Yes, because your anecdotal evidence is so unbiased. I'm sure as soon as DRM is mentioned, your mind jumps straight to the indirect positive consequences.
If DRM leads to cheaper licensing of shows, and consequently more choices of shows to license, and/or a cheaper licensing fee, then DRM could indeed be in the public interest.
Of course, not everyone would be happy about it, but so long as that group is in a clear minority, then I don't see why BBC couldn't go ahead with the plan.
There's no denying that some people leech from social welfare. The real question is, what can we realistically do differently? We've established that there is such thing as too little welfare, so the game is optimisation. It's not so much about minimising welfare as it is about minimising impact on the economy.
That is, of course, leaving out morality issues about making life unbearably hard on the bottom line. I know that it's supposed to be hard, but there is such a thing as making too hard to be humane.
The time frame is actually pretty clear: the producer promises to deliver the finished work within X months after funding is acquired. There's no set time frame for when it'll be funded, but I can watch the progress, and I can get the word out to speed things up. And if I'm that worried, I can insist on a refund if the project hasn't been started by a certain date.
I was more referring to the funding timeframe, but even with X months making and Y month funding, that's still X + Y months notice necessary to get what you want. Plus, all this watching, waiting, the word of mouth campaign, well, let's just say that that's not the way I like to be entertained.
Interesting theory, but real world examples suggest otherwise: see political campaign contributions for one, and Sellaband for another. People have the option to pay as little as they want, but financial goals are still regularly met.
Maybe. I guess it would only take a certain number people to invest. I guess it remains to be seen how many people have enough of opinion on entertainment to regularly contribute enough money. Like I said, it needs to be tested.
It was an extreme example of a purely hypothetical problem. I don't think it's at all likely that nothing would get funded -- but if that were to happen, the situation would correct itself soon enough.
Yeah, but when the system has an average turnaround of X + Y months, this means we get dry spells of up to X + Y months.
The real question is is 'why'. Why would we implement this system? Most people don't need so much entertainment that crippling our (and their) supply is worth it. Most people can afford a fair amount of entertainment, and for those who can't, well, there's always free avenues.
Ultimately, it's up to the people and artists. If people are willing to buy entertainment this way, and artists are willing to provide, then more power to them. Just don't spoil it for the rest of us.
Is that a failure of the market because we had no barbers for a while? No, it's an example of the market succeeding even in the face of unrealistic hurdles.
Wait, what's the point of the market, if not to fulfil needs as quickly as possible?
In reality, there's constant demand for new content. People aren't going to decide en masse every few months that the old stuff is good enough, then a few months later realize what fools they've been. At any moment, for every person who's content with the old stuff, there are other people who want something new and are willing to pay for it.
Well, that may not be true. Several analogous situations have boom-bust cycles. Anyway, the point is, it leads to thinner supply than demand.
That's a nice thought, but I think copyright is just too tempting for artists (gambling is fun, even if you lose in the long run) and consumers (buying something off the shelf is more convenient than paying for production, and at that moment you aren't thinking about the restrictions you'll face, or the content that isn't available because of copyright).
OK, so people prefer buying off the shelf, and artists prefer copyright. So what? Just because people aren't choosing your method doesn't mean that it's akin to a gambling addiction. Unlike gambling addicts, artists using copyrights aren't being a burden on society; they're merely offering a product that people have the option to buy. So where's the incentive to prevent them from using it?
That's a strange conclusion. It seems more likely that my system would produce an optimal amount: the amount people are willing to pay for, no more and no less.
In theory, artists can research their markets, and calculate the market demand within an arbitrarily small margin of error. It doesn't work quite so precisely in practice, but in the
If people can't get support when they need it, then it becomes practically impossible for them to dig themselves out of their slump, during which they will inevitably consume more than they produce.
Even a most theoretically callous government, extending exactly zero support to these people, even to the point of letting them die, couldn't prevent charity and humanitarian work, which distributes the costs over other channels, all which add to a significant impact on the economy.
The point is that there needs to be a balance. There's no point in saying "social welfare is bad". The fact is, without social welfare, you unavoidably do considerably worse economically.
I'd hate to to think what this guy would do when he realizes that cameras don't pander to the visually impaired market.
Well, assuming he didn't previously realise that cameras couldn't realistically accommodate for the visually impaired, he would come up with a bunch of unreasonable solutions, and his lawyer would strongly advise him against taking the case, since the AWDA requires reasonable measures.
The second sentence here is what I'm still wondering about.
