That's assuming you can even buy quality any more. Try buying a jacket or sweater where the zipper isn't a total piece of failing crap. Sure the jacket's still in great shape, but you can't do it up because the zipper broke. You can replace a zipper, but unless you go to a value store to harvest a really old jacket for the good zipper, you're just going to get another lousy one.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Correct. In the usual dose of nanny-state irony, the knee-jerk demands for legislated zero-tolerance reactions to minor issues is far more damaging to the development of society than just leaving things alone.
The idiotic "think of the children" people are actually the ones harming the children. It's just that it happens over time, instead of immediately, so they're incapable of processing that. Just like government and companies who can't think long term anymore. It's like some kind of disease where the victim can't think anything but short-term.
Their sole purpose was to prevent a default until most of the debt was in public hands, were it can be contained, and that's obviously a matter of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses".
Knowingly lending to a bankrupt entity who has no way of paying it back is fraud, plain and simple. Those debts are fraudulent and the lenders don't deserve them back.
Greece is a sovereign country and decides for itself what it spends its resources on.
Not exactly. When the IMF and ECB gets involved in lending to countries, there's strings attached. Unless you tell them to go to hell, they start dictating policy. It's the Banker's Coup.
Apparently they've decided to leave the path on which the rest of the Eurozone was willing to help them.
"Help"? They weren't trying to help them. They were looting them to the bone. Just like the banks are trying to do to other countries, and what they did to the public in the USA's sub-prime mortgage debacle. Bribe the politicians to agree to whatever you want, then load 'em up on debt that nobody could possibly pay. Now you get to run their country. Sell off all of the country's assets to your corporate buddies at fire-sale prices, and force them to convert their State owned businesses into privately owned ones, such as Water Works and Electric Company. Leave 'em with their pockets turned out on Baltic ave. while you skate all the money back to Boardwalk.
Your line of reasoning has consequences I'd imagine you haven't thought of, because it can be extended to abuse in ANY system than can cause death. By your logic, the fact that somebody could rig someone else's brakes to cause a fatal car accident makes allowing people to drive cars a slippery slope. You can't have electricity in your house, because someone could rig a device to electrocute someone else.
If an abuse comes up, you deal with that abuse you don't use a small outlier as reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I see from your post below that your view toward this ruling is tainted by being a victim at one point. There is good reason not to allow victims to decide on law for everyone else.
People ask me about sports all the time and I just respond that I'm not interested in watching. The conversation typically goes like this:
"Why don't you like sports?"
"It's not that I don't like sports, in fact I like playing some of them. It's just that I don't enjoy watching them."
"Why? They're so exciting!"
"Would you like to watch me play a video game?"
"Now you know how I feel about watching someone I don't know play a game on a field. Intersperse that with hundreds of advertisements, comments about how much money these guys are being paid because they were lucky enough to be born with the physical qualities that make them good at this game, and therefore how much more important they are than say, a group of scientists who's names you will never know that working on a cure for Parkinson's or leukemia."
The commercial aspect and obscene amounts of money and resources poured into "professional" sports is actually a major turn-off to me and turns it from something I'm merely "not interested in" to something I actually resent. I would have enjoyed Hockey back in the 50's or 60's when it was just a bunch of regular Joe's with day-jobs who played the game for the love of it, not because they're some prima-donnas who're demanding they get an extra million or they won't play. Go watch the movie BASEketBall to see this.
I never thought any PM in Canada could top mulroney for the title of "worst". I'm still reeling from the outcome, but Harper proved me wrong.
"We can also amend ourselves hte ability to not be able to amend our constitution further,"
Actually, you can't really do that, because if enough people in the future agree to change it, it will simply be changed, regardless of what is written. As hard as you try, short of destroying everyone, you cannot remove the ability of future generations to change the rules.
Did they actually sign a declaration of war, then? Or was it another one of those end-runs around the rules they like to pull, where it's declared anything other than war, such as an engagement, or police action?
Just like this woman's apparent outrage. It's probably all part of the plan. Fake some outrage to get people to think that companies like google and apple actually have decent encryption that will protect your data, then have people jump all over it "encrypting" their juiciest data. Meanwhile they have a backdoor deal right out of the gate.
Didn't SH3 have starforce? That was a pretty invasive copy protection despite it not having an online component.
Torrent seed box.
The good news is that there are tens of thousands of games already out there that are not subject to this ball & chain. Those of us who refuse to put up with the nonsense of Ubi and other have plenty of choice already.
"if you buy in place A at price X and sell in place B at price Y, those who are selling in B are competing with an unfair disadvantage probably related to differences in taxes."
I see. Once again it's bad if the common man does this, but if big companies and governments do it, A-OK!
There is a much greater chance of the poor getting away with stealing from other poor. If you steal from the rich, there will be actual investigative work done to track you down.
We should try that though. Maybe there will be some feedback effect and the rich will get their investment back tenfold! Yeah, that's it, we'll call it "trickle up".
And just like they do with our money, if it doesn't work out, we can claim it was because we didn't take enough, and we'll need to take more next year.