Name calling in the first sentence. Wonderful.

Wow, way to misrepresent me. Do you think I think the words don't matter in describing those two situations you gave, of course not! It is interesting that you had to make that stuff up to answer me, it is totally tangential, and has nothing to do with what I said. You didn't say why your example was equivalent to what I said, did you? That's rather dishonest.

I did say that it didn't matter whether neilo called execution 'murder', this is because anyone who reads it knows it is an execution. It doesn't matter whether he called it 'killing' or 'murdering' in this case, because the information conveyed was the same. Thus you saying that:

is totally irrelevant, using the word 'murder' does not change the information someone reading that comment gets from it, so who cares that he used it, maybe you could have come up with an actual counter argument instead.

It makes the death penalty supporters much closer in kind to the executed than most people are as well.

Yes, that was the most humane way mentioned in the documentary 'How to kill a human being'. The documentary had a British MP who set out to find out more about executions and how to do it more humanely. In the end the MP met with one of the death penalty supporters and proposed nitrous oxide as a better way to execute someone, but the death penalty supporter disagreed saying that he wants it to be as painful as possible. I wholeheartedly recommend watching this documentary to get a better idea of what really goes on when someone is executed.

They are both killing. It is the same outcome whether someone is called killed or 'murdered'. They are dead. So neilo's argument is untouched, arguing about the name something is given doesn't change this.

Your advocating killing them for the reason of not paying a small tax burden? That is judging a life to be worth a pretty small amount, probably far less than the reasons the murderer had for killing someone.

What a waste. It would be much better to put on an entertaining show based on those works.

What do people get out of this "understanding" anyway?

In my experience, absolutely not. Quit spreading untrue stereotypes, I mean it.

Totally uninformed question (as usual), but what is stopping them from just putting an oxygen mask on and walking away?

Sooo, only patents that can be worked around are constitutional, unless they're worthless, right? After all, society would still run without the "interactive web", you just wouldn't have nice things. I bet that the patent would have stood up in court if it had been enforced much earlier, when it was new and only a few people were using it.

Especially when it is that bloody obvious he's an idiot. Doesn't require much insight at all. Oh wait, you didn't mean that did you?

I bet they called it 'Operation Sandwich'.

The sound of the truth, blowing him away.

Funnily enough, there was a story about this a couple of years ago. Well, sort of about that.

Heh, they could just have a server that by default allows the DRM check to pass, and not have to worry about customer details for the time that the other server is offline. But no, they had to choose the horrible way to do it. Should be thinking twice about buying a game from these jokers, I mean other than the way they already treated their 'customers' up until this point.

As an outsider to the US, may I humbly suggest that as a start, an alternative voting system could be used, such as some sort of single transferable vote system. At least then citizens will not have to worry about wasting their vote.

If there is something wrong with my above statement, I would like to know. And yes, pigs may fly and all that.