Why would anything become more expensive? If I'm thinking about spending a year of my life writing a book, I might ask for, say, $50,000. That number doesn't depend on how many people want to pay for it: it only depends on how I personally value my time.
Sure, but fewer buyers means that each have to pay more. It's not more expensive as a whole, just on a per person basis. The fewer people who buy, the more of the money an individual buyer has to pay, and the more money that's asked from an individual buyer, the less likely they are expected to pay it.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
If fewer people want to pay, that just means the thermometer graph separating me from my goal will fill up more slowly, but each contributor can still choose how much they want to spend.
You assume an infinite supply of buyers.
Besides, even though people will get their money back (barring scams), they won't want to sink money into something that won't come into fruition years later. I mean, if you went to a video rental store, ordered a movie to rent, paid $10, and were given no clear time frame as to when you would receive the movie (without excluding the possibility of years in the future), would you order it?
And even then, people know that their $10 is not likely to make the difference between being made and not being made. Most will just wait until its made (if it's mainstream), or figure that it won't despite their contribution.
If no one bites that bullet and pays, pretty soon people will notice that it's been a while since any new books came out, and their demand for new books will lead them to start paying.
But that's terrible! What kind of a system allows us to starve periodically? Why would we willing cripple our culture so much? So we can freely download the scraps?
This is a *huge* problem for your system. You need to deal with it pronto.
... but (1) this is speculation
You're right: it was speculation. However, I think it was good speculation. Especially after what you said just previously about how demand reflects production under your system.
and (2) even if it ends up being the case, I think it's a fair price to pay for having a system that's much easier to enforce and provides clear benefits to both producer and consumer.
I think a vast majority of artists and consumers would prefer a system where more than a handful of works are created. It makes artists more money and it gives consumers more of what they want (without them having to give notice of what they want months in advance).
However, if you can find some artists to trial this system, you can happily do it under copyright. All they have to do is pledge to release under the public domain. If my concerns are overblown, and this system is indeed beneficial to both artists and consumers, then artists will have no qualms about using the system, and consumers will have no trouble investing in it. If, on the other hand, my concerns are valid, then, well, the worst that artist will have to do is refund the money, and use a copyright system.
Copyright encourages overproduction at the expense of a lot of failed investments
Copyright undeniably overproduces, but it works. Your system fatally underproduces.
the inability for consumers to enjoy most works created during their lifetimes or their parents' lifetimes
What? Since when does buying equate to an "inability to enjoy"? Even then, you can find plenty of free entertainment, via radio or TV, if you're not too fussy. Second hand stores also eliminate much of the cost.
Even then, I'd argue that the long term lengths are not an integral part of the copyright concept, an
Sure. The problem is not that it forces people to pay more than they want. The problem is that it's not sustainable. It won't provide us with entertainment in the future. As things become more expensive, less people want to pay. As less people want to pay, things become more expensive. It's not anything to do with demand; we still like entertainment, it's just that someone's got to take the bullet and pay.
I'd call that a failure on the producer's part. If you can't convince people your idea is worth funding, then either your idea sucks (and it shouldn't be funded) or you suck at promoting it (and you should hire someone who's better at promotion).
It could also be a lack of people adventurous enough to sink their money into it. I mean, sure, if you're some kind of marketing prodigy, you might be able to rustle up some business, but some ideas are hard to sell, especially to an apathetic public.
Sure, that behavior (people choosing not to pay just because they don't have to) wouldn't change. What would change is that those people wouldn't be "cheating" the system: everyone who chooses not to pay is casting a vote that says "I don't care whether or not this gets made", whereas those who choose to pay are directly increasing the chance that it will be made.
Every person would have to make a choice between their money and a vote. People with mainstream tastes (there are a lot of them, by definition) will feel content letting others decide for them. More money, less waiting, less risk that way.
There's an equilibrium between people paying and people not paying. If too many people pay, then they start to feel ripped off (thinking other people can pay for them). If too few people pay, then more people start paying. What I'm saying is that this equilibrium lies too far towards the "not pay" end to keep the diversity to which we are accustomed.
How does wanting to advance a career, or voting to get more money, actually lead to slavery? In this fantasy world, do each of these people have any form of moral compass? A guilty conscience?
How do they plan to make people into slaves against their will, when they're so desperately outnumbered?
Why would they even want slaves? There are many of other pleasures in life that don't require more than a lifetime of slow planning.
You see, what you're saying is a product of pure paranoia. It doesn't seem like paranoia, because paranoia about the government is so common and accepted in the US.
