A lesson to the studios: If you want to deter pirating, make the official and legal copy MORE CONVENIENT than the pirated version. Yes, 20 seconds isn't a lot of time. But every time someone puts in a DVD and has to watch it for the 100th time, they're going to get annoyed. And maybe next time they WON'T buy your product because they feel insulted. We could sit here and argue all night about whether pirating a copy to spite a studio is okay morally (and I'm very, very certain that's what will happen) but at the end of the day it boils down to this, right or wrong: Annoy your customers, and they'll go someplace else, legal or not.
I'm not exactly fond of my memories in public school, but having met a number of homeschooled kids, I'm so very, very thankful I was not among them.
You hit it right on the head with the religious indoctrination. Most of these kids aren't taught by parents who, let's face it, are even LESS qualified than normal, public teachers. And they're not taught at home because public schools teach to the test, don't give all the resources and attention to students in trouble, or because of the lack of proper coverage of fields such as law (for at least a basic understanding of it).
It's because the science class covers the EVIL science of evolution. And because if there is, miraculously, a class on ethics and philosophy, it doesn't consist entirely of "God said this, therefore it is so."
I'm not trying to pick on anyone who considers themselves religious. You can believe in whatever deity or spirit or whatever as you please. But when you deny a child a standard-if-flawed education because it doesn't cater to YOUR beliefs (and let's face it, these people don't care that OTHER faiths aren't covered, just theirs), well, I don't quite have the words to express my horror here.
The problem is that this kind of dialogue is common not just here on the Internet but EVERYWHERE.
I have an uncle and every god damn problem in this country is the fault of those evil, liberal teachers brain washing our kids. All liberals want to make everyone step in line to their creed, you know. Because there was once this story about a really stupid liberal guy who said something like that.
Similarly I've met people who know that Conservatives want to elect Jesus as president, know that He supports their right to carry an M-60 in their local supermarket and shoot anyone who's skin looks Islamic. They know this because of that story from last year where that crazy guy did that thing.
We need to stop this. There are stupid, opinionated liberals. There are also well-informed, open-minded liberals. There are stupid, opinionated conservatives. There are also well-informed, open-minded conservatives. Beginning a statement by saying ALL members of group X are such and such isn't just wrong, it hurts actual discussion. No, that story in the paper about that one liberal/conservative group/politician/whatever being an idiot or an asshole does not, in fact, discredit everyone on that side of the political spectrum. People on the opposite side of the aisle are never going to listen a word you say if the first words out of your mouth are insulting to their entire group.
Problems can't get fixed until we actually discuss what needs to be fixed and how, and we can't have a decent discussion until we learn to stop insulting everyone.
American law isn't a simple democracy. If tomorrow a state decided to ban a religion (let's not list any states/religions to avoid a flame war), and the majority of that state (hypothetically say 100% of legal voters went to the polls) voted for that ban, that law would STILL be unconstitutional and would be struck down in court.
There is, in any government, a fine balance between accommodating the desires of the average person and making sure what they desire is: a. legal b. responsible c. not merely a bullying practice against the undesired minority of the moment.
I'm with you on this. As an avid gamer, I'm used to getting more bang for my buck. A lot of my favorite games could easily go 100+ hours in a single playthrough. Granted, RPGs tend to be longer, in general, but even some of my favorite shooters, like No One Lives Forever, were quite long.
This just goes along with how developers are trading in single player experiences to focus solely on multiplayer. I feel like a part of a dying breed.
And as one of the 10% that actually DID beat Red Dead Redemption, I've got to say the other 90% missed out.
Creationism really isn't science because it cannot be disproven. That's the fundamental flaw of the field and why you could, theoretically, be a creationist and a scientist, but not a creationist scientist.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It's not that people who (in theory) get power say "I'm stronger! Now, let's go tie some poor damsel to the train tracks! Mua ha ha ha ha!" It's that people say "I know doing X is wrong, buuuuuuuuut... well, in this case, it's a bit of an exception because..."
I can even sort of understand the way they think. For example, what if I were invulnerable, or at least skilled enough that I might as well be? I thought, "Well, I could attack and kill evil people in far off lands. Heroine dealers, warlords, terrorists, etc." But in person, I'm actually against the death penalty. Pretty funny how quickly our own ideals change the second we even pretend we have power, huh?
