So, artists should only get paid for live entertainment. Got it.

Just curious what's a reasonable amount to charge for any recorded works then? Would $500 a CD be reasonable for a budding artist? I mean, it might be a while before they can eat again if they're not touring for food 360 days a year.

(Believe me I'm on your side, let's both remember these legal actions and reactions are mainly for the lawyers that created them.)

In the case of a business, you're playing music for the same reason the artist is making it; to entertain others.

Don't want to pay for that entertainment? Fine, let your customers do whatever they want to do in your store in silence.

And it doesn't matter if our personal opinions match here. All that matters is the "logic" a lawyer needs.

Dunno. How many times do you want to get paid for serving the same stupid meals?

Sure, we all hate the MAFIAA, but it's rather odd how you feel capitalism is suddenly a one-way street.

Fantastic. So it's a race to the bottom then?

Not sure who's winning that race faster, millions of idiots who actually pay money for some director to toss shit on a screen, or the celebrities clamoring to be recognized for said steaming pile of screenwork.

Perhaps Leo doesn't want the Oscar after all.

This attention to quality above quantity would also explain today's pop "artists" as well.

Person who demands originality from Hollywood trips and falls over a large book of irony instead.

Smooth.

This is Cuba's answer to the internet?

This is like the US Military calling the Nerf toy company to answer ISIS.

Don't worry. There's an app for that, I'm sure.

Correction: The chain did not create jobs.

All of this other bullshit did.

Ah, tread carefully here.

That particular combination of words is trademarked and copyrighted by the Obama administration.

After all, it is their official motto.

Exactly.

Also, keep in mind, the last concern any POTUS has is actually worrying about budgets or spending. Any actions that spell otherwise are nothing but window dressing.

In fact, one could easily use the words "balanced budget" as a litmus test for anyone running. Anyone believing that's even a relevant talking point anymore is a fucking moron, as is the candidate who would even dare to whisper it.

And I'm willing to bet we'll hear more than a whisper. I simply fail to understand how anyone could still fall for that shit.

Way to prod the bear.

Yeah, you're right. It's only a server OS. Nobody ever puts anything important on those. It's just like XP.

There's a rather significant factor you're omitting here though.

When I invest in mutual funds, stocks, or bonds for my traditional "investments", it is a rather emotionless transaction that is truly only tied to the performance I would expect to receive in return. In other words, I'm only doing it for the money, plain and simple.

However, when investing in yourself and your career (one does not endure four years of training for a mere "job"), the other emotional factors come into play, such as work-life balance (e.g. the medical profession), job satisfaction (are you doing what you ultimately want to do in life), and overall happiness (if you love your job, it never seems like work).

Point here is simple. If you offered me six figures to shovel shit out of a cart for 8 hours a day and guaranteed me that job for the next 20 years to ensure it's a career that leads to retirement, chances are I'm still going to be fucking miserable in life. Sure I may have money, but is it ultimately worth it? If you want to be a Philosophy major to achieve happiness in life, then go be one. It might simply be wise to understand what kind of income one would expect and balance that against the training that may be necessary to achieve that happiness. The disgusting part about today's college environment is it's quickly becoming insanely expensive to achieve a degree even in underwater basket weaving.

We invest in traditional investments to make money. We invest in ourselves for a hell of a lot more than that. And if you're not, you'll understand soon enough why it's important to factor it in.

And you bring all valid points here, when discussing how man treats fellow man under the illusion of beliefs or entertainment.

That said, when speaking of predator and prey, I was more referring to the recycling abilities and respect that these tribes had for their food source, as there is also sufficient evidence to prove they used the meat, bones, and skin for various needs instead of merely killing the animal for sport every time.

What can I say, I don't disagree with your former points. We are a violent species who will reach for just about any pathetic excuse to exercise it. The sad part is we don't have to be that way.

Makes you wonder why we call our society "advanced" these days. We've just gotten more efficient at killing each other while the reasons remain the same.

While you make a strong point as to where we truly stand in the evolutionary chain, Native American Indians and Eskimos would tend to disagree with that last part. I'm certain they're not the only ones who did not kill merely for entertainment.

As for the rest of us, watch a documentary. Visit a slaughterhouse. There is nothing entertaining about the mindless way we kill chickens and cattle for food.

And however you doll up humanity today, it is merely an illusion that anything has changed since then.