So you place no value whatsoever on the pure visual spectacle. You refer to theatre, which suggests that you are happy to have your stories conveyed to you by people standing around in an unchanging, brownish room talking to one another.

I'd say you're atypical, even amongst people into the arts. While I don't mind a decent play, the experience of watching a genuinely good movie cannot be replicated by a book or theatre production.

Do you avoid art galleries because you can stay at home and read descriptions of what's in the paintings?

Furthermore, you must be going to the wrong movies, because there are many, many movies which are "more than just spectacle, explosion and skin". Try avoiding "The Avengers" and go to something with some substance instead.

I must disagree about 3D, too. Used properly, it does add to the quality of the visual spectacle.

Interesting that you would say that - I found the 3D instantly effective from the moment the film started, so perhaps your speculation about eye separation is right. I watch a lot of movies and would say that Prometheus is the best looking film I've seen in a cinema.

3D is a challenging thing for the ./ crowd. On the one hand it's quite a nifty technology and falls into that category of "things people in the 1950s would happen in the future which are finally, belatedly happening". On the other hand, people here are such cynical, tightwad shut-ins that they scream and yell about how it's a gimmicky rip-off propagated by the Hollywood mafia designed to lure them out of their basement lairs and steal their thoughts.

IMHO Prometheus (and also recently, Hugo) shows that 3D has matured to a point where it can be used to great effect to actually enhance movies, instead of being used as a gimmick where things 'poke out' of the screen at you. The only thing I dislike is that it does not capture real 3D - you can't move your head to see behind something, for example.

Yep, would you rather be (a) uber successful but smelly, nasty, humourless and loveless, or (b) less successful but regularly bathed, kind, funny and loved?

Of course this is slashdot so I should offer option (c), unsuccessful, smelly, nasty, humourless and loveless.

As a psychopath, he was excellent at identifying and exploiting them for personal gain.

Heh. My workplace uses Lotus Domino, and it's the main reason I use gmail at work.

Long answer: These verses set up a long sequence of argumentation that is fairly difficult to parse, with a few side excursions and back references to points made before. It's fairly difficult to say what these verses actually mean without simultaneously referring to every other bit that follows and their respective relations to each other, which I find somewhat reminiscent to quantum cryptography.

Short answer: Yes.

Salvation through faith in God and suffering are connected by hope. See Romans 5:

I wish people would stop focusing on his particular situation. It is irrelevant whether he practically can or cannot pay. The penalty is outrageous even if he's a billionaire.

In what universe is the "hilarious" response not an endorsement of their own product?

You would have a point if every Apple ad clearly stated that Apple reserves the right to filter your access to information in a way which is favourable to Apple and unfavourable to its competitors or people it just doesn't like very much.

Until then, Apple presents products which people believe to be devices for accessing information in an unbiased way, which are in fact not doing that at all.

I suggest that what you think is "well known" is in fact known only by a tiny percentage of informed geeks. The average iphone user has no idea that Apple would interfere with their search results to prevent them finding out about rival products.

There are plenty of reviews from established, recognised websites which rate the new Nokia phones very highly indeed. Outstanding hardware, good mobile OS, good battery life, etc etc etc.

You truly are brainwashed if you think this is just "astroturfing" by Microsoft when the truth is obviously that Apple is abusing its market power to skew search results in its favour.

What's intellectually dishonest is asserting that there is an "obvious correlation".

A few points about music:

1. Supply is effectively infinite. There is always something new you haven't listened to yet. You could never consume it all in one lifetime of non-stop listening.

2. Copying music without a licence does not in any way imply that you would buy the relevant music. At most, it implies that you were sufficiently interested to invest about 10 seconds of your time and about 10 cents worth of bandwidth to "check it out".

3. Copying music without a licence does imply that you are interested in listening to music generally. The more you copy, the more interested you are. There are studies showing that the biggest "pirates" tend to be the biggest spenders on music.

4. In my experience, there is an extremely strong correlation between people copying music and people buying music. Specifically, many people now essentially "try before they buy". For example, someone might download an old Radiohead album. If they have any taste, they will be blown away by its quality. Next time Radiohead release a new album, they will be far, far more likely to buy it than they were before.

5. Most people have a reasonably hard limit of how much spending on entertainment they can "justify". Because the supply of new music is near infinite, people are likely to spend up to their limit on music and then copy thereafter (not as neatly as that, but psychologically).

6. IIRC there is evidence that the rise in on-line copying has actually improved music sales.

7. Music isn't like a car. You don't download one album, then not want another one for 10 years.

Yes, the great comic book burning of 2011 was a grim day indeed. Such a shame that the comics from 55 years ago were all turned to ashes in that terrible hellfire.