since the copyright owner has a legal title giving him exclusive rights, you are defrauding him of profits. you don't have the legal right to decide to watch and don't pay, you only have the right to choose between either paying and watching or not paying and not watching

I don't mind a bit of pirating, but let's not kid anyone... it is freeriding

the taliban didn't exist back then, the "freedom fighters" Reagan talked about became the warlord coalition holed up in the north before the US invasion propelled them back into government positions across the country

IOW on the whole they're still in the US camp

hmmm sounds like a leaky contract, better write in a change of control clause, a confidentiality clause, a forum clause, a choice of law clause, a liquidated damages clause, an amendmend clause, an alternative dispute clause, an act of god clause, a notice clause, an interpretation clause, an assignment clause and a time is of the essence stipulation

it's one of those things where the people in question have every right to to what they plan on doing, even though it's somewhat bad taste to use their right the way they are doing it

it's two blocks away from ground zero anyway

and whichever nation goes the longest without puking gets the last piece of pie from the fridge!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eYSpIz2FjU&feature=related

well the government quit based on the army's assessment that it would not win the war, I mean wasn't there even a phone call from Ludendorf that he could no longer guarantee holding the front for another 24 hours and such?

also Germany was not only struggeling to match the entente's manpower, but also its resources. The allies had an abundance of everything (as much as you can reasonably have in war time at least), whereas the germans were forced to cannibalize their economy further and further to maintain the war just a little bit longer with even soldiers suffering from meager diets as the end neared

why don't you just download your stuff from sites like releaselog and scenesource?? megavideo in general is pretty good, but you have to be quick to get live links

(edit: just for clarity's sake these sites contain links to other sites like megaupload, netload, rapidshare and a whole load of others)

unfortunatly not yet as powerful as this:

http://lolfed.com/2010/07/31/robots-will-bankrupt-us-all/

yes!!! especially since it shows an inability or unwillingness on the part of the poster to check even something as simple as a wikipedia link on the actual meaning of the law

> Godwin's Law wrote:

> Hmm... Phoenix underlines an interesting issue.  Anthropologists have long made cases that population growth (at least the birth-level numbers) are based largely on economics.  Lesser developed, agricultural nations tend to have higher birth rates because children are seen as short term investments (after a few years, they can start working on the farm and such).  In contrast, in Western nations, population growth is flat, if not declining, largely because children go through education for 18+ years, and are huge economic liabilities until then.  Thus, if you remove that economic liability, the behavior reaction is apparent: huge population growth levels would strain whatever surplus did exist.

There is no one paradigm for such complicated real life matters. We have low birthrates in our western nations in spite of essentially living in a situation of superabundant resources. The fact that we don't need children as little moneymakers and that we have access to birth control resources allows us to pick the number of children we are comfortable with. Raising a child is not just an economic investment but also a very heavy physical and psychological one. Every individual attaches his or her weight to the benefits of these investments. If you take out financial cost they decision will still influenced by non-economic costs. Most people only want to bring up a relatively small amount of children (say a number ranging from 0-3) if they can freely decide on the matter. Economic, religious or cultural influences aside not many people want to raise up a huge number of children (as indicated by our low birthrates in the west). How much of our low birthrates is attributable to opportunity costs (I want scores of children but maaaaan I don't want to toil and toil for them) is up in the air of course.

>That being said, there is one question that I must ask: Can technological growth outpace population growth in which parents would be under the impression that they can have whatever resources they want, and thus can have as many children as they want?  I would guess that it's possible technology could outpace population growth, as technological growth is also an exponential growth model.  However, personally, I think we need more time to give technology a leap forward before any transition to this economy model (which I still argue should not be called "resource-based").

I don't think there's any question that the theoretically possible population growth caused by technology growth *can* outpace actual population growth. But the intuitive mistake to make is to look at it black and white. There will be periods where technological growth leads to a watershed event that allows huge growth potential (e.g. the use of modern fertilizers in agriculture and modern medicine), and there could be periods when growth is pushing or even exceeding the boundaries of what technology can provide for.

The notion that we have reached a point in time where present day technology could provide for limitless wealth on earth is patently absurd of course. They should have really included a paragraph concerning the problem of finite resources and the dangers of exponential growth in resource and energy consumption.

Finally their idea to eliminate waste regarding logistics chains is disingenuous. Do you think Wal-Mart wants x% of its fresh produce to be unfit for consumption even before it reaches its stores? Of course not... And their statement on eliminating shortages or overproduction?? Yeah Wal-Mart really wants to run out of unexpectedly popular products just to spite its customers, and factories like to overproduce products just so they can let them sit around rotting in expensive storage facilities. Really the writers of that text in the OP seem to have little to no idea of concepts like entropy and imperfect information. Padding it over with omg but we'll computerize and technologizamize and the next day we'll have an infinite amount of goods and services per square inch of the planet!!!! is pretty disingenuous...

Also (finally finally if you wish) the above is really not problematic for me at all, if this economy can provide me with an infinite amount of beautiful prostitutes that is.

it really depends on the specifics, it's not normal for people to sacrifice themselves just so some random dudes don't have to die, why they could all be filthy anarchist scum spitting on everything I stand for... it's perfectly possible that the world would be better off with me living and many other people dying.

but if there was like an alien invasion I'd probably feel obliged to go all japanese on the bastards, especially if they're impregnating our women and I get to deliver a cool final one liner

Rotfl U Couldnft Handle It Zoz???