I've been thinking about this, and here's my "this just might work" answer.

Remove any and all DRM other than a simple "CD in tray" check or Steam-like authorization (one time at install, possibly periodic infrequent after).

Every game comes with a "key" of some sort, and register online.

That key grants the first 1 thru X DLC free for that user, even if it's total crap like the multiplayer "patch" for Bioshock2. If the registered user gets it for free, they don't care because it "came with the game" even if it came out later. Have an activation method for installing the DLC and authorizing it online.

Yes, this idea does hamper the second-hand sales market, but I'm honestly not as concerned about that. But what it does do is get people to buy the game and get a few DLC free (bringing them back to the game and getting another chance to get re-interested in it), while not being draconian and hampering the end-user.

Ahh, but that would be taxing the people rather than the big bad corporations. It matters not that it would change what the corporations do to cater to the new market (and be more effective, to boot).

And the average voter, who isn't responsible for their own decisions, would have no part of that and replace any incumbent who dared to say that the voters are responsible for their choices.

Look up the post.

The only time "all" was used was in the post he quoted.

The only time he used a similar word "always" he prefaced it with "pretty much"

So your proposition is that a witty reply to me is going to change fundamental human behaviors?

So, basically, you admit I'm right but you just can't stomach the truth. That's ok. Message received.

I don't see anything in there that would contradict Unwin's work. Was there anything in particular that you saw?

(The fact that some men are attracted to other men does not diminish that the vast majority of men are attracted to women. Those women, in turn, require a level of "success" aproximated by social norms before they'll engage in sex with the man.)

No, I'm a realist.

Civilization is built by successful men, standing on the backs of unsuccessful men, all of them doing it in the quest for women and reproduction.

Men build society, women don't.

Therefore, when women are promiscuous and no longer require high standards for sex, the average man only works hard enough to achieve the new, lower, standard. Society slows in advancement.

Men seeking sex, on the other hand, is the very thing that drives the advancement of civilization.

So no, I'm not a chauvinist, I'm a person who recognizes that men and women are different; they have different biological drives. This should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but unfortunately PC-ism has caused many brains to become dysfunctional.

Perhaps you would have to know something about the book to critique it.

It's a historical analysis, from Babylonia to (at the time) modern history, documenting the (at the least) correlation between female promiscuity and decline of societal advancement.

So, yes. Gravity hasn't changed since 1600, but world history pre 1930 hasn't changed that much since 1930 either.

So because 90+% of a group behave a certain way, that must not be true because you can find a handful who don't?

Ya.. um.. sure... I'm glad you think you have a point there.

A completely different time? So you've found work since then that demonstrates Unwin's work as incorrect?

I guess gravity is "[from] a completely different time" as it was published back in the 1600's, right?

Casual sex (degradation of standards that hold women to pre-marital chastity) is an indicator of the decline of a society.

You'll be very interested to read "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin, published 1934 in the UK (should be out of copyright now and there might be a few places you can DL it).

Perhaps it's a philosophical difference as well.

If someone threatens me with deadly force (a knife in this example), they have forfeited their right to life. As such, I can cause them no further harm than they have already caused themselves.

Mind you, I do meet force with force. If the mugger is coming at me, they'll get 2+1. If they simply brandish a weapon, I'll brandish mine in return.

There is a significant difference between the meanings of "Dangerous" and "Lethal."

Firearms are no more dangerous than a table saw.

However, Firearms are much more lethal than a table saw, which is why they are commonly used to project force.

Meh, while I made no assumption about the name or existence of your dog, I did make an assumption about your English skills.

Of course, that's your property and your free to impose your will to restrict who has access to set foot on your property. But you didn't specify "in your home" you stated "keep them away from me" which is a different thing entirely. You're free to say that nobody bearing a firearm can enter your property, but considering you will venture outside of your own property that's a long shot from "keep[ing] [guns] away from me"

The Constitution is not a living document. That the founding fathers decided that the "right to bear arms" is an inalienable right, and codified so in the Constitution, is the law of the land until such time that an Amendment is passed to change the Constitution. It does not matter what laws beneath the Constitution have been passed since that time. The Constitution is not up for interpretation (because it is up for Amendment).

Quite interesting. But that never could have been the intent of the 2nd Amendment viewed in the context of the rest of the Constitution:

1.10.(p)3:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

As such, the militia in the 2nd Amendment could not have applied to a state regulated militia. It applied to the common people.

Actually, the purpose of a gun is to provide the potential for deadly force regardless of the physical size of the wielder. A gun can serve it's purpose without being fired, and even without being unholstered.

It's like speed limit signs. They don't keep you from speeding, but what will happen to you if you ignore them does.

You realize I'm Ex-Army, correct? The 5.56 round was designed to maim/injure for specific reasons. It can kill, but it is unlikely to do so without multiple rounds. It's penetration and ballistic profile are, frankly, crap compared to the 7.62.

I want a larger caliber because if I am to personally use a firearm as a civilian, I'm not worried about questioning, pressuring support logistics, or any of the battlefield reasons that went into choosing the 5.56. I want the person at the end of my sights dead with little chance of counterattack.

Registration is infringement, as registration lists have already been used as seizure lists. Check the history of the AWB in California.

Because, frankly, you can't stomach the idea that "civilized" society still requires violence to function. It's just that in "civilized" society we appoint a segment of our society to perform the violence necessary for safety instead of each individual providing said violence themselves.

Pansy? No, just someone suffering from cognitive dissonance. In your mind you think that "civilized society" is above violence, but it simply isn't. All societies require violence to function.

But on the other hand, you're incorrect about applicability. My right to carry a gun is a personal right. Your "right" to not have guns around you means you need to enforce your will on others.... and you wish to use the guns of the State to get that compliance.

Yeah.. that damn cognitive dissonance again.

That's a semantics difference. I don't consider "shooting the mugger who was coming at me with a knife" as "harm".