"Any American citizen who is athiest should not be considered an American, nor should they be considered a patriot. This is one nation under God." - George Herbert Walker Bush, 1988 (and again restated in 2004 in an interview on the Don Imus radio program)
I suspect the apple does not fall far from the tree. As someone who believes strongly in freedom for all to believe or not believe in anything they want, I am extremely offended that two of my presidents do not feel that I deserve to be an American or a patriot, because of my beliefs (or lack thereof).
That alone is all the reason I need to dislike Bush and not support him - the rest of his actions and policies be damned.
People who were responsible for bringing us Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the Euro and find Jerry Lewis an David Hasselhoff brilliant have no place pointing fingers at Americans; accusing stupidity. There's enough idiocy to go around the globe.
That's interest, because I haven't heard _any_ criticism of Bush. Especially on the radio. In fact, all I've heard is about how stoic and somber he is. How he has a lot on his mind. How he's busy saving the free world from tyranny.
Bush is a bad president because he of the incredible corruption. Just follow the realations and the ties (including family) between him, Saudi's, Halliburton, Fox News, Baseball, energy companies . . . It's just incredible.
I didn't like Clinton. I wanted Bush instead of Gore. But in retrospect, Clinton is looking damn good and Bush is just a mess. Christ, the guy has conversations with God in his head. And he thinks 51% of the votes (and 16% of the country) is a "mandate". Not to mention, as far as he is concerned, I am not a Patriot and I don't deserve to be an American citizen, because I'm agnostic. (Okay, so his father actually said that in the early 1990s and then again in late 2004, but one may presume that since all of the other beliefs between the bushes are similar, this might be too).
Oh, wait - I thought of other reasons that Bush is a bad president.
* John Ashcroft * Michael Powell
I'm not saying that the Democrat's feces doesn't stink. But it's a conservative turd that's sitting at the desk in the Oval Office at the moment. I can't wait to get the next four years over with and, while I find it incredibly unlikely, hope that the next administration (whatever party they may be) have more respect for civil liberties and the wellfare of someone other than his fat-cat corporate buddies.
Does it really matter? People act as if there is ever much of a choice in who we elect. The world would not be drastically different if we elected Kerry instead of Bush or Dole instead of Clinton or Dukakis instead of Bush.
They're more or less the same people, same parties, funded by the same corporations, imbued with the same corruption and hell-bent on jamming their ideologies on the entire country.
300,000,000 people and only two viable parties with little difference. But you see, in the same way that the current administration uses perpetual war and terrorism to control and bend the citizens toward their want, so are they distracting you from the real problems of the world/country/government by convincing you that the real difference is in whether you vote for a Republicrat or a Libservative.
Corporate fat-cats and aristocrats get to hob-knob with government officials and politicians? And a of them have politicians in their pockets? And politicians give preferential treatment to aristocratic families and corporate leaders?
You mean that billionaires and people that come from families with names like "Rockafeller", "Bush" and "Kennedy" are treated differently than the rest of the population that enables those people to do what they do and be what they are?
No way! I call shennanigans! I just don't believe it! Next thing you're going to tell me is that this isn't news and that it's been going on for more than the past four years. And I suppose you're going to try and convince me that this sort of behavior has been going on for decades?!
I'm not a drinker. I don't even like alchohol as I can't stand the taste. They say it's an "acquired taste" that you have to learn to like. Well, I'm sure feces is the same way, but I don't want to acquire a taste for that, either.
However, it's ridiculous for you to bring up all of these things as if everyone who has a drink now and then is going to drink so much that they're going to damage their kidneys, liver and stomach - not to mention drive drunk and kill people.
Soda damages your organs, as do a wide variety of other daily consumables. The point is moderation. And as for addiction - well, if you have a history of it in your family, you probalby shouldn't drink. But to suggest that most people can't keep their hands off the bottle is just stupid. And suggesting that most people drive drunk is just stupid.
