A big part of the problem is that the banking industry isn't always taking advantage of their own safety checks. For example, take a look at thesestories to see how merchants pretty much ignore the signatures on the back of credit cards.
The childless couple enjoys the benefit of having an educated society.
So does the couple with the child. You still have not offered a logical explanation for why the couple with the child should be allowed to pull their funding from the public school system, but the childless couple should not.
Public educatio is a basic and explicit part of the social conttract
Right. So why is the couple with the child allowed to opt-out of paying for such contracts, while still being allowed to benefit from it (by virtue of employing, and being employed by, people educated in the public system)?
Bwaaahaha! Sure, I'd like to see that. While we're at it, let's really stick it to the cops, and let's all stop using illegal drugs, and driving drunk. That'll really piss 'em off.
There are certain things that are so deeply ingrained in the American way of life that nothing will ever change them. Such as spending most or all of your life deeply mired in high-interest consumer debt. Drug use and drunk driving are also very pervasive, and are here to stay.
Well, actually, it is. The site could be producing oil within a few months of breaking ground, and it would immediately provide a short (decades) term boost in domestic oil production for the US, temporarily reducing their dependency on foreign oil. It would "fix" their current dilemma, and "quickly", no less.
Of course, it would run out eventually, but in the short term, it would most certainly make a big difference. Isn't that the definition of "quick fix?" How is drilling in the ANWR not a "quick fix?"
How the heck did you read growing in to my sentace? I said stoping decline, there is a distinct difference between not going down, and going up.
Yes, one of them includes "staying the same" which is the only other possible alternative to not declining. I assumed you weren't suggesting we keep the population the same, because no intelligent person would suggest that it is possible to control a population of 6 billion people to keep the population from either growing or declining.
As the other poster said, the goverment need tax payers, and our older non-working non-tax paying populating is quickly rising in perportion to our non tax paying population,
Yes, that's called a Ponzi scheme, and it's a terrible model on which to build a social program. Now that the mistake has been made (several decades ago), and the numbers are finally catching up with us, the solution isn't to frantically reproduce and put off the inevitable, but rather to wean ourselves off a flawed system.
if the goverment has all those dependants and no income, what are they supposed to do?
Why would the government have "no income?" Now who's the one putting words in the other's mouth? You were all offended because when you criticised me for "not stopping the decline," I assumed you wanted me to help the population grow, when in reality, you're apparently suggesting we keep it the same. But now you seem to be inferring that since I suggested maybe the population could deal with a few years of decline, then suddenly the government will have "no income?"
Maybe if everyone stopped hiring/buying the service then maybe I might receive a little less spam
People/companies use spam because it is cheap and it works. It is cheap because nobody owns the Internet. It works because people are stupid. Thus, the only way to eliminate spam is to re-architect the Internet in such a way as to make it cost-prohibitive to transmit large amounts of data, or prevent stupid people from buying products advertised by spam.
Wouldn't it be nice to outlaw stupid people? Imagine the initial collection campaign:
Attention lucky citizens! The local authorities are conducting an incentive program to reward exemplary behaviour of model citizens. Please report to the nearest police station if you have ever done any of the following:
Purchased a product you heard of through an email you received from a stranger.
Clicked on a pop-up ad while surfing the web.
Read the warning label on a cup of hot coffee and learned something.
Voted Republican.
Slapped a "Stop Global Warming" bumper sticker on your SUV.
Purchased a custom ringtone for your cell phone. Then bragged about it.
Paid full sticker price when buying a new vehicle.
We're both wrong. The tax credit no longer exists as it was cancelled by McGuinty as one of his election promises.
Yeah, I've been doing some reading and I just discovered the same thing. I wasn't aware of that. I'm surprised: I finally found something about Dalton that I actually like.
Please note that Ontario != Canada. You did not state it was applicable to only one of Canada's provinces and territories.
OK, fair enough, I should have been more specific.
I have just as much reason to be pissed. Why should parents in Ontario get this wonderful tax break when parents in the other provinces do not?
You could always move to Ontario. I suspect that was part of the justification for the tax break in the first place.:)
I have a feeling this will disappear as soon as Mike's out of office.
