So, the first way you know you are fucked, the second way you can enjoy a relative ignorance?

Thats not up to Branson you muppet, it would be up to the son. Just like it would be up to the people who would volunteer for such a job... You know, like the people who volunteered to discover America and to go to the poles and to fly space rockets to the moon and such. Nobody held a gun at their heads!

As evidenced by South Africa, if you take white people and put them in Africa long enough they generally become arseholes too. My theory is that zebras are influencing the behaviour of the more powerful humans negatively using some form of as yet unresearched ultrasonic pulse emanating from inside their nasal cavity, in a bid to distract them from the the ubiquitous availability of tasty zebra meat by causing them to kill each other. Those silly zebras didn't count on the fact that humans tend to just bury each other, rather than eat the tasty human meat. If you don't believe me, you are another fucking sheep.

Yes, and the whole point is that we should be intelligent enough to accept that we might have to re-evaluate our understanding of the world in the face of new evidence, and that any information presented to us may not be 100 % accurate. Does that help?

Well, I just call it dumbing it down. Yes we know the earth isnt literally defending itself like a cute little soldier. But the consequence of us taking more than we put in is our own death one way or another, and only an idiot won't accept that.

Yawn.

Try leaving the house. Puts internet politics in perspective.

Was that the subject? WAS IT?

What are you talking about? In the original example, obviously Louis CK is going to pay. With the money that he earns from his stand up. Whether the old fashioned ticket way, or via donations. Is this complicated somehow? Is there some kind of genetic predisposition to need a middle man? Are you the middle man by any chance?

Well, no amount of coercion will encourage me to drink pepsi, so I think there may be a flaw in this logic..

If you are going to have something different, it may as well be well... different or what is the point?

Sorry, rather be raped and murdered than be falsely accused :P

I think I may be able to add to your point of view, in the unlikely event that any game devs are reading:

There is abslolutely no reward or interest in fighting against/being beaten by anonymous opponents which have otherwise no personal connection to the player. I love quake, command and conquer, etcetera, but only in the same way as I love chess, and I would never even contemplate playing chess against someone I had never met in person, because that would be boring; a soulless challenge, so pointless that I may as well play against a computer.

Some people become obsessed with online games, and perhaps I can see why it would be a diversion, but I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people are only interested in playing games against the people in their own existing social circle, and could not give a damn about massively multiplayer, always online bullshit - and that to lump every gamer in that crowd would be a disastrous folly. Networked games are a beautiful thing, when they are combined with a social, friendly and close knit group of friends, where all players are in hearing distance and it resembles something like a sporting event; but when exposed to the stark, impersonal world of the internet, they are about as good as a kick in the face!

A fifth minus 3 hundredths of a penny saved is...

Please laugh harder sir, it may be our only chance! :'(

Hay, at least the BBC makes a token effort to hide the fact that it is insulting your intelligence.

Whiner.