Really, your argument has nothing to do with this topic. The report didn't say "drink as much as you can, as often as you can - and drive around while you're doing it, too". It said an occasional drink. Maybe you're one of those recovering looney's that thinks just because they can't control themselves around a glass means that the rest of the world has the same problem and needs to give it up.
There are times when one feels completely justified. Such as when they download Napoleon Dynamite for free over P2P in xvid and watch it. You realize just how pissed off you would have been if you'd been suckered into paying for the DVD or to see it in the theaters with your hard-earned money, because you were convinced that it was a great movie by all of the paid-for movie reviews that were published.
Seriously, I never felt so proud to have downloaded a movie rather than paying for it as when I saw that boring, poorly-acted, wooden, plotless, inane, stupid piece of crap movie.
No, Rosa Parks and Johnny Cochran are too busy suing Outkast for trademakr-infringement for using her name in a song that, ironically, was commentary on the entertainment industry.
I didn't intend to imply that these specific situations entailed any element of free-speech. But in fringe situations, it is certainly a relevant aspect.
Of course, voting with your dollar actually does say something.
And the rationalization that a lot of people use (and I can see why) is that the RIAA/MPAA/BSA don't care about the law, because when it impedes them, they just have the government change those laws. And the RIAA/MPAA/BSA dont' care about right or wrong, so why should their consumers? It's a bit dog-eat-dog, but you really can't feel sorry for those bunch of dicks just because a bunch of big bad fourteen year olds are getting their stuff over P2P.
Yeah, yeah... two wrongs don't make a right . . . Whatever.:P
What was that quote from Jack Valenti, saying that some people in the movie industry are very poor and "only make $100k"?
So I guess, according to your snippet above, I can expect to be prosecuted because I "redistributed" that copyrighted movie last week when I lent it to my buddy and he and his entire family watched it at their house. After all, I wasn't doing it to recieve his criticism or comment. He wasn't watching it for a news report or teaching or research.
The fact is, the law doesn't account for most situations when it comes to sharing copyrighted material without a motive for profit.
By the way, since you hate analogies so much . . . please to be explaining the difference between downloading an xvid of a movie and watching it versus watching a buddy's DVD at his house. Either way, I've seen the copyrighted content without paying my $20 and I still have no physical property or gain to show for it. So, please explain under what conditions you personally or legally believe someone should have to pay to "share" copyrighted material and when they shouldn't?
I mean, if it's so clear-cut, you should be able to nail this one from start to finish without any gaps.
But where is the profit? If I download a song over gnutella, what profit did the guy sharing the file make from my download?
Fuck, even the attorney general doesn't understand the simple concept.
"Those who steal copyrighted material will be caught
Copyright infringement is not the same as theft.
"The theft of intellectual property victimizes not only its owners and their employees, but also the American people, who shoulder the burden of increased costs for goods and services."
If I download a movie, how am I increasing the costs to the rest of the world for that product? In fact, if I download a movie and watch it, how am I increasing the costs anymore than if a buddy lent me a copy of his DVD? Either way, I'm still getting the material without paying for it which, according to the AG, RIAA and MPAA is theft and causes an increase in the cost of those products.
You suggest I'm grasping at straws, but you're making accusations that are simply not true. Such as these guys are personally profiting from people sharing this copyrighted material. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see anything in the article that said they were selling these products or selling access to the website. Stop associating some kids using P2P or private FTP servers to share content with organized crime producing actual copies of media and selling them for profit in place of the actual product.
By the way, I bet the same blue-haired bitches that think this is theft don't think it's theft if I go to the streets of New York and buy a knock-off Prada purse (normally $600+) for $60, even though that is exactly what piracy is.
Yeah. I think it's the same one that said "all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights", but was interpreted as "all white men are created equal, women are not and black men are 3/5ths".
Copyright infringement is not theft. The Supreme Court says so.
This is only true for the moment. Copyright infringement is being criminalized and the public is being indoctrinated to associate copyright infringement with theft, by everything from corporate-sponsored lesson plans in schools to everything corporations and politicians say about the issue.