Mike Harris? I think you might be a little behind the times. Mike (a Conservative) was gone a while ago, then Ernie Eaves (another Conservative) took over, then the Conservatives lost the election 2 years ago to Dalton McGuinty (the Liberals), who proceeded to break over 200 of their election promises (there are websites documenting each one, it's kind of funny) and impose a new $900/year health care tax on the hardest working Ontarians.
I'm surprised that you don't want to give money to the teachers that teach our youth.
Spare me the red herring. My mother, mother-in-law, 2 aunts and an uncle are/were all teachers. I certainly do not resent paying into a system that educates our children.
What I object to is rich people being allowed to opt-out of that system by arguing that their kids aren't using the public system, so they shouldn't have to pay into it. To hell with that. Of course they should still pay into it. If they still have some money left over, and they really want Billy to go to private school, then hey, more power to them. Go for it. I'm a capitalist at heart, I can get behind that. But I certainly don't think MY taxes should go up, to cover the taxes that are taken out of the system when the government refunds them their portion of public school taxes.
Thats what you get for not helping to stop our population drop.
What makes you think the population must keep growing? Do you not see the obvious, inevitable result of continuous, unchecked population growth? What's so bad about letting the population drop, other than triggering the collapse of the state-sponsored pyramid scam known as "social security" or the "Canada Pension Plan" (depending on where you live)? Heaven forbid people take responsibility for their own retirement. Ignoring that wake-up call, what's wrong with holding the population at its present levels?
Think of those taxes as paying retroactively for your own school years.
OK, fine. But why do the parents of a kid attending private school not have to "pay retroactively for their own school years?" Why do they get their taxes back?
Which is it? Are my taxes paying for my kids' schooling, or retroactivately paying for my own? You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. Pick one. And then explain to me how it could possibly be considered fair that a rich couple sending their kid to private school gets their public school taxes back, but a childless couple does not.
Are you telling me that in no point in your life did you go to school?
Of course not. You, and most of the other people who responded to my post are missing the point. I'm not objecting to paying for schools. I went to public school as a child, and yes, I agree that it's fair that I know pay back into that system.
What I'm objecting to, and what you and most everybody else is ignoring/missing, is that parents who send their kids to private schools get their taxes refunded. Why? How is that fair? Those kids are still perfectly eligible for the public system, but the (rich) parents want little Billy to have an "elite" education. Public school's not good enough for little Billy. They want him to go to private school.
Fine. Then let them pay for it. So far, so good. No objections from me. Billy's allowed to get a better education than everyone else, because he's rich. However, why should his parents be EXCUSED from paying into the public system? Why do they get their tax money back?
The answer is, "because little Billy is not using the public schools. He's using the private schools. So why should his parents have to pay for the public system their child isn't using?"
To which I ask, why am I still forced to pay for a school system my nonexistent kids aren't using?
Do you see my argument yet? Do you see why I'm upset?
And don't even get me started on how this is completely hypocritical when contrasted with the arguments against private for-profit health care in Canada.
You don't. I don't get food stamps, a welfare check, my kids don't go to public schools (I don't have any), but I pay taxes that go into these programs. My real estate tax goes straight to the school district. I don't use that service.
Don't forget that parents who send their kids to private schools can deduct the tuition and get their tax money back, since they're "relieving the burden on the public system" by sending their kids to private school.
But those of us who choose not to have kids at all, we can't get our (school) taxes back. It's incredibly frustrating.
So if I sell pencils called 'Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Edition' for $200 bucks each over the internet, then I am not violating trademark law?
You might possibly get into trouble there, simply because you're obviously going out of your way to achieve brand similarity with an established entity. However, it is true that simply having the same name as an existing product/company is not a violation of trademark law. Take, for example, "Ford" the car company and "Ford" the modeling agency. Kraft foods versus Kraft music. Apple computer and Apple Auto Glass. There are lots of examples where companies in non-competing industries share the same or similar names.
Easy, you didn't use the figure of $5.4 billion at all in your post.
I used the same cite in two different posts and thought you were replying to the other one. You're right, the point of this little thread was to demonstrate that profits were down in 2005, proving "DangerSteven's" assertion that the studios "continued to make record profits" is false. The whole "what percent of their total revenues was that $5.4 billion loss" was another thread. Nevertheless, I'm still right in this thread. Profits are down, and my cite does confirm it.
You cannot draw a conclusion on profits with only the data for revenue.