Even the media join in. They make their money on fear, so fear of authority and terrorism are two great boons to their sales figures.
And that's the real story. Even the worst of these people in power aren't malicious for malice's sake, and they aren't hungry for power, for power's sake. They just want a secure stream of money which they can use to live the rest of their days the way they want. The occasional screwing of other people is just an unpleasant means to an end.
And, of course, this makes them far too selfish and self-contented to actually engage in anything conspiratorial.
Movements come and go. Does anyone still dress like hippies? No. Likewise Bin Laden's movement would eventually die-out via its own volition. It might take 20 years but eventually it would die, and the problem simply disappear.
It might take longer. A lot longer. The Arab-Israeli conflict, for example, has been going on for over 60 years, and people are still dying. There's still tension between communism and capitalism, enough to breed hatred in some people strong enough to justify violently targeting civilians.
It's largely a fact of life that if you stand for something, there's someone out there who will hate you for it. Minimising hatred is a good thing, but it can be taken to extremes.
We avoid hate not because we're self-conscious, but because hate leads to Bad Things happening. What you propose may deal with the hate, but it doesn't remotely deal with the Bad Things. What good is having the world like you if you're dying?
Ideally, we want a proportional response. We want a response that let's people know that we don't let attackers get away scot-free, yet we don't run around like wounded bull. Y'know, striking the perfect balance between protecting ourselves and hate-mongering. And, being humans, it appears the Bush administration got it somewhat wrong. That doesn't mean, however, that they shouldn't have responded.
That's not really a problem. Paying customers, by definition, feel they're getting enough of a benefit to justify the price they're paying.
That's not the problem. The problem is that entertainment is expensive, and is becoming ever moreso, thanks to the "free" option. Any system (new or old) has to address this, otherwise it won't work.
I don't know about that. Remember, the current "copyright lottery" system results in a lot of losses. Howard the Duck cost $30 million to make but only grossed $16 million, so in order for the studio to stay in business, some other movie had to turn at least a $14 million profit.
That aspect would not exist in the system I've described. Unprofitable movies simply wouldn't be made: the producer of Howard the Duck would see that people were only willing to spend $16 million, and then he'd either scrap the project (refunding the money) or find a way to produce it for less than $16 million. And that means he could get by with a slimmer profit margin on his other movies, because he wouldn't need to make up the loss.
That's true; unprofitable movies wouldn't be made. But, on the same token, a lot of profitable and potentially very good movies may not be made, simply because of lack of confidence.
Look at our current system. The movie is made and released, yet so many people (claim to) download it to try it before they buy it, and that's just so they don't waste $10!
Copyright tends to over-provide (and we pay more), while yours would under-provide (and we pay less). We get cheaper entertainment, but less variety.
In fact, compared to the alternative (collecting the money up front and then distributing the movie for free), it has some serious drawbacks: when you spend $100 million out of your own pocket, you're taking a huge gamble. If the movie doesn't sell as many tickets as you hoped, you've just lost millions of dollars. On the other hand, if you're a film fan thinking about contributing $10 to the production of an upcoming movie, you only stand to lose the price of a sandwich and coffee, and the movie producer knows ahead of time whether or not the movie will turn a profit.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the commission system. The only problem is that it doesn't actually address the main issue with the current system. It should still work, but just no better than the current system.
There real problem with the current system is not that content is not free (as in freedom), or that it's too pricey, or that the works it produces aren't of high enough calibre, rather it's a subtle combination of all three. What we have is a system that is being stretched by piracy. It's producing what it can while maintaining profitability, but it's leeway is diminished with the reduction in buying power. Suddenly, the true cost, being a combination of price, freedom, and variety/quality, is too high for people, especially with the free alternative being available. It just means that legitimate customers have to put up with that little bit larger price, that little bit more invasive DRM, and that little bit less work being put into making the work.
The problem with transitioning to the commission-based system is that it doesn't solve the issue of price. The free alternative is still there, and it's still tempting, even when it exists only in potential. Paying customers still have to pay for non-paying consumers. The commissions still have to make a similar amount of money to the amount a successful copyright can make today, and that cost will be passed exclusively onto the customers, in one form or another. It's just that this cost is collected in a much more immediate time frame, whereas copyright is collected over a (rather large) number of years in smaller doses.
So, yeah, it doesn't address this problem; the core issue in the copyright debate. Again, the current system still has people helping themselves, so it's not doing much better, but it's also not doing much worse.
I reckon it's up to the consumers to wise up and decide to buy or not to buy, rather than acting like scum. There's nothing forcing artists to provide free entertainment.