Listen to how Ashcroft, Gates, various musicians, authors and RIAA/MPAA representatives speak. You would never know that it wasn't criminal theft by listening to them. In fact, do a google for the phrase "copyright infringement is theft" and you'll see exactly what most of the public believes.
We presume that theft is defined by the taking of an item from someone and when you download or duplicate a song, movie, book or game, you're not taking something. You're, in fact, making a copy of it. Some people would suggest that prosecuting for theft when you're making more of something is akin to prosecuting Christ for taking business away from fisherman and Skippers restaurants.
However, if you look up the word theft/larceny, it actually says "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent". So the question is - what do they mean by "services"? Does this mean stealing electricity from someone's outlet? Or does this mean stealing someone's performacne, that they've already performed anyway?
The whole discussion involves a lot of ideals all-around and very little common sense. All I can say is that, as a consumer, I'm not going to subscribe to Cable television, buy music that comes through the RIAA or buy and attend movies through the MPAA. Some people just talk about it, but I actually stick to it and have for nearly seven years.
I would rather people just put those companies out of business by not supporting them at all, including sharing their products. But when it comes down to it, I suppose I would rather people share the products for free than put more money into their products. Sure, that's selfish, but you settle for what you can achieve.
A couple of guys hiding behind the (assumed) anonymity of the Internet, breaking the law for their own personal gain doesn't quite pass the civil disobedience litmus test.
So, what about back when they were burning printing-presses to suppress communication? Some people continued to produce flyers, essays and commentaries with forbidden printing presses that were hidden away and distributed them under the cloak of anonymity and stealth to affect change in government and society.
So you're saying that stringent copyright isn't an issue of social importance? Being under the thumb of corporations with politicians in their pockets isn't of social importance? Price-fixing and monopolies aren't of social importance?
How about fair-use? That is (or used to be) legal. Making a photocopy of a book for class or a mix-tape or duplicating a casette-tape for your best friend or sharing a tape of a TV show are (or were) protected actions, though they were certainly for "personal gain". Does that mean fair-use shouldn't exist either?
You're oversimplifying things. And for the most part, everything is for personal gain - even exercising your civil rights.
Criminalization of copyright infringement is already in the works and where America treads, the rest of the world is sure to follow (unfortuantely).
I'm the first to admit that what people are doing is stealing (in some form), but I'm not necessarily going to agree that they are not justified. This is a complex issue which involves fair-use, free speech, price-fixing, lobbying and paying-off legislators and a number of other aspects.
There is also a drastic difference between a bunch of kids freely sharing copyrighted content over P2P with each other and a massive underground black-market organization that makes thousands of copies of copyrighted content, burns them to media, prints out a copy of the product's cover and sells them on the street or in stores for cash.
What the government (by command of the corporations that control it) wants to do is associate what is essentially fair-use with organized crime. They want to associate the fourteen year old girl downloading the latest Brittney Spears over P2P with organized "commercial" crime rings.
Interesting how, when it comes to offshoring, it's "the market should dictate your value and worth as an employee, regardless of regional differences in costs of living" . . . Until it comes to the company's bottom line. Then they suddenly decide to handicap the whole game. What's good for the goose?
I play wow and I can say that the situation is blown way out of proportion. I play on one of the most heavily populated servers (Blackrock) and have since the second day of release. The only problems I've encountered have been more along the line of "I can't do any of my 30-40 level quests because a dozen level 60 players from the other side are ganking everyone that goes near the quest areas and the advertised honor system to deal with this was removed". Call me a carebear. Whatever.
There are sometimes long queues, with waits of almost an hour to connect. But not often. And when the servers have been down, Blizzard has compensated us with additional game time
Yeah, the servers have been down a few times outside of the maintainance periods, but it hasn't been an overwhelming amount of time and when the servers are up, they run pretty decently. I think most of the people complaining are the Australian players who have swarmed to (and outnumber Americans in many instances) the West Coast servers. Of course the game is sucking for you, that far away!
