First, it cheaply ignores the impact every other form of technological progress has had thus far. Robots are used on assembly lines, yet there's no drastic net loss of jobs.
That's kind of wrong since in the US, we lost millions of jobs thanks to "free trade" agreements and CEOs looking to cut costs.
I recall that the NAFTA agreement during Clinton's era shipped jobs overseas and the American people didn't have anything to show for it.
Jobs were created, but it isn't a guarantee that the displacement of workers equates to better, more high skilled jobs being found here in the US.
And when you really look at the economic policies of the US, it seems more beneficial for the USG to tax people for their needing more education in order to benefit society which is a REALLY backwards equation.
We have high student debt caused by most of the money going to the wealthy while there is nothing to help the US get out of the economic austerity posed on them. It's a scary situation to be in. Cripple your future growth by giving the people few jobs, few economic opportunities, and try to keep them quiet about what's going on with your government?
Why in God's name do you feel that Nintendo, a corporation with no amounts of resources on their own, should be able to destroy the livelihoods of people that either make game videos for a living or decide what games to play?
Did Nintendo go their house and decide to play the game? Did they work to help these people create better content? Did Nintendo do any work on creating the videos and the unique experiences that people worked hours to achieve? Do they even need this money to produce more games since they've done quite well in doing so before now?
Why should they feel so entitled to get paid off of other's work?
It's absolutely amazing to me that anyone feels that Nintendo is in the right when we recognize that their position is going to make the public worse off. That's not the point of copyright in chilling free speech or allowing a company to feel entitled. It's supposed to act as a subsidy for more speech.
Bush’s use of the IRS was but one part of that larger assault. As my Salon colleague Alex Seitz-Wald notes today in greater detail, in 2005, Bush’s IRS began what became an extensive two-year investigation into a Pasadena church after an orator dared to speak out against President Bush’s Iraq War. Not coincidentally, the Los Angeles Times reports that the church targeted just so happened to be “one of Southern California’s largest and most liberal congregations.” That IRS church audit came a year after it launched a near-identical attack on the NAACP after the civil rights organization criticized various Bush administration policies.
FDR focused his efforts on derailing a slew of perceived opponents, including Andrew Mellon, who was the secretary of Treasury under President Hoover. In the Roosevelt administration, Mellon was subjected to intense income tax audits, and endured a two-year civil action lawsuit, which was referred to at the time as the "Mellon Tax Trial."
This is the same Andrew Mellon that wanted farmers to be purged.
Few would peg civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as a felon. But in February 1960, the Alabama grand jury issued an arrest warrant for King on two counts of felony perjury for fraudulent tax returns in 1956 and 1960.
Yep, that Martin Luther King.
Labor organizer Victor Reuther urged Robert F. Kennedy, who was attorney general at the time, to suppress the rise of conservative groups around the country in a memorandum addressed to the entire Kennedy administration and "certain sympathetic senators and congressmen." The 24-page memo contained various plans, including stifling the flow of funds to conservative organizations by way of IRS investigations in hopes of finding a reason to remove the groups' tax exemption status.
One of the major targets was the John Birch Society as described by the late historian John A. Andrew III in his book "Power to Destroy: The Political Uses of the IRS from Kennedy to Nixon.
Hmmm... Liberals and conservatives as defined by their political ideology.
Not sure where you get that. All I am saying is that the report points out that certain pirates are the biggest spenders, and my reply is that they are only a small part of the market.
But that's the problem. The markets have grown larger and the people spending the most aren't the ones being catered to. The markets also include the people with disposable income such as teenagers who share and find content regardless of legality. I haven't yet read the report but I would guess that is the main market which makes sense for a number of reasons. Firstly, without the larger responsibilities of adulthood, their money goes to finance more projects and use content. That really hasn't changed since... Well, quite some time.
llowing piracy to expand to the point where everyone (including your parents) would be using it as their sole source wouldn't increase business.
But in report after report, that's what happens. When Steam lowered prices and followed a global release of a few days instead of weeks, piracy disappeared for them and Germany as well as Russia became great customers.
Lowering prices and increasing availability has worked far more than catering to the current average.
Besides that, who relies on a sole source for content? That makes no sense.
Remember too that all of the non-infringers are lumped together in one area. There is no attempt made to filter out "non-buyers in any manner" in each group. I have seen reports on this site and others suggesting that nearly 50% of the population does not directly purchase content in a year - and this survey only looked at 3 - 6 months back. When you really start to look at it, you can see where the non-infringers who do buy likely spend at least as much as the middle group, and the huge gap to the rare big spenders shrinks.