We made nuclear waste as well. It doesn't mean we can ignore it and it'll go away.
Like I said, there's no nice options when a superpower is attacked. Waiting for Bin Laden to die is equivalent to waiting for Bin Laden's numerous successors to perform their own strikes.
I call people pro-abortion. I call myself pro-abortion. It doesn't mean I think that abortions are good, or that we should be having as many as possible, or even that abortions should be legal at any point during a pregnancy. It's just a word! Arguing over it is just semantics! It doesn't change your stance on the issue, and a group of two syllable hyphenated words was never enough to describe the full spectrum of opinions on the topic.
In fact, I feel like a waste of time and space for even engaging in this discussion.
It's all about keeping the sheep preoccupied until they're in the gates and can't back out from the slaughterhouse.
I'm sorry, to what slaughterhouse are you referring to? A massive coup de tat of the American people? A massive alien abduction/mind control scheme? Herding us into little bubbles to feed off the energy we produce, all the while trapping us in some kind of virtual reality?
What could they possibly want that requires a conspiracy involving the media, and a plan that's apparently been orchestrating hundreds of people without a hitch over a decade or two? Libertarians, in a more than slightly desperate move to paint their opponents as evil, are making veiled references to some over-arching evil plot, yet have failed to provide a shred of hard evidence, a shred of reason pertaining to why any such plot could even exist, and without, apparently, any idea of what the plot is, or what it will accomplish.
I'm no fan of politicians in general, but my hatred doesn't run on the combustion of strawmen and the mongering of fear.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because your anecdotal evidence is so unbiased. I'm sure as soon as DRM is mentioned, your mind jumps straight to the indirect positive consequences.
If DRM leads to cheaper licensing of shows, and consequently more choices of shows to license, and/or a cheaper licensing fee, then DRM could indeed be in the public interest.
Of course, not everyone would be happy about it, but so long as that group is in a clear minority, then I don't see why BBC couldn't go ahead with the plan.
Microsoft has posted this page in response:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=bing+cashback+vulnerability&go=&form=QBLH&filt=all&qs=n
There's no denying that some people leech from social welfare. The real question is, what can we realistically do differently? We've established that there is such thing as too little welfare, so the game is optimisation. It's not so much about minimising welfare as it is about minimising impact on the economy.
That is, of course, leaving out morality issues about making life unbearably hard on the bottom line. I know that it's supposed to be hard, but there is such a thing as making too hard to be humane.
I was more referring to the funding timeframe, but even with X months making and Y month funding, that's still X + Y months notice necessary to get what you want. Plus, all this watching, waiting, the word of mouth campaign, well, let's just say that that's not the way I like to be entertained.
Maybe. I guess it would only take a certain number people to invest. I guess it remains to be seen how many people have enough of opinion on entertainment to regularly contribute enough money. Like I said, it needs to be tested.
Yeah, but when the system has an average turnaround of X + Y months, this means we get dry spells of up to X + Y months.
The real question is is 'why'. Why would we implement this system? Most people don't need so much entertainment that crippling our (and their) supply is worth it. Most people can afford a fair amount of entertainment, and for those who can't, well, there's always free avenues.
Ultimately, it's up to the people and artists. If people are willing to buy entertainment this way, and artists are willing to provide, then more power to them. Just don't spoil it for the rest of us.
Wait, what's the point of the market, if not to fulfil needs as quickly as possible?
Well, that may not be true. Several analogous situations have boom-bust cycles. Anyway, the point is, it leads to thinner supply than demand.
OK, so people prefer buying off the shelf, and artists prefer copyright. So what? Just because people aren't choosing your method doesn't mean that it's akin to a gambling addiction. Unlike gambling addicts, artists using copyrights aren't being a burden on society; they're merely offering a product that people have the option to buy. So where's the incentive to prevent them from using it?
In theory, artists can research their markets, and calculate the market demand within an arbitrarily small margin of error. It doesn't work quite so precisely in practice, but in the
If people can't get support when they need it, then it becomes practically impossible for them to dig themselves out of their slump, during which they will inevitably consume more than they produce.
Even a most theoretically callous government, extending exactly zero support to these people, even to the point of letting them die, couldn't prevent charity and humanitarian work, which distributes the costs over other channels, all which add to a significant impact on the economy.
The point is that there needs to be a balance. There's no point in saying "social welfare is bad". The fact is, without social welfare, you unavoidably do considerably worse economically.
