I think it's real news. it's on Sun, The Register, and Metro UK news websites.

>>Maybe they will build their next brick-and-mortar store out of clue-by-fours.

Hey moron, there's no such thing as clue-by-fours. They're called 2"x4's! What an f'in dumb@$$. Could you be anymore clueless?

I think this is a case where new legislation is obviously needed. The are significant and novel differences between torrent file sharing and pre-existing methods of copyright infringement and bootleg distribution. I don't think you can draw a logical conclusion of what the RIAA should be entitled to or how much statuatory damages should be assessed from more traditional pirating cases. In any case, anything beyond $20 a track is ridiculous.

The good news is that there are already enough outstanding movies, music, video games, books, etc. to last a lifetime; and anything released more than 2 years ago is dirt cheap to purchase and collect. Also, thanks to digital storage, it will all be preserved until the time the it is not longer protected by copyright. I think the real question is will today's media become completely irrelevent? Will new forms of entertainment and new types of video games make anything out now a comparatively worthless exerience? Or will novelty plateau and leave us with a wealth of entertainment that only minorly shows the signs of its age?

I we will see certain religions (or religious sects) disappear or change beyond recognition over (a long long) time. However, I believe religion will always exist within human society. Religion really just explains the unexplainable. Since we will never know all that there is to know about the universe, there will always be a good deal of unknown for religion to claim. While religions cannot claim as much goings-on-of-the-world as they used to, some of the most significant unkowns are unlikely to ever yield undeniable answers.

Certainly the Australian lawyer did not deserve to be fired, hurt or penalized in any way - and I've never indicated otherwise. I still think he was a jerk in not respecting the feelings of those who deserve it. Like you, i have a much lower opinion for those who issue death threats or mistreat someone for voicing their opinion in a lawful manner. Yes there are Muslims who, for lack of a better word, are bat-shit crazy and cannot hold a rational dialogue. To place their considerations in high regard would be equally bat-shit crazy. However, there are also Muslims that deserve respect and admiration. There are no end of TV shows with dark humor that offend a great deal of people - many of them I enjoy. I don't see the problem with these because they are intended for a target audience that finds them entertaining. The Australian lawyer's target audience was the religiously devout whom he was directly offending. Another good analogy is PETA - they are very much up in other people's business about respecting PETA's views where PETA (IMO) needn't be concerned. While animals should never be abused, PETA's idea of abuse is often quite liberal. Some of their members waged a campaign against Foie Gras in Philadelphia and elsewhere. I support the foie gras producers that endured PETA's harassment, while producing foie gras for the income it provided them and the enjoyment it gave their customers. My point is I'm not sure what practical benefit is gained by burning religious texts. I think his message would have been appropriate if he had not torched any religious texts. Obviously his message would have been far less publicized in that case, so I can see making the argument that burning the koran and bible was done for that practical effect...

Just who IS "paid to...make us see truth?" Media outlets pay their reporters for bringing in and maintaining the interest of readers/viewers. Sadly our news outlets have become less about reporting the truth of factual current events than sensationalism and preaching. The average viewer doesn't want to be informed, they want to be entertained, thrilled, comforted and provoked. That's what reporters are paid for. I wish news shows were more like documentaries than tabloids (which is what the daily show was originally modeled after). As countless others have observed, it's the news media that is encroaching on Stewart's and Colbert's territory rather than vice versa. In summary, we shouldn't "get our opinions" from anyone. We should form our own opinions based upon actual news (aka facts; not this ubiquitous editorial news bs) from multiple sources.

I'm only intolerant of the "hate-mongering" you yourself rail against. The priest that started this whole kurfuffle is the one hate mongering. I'm not sure what my disapproval of his actions has to do with atheists. You lost me on that. I gladly admit that the whole omnipotent creator thing doesn't make much sense and I have no idea what's actually in the koran, but both points are irrelevant here. Burning a Koran for the sake of demonstrating your hate of Islam is no different to me than burning a cross on your lawn while yelling for black people to go back to africa or painting swastikas on your car.