So let's be clear... There's an entire market outside of the DVD, legal usage group that aren't being sampled?
So you're saying that teenagers with disposable income, friends given DVDs for sampling or other people that may not spend directly on income need to be marketed to and this will show that you need to punish them instead of giving them better alternatives?
I'm not, don't worry. Just calling a spade a spade.
The difference is, I don't believe that I have the right to force others to conform to my way of thinking, then play the lame bigot/phobia card.
No one's doing that. They're just calling out your ignorant and narrow view of the world. No force is being used in making an informed decision about different aspects of sexuality. But hey, if you want to remain ignorant and bigoted, so be it.
I must have missed the part where a video game company's creative decisions are superceded by a certain group's push to ram their chosen lifestyle on others.
That got lost in the confusion over why you care so much about homosexuality over an actual conversation about a video game company.
But it's an entirely different thing when it comes to FORCING others to accept it as normal.
No one's FORCING you to have a bigoted view on others. You have a problem with it, so be it.
Maybe not but nor you cannot feign the reality of the situation, that the 'gender-bender day' was pushed on the school by a pro-homosexual group.
It must be great to pull up an extreme example as if that solves everything. Hate Socialism? It's the Nazis and those dang Chinese's fault! Hate gays? Nambla. Hate Irish and Scots? The KKK is the scapegoat.
Hate liberals? Obama's a Socialist. Hate conservatives? Make the Tea Party look like victims.
Oh no... It's a great thing to not figure out the nuance of arguments and just pull up extreme examples of everything. Occam's Razor may work in most circumstances, but it sure isn't helping in your narrow view of the world.
That Alexander the Great and others performed such actions had nothing to do with their sexuality, or are you trying to conflate the two?
That's your doing. You make it out as if homosexuality is a sin to be purged when it has been around in nature as well as shown to be present in history. Or do you deny your writing?
? Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children. Need I drudge up the infamous 'cross-dressing day' at a certain school, pushed for by the LGBT community, which resulted in parents pulling their children out of school?
Which is a stupid conflation of all LGBT people into one group as if they all agree to the same BS that you ascribe to.
Rome was by no means exclusive with regards to how it perceived homosexuality (as being deviant), not simply due to Christianity.
Rome and Greece had very tolerant views if you actually read the wikis. They didn't believe in marriage out of practicality, but it's still a pretty ignorant statement that you want to convey the image of "a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass" as if that's going to push the argument in a more positive direction.
That's rich, coming from the same people who promote (or rather, force) such actions. If homosexuality were so normal then why the huge movement in order to *convince* people?
So you're a bigot then.
First of all, I do not care one whit what some does in their bedroom.
But let's give you some historical perspective since you're clearly ignorant:
Rome didn't allow same sex marriage due to the influence of Christianity. As the new religion on the block, Christianity was becoming more dominant and as history shows, most of the popes of the time were actually interested in the lands of the people and acquiring it. So that's why you have differenct sects of feudalism that wanted men to go unwed, unmarried, and give all of their land to the church while upholding the patriarchies and traditions before it.
It wasn't until capitalism came around during the Industrial Era that some of that changed. But if homosexuality were not normal, would it be in other cultures?
Because of the equal distribution of power, it did not upset the power structure for women to identify with what Western European society defined as men's sexual or social roles, nor was it a threat for men to identify with women's social or sexual roles. After being conquered by patriarchal Western European-America, Native American culture exhibited somewhat predictable results. In a male dominated power structure, a woman who adopts a man's social or sexual role may be perceived as demanding the power normally given to a man. On the other hand, a man who adopts a woman's social or sexual role is perceived as voluntarily and foolishly giving up the power associated with the man's role. Any of these four lifestyle choices, which are incongruous with Western European social roles at the time of colonization, were perceived as threatening to the patriarchal power structure of Western European society.
The legendary love between Alexander the Great and his childhood friend Hephaestion is sometimes regarded as being of the same order.
Holy crap, Alexander the Great was gay?! He conquered the frickin world and improved military tactics that were even used in the Iraq War!
Not bad for a gay guy. But we should move to the 21st century... People like George Takei, Margaret Cho and the various number of people that wake up everyday to be treated with respect, dignity, and integrity because of how they've influenced people in far more positive ways than some small minded individual could take away from them.
So has history shown that gay people have left their mark on the world?
The better question is... Why does it matter if they're gay if they want to make a progressive influence on the world?