Absolutely true. However, I didn't post "only the data for revenue." My quote included trending data:
Hollywood's 2005 domestic revenues of $8.95 billion, which were down sharply
Take (n): To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially: To capture physically; seize
OK, sure, my definition is bizarre. Whatever. Your definition seems to think "take" is a noun. Good job there, Webster. Now which one of us was making up definitions?
"Take" can refer to intangibles. On your way out of class, the professor might ask you, "And what did you take away from that lecture?" In boxing, one can "take a dive" without any actual physical property changing hands. In...
Oh screw it, you're so far off you're not even worth the typing.
Yes, a mere five films in any year will make less than a reasonable yearly revenue.
Huh??? What are you talking about? The point of the quote is to cite the total 2005 revenues, which, according to the fragment I posted, were $8.95 billion. According to TFA, the estimated loss to piracy was $5.4 billion. The point of my post was to compare $8.95 billion to $5.4 billion. How could you have missed that? The part about 5 "Best Picture" nominees making $200 million is completely irrelevant to the discussion here.
yeah, right. laike any of those 'pirates' would really pay money for those stupid dvds
Exactly! Why don't people get this? It's not like these people had the choice of buying the DVD at Walmart, or just downloading it for free. We're talking about people who couldn't afford to buy the DVDs anyway. If they couldn't download them, then they would never see them at all. They're not losing potential customers.
That's what I told the cop when he arrested me for stealing a Mercedes. "Look! I have my most recent pay stub right here, look at what I make! I could never afford this Mercedes, so I stole it! It's not like I would have bought it if I couldn't have taken it, it's way too expensive!"
These companies don't have a guarantee that they should earn such and such amount per year.
There are laws in place that they have to play by, and when their competition/customers ignore those laws, it's not a fair playing field. Of course they have a right to complain.
How many companies and start-ups go bust every year because there business plans are obsolete?
We're not talking about obsolete business plans. We're talking about massive amounts of potential customers taking your product without paying for it. Illegally.
If they can't make money, tough!
So I guess they should have chosen to product a tangible product that is harder to steal, than creative works that are trivial to acquire without paying? That's a great position to take. If everyone here hates paying for products that contain real value, and everyone hates big successful companies that are good at what they do, then maybe Microsoft, the MPAA, and the RIAA should all just go to hell, we'll just download all their products for free, and in a couple of years when there's no one left making movies/software/music, we can rejoice that our radio waves and movie theatres are no longer filled with crap!
Indeed, they won't be filled with anything at all.
What is this expressed as a percentage of those same companies profits?
I don't know what Hollywood's profit was last year, but the total revenues were "only" $8.95 billion. So one can safely assume that profits were substantially less than that, and thus a $5.4 billion loss due to piracy is indeed a substantial hit on their bottom line. As in, they made less than half what they could have made.
What if your employer (assuming you're employed) told you they could only afford to pay you half of your salary? Wouldn't you feel that warranted some sort of reaction on your part? Of course! Then why is everybody so surprised that the MPAA is trying to protect their products? Why are they being made out to be the bad guy when it very clearly is a huge and real problem?
Meanwhile, everyone else estimates that they continued to make record profits.
Um... what? The only thing "record breaking" about the movie industry in 2005 was that unprecended box office slump. Were you not paying attention? Remember week after week, when they kept making less money than the same weekend the previous year, for like 16 weeks in a row? You can't just say something and make it true. Overall profits were down last year:
"The five nominated films collectively have accounted for little more than $200 million so far, barely a ripple next to Hollywood's 2005 domestic revenues of $8.95 billion, which were down sharply as audiences proved apathetic for many time-tested movie formulas." -- Delaware Online
Go ahead and make fun of them for crying about piracy while they're still raking in billions, but don't pretend like they're making more and more money year after year. It's just not true. Profits ARE down, and rampant piracy is partially to blame.
It's still not as bad as Blizzard's, filtering out words like "basement".
Ignoring the whole political issue of it, if they are going to filter a string, they should at least allow common legit strings that it is a substring of.
You mean like "BubbaSemenTaster"?
Programmers can't be expected to forsee all possible abusive permutations of offensive words, so they take the safe route and over-restrict a little. I can't say I blame them. Headlines about Blizzard forbidding "basement" are a lot less savory than headlines about all the "BunnyRapers" in World of Warcraft.