This hasn't been a flawless release, but compared to every other MMORPG I've played (and I usually get bored and drop my subscription to them within a month or two), this has been the most flawless I've experienced.
If Blizzard was ignoring all the issues, I'd be upset. If they weren't working on anything, I'd be upset. If the situation was being brushed off, I'd be upset. But this isn't the case. They've acknowledged problems and are working on them. Their existance and profit rely on it and they know this.
And yes, you can argue "but they should have done all this in beta!" and "they shoudl have known!" and "but I'm paying for it and I want my service - that's all I care about!". It's even understandable. It just isn't realistic. This isn't exactly like saying "Our resturant will seat 200 people, we'll average two persons per vehical - so we need a parking lot big enough to fit 100 cars". This is much more difficult to size and deploy and even when you plan things out to the last inch, things tend to go wrong.
And while we're at it, maybe I should try to sell my account? I bet it's worth a nice amount of cash now that the game isn't for sale anywhere!
No, it's Mormonwood (interesting that a movie so "wholesome" is so BORING). But the parent poster said "American films" and not "hollywood" anyway, so . . .:)
I watch a lot of foreign films, but it seems that people who like Bollywood films tend to do so just to be prentiously trendy gits. That said, I personally have never seen a Bollywood flick. If I can download them online for a small fee, I will surely give them a shot.
Slashdot Mirror
"Any American citizen who is athiest should not be considered an American, nor should they be considered a patriot. This is one nation under God." - George Herbert Walker Bush, 1988 (and again restated in 2004 in an interview on the Don Imus radio program)
I suspect the apple does not fall far from the tree. As someone who believes strongly in freedom for all to believe or not believe in anything they want, I am extremely offended that two of my presidents do not feel that I deserve to be an American or a patriot, because of my beliefs (or lack thereof).
That alone is all the reason I need to dislike Bush and not support him - the rest of his actions and policies be damned.
(By the way, I'm actually agnostic; not atheist.)
People who were responsible for bringing us Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the Euro and find Jerry Lewis an David Hasselhoff brilliant have no place pointing fingers at Americans; accusing stupidity. There's enough idiocy to go around the globe.
That's interest, because I haven't heard _any_ criticism of Bush. Especially on the radio. In fact, all I've heard is about how stoic and somber he is. How he has a lot on his mind. How he's busy saving the free world from tyranny.
Bush is a bad president because he of the incredible corruption. Just follow the realations and the ties (including family) between him, Saudi's, Halliburton, Fox News, Baseball, energy companies . . . It's just incredible.
I didn't like Clinton. I wanted Bush instead of Gore. But in retrospect, Clinton is looking damn good and Bush is just a mess. Christ, the guy has conversations with God in his head. And he thinks 51% of the votes (and 16% of the country) is a "mandate". Not to mention, as far as he is concerned, I am not a Patriot and I don't deserve to be an American citizen, because I'm agnostic. (Okay, so his father actually said that in the early 1990s and then again in late 2004, but one may presume that since all of the other beliefs between the bushes are similar, this might be too).
Oh, wait - I thought of other reasons that Bush is a bad president.
* John Ashcroft
* Michael Powell
I'm not saying that the Democrat's feces doesn't stink. But it's a conservative turd that's sitting at the desk in the Oval Office at the moment. I can't wait to get the next four years over with and, while I find it incredibly unlikely, hope that the next administration (whatever party they may be) have more respect for civil liberties and the wellfare of someone other than his fat-cat corporate buddies.
Does it really matter? People act as if there is ever much of a choice in who we elect. The world would not be drastically different if we elected Kerry instead of Bush or Dole instead of Clinton or Dukakis instead of Bush.
They're more or less the same people, same parties, funded by the same corporations, imbued with the same corruption and hell-bent on jamming their ideologies on the entire country.