Anarchy has been tried. It usually results in, after some time, a government popping up in one form or another because people get sick and tired of the things people get away with.
That, my friend, is the nature of political parties anywhere. "We want all of the benefits, but none of the drawbacks."
These people want to have full access to the Internet but don't want to have to come across things that they don't like or things they disagree with or have to monitor their children's surfing habits.
There's also the fact that some things aren't even sold in some markets. So yes there is copyright infringement but no actual loss of sales. So how can there be any monetary damages in these cases?
I thought we were here to politely discuss copyrights, and then you go and bring logic and facts and fairness into this. Clearly you've never negotiated with **AA's before.
I'd say that's not an apt analogy. If there were a way for a Christian to worship Christ via a way other than Christianity, then it might work. The point I'd say is Murdoch loves money, not the way it's made. If he believed Socialism would benefit his bottom line, FOX News would be a 24-hour We-Love-Socialism-Party. Same for Communism, Totalitarianism, etc. He just thinks pandering to the far-right will earn him the biggest bucks.
My point is that capitalism would state that eventually, a better invention comes along and replaces an older technology and the older version goes out of business. For example, we have fridges and freezers now, so say goodbye to the ice man making his morning runs. But if Murdoch owned an ice delivery business, he'd be rallying against the fridge manufacturers.
It's pretty sad how the first thing that came to mind was "Country's educated despised and not trusted by majority, uneducated. But first in a new study, scientists have discovered water is wet..."
I guess humanity, as a whole, just doesn't trust people more educated than they are.
Well, that's what Freedom of Speech is all about, isn't it? No one needs to protect popular opinions. Once you decide "douchebags can't have free speech!" then who gets to decide who's a douchebag?
Well, I suppose we could use a sort of metric like, "percent of income spent on Axe body spray," but that'd have some kinks to work out.
Well, if you follow the basic laws of ethics, I'd say every party involved is wrong. A violation of human rights is always wrong. I criticize China and I criticize the U.S. and the U.K. and every other country I see a problem with.
If what China does is wrong, and the West does it too, then the West is also wrong. Not that most people ever like to admit "their" side isn't in the right.
When we take away the rights of terrorists here, we're wrong, too. Our founding principle of government here in America was supposed to be that all men are to be treated equal under the law. Not "American Citizens." Not "only registered combatants." All men. Period. I would say this is ethically justifiable in that a world in which everyone can express themselves freely is a world where I, personally, am guaranteed that freedom of expression. The fact that we have fallen far from this path does not change the ideal we should be aiming for, nor does it excuse other countries when they do the same.
Well, if he didn't take it as literal, the meaning implies that there aren't MANY black Republicans. And the ability to name a few prominent ones does little to prove that to be false.
And of course the fact that most blacks aren't Republican pretty much has jack to do with shit.
The problem is, as George Carlin put it-- "Everyone complains about politicians. But where are all the good, bright, upstanding citizens with new, good ideas willing to step up? We don't have people like that. They don't exist. This is as good as it gets, folks."
I tend to agree with him. We can't find good candidates because there's no such thing.
And back then, Republicans were "liberal." At least by modern definitions of the word. So I don't really find it ironic. Parties change sides all the time. Now if Reid were an actual politician from those days then, yes, it would be ironic.
It's sad because this is true everywhere. And while I'm preaching to the choir, I have to ask, how is child pornography already not censored? If you find a site that (regularly, as in, not some random douchebag on a forum posting it as a shock image) hosts child porn, you can alert the ISP or the cops and the site will be taken down and, if possible, its creators arrested. How much more censored can it get?
Slashdot Mirror
And you've hit the nail on the head.
A lesson to the studios:
If you want to deter pirating, make the official and legal copy MORE CONVENIENT than the pirated version.
Yes, 20 seconds isn't a lot of time. But every time someone puts in a DVD and has to watch it for the 100th time, they're going to get annoyed. And maybe next time they WON'T buy your product because they feel insulted.