Denying social welfare dooms people to that behaviour.
Well, assuming he didn't previously realise that cameras couldn't realistically accommodate for the visually impaired, he would come up with a bunch of unreasonable solutions, and his lawyer would strongly advise him against taking the case, since the AWDA requires reasonable measures.
Sorry about the wait.
Sure, but fewer buyers means that each have to pay more. It's not more expensive as a whole, just on a per person basis. The fewer people who buy, the more of the money an individual buyer has to pay, and the more money that's asked from an individual buyer, the less likely they are expected to pay it.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
You assume an infinite supply of buyers.
Besides, even though people will get their money back (barring scams), they won't want to sink money into something that won't come into fruition years later. I mean, if you went to a video rental store, ordered a movie to rent, paid $10, and were given no clear time frame as to when you would receive the movie (without excluding the possibility of years in the future), would you order it?
And even then, people know that their $10 is not likely to make the difference between being made and not being made. Most will just wait until its made (if it's mainstream), or figure that it won't despite their contribution.
But that's terrible! What kind of a system allows us to starve periodically? Why would we willing cripple our culture so much? So we can freely download the scraps?
This is a *huge* problem for your system. You need to deal with it pronto.
You're right: it was speculation. However, I think it was good speculation. Especially after what you said just previously about how demand reflects production under your system.
I think a vast majority of artists and consumers would prefer a system where more than a handful of works are created. It makes artists more money and it gives consumers more of what they want (without them having to give notice of what they want months in advance).
However, if you can find some artists to trial this system, you can happily do it under copyright. All they have to do is pledge to release under the public domain. If my concerns are overblown, and this system is indeed beneficial to both artists and consumers, then artists will have no qualms about using the system, and consumers will have no trouble investing in it. If, on the other hand, my concerns are valid, then, well, the worst that artist will have to do is refund the money, and use a copyright system.
Copyright undeniably overproduces, but it works. Your system fatally underproduces.
What? Since when does buying equate to an "inability to enjoy"? Even then, you can find plenty of free entertainment, via radio or TV, if you're not too fussy. Second hand stores also eliminate much of the cost.
Even then, I'd argue that the long term lengths are not an integral part of the copyright concept, an
Did not.
I'm getting really sick of these ludicrous propositions becoming law.
Sure. The problem is not that it forces people to pay more than they want. The problem is that it's not sustainable. It won't provide us with entertainment in the future. As things become more expensive, less people want to pay. As less people want to pay, things become more expensive. It's not anything to do with demand; we still like entertainment, it's just that someone's got to take the bullet and pay.
It could also be a lack of people adventurous enough to sink their money into it. I mean, sure, if you're some kind of marketing prodigy, you might be able to rustle up some business, but some ideas are hard to sell, especially to an apathetic public.
Every person would have to make a choice between their money and a vote. People with mainstream tastes (there are a lot of them, by definition) will feel content letting others decide for them. More money, less waiting, less risk that way.
There's an equilibrium between people paying and people not paying. If too many people pay, then they start to feel ripped off (thinking other people can pay for them). If too few people pay, then more people start paying. What I'm saying is that this equilibrium lies too far towards the "not pay" end to keep the diversity to which we are accustomed.
So that's what you think is coming? Slavery?
How does wanting to advance a career, or voting to get more money, actually lead to slavery? In this fantasy world, do each of these people have any form of moral compass? A guilty conscience?
How do they plan to make people into slaves against their will, when they're so desperately outnumbered?
Why would they even want slaves? There are many of other pleasures in life that don't require more than a lifetime of slow planning.
You see, what you're saying is a product of pure paranoia. It doesn't seem like paranoia, because paranoia about the government is so common and accepted in the US.
Even the media join in. They make their money on fear, so fear of authority and terrorism are two great boons to their sales figures.
And that's the real story. Even the worst of these people in power aren't malicious for malice's sake, and they aren't hungry for power, for power's sake. They just want a secure stream of money which they can use to live the rest of their days the way they want. The occasional screwing of other people is just an unpleasant means to an end.
And, of course, this makes them far too selfish and self-contented to actually engage in anything conspiratorial.
It might take longer. A lot longer. The Arab-Israeli conflict, for example, has been going on for over 60 years, and people are still dying. There's still tension between communism and capitalism, enough to breed hatred in some people strong enough to justify violently targeting civilians.
It's largely a fact of life that if you stand for something, there's someone out there who will hate you for it. Minimising hatred is a good thing, but it can be taken to extremes.
