. Most of the time, the amount of what people spend on entertainment is constant. When they can pirate films and music for free, they will spend the remainder to go to cinemas and concerts.
I don't buy this argument at all. One's time is constant! If you spend your 6 hours of daily free time watching pirated material, you have no time to watch legally purchased material, therefore you will likely NOT buy as much legal material. If you're play a new pirated game every month, when do you have time to play legally purchased ones? The user will instinctively know that their "plate is full" already and likely have no desire to buy as many, or any, legal games since they are already overloaded with media. Furthermore, maybe there are only 4-5 games annually that will excite a given gamer... if they are all pirated, then there's nothing LEFT to buy. If he spends that money on DVDs instead, how does that help the game developers who worked hard creating? How can people be lumping "media" and calling that fair. Truly ridiculous.
The house painting analogy seems to be falling apart, so how about this... illegally downloading copyrighted media is like sneaking into a less-than full movie theater or concert. As long as your presence isn't preventing a paying customer from entering, you aren't "stealing" money from the artists, right? After all, the movie or concert was going to be performed anyway, with or without you there. Yet I think most of us would see sneaking in as theft, although no physical object was taken from an owner and not given back.
Thank you. I stand corrected. Still, what Iran has said pretty much amounts to the KKK saying: "We don't wish to murder blacks, no, we just wish they had never existed. Also, we hope to see them collapse and vanish from the Earth some day."
Charming. Definitely the kind of people I shouldn't have to worry about having nuclear material.
thats strange... I just googled "israel threatens iran" and got 1.8 million results.
I guess you're a liar, or just good at ignoring reality.
1) Half of those hits are IRAN making the threat. Use quotes next time.
2) Israel "threatens" a strike, while Iran threatens wiping Israel off the map. Not an insignificant difference.
Premeditated murders maybe, but crime in general is greatly assisted by the availability of guns.
True, but the real point is that laws banning guns won't stop crime, since so many of the guns used in crime are already illegal and/or illegally obtained. It will reduce crime, though only slightly.
Do you have any idea how much solar energy there is hitting the world?
Since covering the entire world in solar panels is not an option, that number, while impressive, is not very helpful.
Right now, I say spend money on development of these alternative energy sources, NOT implementation (just yet).
Climate Change more accurately reflects that it's going out of whack in both directions.
I seem to remember Al Gore stating that when CO2 levels increase, so does the temperature. So are CO2 levels increasing or not? If they are, then call it "Global Warming".
Changing the term to "Climate Change" sounds, to me, like a child who keeps adding on to his "story" every time he's caught in a lie.
-respect for human life (They are VERY anti-abortion but PRO war and PRO death penalty. That makes sense how???)
Since liberals hold the exact opposite views on those three issues you bring up, you can't say one side is inconsistent without implying the other is as well. It just makes good sense.
Humvees normally cost the military about $125,000 each. Installing Level I (the highest) armor costs an additional $125,000. http://www.reflector.com/news/content/shared/news/ world/stories/08/11TROOPS_ARMOR.html/ The article in the link states that the military's goal is to get every Humvee in the fleet to that state of armor. So $16,560 to $24,840 is therefore reasonable for an entire fleet to have.
I can't believe someone could even equate the "thrill" of performing a criminal act with the trauma of war.
He wasn't equating "trauma" to "thrill", he was equating the potential "solution" to both, which is said to be "more immersion in the thing that ailes you will have you right as rain."
He made a decent point. Enough to make me wonder if I had suffered from a near-drowning, would playing a violent game in which I repeatedly sink and drown help me? (As opposed to a nice game where I'm swimming peacefully.)
It seems that when Microsoft acquires a company or technology, it is labeled as playing catch up. When Google acquires a company (or 2 in this case) they are widely credited as innovators.
The real innovation is that Google offers their technologies free of charge.
As much as I love Uncle GoogleMaps, if I want to find an address accurately I still have to ask Aunt MapQuest first.
But then I run back to Uncle because he's more friendly and just plain fun.
One day humans will set foot on Mars, but what should the new catch phrase be? "One small step..." was brilliant, but we'll have to do something new this time around. Any ideas?
One of my favorite things that they changed from BF1942 is that after being killed you no longer get a view of where the fatal bullet came from.
It's much more satifying to play as a sniper now that the game doesn't give away your hiding spot everytime you successfully take someone down.
Great... as if snipers really needed any more of an advantage against the grunts that are out in the open, putting their butts on the line.
In what way does this make fun of the bombing victims? I don't see any thing along the lines of "haha, they got blown up". Here's my point: the original post was making fun of the people who did the bombing, not the victims. So in what way is it offensive to the victims of the bombings?
Say your mother was stabbed to death and her killer left bite marks in her buttocks. I come by and say, "Man, someone must've been hungry!" Now I'm not making fun of mama, just her attacker, but it still kind of hurts, doesn't it? Say the victim wasn't even your mama, but a friend of hers. Hurts less, probably, but I'm still not going to tell you you don't have cause to be upset by the remark.
