One of the few AC posts rightfully modded as +5 Insightful!

I'm sorry, but this was pretty fucking funny.

As you so kindly pointed out....

Means your view of whomever is that they are of immature mind. I am not making excuses or publicly taking sides, as I really don't have the time or energy to argue with /. either way, but in my view, if Manning is found guilty, shouldn't there be at least some consideration for the fact that at 19 or 20 or however old he was at the time he may not have understood fully the implications of his actions?

Perhaps securing or shielding such sensitive information from these "arrogant children" until a more appropriate age and maturity is reached is a good start.

This is the first time I've seen poll results so even distributed amongst the available options.

To me, that's pretty interesting, as the options range from basically "I'm a cheapskate" to "I enjoy spending my money on loved ones" to "I am Scrooge".

Agreed. Why should I give my hard earned money to a label, that honestly serves less and less of a purpose every day, who in turn leaves a pittance to the actual artist.

Of course, how many bands/singers that are signed by these labels are truly 'artists' anymore? I wouldn't define an artist as someone who sings songs written by someone else to music composed and played by someone else, all through auto-tune.

Now, a band like MAYDAY, or an indy musician like Dan Bull, those are true artists, and deserve to be compensated accordingly.

As for the last part of your comment - you are spot on. Digital media should be cheaper than physical media, and a five-track 'album' is just another ploy by the label to get more money out of the fans.

Although it definitely lacks some content, I too use Netflix for this reason.

It has actually reduced the amount of stuff I have to pirate, because it gives me a moderate collection of mostly-HD TV shows and movies available for $8/month on my Wii, Xbox, computer, and phone.

Rather than waiting for a torrent to download, I can boot up the Xbox, find something interesting, and within 10 seconds I'm watching it in full HD.

I am happy to pay the negligible $8 each month to legally do this.

And dammit, I'm only counting 4G/LTE phones.

3g is SO last year.

Well, let me correct that...this IS /.

I've been hearing for a while now about the upcoming release of the first phone running ICS.

I've been hearing for a while now about the upcoming release of ICS.

About damn time.

Took me a minute to decide to comment, or mod up.

I will NOT pay $20+ for a DVD full of DRM/malware. If I purchase something, it is mine. I will not subject myself to corporate restrictions on what I can do with my own property. I have gladly paid for DRM-free songs and movies, and will continue to do so as long as my rights to my own property are not encroached upon.

I have even donated more than asked to independent artists, simply because I feel that they deserved to be compensated for producing something I enjoyed.

The typical pirate's attitude is not "yay, everything's free!".

Should $CORPORATION decide to release their movies for a reasonable price and allow me to download it immediately via BitTorrent, here's my Visa.

+1 Insightful anyone?

Shit, I forgot to log in. If you're gonna mod, mod this one, not my AC post.

Call me pessimistic, but documentaries do tend to be biased.

Yeah, that's why media sites like IT World, The Guardian, LA Times, and NY Times all picked up the story.

I was going to mod up, but then finished reading your post....

I am so tired of this argument, let me make it a little easier for your obviously-limited intellect...

This 'private property' is required to be open to the PUBLIC, 24/7. An agreement between the developer and the City lays these terms out - the developer was permitted to exceed the maximum height of a structure as defined in CITY ORDINANCES by creating and maintaining A PUBLIC PARK.

So, you'd firehose everyone away? If that happens, does that mean it is OK to blow the top floors off their building? I mean, if the park is no longer public, they shouldn't be permitted to maintain a building THAT IS TALLER THAN THE VOTERS LAID OUT IN CITY ORDINANCES, should they?

They (the building owners/developers) are already a special case, and are now trying to infringe on the rights of American citizens. They should have done more research into what opening a 'public place' means before signing on the dotted-line. They were happy to build up taller, funny how unhappy they become when forced to abide by the terms of the agreement that ALLOWED them to build taller.

Breaking the law by restricting public access doesn't seem so fucking smart now, does it?