I'm just going to state the obivous: NEVER, EVER, BUY ANYTHING ENCUMBERED WITH DRM! Or at least not without knowing you can remove it. This is what I do. I buy digital content all the time, but music only in the form of MP3's or otherwise unencrypted formats, and ebooks only in MOBI or ePub formats, from which the DRM is easily removed.
I don't buy movies online, since they aren't sold without DRM yet, and it can't be reliably removed yet. I buy them on physical discs, which may have DRM, but which I can at least pass on to anyone I want.
One thing I'm noticing in this discussion is the fact that apparently in America the concept of sending money directly from one person to the next is considered alien and revolutionary by many, even though you can do that with good old USD too. It's called a bank transfer. I think it's because the use of cheques is still so widespread in the US.
I've never understood that strange preference for paying by cheque. I did an internship in the US, and I could choose between receiving my wages as a cheque, or having it directly deposited into my bank account. I chose the latter, as I am used to that and it makes much more sense. I think I was the only one in the entire company.
I don't get it. Really, a piece of paper? That you can lose? That can be stolen? That's a hassle because you have to physically bring it somewhere to get your money? That can bounce (a really weird concept to me)?
Here in the Netherlands (and certainly most of Europe as well, I don't know about the rest of the world) it's extremely common to pay each other by direct bank transfer. It's how everybody receives their wages and pays their bills. If you go out to dinner together it's common for one person to pay the bill and everybody else to transfer their share to their bank account. It's fast, easy, safe, and secure. With the phone apps every bank has these days it's a matter of seconds to do. There is no "bouncing", once you receive the money it's yours. Very odd that it just doesn't seem to want to catch on in the US.
This is just a dumb publicitiy stunt. I hope nobody will be stupid enough to fall for it and take him on.
- You can't prove a negative.
- It's very unlikely that any judge would be completely impartial, and no way to make sure.
- There is no hard evidence, no way to test theories, no way to ground the whole discussion in reality whatsoever. It would essentially be bar talk.
- Win or lose, the outcome will be completely meaningless. I'm sure this person would spin a win for him as proof that Genesis is true, but of course it wouldn't be. Most likely it just means that his opponent happened to be a less skilled debater. The same would be true of a loss, of course.
It's bullshit. Again, I hope nobody falls for it.
It's wrong to pay your taxes
Thanks for demonstrating my point!
I considered crime as a career option when I was young, and decided that it was for losers. Concealing repeated crime would require so much hard work and attention to detail, that anyone qualified to do it is also qualified for a rather high-paying job.
So in other words your decision had nothing to do with crime being, you know, wrong? You're really a criminal at heart who just opts not to actually do any crime for practical reasons? That doesn't exactly speak highly to your moral character...