I've been reading more into this case, and it looks like there wasn't any actual salary fixing or hiring bans. Essentially, the companies agreed to not "cold call" each others' employees with job offers, and this may have affected the salaries of some number of employees who would have been able to negotiate better salaries. But, let's be honest now, cold calling another company's employees is kind of a dick move.

So, essentially, they're being hit with an antitrust case for agreeing to not be dicks to each other.

And we wonder why capitalism results in the biggest dicks coming out on top...

This isn't necessarily true. Some professions (teachers, for instance) have ONE union for a district, and you MUST be a member of that union to work in that district.

Edit: I have a confusing sentence in there. When I say, "Unions can force all new hires to become union members (which amounts to the same thing)," I mean it amounts to the same thing Trepidity was saying (closed shop), not the same as what the companies are doing right now.

That's not what these companies are doing (in fact, they're essentially doing the opposite of that). I meant that unions allow workers to "collectively bargain" with companies, and this is pretty much companies "collectively bargaining". Unions can force all new hires to become union members (which amounts to the same thing). Why people seem to be upset with the companies, however, is that they essentially agreed on certain salary rates, which is pretty much the primary function of most unions.

How is this any different from a union? And if it's okay for unions to do it, why isn't it okay for companies?

They're not talking about scanning random people on the street and taking their guns. They're talking about scanning arrestees instead of frisking them. If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".

Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people. But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of. Remember: fear the people, not the tool.

You apparently haven't looked at hotcake sales for the past decade. You can't move hotcakes. You say you've got some hotcakes for sale, and people are like, "I want ice cream cake!" And then you have to explain that you mean pancakes. But now they just want ice cream cake, or frosted cake, and all you have is syrup-drenched flapjacks.

It's a sad life being a hotcake salesman, let me tell you.

All joking aside, citing current PS2 sales is hardly relevant, since the PS3 doesn't have the same kind of record: Nintendo's current generation has beaten the pants of the current generations of Microsoft and Sony, and the Wii U's reception has been similar to that of the Wii months before its release.

Pretty much, it's impossible to say how well the Wii U is going to sell, and I definitely wouldn't short Nintendo's stock quite yet. They're scrappy, scrappy fighters with a rabid fanbase that has absorbed what was left of Sega's rabid fanbase. That's a lot of rabid.

Haha. I remember just before the original Wii came out. The "attention" it garnered was "what's wrong with its name?" and everyone predicted it would bomb. I expect to be saying that same sentence a couple years after the Wii U comes out with very little modification.

Unless my high school history has failed me (again), the southern states seceded, and the northern states used military force to bring them back. That is, the southern states committed treason (War of Southern Treason) and the northern states aggressively brought them back into the Union (War of Northern Aggression). Of course, the "Northern Aggression" bit all depends on how you interpret the Fort Sumter situation.

I'm not talking about companies, I'm talking about countries. Countries make trade agreements and trade embargoes with/against each other all the time. For example, the US has had all kinds of trade disagreements with Japan concerning various products that often resulted in sanctions, including:

1. Motorcycles
2. Cars
3. Textiles
4. Color TVs

This is the most basic way in which countries interact with each other. I'll tax you this much if you tax me that much. I'll let you sell motorcycle engines, but only the small ones so you aren't competing with our domestic manufacturers. Take a harder stance on copyright infringement or we won't trade with you. Stop killing millions of your own people (seriously, we mean it this time)! This is not blackmail/extortion, this is the capitalist free market at work on the international level. The US government is free to disallow business with any country it wants, just like any country is free to disallow business with the US.

If you dislike the sanctions your politicians are imposing, change your politicians minds (or, change your politicians; the MPAA/RIAA certainly do). But don't use incorrect language to describe their legal actions.

You read the part where they still need germ cells from the testes, right?

Or do you not know what testes are? Did someone never have The Talk with you?

Disclaimer: I don't support SOPA. I want SOPA to die in a fire three times over.

That being said, this is not blackmail or extortion; it's economics, standard world trade policy, and foreign policy. If one country disagrees with the economic policies of another (and SOPA is an economic policy), then they apply economic sanctions on the other country. This is how countries relate to each other.

It's like, if I hated Walmart policies, I wouldn't shop at Walmart. I'm not blackmailing or extorting Walmart, I'm disagreeing with them and taking my business elsewhere.

I didn't see this kind of language when the EU said they wouldn't buy oil from Iran. Jeez.

And PETA apparently never learned about "classical conditioning". When you pair one stimulus (the smell of food) with another (ringing a bell), soon the presentation of just the second stimulus (ringing the bell) will result in the effects of the first stimulus (salivating).

(I remember my textbook in college explained how the author was turned on by the smell of onions because he used to date a girl who ate a lot of onions.)

So...

When you pair one stimulus (pornography) with another (animal suffering), soon the presentation of just the second stimulus (animal suffering) will result in the effects of the first stimulus (sexual arousal).

Somehow I don't think that's what they're going for. Unless they've been trolling us all these years and this is their real plan...

"They who give up essential privacy to obtain a little..." er...

"They who give up essential security to obtain a little..." hmmm...

"They who give up essential security to lose a little privacy, get neither security nor privacy."

It's not like there's a giant commercial industry of movie makers. Or novelists. Or painters. Or musicians. Is this guy high?