The atheist lawyer is not making a demonstration of hate, but I still think he's a jerk. Would I punch him in the face? no. would i want something bad to happen to him? no. But I would like to see him recognize that people have the right to be offended by, well, anything they want. You shouldn't write off people's feelings just because you don't understand them. I'm not being intolerant, the lawyer is. He cannot accept that other people's views may be just as valid as his own. That's what intolerance is - the inability to accept (or at least allow) that other people's views may be just as valid as yours despite differences and conflicts. The priest and the lawyer are demonstrating intolerance. If I am intolerant of their narrow-mindedness...well I'm not sure how that's such a terrible thing I should be fired and murdered.

On a side note, I used to have a friend who hated when people threw her stuffed animals on the floor. Even though she obviously knew they had no emotions and couldn't feel pain, it bothered her to see them treated poorly. For the life of me, I couldn't understand what sparked her reaction. I could have thrown them offer her couch and stepped on them without a second thought. However, I didn't, and I certainly didn't punt them across the room to show her how wrong and backwards she was. Instead, I accepted that her feelings were valid because I respected her. From that point on, I never 'mistreated' any stuffed animal in her presence.

On the off chance I haven't made myself evidently clear, I'm not saying that the world should stop eating cheeseburgers because some people are vegan. I'm just saying they shouldn't hold animal slaughter rallies where none of the meat etc. is put to good use and the sole purpose is to demonstrate hatred towards veganism.

First off, it's poor taste to burn books in general. More importantly is the context. This guy is just a narrow-minded jerk. I guess if it doesn't upset HIM, it's no big deal? The problem for me is that most burning of religious texts is done out of hate and spite. They are done to threaten a religious group and demonstrate a hostility that goes beyond what I find acceptable.

"Who wants to sit BEHIND the action? People will only use one side as they always have."

which side is BEHIND the action when you are watching football in a stadium? There are certainly some good applications for this technology. Though just having a feature to watch replays at whatever angle you want would be a great addition to plain old flat panel tv.

In capitalism, companies are given a financial incentive to compete for consumers by producing a superior product at a streamlined price. When innovation or increased productivity is no longer forseeable, the mandate for growth costs consumers by giving companies the incentive to create an inferior product.

1. Make a fridge that lasts 30 years
2. Expand company on sales of superior product
3. Reduce costs and add features
4. Eliminate remaining competition
5. The 3 remaining fridge brands can now last 5 years
6. Further reduce costs and trim features and quality
7. Massive profits!

This is how EA would like the video game industry to progress. Just as fridges that last 30 years eventually hurt sales rather than boost sales, so do used video games. Small companies compete with other companies for sales. Large companies compete with themselves.

1. People may download a game they own, or buy a game because they enjoyed playing their pirated version (A "friend of mine" does this frequently)

2. Not every game pirated is still for sale by the publisher. The older the game, the higher chance it is being frequently downloaded as part of a collection/bundle. You could argue that devaluing the resale market hurts new game sales, but the publishers seem more than happy to devalue used game sales themselves.

3. Just because someone plays a game, doesn't mean they would have paid to play it. Specifically, I mean that games without free demos available will be tried out by pirates for a short time. There are way too many awful games out there. I won't buy a game unless I am somewhat familiar with it already or have read glowing reviews. If someone lends me a game i never heard of, I will probably try it. This would distort pirating figures for less known games more than for the blockbuster titles.

4. Pirates download games as soon as they come out, or rather without regard to pricing trends. Consumers purchase games with price as a major consideration. I will make a few preorders each year, but almost every other game I wait until it has dropped to at least 1/2 price.

5. There's only so much time in a day. I have bought dozens of games I've never played...stretching back as far as PSX (in the NES and SNES days I had much more free time). If a pireate downloads FFXIII, Oblivion, Fallout 3, etc...how is he going to have time to actually play all those? People posting high scores just means they are playing some of a game. if you limit yourself to games you buy, you'll be much more likely to finish each game...which means you'll have to choose only a few out of the dozen 50+ hour-to-complete games you could have pirated.

The more money you have, the less likely you are to spend time in Jail???? Slashdot strikes newsprint gold once again!

"It is pretty easy to find, you just have to kill it yourself. I can guaranty that 95%+ of the time, an animal you shoot and butcher yourself will suffer less than something raised on a factory farm."

Yes, but I don't have a gun to shoot the cow. How much less would they suffer if I repeatedly stab them in a face with a chef's knife?