's also the little issue of him pretending to be bipartisan even though we know he's a registered democrat who enjoys making monetary contributions to their party. So we have a democrat getting orders suggested by his wife to go to Niger and he comes back unable to prove anything new. Somehow this doesn't do a lot for me... Even if you overlook the bias, it doesn't surprise me one Ambassador couldn't dig up any information in such a short amount of time. It'd be like me throwing a needle in a haystack and saying you have five minutes to find it or apparently it's not there.
So what's the excuse for the 8 years prior to Bush's election?
ooh wargames! ;p Rules enforcing a good password the first time seems better than random passwords every month. I can force myself to learn something like "A..2zY30?g!.Eo9" if I have to use it for the next year or so.
First example is wrong because since you only make 50% extra because employee X can do the same task without a raise(that means you don't have to do it).
What you just said makes no sense whatsoever. I think you're missinterpreting what I stated. My example was to show how it feels to get money taken away from you even though it wasn't actually in your pocket. Real world scenario: Record stands to make $100m (random), but a large amount of people decide to get their music online or from friends and it only makes $75m. Nothing was ever taken from the record company because they still have $75m. This applies directly to my analogy. Guy was going to get X amount, but company decided to use other guy instead so he didn't get as much.
He as to do manual labour.
True, but we aren't talking about life threatening work here. Maybe he just had to plug in a computer and switch out some sensors. In any case, he wasn't doing anything anyway. Hell, maybe he was going to go work out for a while since he didn't have anything keeping him active. Should you now not have to pay since he didn't have to go to the gym for a workout?
Your Car is unique, it has a unique problem, the mechanic has to specifically work on his car. Moreover just cause he worked & fixed his car doesn't mean no other car will have the same problem. Difference in both examples and Copyright infringement is, that they both are specific to the task, you do task a and you get $$$, you don't do it you don't get $$$. Moreover both cases are imperative, the boss still wants his work done, so he'll get it done, even if he has to pay someone else and obviously the car still needs to get fixed to be usable.
None of this is even relevant to the discussion, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I mean it's all true, but it doesn't really do anything to argue against my case. The boss still wants his work done? The car is unique? Are you just trying to make this harder than it has to be? Honestly, in both my analogies you looked at an irrelevant point that I wasn't trying to stress yet you missed the big picture.
If Joe SixPack is true to his work, the author of copyrighted material isn't going to see any $$$ regardless of the fact if Joe SixPack downloads/pirates/borrows/copies blah blah his stuff.
You cannot tell me that every one of the millions of file sharers out there would not buy their music if they didn't have the ability to get it for free. That's simply naive and I'm not going to believe it. Maybe 75% of the stuff wouldn't be bought, but don't believe those guys who have 100,000 mp3s when they say they wouldn't buy any of it from the store. Right. I'll admit to it myself, when I was younger I downloaded music all the time that I would have had to buy otherwise. I could either download my music for free and buy something cool, or I could spend $30 for a couple of cds. What's a 16-18 year old going to do? A lot of my friends bought cds their whole lives until they were introduced to Kazaa or whatever. Only an idiot would believe that 100% (or even 90%) of the file sharing going on is being done by poor college kids that wouldn't buy it anyway.
but to me it is human nature and very much capitalistic to pirate stuff. If you can get it for free why pay for it,
Thanks for supporting my point. Got $100 and want to spend it? Get your music for free and buy something to impress your new girlfriend, or spend all your money on CDs? Exactly right, you're going to take your money elsewhere. Remember the analogy where the guy was getting a raise, but instead didn't get any money because someone else could do it for free/less? Oh, nevermind...
doesn't that sound capitalism to you, how is that any different from Enron Execs
You're going to say Enron is a good example of how capitalism is supposed to work? Oookay...
Only explanation I could/would buy for not doing copyright infringement, is th
What does that have to do with the guy I talked about?
They have experienced no loss.
Only if you would have never bought the song, album, movie, or piece of software had the downloadable copy not existed. Not to mention, I think the definition of theft actually extends to 'services' as well as physical property. In any case, I know people like to say, "Oh, I wouldn't have paid for it anyway...", but I find that hard to believe for most people. Maybe you wouldn't have bought it as soon as you did or maybe you wouldn't have bought everything you downloaded, but I'm sure you would have bought some of it.
To me, it's like your boss saying he's going to raise your salary by $10,000 since you can do XYZ task, but then the next week saying you're only getting half because Employee.X said he can do the same task without a raise. You're still making the same money, the extra wasn't technically stolen from you, but is it right? That 10,000 was never in your pocket, but does that matter?
If a mechanic (let's say he also happens to be rich) has no other jobs lined up from 1100-1200, does that give you the right to have him/her work on your car from 1100-1200 and then not pay for labor? What would you call that if not theft? I mean, the mechanic didn't have anything better to do, makes enough money anyway, and you paid for any materials he used... Does that make it right? Sure, I want to get things for free too and I think this whole crackdown is retarded, but still.
So... What do you call someone who commits a crime and is never caught? Say I watch someone steal a watch, but the cops can't find enough evidence to convict. Is that person not a criminal who just got lucky?
Hmmm. Considering Bush handling of the economy, I think his "Fuzzy Logic" was a blatant lack of understanding of the subject, and the inability to reply in a meaningfull manner.
After the bubble burst and 9/11, he's doing pretty well for someone who doesn't understand it then.
I am sorry if I am having trouble seeing the logic behind LIKING that the president cannot think on his feet without his handlers to consult.
Well, I reject the idea that he can't think on his feet at all. I'm saying there is more to it than that. I'd rather have a president who prefers to consult before he talks rather than someone who says something different every time he gets asked about tough issues.
I can understand where you want him to consult his industry representatives so that he doesnt do anything wrong.
Hilarious. Do you write your own material? After reading your sig and noticing you quoted yourself, I though you might be an aspiring comedian.
The problem is, when Bush is in a foriegn country, he has to be able to think independantly because he cant ship everyone he asks for help with him. This is perhaps why we are not having good relationships with other countries.
First of all, the President has secretaries and ambassadors to do a lot of the talking. When he goes and meets with someone, it's generally composed of short meetings filled with a lot of pre-prepared lines and such. This is not something new to Bush, it's just the way things are done. We should assume that both sides want to have a good relationship, so if the other dignitary is using 'fuzzy logic' and trying to screw us over, then the President should point it out as such.