You guys actually have more than 2 choices, though.
The Scottish will get screwed when the politicians renege on all the promises they made
Why would they renege,
I'm sorry, are you asking why a politician would lie?
I, personally, am willing to pay for the music and media that I consume. Mainly because I believe that the artists deserve to be paid.
I would have a lot easier of a time taking that viewpoint if the RIAA actually gave the artists a decent amount of the money.
If so you can connect line out to the line in of any computer and record a very pirate-able wave file.
Aren't they working on/already have Stereo Mix-less boards? Or have they just disabled it the latest version of Windows or something.
(Assuming that the output from the headphones isn't crap,
Which it will be. Using headphones as speakers? My god, man.
All these analog solutions will technically work but it seems pretty clear we're talking about lossless "digital" pirating.
Computer game companies are way ahead when it comes to copy protection and there we clearly see that it only requires one dedicated person that works through the binary to disable to protection, even server connected software have been proven breakable.
We can live in hope. The amount of effort BluRay people etc. put into encrypting all their shit the entire way down (JVMs on BluRays, HDMI...) has made me less sure than I used to be that the hackers will always win.
it only requires one dedicated person that works through the binary
The point is not to make the protection unbreakable forever. It just has to be unbroken until the product lifespan has expired. (Although of course if given the choice these guys want the product lifespan to be the heat death of the universe.)
Since when is Bono qualified to have an opinion on ANY subject other than being a pretentious twat?
the Crown is regarded as a corporation, with the monarch being the centre of a construct in which the power of the whole is shared by multiple institutions of government—the executive, legislative, and judicial—acting under the sovereign's authority
If anything, this blob would seem to indicate the queen doesn't have much of any real power, which I'm sure is the opposite of what you think it says.
"Elizabeth controls everything."
i never said she does that
And I quote:
Elizabeth II has final say on all important decisions of the Canadian government
I'm not misrepresenting your claims; you went all balls-out, then when I called you on your bullshit you started furiously backpedaling and denying everything.
Feel free to show me where in the Bible it says God is male. Titles like "father" refer to the family position traditionally held by males in their society, not their specific gender. The whole idea of a deity having a human-analogous gender sounds ridiculous.
The Greeks and Vikings never claimed there was "one true god." They were polytheists.
Yes, I've heard of the word "patriarchy" ever. You don't have to keep fucking bringing it up when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
We could always take the German approach and give everything a random gender. "Girl" neuter, "mountain" male, "stream" female. Would that be better?
I would think that's probably a question of who you ask. The NIV (1973) still uses small-caps for "Lord" when referring to God last I saw, which is in the same ballpark.
Today there is no widely accepted rule in English on whether or not to use reverential capitalization. Different house styles have different rules given by their style manuals. Reverential capitalization is not to be used, for example, according to the style guidelines set by the Chicago Manual of Style or the Associated Press Stylebook. It is prescribed, for example, by the US Government Printing Office Style Manual (2008).
Elizabeth II has final say on all important decisions
...I would interpret to mean "if she approves it, it goes; if she doesn't, it dies." There's no way the Queen has time to personally okay every law in the entire Commonwealth. Hell, she doesn't even bother to okay all the laws in the U.K. itself; they have some guys to stamp all that shit *for* the monarch.
You made this whole distinction in the first place in contrast to whatever people generally perceive the UK to be*, so the onus is on you to prove "Elizabeth controls everything." You can't call someone "absolutely wrong" and then start splitting hairs. That's just not how the language works.
* Wikipedia, under Politics of the U.K., says "The United Kingdom is a unitary democracy governed within the framework of a constitutional monarchy." So it seems like they won't even take a firm stance on whether it's a monarchy or a republic/democracy. And the whole "we may or may not still have that power but we won't exercise it unless we REALLY WANT TO but we haven't in 300 years" is quite Erisian.
Apparently you have a different definition of "absolutely wrong" than me. "Oh, I said 'the crown is personally in charge of everything' but what I really meant was 'they subtly influence behind the scenes.'" Whiplash much?
Even Britain itself doesn't really have to ask the monarch's permission for stuff anymore. Technically the king/queen can refuse to sign any bill they want, but none of them have since 1708. And since the Brits are a bit weird with their unwritten rules it's debatable whether the monarch actually still has the power. I dunno.
In fact, you could argue that terrorists who are poor engineers are more likely to last if they make their suicide bombs wrong.
"No religion condones the killing of innocents."
The obvious loophole being how you define "innocent." Doesn't Mohammed have a lot to say about how anyone who won't become a Muslim is an enemy of Islam and must be destroyed or something?
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. - John 15:5-6
It's in reference to Judgment Day, not any call to action on humans' part. "Picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" is referring to being thrown into hell, which is doctrinally something God does and humans have no control over (the physical punishment part, that is).
The entire story is about how he is pointing out that the Pharisees are hypocrites, as noted in the other comment. There's a recurring thread in the Gospels about how the Pharisees were always trying to trip up Jesus by coming up with ways where he would technically be violating the ceremonial law. In context here, Jesus is basically telling them to STFU.
Again, talking about God causing the flood. Not a call to any sort of action on our part.
Okay, you actually managed to find one argument that wasn't totally uninformed. Yes, in the Old Testament, there was a lot of razing of cities that resisted the Israelites or were labelled "obstinate" or what-have-you, which is rather hard to justify. I'll just say, sidestepping that issue somewhat, that this falls under "Christians say not to do that anymore...Muslim imams are currently endorsing this very thing so they should grow up like we did."
I find it a bit funny that the first 3 links are all to a facebook image. But go figure.