Slashdot Mirror
A big part of the problem is that the banking industry isn't always taking advantage of their own safety checks. For example, take a look at these stories to see how merchants pretty much ignore the signatures on the back of credit cards.
The childless couple enjoys the benefit of having an educated society.
So does the couple with the child. You still have not offered a logical explanation for why the couple with the child should be allowed to pull their funding from the public school system, but the childless couple should not.
Public educatio is a basic and explicit part of the social conttract
Right. So why is the couple with the child allowed to opt-out of paying for such contracts, while still being allowed to benefit from it (by virtue of employing, and being employed by, people educated in the public system)?
... everyone pay off their debts..
Bwaaahaha! Sure, I'd like to see that. While we're at it, let's really stick it to the cops, and let's all stop using illegal drugs, and driving drunk. That'll really piss 'em off.
There are certain things that are so deeply ingrained in the American way of life that nothing will ever change them. Such as spending most or all of your life deeply mired in high-interest consumer debt. Drug use and drunk driving are also very pervasive, and are here to stay.
Drilling in ANWR is not a quick fix.
Well, actually, it is. The site could be producing oil within a few months of breaking ground, and it would immediately provide a short (decades) term boost in domestic oil production for the US, temporarily reducing their dependency on foreign oil. It would "fix" their current dilemma, and "quickly", no less.
Of course, it would run out eventually, but in the short term, it would most certainly make a big difference. Isn't that the definition of "quick fix?" How is drilling in the ANWR not a "quick fix?"
How the heck did you read growing in to my sentace? I said stoping decline, there is a distinct difference between not going down, and going up.
Yes, one of them includes "staying the same" which is the only other possible alternative to not declining. I assumed you weren't suggesting we keep the population the same, because no intelligent person would suggest that it is possible to control a population of 6 billion people to keep the population from either growing or declining.
As the other poster said, the goverment need tax payers, and our older non-working non-tax paying populating is quickly rising in perportion to our non tax paying population,
Yes, that's called a Ponzi scheme, and it's a terrible model on which to build a social program. Now that the mistake has been made (several decades ago), and the numbers are finally catching up with us, the solution isn't to frantically reproduce and put off the inevitable, but rather to wean ourselves off a flawed system.
if the goverment has all those dependants and no income, what are they supposed to do?
Why would the government have "no income?" Now who's the one putting words in the other's mouth? You were all offended because when you criticised me for "not stopping the decline," I assumed you wanted me to help the population grow, when in reality, you're apparently suggesting we keep it the same. But now you seem to be inferring that since I suggested maybe the population could deal with a few years of decline, then suddenly the government will have "no income?"
Hypocrisy, thy name is niXcamiC.
People/companies use spam because it is cheap and it works. It is cheap because nobody owns the Internet. It works because people are stupid. Thus, the only way to eliminate spam is to re-architect the Internet in such a way as to make it cost-prohibitive to transmit large amounts of data, or prevent stupid people from buying products advertised by spam.
Wouldn't it be nice to outlaw stupid people? Imagine the initial collection campaign:
We're both wrong. The tax credit no longer exists as it was cancelled by McGuinty as one of his election promises.
Yeah, I've been doing some reading and I just discovered the same thing. I wasn't aware of that. I'm surprised: I finally found something about Dalton that I actually like.
Please note that Ontario != Canada. You did not state it was applicable to only one of Canada's provinces and territories.
:)
OK, fair enough, I should have been more specific.
I have just as much reason to be pissed. Why should parents in Ontario get this wonderful tax break when parents in the other provinces do not?
You could always move to Ontario. I suspect that was part of the justification for the tax break in the first place.
I have a feeling this will disappear as soon as Mike's out of office.
Mike Harris? I think you might be a little behind the times. Mike (a Conservative) was gone a while ago, then Ernie Eaves (another Conservative) took over, then the Conservatives lost the election 2 years ago to Dalton McGuinty (the Liberals), who proceeded to break over 200 of their election promises (there are websites documenting each one, it's kind of funny) and impose a new $900/year health care tax on the hardest working Ontarians.
If it is a non-religious school (also known as an independent school), then you can not deduct any tuition from taxes.
Yes, you can, in Ontario.