300,000,000 people and only two viable parties with little difference. But you see, in the same way that the current administration uses perpetual war and terrorism to control and bend the citizens toward their want, so are they distracting you from the real problems of the world/country/government by convincing you that the real difference is in whether you vote for a Republicrat or a Libservative.
What's that?
Corporate fat-cats and aristocrats get to hob-knob with government officials and politicians? And a of them have politicians in their pockets? And politicians give preferential treatment to aristocratic families and corporate leaders?
You mean that billionaires and people that come from families with names like "Rockafeller", "Bush" and "Kennedy" are treated differently than the rest of the population that enables those people to do what they do and be what they are?
No way! I call shennanigans! I just don't believe it! Next thing you're going to tell me is that this isn't news and that it's been going on for more than the past four years. And I suppose you're going to try and convince me that this sort of behavior has been going on for decades?!
How dare you!
Now, you're just being silly.
I'm not a drinker. I don't even like alchohol as I can't stand the taste. They say it's an "acquired taste" that you have to learn to like. Well, I'm sure feces is the same way, but I don't want to acquire a taste for that, either.
However, it's ridiculous for you to bring up all of these things as if everyone who has a drink now and then is going to drink so much that they're going to damage their kidneys, liver and stomach - not to mention drive drunk and kill people.
Soda damages your organs, as do a wide variety of other daily consumables. The point is moderation. And as for addiction - well, if you have a history of it in your family, you probalby shouldn't drink. But to suggest that most people can't keep their hands off the bottle is just stupid. And suggesting that most people drive drunk is just stupid.
Really, your argument has nothing to do with this topic. The report didn't say "drink as much as you can, as often as you can - and drive around while you're doing it, too". It said an occasional drink. Maybe you're one of those recovering looney's that thinks just because they can't control themselves around a glass means that the rest of the world has the same problem and needs to give it up.
There are times when one feels completely justified. Such as when they download Napoleon Dynamite for free over P2P in xvid and watch it. You realize just how pissed off you would have been if you'd been suckered into paying for the DVD or to see it in the theaters with your hard-earned money, because you were convinced that it was a great movie by all of the paid-for movie reviews that were published.
Seriously, I never felt so proud to have downloaded a movie rather than paying for it as when I saw that boring, poorly-acted, wooden, plotless, inane, stupid piece of crap movie.
No, Rosa Parks and Johnny Cochran are too busy suing Outkast for trademakr-infringement for using her name in a song that, ironically, was commentary on the entertainment industry.
I didn't intend to imply that these specific situations entailed any element of free-speech. But in fringe situations, it is certainly a relevant aspect.
:P
Of course, voting with your dollar actually does say something.
And the rationalization that a lot of people use (and I can see why) is that the RIAA/MPAA/BSA don't care about the law, because when it impedes them, they just have the government change those laws. And the RIAA/MPAA/BSA dont' care about right or wrong, so why should their consumers? It's a bit dog-eat-dog, but you really can't feel sorry for those bunch of dicks just because a bunch of big bad fourteen year olds are getting their stuff over P2P.
Yeah, yeah... two wrongs don't make a right . . . Whatever.
What was that quote from Jack Valenti, saying that some people in the movie industry are very poor and "only make $100k"?
So I guess, according to your snippet above, I can expect to be prosecuted because I "redistributed" that copyrighted movie last week when I lent it to my buddy and he and his entire family watched it at their house. After all, I wasn't doing it to recieve his criticism or comment. He wasn't watching it for a news report or teaching or research.
The fact is, the law doesn't account for most situations when it comes to sharing copyrighted material without a motive for profit.
By the way, since you hate analogies so much . . . please to be explaining the difference between downloading an xvid of a movie and watching it versus watching a buddy's DVD at his house. Either way, I've seen the copyrighted content without paying my $20 and I still have no physical property or gain to show for it. So, please explain under what conditions you personally or legally believe someone should have to pay to "share" copyrighted material and when they shouldn't?