We avoid hate not because we're self-conscious, but because hate leads to Bad Things happening. What you propose may deal with the hate, but it doesn't remotely deal with the Bad Things. What good is having the world like you if you're dying?
Ideally, we want a proportional response. We want a response that let's people know that we don't let attackers get away scot-free, yet we don't run around like wounded bull. Y'know, striking the perfect balance between protecting ourselves and hate-mongering. And, being humans, it appears the Bush administration got it somewhat wrong. That doesn't mean, however, that they shouldn't have responded.
That's not the problem. The problem is that entertainment is expensive, and is becoming ever moreso, thanks to the "free" option. Any system (new or old) has to address this, otherwise it won't work.
That's true; unprofitable movies wouldn't be made. But, on the same token, a lot of profitable and potentially very good movies may not be made, simply because of lack of confidence.
Look at our current system. The movie is made and released, yet so many people (claim to) download it to try it before they buy it, and that's just so they don't waste $10!
Copyright tends to over-provide (and we pay more), while yours would under-provide (and we pay less). We get cheaper entertainment, but less variety.
Then it's definitely stealing. You paid for their service, you get the service you paid for.
If you think they falsely advertised, take them to court. At least they will get a fair chance to present their side of the argument.
No. Next please!
Hacked modems that steal internet service are not akin to aftermarket alterations to your vehicle.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the commission system. The only problem is that it doesn't actually address the main issue with the current system. It should still work, but just no better than the current system.
There real problem with the current system is not that content is not free (as in freedom), or that it's too pricey, or that the works it produces aren't of high enough calibre, rather it's a subtle combination of all three. What we have is a system that is being stretched by piracy. It's producing what it can while maintaining profitability, but it's leeway is diminished with the reduction in buying power. Suddenly, the true cost, being a combination of price, freedom, and variety/quality, is too high for people, especially with the free alternative being available. It just means that legitimate customers have to put up with that little bit larger price, that little bit more invasive DRM, and that little bit less work being put into making the work.
The problem with transitioning to the commission-based system is that it doesn't solve the issue of price. The free alternative is still there, and it's still tempting, even when it exists only in potential. Paying customers still have to pay for non-paying consumers. The commissions still have to make a similar amount of money to the amount a successful copyright can make today, and that cost will be passed exclusively onto the customers, in one form or another. It's just that this cost is collected in a much more immediate time frame, whereas copyright is collected over a (rather large) number of years in smaller doses.
So, yeah, it doesn't address this problem; the core issue in the copyright debate. Again, the current system still has people helping themselves, so it's not doing much better, but it's also not doing much worse.
I reckon it's up to the consumers to wise up and decide to buy or not to buy, rather than acting like scum. There's nothing forcing artists to provide free entertainment.
Just to be clear, you do know that, in general, you shouldn't be using this information, right? Stealing service from a big company is still stealing.
We made nuclear waste as well. It doesn't mean we can ignore it and it'll go away.
Like I said, there's no nice options when a superpower is attacked. Waiting for Bin Laden to die is equivalent to waiting for Bin Laden's numerous successors to perform their own strikes.
I call people pro-abortion. I call myself pro-abortion. It doesn't mean I think that abortions are good, or that we should be having as many as possible, or even that abortions should be legal at any point during a pregnancy. It's just a word! Arguing over it is just semantics! It doesn't change your stance on the issue, and a group of two syllable hyphenated words was never enough to describe the full spectrum of opinions on the topic.
In fact, I feel like a waste of time and space for even engaging in this discussion.
Indeed. Anyone found thinking supportive thoughts about criminals are criminals themselves.
I, for one, welcome our lovely commodore64 overlords.
I'm sorry, to what slaughterhouse are you referring to? A massive coup de tat of the American people? A massive alien abduction/mind control scheme? Herding us into little bubbles to feed off the energy we produce, all the while trapping us in some kind of virtual reality?
What could they possibly want that requires a conspiracy involving the media, and a plan that's apparently been orchestrating hundreds of people without a hitch over a decade or two? Libertarians, in a more than slightly desperate move to paint their opponents as evil, are making veiled references to some over-arching evil plot, yet have failed to provide a shred of hard evidence, a shred of reason pertaining to why any such plot could even exist, and without, apparently, any idea of what the plot is, or what it will accomplish.
I'm no fan of politicians in general, but my hatred doesn't run on the combustion of strawmen and the mongering of fear.
... to do what exactly? What's in it for them?
It seems like this kind of thing is said so often on slashdot, yet no-one has managed to actually satisfactorally answer the question.