We could sit here and argue all night about whether pirating a copy to spite a studio is okay morally (and I'm very, very certain that's what will happen) but at the end of the day it boils down to this, right or wrong: Annoy your customers, and they'll go someplace else, legal or not.
I'm not exactly fond of my memories in public school, but having met a number of homeschooled kids, I'm so very, very thankful I was not among them.
You hit it right on the head with the religious indoctrination. Most of these kids aren't taught by parents who, let's face it, are even LESS qualified than normal, public teachers. And they're not taught at home because public schools teach to the test, don't give all the resources and attention to students in trouble, or because of the lack of proper coverage of fields such as law (for at least a basic understanding of it).
It's because the science class covers the EVIL science of evolution. And because if there is, miraculously, a class on ethics and philosophy, it doesn't consist entirely of "God said this, therefore it is so."
I'm not trying to pick on anyone who considers themselves religious. You can believe in whatever deity or spirit or whatever as you please. But when you deny a child a standard-if-flawed education because it doesn't cater to YOUR beliefs (and let's face it, these people don't care that OTHER faiths aren't covered, just theirs), well, I don't quite have the words to express my horror here.
The problem is that this kind of dialogue is common not just here on the Internet but EVERYWHERE.
I have an uncle and every god damn problem in this country is the fault of those evil, liberal teachers brain washing our kids. All liberals want to make everyone step in line to their creed, you know. Because there was once this story about a really stupid liberal guy who said something like that.
Similarly I've met people who know that Conservatives want to elect Jesus as president, know that He supports their right to carry an M-60 in their local supermarket and shoot anyone who's skin looks Islamic. They know this because of that story from last year where that crazy guy did that thing.
We need to stop this.
There are stupid, opinionated liberals. There are also well-informed, open-minded liberals.
There are stupid, opinionated conservatives. There are also well-informed, open-minded conservatives.
Beginning a statement by saying ALL members of group X are such and such isn't just wrong, it hurts actual discussion. No, that story in the paper about that one liberal/conservative group/politician/whatever being an idiot or an asshole does not, in fact, discredit everyone on that side of the political spectrum. People on the opposite side of the aisle are never going to listen a word you say if the first words out of your mouth are insulting to their entire group.
Problems can't get fixed until we actually discuss what needs to be fixed and how, and we can't have a decent discussion until we learn to stop insulting everyone.
Well, uh, no.
American law isn't a simple democracy. If tomorrow a state decided to ban a religion (let's not list any states/religions to avoid a flame war), and the majority of that state (hypothetically say 100% of legal voters went to the polls) voted for that ban, that law would STILL be unconstitutional and would be struck down in court.
There is, in any government, a fine balance between accommodating the desires of the average person and making sure what they desire is: a. legal b. responsible c. not merely a bullying practice against the undesired minority of the moment.
I'm with you on this. As an avid gamer, I'm used to getting more bang for my buck. A lot of my favorite games could easily go 100+ hours in a single playthrough. Granted, RPGs tend to be longer, in general, but even some of my favorite shooters, like No One Lives Forever, were quite long.
This just goes along with how developers are trading in single player experiences to focus solely on multiplayer. I feel like a part of a dying breed.
And as one of the 10% that actually DID beat Red Dead Redemption, I've got to say the other 90% missed out.
Creationism really isn't science because it cannot be disproven. That's the fundamental flaw of the field and why you could, theoretically, be a creationist and a scientist, but not a creationist scientist.
You trolls are just so cute!
I think you hit the nail on the head. It's not that people who (in theory) get power say "I'm stronger! Now, let's go tie some poor damsel to the train tracks! Mua ha ha ha ha!" It's that people say "I know doing X is wrong, buuuuuuuuut... well, in this case, it's a bit of an exception because..."
I can even sort of understand the way they think. For example, what if I were invulnerable, or at least skilled enough that I might as well be? I thought, "Well, I could attack and kill evil people in far off lands. Heroine dealers, warlords, terrorists, etc." But in person, I'm actually against the death penalty. Pretty funny how quickly our own ideals change the second we even pretend we have power, huh?
Anarchy has been tried. It usually results in, after some time, a government popping up in one form or another because people get sick and tired of the things people get away with.
That, my friend, is the nature of political parties anywhere. "We want all of the benefits, but none of the drawbacks."