Please indicate where the CCRA states that private school tuition is tax deductible.
Only if you first indicate where I said it was a federal tax provision.
I think you are confused with the Ontario's tax deduction introduced by Mike Harris is 2001.
Yes, that's the one.
This only allows a percentage of the tuition to be deducted and only for specific types of schools.
Yes, the percentage is "100" (up to $3500), and the "specific type" is "private" (of which there are now over 700 in Ontario).
I'm surprised that you don't want to give money to the teachers that teach our youth.
Spare me the red herring. My mother, mother-in-law, 2 aunts and an uncle are/were all teachers. I certainly do not resent paying into a system that educates our children.
What I object to is rich people being allowed to opt-out of that system by arguing that their kids aren't using the public system, so they shouldn't have to pay into it. To hell with that. Of course they should still pay into it. If they still have some money left over, and they really want Billy to go to private school, then hey, more power to them. Go for it. I'm a capitalist at heart, I can get behind that. But I certainly don't think MY taxes should go up, to cover the taxes that are taken out of the system when the government refunds them their portion of public school taxes.
Thats what you get for not helping to stop our population drop.
What makes you think the population must keep growing? Do you not see the obvious, inevitable result of continuous, unchecked population growth? What's so bad about letting the population drop, other than triggering the collapse of the state-sponsored pyramid scam known as "social security" or the "Canada Pension Plan" (depending on where you live)? Heaven forbid people take responsibility for their own retirement. Ignoring that wake-up call, what's wrong with holding the population at its present levels?
Think of those taxes as paying retroactively for your own school years.
OK, fine. But why do the parents of a kid attending private school not have to "pay retroactively for their own school years?" Why do they get their taxes back?
Which is it? Are my taxes paying for my kids' schooling, or retroactivately paying for my own? You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. Pick one. And then explain to me how it could possibly be considered fair that a rich couple sending their kid to private school gets their public school taxes back, but a childless couple does not.
Are you telling me that in no point in your life did you go to school?
Of course not. You, and most of the other people who responded to my post are missing the point. I'm not objecting to paying for schools. I went to public school as a child, and yes, I agree that it's fair that I know pay back into that system.
What I'm objecting to, and what you and most everybody else is ignoring/missing, is that parents who send their kids to private schools get their taxes refunded. Why? How is that fair? Those kids are still perfectly eligible for the public system, but the (rich) parents want little Billy to have an "elite" education. Public school's not good enough for little Billy. They want him to go to private school.
Fine. Then let them pay for it. So far, so good. No objections from me. Billy's allowed to get a better education than everyone else, because he's rich. However, why should his parents be EXCUSED from paying into the public system? Why do they get their tax money back?
The answer is, "because little Billy is not using the public schools. He's using the private schools. So why should his parents have to pay for the public system their child isn't using?"
To which I ask, why am I still forced to pay for a school system my nonexistent kids aren't using?
Do you see my argument yet? Do you see why I'm upset?
And don't even get me started on how this is completely hypocritical when contrasted with the arguments against private for-profit health care in Canada.
You don't. I don't get food stamps, a welfare check, my kids don't go to public schools (I don't have any), but I pay taxes that go into these programs. My real estate tax goes straight to the school district. I don't use that service.
Don't forget that parents who send their kids to private schools can deduct the tuition and get their tax money back, since they're "relieving the burden on the public system" by sending their kids to private school.
But those of us who choose not to have kids at all, we can't get our (school) taxes back. It's incredibly frustrating.
So if I sell pencils called 'Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Edition' for $200 bucks each over the internet, then I am not violating trademark law?
You might possibly get into trouble there, simply because you're obviously going out of your way to achieve brand similarity with an established entity. However, it is true that simply having the same name as an existing product/company is not a violation of trademark law. Take, for example, "Ford" the car company and "Ford" the modeling agency. Kraft foods versus Kraft music. Apple computer and Apple Auto Glass. There are lots of examples where companies in non-competing industries share the same or similar names.
that number [...] assumes that everyone that bought a pirated DVD would have bought a regular DVD
Are you sure about that? Got a cite? Aren't you making assumptions about where that number comes from?