I mean, if it's so clear-cut, you should be able to nail this one from start to finish without any gaps.
But where is the profit? If I download a song over gnutella, what profit did the guy sharing the file make from my download?
Fuck, even the attorney general doesn't understand the simple concept.
"Those who steal copyrighted material will be caught
Copyright infringement is not the same as theft.
"The theft of intellectual property victimizes not only its owners and their employees, but also the American people, who shoulder the burden of increased costs for goods and services."
If I download a movie, how am I increasing the costs to the rest of the world for that product? In fact, if I download a movie and watch it, how am I increasing the costs anymore than if a buddy lent me a copy of his DVD? Either way, I'm still getting the material without paying for it which, according to the AG, RIAA and MPAA is theft and causes an increase in the cost of those products.
You suggest I'm grasping at straws, but you're making accusations that are simply not true. Such as these guys are personally profiting from people sharing this copyrighted material. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see anything in the article that said they were selling these products or selling access to the website. Stop associating some kids using P2P or private FTP servers to share content with organized crime producing actual copies of media and selling them for profit in place of the actual product.
By the way, I bet the same blue-haired bitches that think this is theft don't think it's theft if I go to the streets of New York and buy a knock-off Prada purse (normally $600+) for $60, even though that is exactly what piracy is.
While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold his hands while looking toward the door.
That is certainly not an inane law. This, in fact, should be a federally mandated law enforced by the penalty of death.
Yeah. I think it's the same one that said "all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights", but was interpreted as "all white men are created equal, women are not and black men are 3/5ths".
Copyright infringement is not theft. The Supreme Court says so.
This is only true for the moment. Copyright infringement is being criminalized and the public is being indoctrinated to associate copyright infringement with theft, by everything from corporate-sponsored lesson plans in schools to everything corporations and politicians say about the issue.
Listen to how Ashcroft, Gates, various musicians, authors and RIAA/MPAA representatives speak. You would never know that it wasn't criminal theft by listening to them. In fact, do a google for the phrase "copyright infringement is theft" and you'll see exactly what most of the public believes.
We presume that theft is defined by the taking of an item from someone and when you download or duplicate a song, movie, book or game, you're not taking something. You're, in fact, making a copy of it. Some people would suggest that prosecuting for theft when you're making more of something is akin to prosecuting Christ for taking business away from fisherman and Skippers restaurants.
However, if you look up the word theft/larceny, it actually says "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent". So the question is - what do they mean by "services"? Does this mean stealing electricity from someone's outlet? Or does this mean stealing someone's performacne, that they've already performed anyway?
The whole discussion involves a lot of ideals all-around and very little common sense. All I can say is that, as a consumer, I'm not going to subscribe to Cable television, buy music that comes through the RIAA or buy and attend movies through the MPAA. Some people just talk about it, but I actually stick to it and have for nearly seven years.
I would rather people just put those companies out of business by not supporting them at all, including sharing their products. But when it comes down to it, I suppose I would rather people share the products for free than put more money into their products. Sure, that's selfish, but you settle for what you can achieve.
A couple of guys hiding behind the (assumed) anonymity of the Internet, breaking the law for their own personal gain doesn't quite pass the civil disobedience litmus test.
So, what about back when they were burning printing-presses to suppress communication? Some people continued to produce flyers, essays and commentaries with forbidden printing presses that were hidden away and distributed them under the cloak of anonymity and stealth to affect change in government and society.
So you're saying that stringent copyright isn't an issue of social importance? Being under the thumb of corporations with politicians in their pockets isn't of social importance? Price-fixing and monopolies aren't of social importance?
How about fair-use? That is (or used to be) legal. Making a photocopy of a book for class or a mix-tape or duplicating a casette-tape for your best friend or sharing a tape of a TV show are (or were) protected actions, though they were certainly for "personal gain". Does that mean fair-use shouldn't exist either?
You're oversimplifying things. And for the most part, everything is for personal gain - even exercising your civil rights.
