He got 33 months for being STUPID.... But crime usually is.

That number is just what the film distributor's marketing department *claims* they lost.

Personally I think the real number is a magnitude or two lower. Did the first movie even do that many copies?

Especially that one..

The MPAA can sue you, but they cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip. That's just civil court though.

Problem with this guy's story is that what he did was illegal too. It was the illegal part that got him the jail time.

Which is why we have elections and why we discuss what they do.

I'm personally tired of all the acrimony over political appointees doing what they do by the opposition. My party isn't in power right now, but my attitude is "The other side won the election so they get to do what they want."

That doesn't mean I don't turn a critical eye on their choices, but I'm am not going to just hit the default "They're democrats so it's a bad choice" setting. I'm an equal opportunity criticizer, so if you are a republican and you advance something I think is daft and stupid, I'm going to say so.

Problem is, it seems that the default setting for a lot of this has become more about party affiliation and less about right and wrong so we get this kind of "you better not make this choice because the other party will change it when we get into power" tripe. It's not helpful to anybody and only leads to the making of even worse decisions for the people.

One wonders where this mentality comes from though.... I have my theories (ok I think I know) but I'll keep it to myself because most would consider what I had to say about that hyper partisan.

Oh please. This is exactly how it happens today. The only reason you cannot see it is that much stock is held by institutions (mutual funds, retirement funds, other companies) and not individuals so it's not easy to see who's pulling the strings, but if you start looking at who or what company owns what stock, and start tracing who is getting elected to which companies board of directors it's pretty easy to connect the dots and find out who's pulling the strings.

Come on, all this is public record for the most part. Dig a bit.

Well, I admit that practically that's how it seems to work, but in reality that's not exactly true.

Generally, you have a number of major stock holders who are individuals, or holding companies like mutual funds or retirement plans. This group usually holds enough stock to form alliances and pack the board of directors with their people. These people then pack the executive management with their people who hire their people and so on. However, it is totally possible for companies to be controlled by a single share holder or group of individuals choosing to vote together. Just buy or control the votes of enough shares and you too can run with the big boys of wall street.

It never happens (or rarely happens) because it can cost you millions of dollars to buy and hold a large portion of a company. But in reality, you can do it with enough cash.

You have a point, but as it stands now, Detroit might be better off had it been bombed into oblivion. At least the buildings would have already been knocked down and you'd only have to haul them off.

Don't know if I'm willing to say that yet. The current election cycle seems to be sliding towards the R side taking over the Senate, and there is little chance of them loosing seats in the house. Of course this is the out year of a lame duck president, which generally slides away from the white house's party, but the complexion of what happens totally changes if the Republicans take control in the senate.

How that plays out in 2016 is anybodies guess, except I can tell you that the president and his party will be out of control of more of the optics in Washington, which means that the republicans will control what gets discussed and what issues they deal with. Remember the Democrats invoked the "Nuclear option" and changed the long standing senate rules so the republicans will be able to get bills on the presidents desk, any bill they choose, and strong arm him into making a very public veto or striking concessions. He will either play ball and alienate the Democratic base, or mess things up so badly signing that veto line over and over that the middle will abandon droves. Either way, the next two years won't go well for the democrats. My guess is he will just play golf for the next three years, which will be really bad for his party and alienate the majority the 20 somethings that voted for him. But all this is if the republicans take the senate which is not a foregone conclusion, yet..

You only hope for 2016, is that the Senate doesn't slip away, or that the republicans mess it up so badly nominating their candidate in 2 years that even I won't vote for them. Your only real chance is slipping away so you better hold onto that senate.

That soon? Wow.

What ever the democratic appointees do, they do. They got appointed, it's their call. If they want to be partisan, so be it.

The really sad thing is that the FCC commissioners used to be about sensible regulation and doing what's right for all, now it's who's paying who under the table and which campaign got money from which company.

Have we learned nothing from the Light Squared debacle? That whole thing was such a boondoggle technically, but no, the FCC had to string all that along. Stuff like that needs to stop and this is just the latest example. Come on folks, THINK about it and do the right thing for the PEOPLE you serve, not because it makes you or your party the most cash.

You can, if you own enough stock.

1. A copy of the "Mythical Man Month" by Fredrick Brooks and being told to read it.

2. A set of closing prices for every stock on the NY exchange for the next 20 years with the advice to become an investment banker..

If #2 isn't possible, then sitting down with somebody who could explain that you get what you negotiate, not what you deserve, so don't settle for what you get.

Programmers are smart enough not to unionise, which allows newcomers into the field without these insane artificial barriers of entry.

Unions are barriers to entry into the field to any newcomers, unions are also horrific from point of view of price setting and prevent people who actually excel in the job from making significantly more than those who only coast by. Your complaint is a complaint of somebody who shouldn't have become a programmer in the first place, but also it is a complaint of a horrible person, who wants to prevent others from entering the field freely.

People shouldn't be licensed just to try and make a living, all professional government dictated licenses and participation in various organizations are a huge economic mistake but more importantly they are a huge impediment to individual freedoms.

Yes, it's in the platform in Texas.. SO? Such verbiage plays well here.

That does not make it a campaign. It's like saying this is what I would vote for repeal if given the chance. There are ZERO republicans out trying to push legislation to abolish the federal minimum wage, then basing their campaign on such actions. Would we prefer to do away with the minimum wage? Yep, already said that. but you said there was a republican campaign to repeal it, there is not, not even in Texas where it would play well.

The only people campaigning on this are democrats... Only they have to trump up this idea that republicans are actively out to abolish the minimum wage when it's not happening.