I used the same cite in two different posts and thought you were replying to the other one. You're right, the point of this little thread was to demonstrate that profits were down in 2005, proving "DangerSteven's" assertion that the studios "continued to make record profits" is false. The whole "what percent of their total revenues was that $5.4 billion loss" was another thread. Nevertheless, I'm still right in this thread. Profits are down, and my cite does confirm it.
You cannot draw a conclusion on profits with only the data for revenue.
Absolutely true. However, I didn't post "only the data for revenue." My quote included trending data:
Take (n): To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially: To capture physically; seize
OK, sure, my definition is bizarre. Whatever. Your definition seems to think "take" is a noun. Good job there, Webster. Now which one of us was making up definitions?
"Take" can refer to intangibles. On your way out of class, the professor might ask you, "And what did you take away from that lecture?" In boxing, one can "take a dive" without any actual physical property changing hands. In...
Oh screw it, you're so far off you're not even worth the typing.
You are wrong because: Amazingly Bad Analogy
Yes, a mere five films in any year will make less than a reasonable yearly revenue.
Huh??? What are you talking about? The point of the quote is to cite the total 2005 revenues, which, according to the fragment I posted, were $8.95 billion. According to TFA, the estimated loss to piracy was $5.4 billion. The point of my post was to compare $8.95 billion to $5.4 billion. How could you have missed that? The part about 5 "Best Picture" nominees making $200 million is completely irrelevant to the discussion here.
yeah, right.
laike any of those 'pirates' would really pay money for those stupid dvds
Exactly! Why don't people get this? It's not like these people had the choice of buying the DVD at Walmart, or just downloading it for free. We're talking about people who couldn't afford to buy the DVDs anyway. If they couldn't download them, then they would never see them at all. They're not losing potential customers.
That's what I told the cop when he arrested me for stealing a Mercedes. "Look! I have my most recent pay stub right here, look at what I make! I could never afford this Mercedes, so I stole it! It's not like I would have bought it if I couldn't have taken it, it's way too expensive!"
These companies don't have a guarantee that they should earn such and such amount per year.
There are laws in place that they have to play by, and when their competition/customers ignore those laws, it's not a fair playing field. Of course they have a right to complain.
How many companies and start-ups go bust every year because there business plans are obsolete?
We're not talking about obsolete business plans. We're talking about massive amounts of potential customers taking your product without paying for it. Illegally.
If they can't make money, tough!
So I guess they should have chosen to product a tangible product that is harder to steal, than creative works that are trivial to acquire without paying? That's a great position to take. If everyone here hates paying for products that contain real value, and everyone hates big successful companies that are good at what they do, then maybe Microsoft, the MPAA, and the RIAA should all just go to hell, we'll just download all their products for free, and in a couple of years when there's no one left making movies/software/music, we can rejoice that our radio waves and movie theatres are no longer filled with crap!
Indeed, they won't be filled with anything at all.
Great thinking there, genius.
What is this expressed as a percentage of those same companies profits?
I don't know what Hollywood's profit was last year, but the total revenues were "only" $8.95 billion. So one can safely assume that profits were substantially less than that, and thus a $5.4 billion loss due to piracy is indeed a substantial hit on their bottom line. As in, they made less than half what they could have made.
What if your employer (assuming you're employed) told you they could only afford to pay you half of your salary? Wouldn't you feel that warranted some sort of reaction on your part? Of course! Then why is everybody so surprised that the MPAA is trying to protect their products? Why are they being made out to be the bad guy when it very clearly is a huge and real problem?
Um... what? The only thing "record breaking" about the movie industry in 2005 was that unprecended box office slump. Were you not paying attention? Remember week after week, when they kept making less money than the same weekend the previous year, for like 16 weeks in a row? You can't just say something and make it true. Overall profits were down last year:
Go ahead and make fun of them for crying about piracy while they're still raking in billions, but don't pretend like they're making more and more money year after year. It's just not true. Profits ARE down, and rampant piracy is partially to blame.
It's still not as bad as Blizzard's, filtering out words like "basement".
Ignoring the whole political issue of it, if they are going to filter a string, they should at least allow common legit strings that it is a substring of.
You mean like "BubbaSemenTaster"?
Programmers can't be expected to forsee all possible abusive permutations of offensive words, so they take the safe route and over-restrict a little. I can't say I blame them. Headlines about Blizzard forbidding "basement" are a lot less savory than headlines about all the "BunnyRapers" in World of Warcraft.