Because the true terrorists are kids sharing music, games and movies. Way to prioritize AG Ashcroft!
Criminalization of copyright infringement is already in the works and where America treads, the rest of the world is sure to follow (unfortuantely).
I'm the first to admit that what people are doing is stealing (in some form), but I'm not necessarily going to agree that they are not justified. This is a complex issue which involves fair-use, free speech, price-fixing, lobbying and paying-off legislators and a number of other aspects.
There is also a drastic difference between a bunch of kids freely sharing copyrighted content over P2P with each other and a massive underground black-market organization that makes thousands of copies of copyrighted content, burns them to media, prints out a copy of the product's cover and sells them on the street or in stores for cash.
What the government (by command of the corporations that control it) wants to do is associate what is essentially fair-use with organized crime. They want to associate the fourteen year old girl downloading the latest Brittney Spears over P2P with organized "commercial" crime rings.
Unfortunately, most people don't have the money to fund lobbiests in Washington or fatten the pockets of legislators to sway toward consumer rights.
If you don't like the law, tough-titties. Don't think that you can get away with changing it unless you have more money than those who support it.
Consumers will win once the US dollar rises over Euro
Unfortunately, those in the know (such as Warren Buffet) are quite certain the US Dollar will continue to decline for some time.
Interesting how, when it comes to offshoring, it's "the market should dictate your value and worth as an employee, regardless of regional differences in costs of living" . . . Until it comes to the company's bottom line. Then they suddenly decide to handicap the whole game. What's good for the goose?
I play wow and I can say that the situation is blown way out of proportion. I play on one of the most heavily populated servers (Blackrock) and have since the second day of release. The only problems I've encountered have been more along the line of "I can't do any of my 30-40 level quests because a dozen level 60 players from the other side are ganking everyone that goes near the quest areas and the advertised honor system to deal with this was removed". Call me a carebear. Whatever.
.)
There are sometimes long queues, with waits of almost an hour to connect. But not often. And when the servers have been down, Blizzard has compensated us with additional game time
Yeah, the servers have been down a few times outside of the maintainance periods, but it hasn't been an overwhelming amount of time and when the servers are up, they run pretty decently. I think most of the people complaining are the Australian players who have swarmed to (and outnumber Americans in many instances) the West Coast servers. Of course the game is sucking for you, that far away!
This hasn't been a flawless release, but compared to every other MMORPG I've played (and I usually get bored and drop my subscription to them within a month or two), this has been the most flawless I've experienced.
If Blizzard was ignoring all the issues, I'd be upset. If they weren't working on anything, I'd be upset. If the situation was being brushed off, I'd be upset. But this isn't the case. They've acknowledged problems and are working on them. Their existance and profit rely on it and they know this.
And yes, you can argue "but they should have done all this in beta!" and "they shoudl have known!" and "but I'm paying for it and I want my service - that's all I care about!". It's even understandable. It just isn't realistic. This isn't exactly like saying "Our resturant will seat 200 people, we'll average two persons per vehical - so we need a parking lot big enough to fit 100 cars". This is much more difficult to size and deploy and even when you plan things out to the last inch, things tend to go wrong.
And while we're at it, maybe I should try to sell my account? I bet it's worth a nice amount of cash now that the game isn't for sale anywhere!
(I'm just kidding . . . don't boot me, Blizzard . .
No, it's Mormonwood (interesting that a movie so "wholesome" is so BORING). But the parent poster said "American films" and not "hollywood" anyway, so . . . :)
Bollywood is reputed for recycling age-old storylines.
Oh, they're owned by Disney?
Not true.
Napoleon Dynamite had:
-No sex
-No explosions
-No car chases
-No product placement
-No swearing
-No soda
-No candy
-No humor
-No plot
-No acting
I watch a lot of foreign films, but it seems that people who like Bollywood films tend to do so just to be prentiously trendy gits. That said, I personally have never seen a Bollywood flick. If I can download them online for a small fee, I will surely give them a shot.