These people want to have full access to the Internet but don't want to have to come across things that they don't like or things they disagree with or have to monitor their children's surfing habits.
To quote Weird Al's "I'll Sue Ya,"
"...I'll sue Home Depot, 'cause they sold me a hammer, which they knew I might drop on my toes!"
I'd prefer it if they were prohibited outright. There are few organizations quite as loathsome as Scientology, which is really saying something.
But I'd certainly settle for countries matching Germany and Norway in declaring them a business.
When law gets in the way of making money hand over fist, the obvious solution is to change the laws, isn't it?
There's also the fact that some things aren't even sold in some markets. So yes there is copyright infringement but no actual loss of sales. So how can there be any monetary damages in these cases?
I thought we were here to politely discuss copyrights, and then you go and bring logic and facts and fairness into this. Clearly you've never negotiated with **AA's before.
I'd say that's not an apt analogy. If there were a way for a Christian to worship Christ via a way other than Christianity, then it might work. The point I'd say is Murdoch loves money, not the way it's made. If he believed Socialism would benefit his bottom line, FOX News would be a 24-hour We-Love-Socialism-Party. Same for Communism, Totalitarianism, etc. He just thinks pandering to the far-right will earn him the biggest bucks.
My point is that capitalism would state that eventually, a better invention comes along and replaces an older technology and the older version goes out of business. For example, we have fridges and freezers now, so say goodbye to the ice man making his morning runs. But if Murdoch owned an ice delivery business, he'd be rallying against the fridge manufacturers.
It's pretty sad how the first thing that came to mind was "Country's educated despised and not trusted by majority, uneducated. But first in a new study, scientists have discovered water is wet..."
I guess humanity, as a whole, just doesn't trust people more educated than they are.
Well, that's what Freedom of Speech is all about, isn't it?
No one needs to protect popular opinions. Once you decide "douchebags can't have free speech!" then who gets to decide who's a douchebag?
Well, I suppose we could use a sort of metric like, "percent of income spent on Axe body spray," but that'd have some kinks to work out.
Who's to say who's right and who is wrong?
Well, if you follow the basic laws of ethics, I'd say every party involved is wrong. A violation of human rights is always wrong. I criticize China and I criticize the U.S. and the U.K. and every other country I see a problem with.
If what China does is wrong, and the West does it too, then the West is also wrong. Not that most people ever like to admit "their" side isn't in the right.
When we take away the rights of terrorists here, we're wrong, too. Our founding principle of government here in America was supposed to be that all men are to be treated equal under the law. Not "American Citizens." Not "only registered combatants." All men. Period. I would say this is ethically justifiable in that a world in which everyone can express themselves freely is a world where I, personally, am guaranteed that freedom of expression. The fact that we have fallen far from this path does not change the ideal we should be aiming for, nor does it excuse other countries when they do the same.
Well, if he didn't take it as literal, the meaning implies that there aren't MANY black Republicans. And the ability to name a few prominent ones does little to prove that to be false.
And of course the fact that most blacks aren't Republican pretty much has jack to do with shit.
The problem is, as George Carlin put it--
"Everyone complains about politicians. But where are all the good, bright, upstanding citizens with new, good ideas willing to step up? We don't have people like that. They don't exist. This is as good as it gets, folks."
I tend to agree with him. We can't find good candidates because there's no such thing.
And back then, Republicans were "liberal." At least by modern definitions of the word. So I don't really find it ironic. Parties change sides all the time. Now if Reid were an actual politician from those days then, yes, it would be ironic.
They became apathetic.
When I was last there, the majority of people I met were more interested in drinking, surfing and watching TV than they were with politics or voting.
Is there a country where this isn't true after replacing surfing with some more culturally viable sport?
But all of people blocked from the site failed to reach the site, ergo 100% of those blocked were blocked.
It's sad because this is true everywhere. And while I'm preaching to the choir, I have to ask, how is child pornography already not censored? If you find a site that (regularly, as in, not some random douchebag on a forum posting it as a shock image) hosts child porn, you can alert the ISP or the cops and the site will be taken down and, if possible, its creators arrested. How much more censored can it get?
You thought we have a parliament?