This isn't deserving of thanks or, 'gee look how kind they are' -- I think of it as an extra service provided by a company. Some will enjoy it, some won't. Why is it deserving of such scorn?
Because only some people will like Bob Dylan. This is like coming home for Christmas and only bringing presents for the dog and crazy Uncle Louis. It's rude to leave everyone else out.
If they wanted to give a gift that everyone would enjoy, why not give a discount?
English comedy is only considered bland by those who don't understand it.
Or by those who don't find it funny. The late movie critic Gene Siskel once said the two things you can't explain or justify is why something is funny or erotic. It either makes you laugh or it doesn't and it either turns you on or it doesn't.
However, if they simply don't understand the joke they shouldn't criticize the work for that. But who admits they don't get the joke? So when the audience laughs, ask them to explain why the audience found it funny. Someone who understands the joke but didn't laugh should at least be able to explain why others did.
Slashdot Mirror
The house painting analogy seems to be falling apart, so how about this... illegally downloading copyrighted media is like sneaking into a less-than full movie theater or concert. As long as your presence isn't preventing a paying customer from entering, you aren't "stealing" money from the artists, right? After all, the movie or concert was going to be performed anyway, with or without you there. Yet I think most of us would see sneaking in as theft, although no physical object was taken from an owner and not given back.
I think you missed the word *if* in his sentence.
Thank you. I stand corrected. Still, what Iran has said pretty much amounts to the KKK saying: "We don't wish to murder blacks, no, we just wish they had never existed. Also, we hope to see them collapse and vanish from the Earth some day." Charming. Definitely the kind of people I shouldn't have to worry about having nuclear material.
thats strange... I just googled "israel threatens iran" and got 1.8 million results.
I guess you're a liar, or just good at ignoring reality.
1) Half of those hits are IRAN making the threat. Use quotes next time. 2) Israel "threatens" a strike, while Iran threatens wiping Israel off the map. Not an insignificant difference.
Premeditated murders maybe, but crime in general is greatly assisted by the availability of guns.
True, but the real point is that laws banning guns won't stop crime, since so many of the guns used in crime are already illegal and/or illegally obtained. It will reduce crime, though only slightly.
Do you have any idea how much solar energy there is hitting the world?
Since covering the entire world in solar panels is not an option, that number, while impressive, is not very helpful. Right now, I say spend money on development of these alternative energy sources, NOT implementation (just yet).
Climate Change more accurately reflects that it's going out of whack in both directions.
I seem to remember Al Gore stating that when CO2 levels increase, so does the temperature. So are CO2 levels increasing or not? If they are, then call it "Global Warming". Changing the term to "Climate Change" sounds, to me, like a child who keeps adding on to his "story" every time he's caught in a lie.
Since liberals hold the exact opposite views on those three issues you bring up, you can't say one side is inconsistent without implying the other is as well. It just makes good sense.
...than King Kong. But still. Cool.
Humvees normally cost the military about $125,000 each. Installing Level I (the highest) armor costs an additional $125,000. http://www.reflector.com/news/content/shared/news/ world/stories/08/11TROOPS_ARMOR.html/ The article in the link states that the military's goal is to get every Humvee in the fleet to that state of armor. So $16,560 to $24,840 is therefore reasonable for an entire fleet to have.
Here's a problem with Firefox: the inability to save a web page as a single file! Who wants to deal with folders and loose files?
Achtung! That should be a were.
I can't believe someone could even equate the "thrill" of performing a criminal act with the trauma of war.
He wasn't equating "trauma" to "thrill", he was equating the potential "solution" to both, which is said to be "more immersion in the thing that ailes you will have you right as rain."
He made a decent point. Enough to make me wonder if I had suffered from a near-drowning, would playing a violent game in which I repeatedly sink and drown help me? (As opposed to a nice game where I'm swimming peacefully.)
As much as I love Uncle GoogleMaps, if I want to find an address accurately I still have to ask Aunt MapQuest first. But then I run back to Uncle because he's more friendly and just plain fun.
One day humans will set foot on Mars, but what should the new catch phrase be? "One small step..." was brilliant, but we'll have to do something new this time around. Any ideas?
In what way does this make fun of the bombing victims? I don't see any thing along the lines of "haha, they got blown up". Here's my point: the original post was making fun of the people who did the bombing, not the victims. So in what way is it offensive to the victims of the bombings? Say your mother was stabbed to death and her killer left bite marks in her buttocks. I come by and say, "Man, someone must've been hungry!" Now I'm not making fun of mama, just her attacker, but it still kind of hurts, doesn't it? Say the victim wasn't even your mama, but a friend of hers. Hurts less, probably, but I'm still not going to tell you you don't have cause to be upset by the remark.
...that red-headed geek at the top better lay off the ice cream. He's developing man-boobs.