All of what you said is absolutely true. You just missed one point. Why is this a bad thing?
Why do you need a "job"? To earn money? Why do you need money? To purchase things you need? Well, what if everything you need, all throughout the line of production, is produced quickly, cheaply, and in quantities surpassing demand? Is there need for money? Is there need for a "job"?
That utopian scenario is likely the end result of industrial automation (if we can figure out raw resource limitations, anyway). Granted, that won't happen for a long, long time, but until that point, we will always have jobs that need doing.
Ehh... By the time the singularity actually happens, I doubt there'll be any real distinction between "human" and "machine". This alarmist notion that ever more intelligent computers will replace humanity precludes the notion that if we can build a machine that's smarter than us, then we can certainly find a way to make ourselves smarter.
Thanks for being one of the few people who've reacted to this story with any sort of sense.
You're absolutely right, this was most likely a result of IRS agents trying to do their job (poorly), and not, as some espouse, a political conspiracy directed from the top.
That said, I'm personally outraged by this bias in the IRS, whatever its original intent. It's akin to racial profiling; though there may be a statistical correlation between the population and behavior (correlation, not causation, big difference), by no means does this make it acceptable to target said population in order to prevent the behavior, based on no other evidence.
Even if this isn't a conspiracy, the people responsible need to be fired. This sort of behavior is entirely unacceptable for any part of our government, and particularly for the IRS which is supposed to maintain political neutrality.
I don't think hardpay walls in them self's are inherently a bad idea so long as they are flagged and optional. Take for example if I'm not interested in the mulitplayer aspect of a game why is it not an option just to buy the single player at a reduced price with the option to add in the mulitplayer as paid DLC later on?
EA beat you to it. Most EA (console) games nowadays require a unique code, which comes packaged with the game, in order to access multiplayer or other "bonus" content. If you have a used copy, or rent through gamefly as I often do, they kindly offer the ability to purchase said content for $10.
There were games that I would have considering purchasing from gamefly (with code intact), and possibly even further dlc, but because I had restricted or no access to multiplayer, they lost out on sales. Hard pay walls rarely work after I've (perhaps indirectly, but still) already forked over cash for the game in question. I still, despite an entire industry trying to convince me otherwise, believe that if I've paid for a game upfront, I own said game, and charging me to use my own property is simply absurd.
A nuclear war would collapse a countries infrastructure. It wouldn't take much to disconnect a few keys players and shatter the web.
I guess you and I have different opinions of what "not much" entails. WW3 sounds like a pretty big deal to me.
While data redundancy is fairly low, connection redundancy is very high. There are dozens and sometimes hundreds of possible routes between any two given servers due to the decentralized architecture of the internet. Any compliant router can serve as a transport hub, even your home computer if you happen to have, say, DSL and Cable internet connected to one server with the right software. In that (admittedly unlikely) scenario, if for whatever reason it became necessary, your computer could serve as a link between those two disparate networks, though you probably couldn't handle many clients.
What this all means is that, unless you rip out every fiber optic cable in the entire world, the global network as a whole is effectively unkillable, short of apocalyptic scenarios. It is, however, possible to cut off specific regions of the world, but even that requires a large effort, which I don't believe can happen unless A.) The country's entire infrastructure is destroyed through war, or B.) There is a concerted and unopposed effort by the government of the nation in question to disconnect themselves from the rest of the network (i.e. North Korea). Neither of these situations affects the network's overall health.
Half of politicians are ignorant idiots, and half of them are intentionally corrupt. (There is some overlap.) Just because they seem intelligent doesn't mean that they care for anything other than lining their own pockets.
Why do the majority of the media industry insist on forcing legislation to protect their outmoded business model? They are stretching an analog model to fit a digital world; and when it doesn't reach, they try to make the world smaller.
This is not 1980. Adapt or perish. The idea of fixed channels is rooted in the radio bandwidth limitations of a broadcast medium. DVDs/BRs are treated as physical products, not as a transmission medium for digital content. Advertising is rapidly approaching one third of a given program to try to make up for perceived "losses" due to DVRs.
The only choices should not be rigid, industry-centric consumerism; wherein good little citizens sit down every day at 6pm, get up every day at 11pm, laugh at the same time, cry at the same time, a single entity spread across every home; or, alternatively, content consumption as theft, anyone not adhering to the strict rules set down by the providers are hunted down and imprisoned.
I may have been overly bleak and exaggerative just there, but not by much.
There are examples of distribution entities that have adapted to a digital paradigm. Hulu, for instance. It's selection leaves a bit to be desired (particularly the completely asinine delay between broadcast and Hulu availability), but I am perfectly willing to sit through (and actually watch) three or four 15 second advertisements during the course of a 42-minute program (note 42-minutes, as shows are filmed with the archaic limitations of advertised channel programming in mind).
The only reason I can even watch broadcast television at all is my dvr. If that gets broken, well, then there's no need for me to have cable TV at all, is there?
The root of this entire issue is MPAA trying to force consumers to pay for the same movie multiple times. First, at the theatres, then (now, at least) via PPV, then DVD/BR, and then advertiser supported broadcast. In my opinion movies should be released at theatres and on DVD/BR simultaneously, though I'm not naive enough to believe that would ever actually happen.
With the advent of HDTV, and the ease of digital distribution today, there becomes less and less benefit from theatre viewing over home viewing of films. Content producers should bypass MPAA entirely and sell directly to consumers, it would be no end of good press. But, again, I'm not naive enough to believe that they would think of long-term gain, when short-term consumer raping seems so much more profitable.