2,152 Forum Posts by "Iron-Hampster"
At 7/21/12 05:55 PM, The-universe wrote: I'll end up seeing it at some point regardless.
But is anyone getting suspicious at the amount of deaths that are revolving around batman films?
well the film was mostly based around themes of revolution so I guess conspiracy theorists have their motive.
If this disaster results in tighter gun controls, then my solution would be piracy. Just for my safety, I don't want to get stuck in a mass shooting with out a gun or bullet proof vest to protect me now do I?
At 7/21/12 01:10 AM, science-is-fun wrote: What if you stop someone killing themselves?
well life isn't a choice, its forced on you. so committing suicide is a fundamental human right.
At 7/21/12 12:14 AM, Korriken wrote: People were dying to see it
AHAHAHAHAHA
but seriously I'm gonna see it because it got a lot of 5 star reviews. It should be worth my money for that.
it's kind of like having sex with some one knowing that you might have aids (test results haven't come back yet or something) and waiting until after your done before telling your partner that you might have aids, isn't it?
At 7/20/12 02:40 PM, dogpup4 wrote:At 7/20/12 02:23 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Not everyone, no. Good luck figuring out which is which.I'm not really into politics but its disgusting how you could wish death on someone for doing something like this.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD LORD, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
yes but not right away. the Korean war would have sparked it. China and USSR would have had a hard time at the start but the nature of communism at the time was comparable to the nature of Islamic regimes today. The allies would have been hit with multiple fronts from other communist revolutions sparked by the war, but both sides would have collapsed eventually.
At 7/14/12 05:48 PM, GoodFish wrote:At 7/14/12 04:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Republicans don't believe in government. They cut programs and they cut spending. Why would you expect them to do anything remotely like governing?That's a blatant lie. Many Republicans believe in small "perfect" Federal governments.
your both wrong. they only talk about small government but love to implement extensive nanny state and big brother laws to the point where the government expands anyway.
extradited to the us, doesn't that raise an eye brow or two? the crimes he is actually accused of were in Sweden. And of course how would he be the traitor? his site didn't spy on the government, it was just where whistle blowers (meaning, people who were actually a part of the government) would go to do their thing. He didn't even do anything with the information, the media did. The American traitorous government leaked confidential information on a sight and the American traitorous media shared the important stuff with everybody. But sure, punish the guy who created the site! oh wait i'm sorry he was accused of raping women in Sweden, that is why he's being extradited to the US!
At 7/12/12 08:37 PM, CWBHOODJONES wrote: Please post which political brand you stand for and support.
fixed it.
how things have changed so much since the days of high school idealism.
At 7/6/12 05:54 PM, kakalxlax wrote: your medieval propaganda sign matches your level of information
and the modern day propaganda is so much better
At 7/6/12 05:36 AM, Psychojoseph wrote: Just wondering,are you conservative or liberal,Im conservative.
Social liberal (but against forcing political correctness on the bigots), Economic conservative. pacifist.
At 7/4/12 09:04 PM, kakalxlax wrote: people refuse to undestand that if muslims destroy israel, they wont stop there, some european countries are realizing this as everyone should.. extremist (as they are) wont stop at nothing, and more when you see that they dont even value the lives of other muslims as they use them as human shields or wrap them in bombs, they have 0 value for human life and they manipulate media to use that at their favor
you should be grateful that there is a barrier that holds those extremist monkeys with guns that breed like rats from you
that's right, Goyim, us Jews are protecting you! it's not the other way around at all! and yes those Jews are inhuman savage Muslims who wan't to holocaust us again! Keep sending us your money! We need our shekels! Everything your private schools teach you is just to get you to help us!
I know this is totally not cool but I figured it matched the coolness of the post I am responding to
At 7/4/12 11:18 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: But as I said if your truly going to serve in the military and take up the duty of protecting your country, I would think declaring your sexual preferences would be one of the last things on your mind given your roll in the service. This is probably a poor analogy, but for example a serious athlete focuses and is occupied with excelling in whatever his/her sport is, not so much their sex life (with the obvious exception being Tiger Woods).
It's just my opinion that in a type of situation/environment/setting like what you would come across while in the service it is probably best to keep certain things to yourself.
when you are not actually in combat it is a little bit different. Guys talk about sex all the time, its just the way things are. Doesn't matter where you go, if they are off the job, they talk about sex at some point. I imagine it is a little bit more so for a bunch of sex starved jocks in the army. Being all business 100% even on their off time wouldn't be very healthy for the soldiers either, the human mind doesn't work that way. So now that it is established that their off time is their off time and they can do what they want with it, coming out of the closet becomes a free speech and personal choice issue.
At 7/2/12 07:13 PM, Warforger wrote:
What are you talking about? The Taliban are a group in Afghanistan and Pakistan they have nothing to do with Arabs. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq and Afghanistan and Saddam didn't do much for them and would've probably opposed them seeing as he was a secular nationalist whereas Al-Qaeda is a theological pan-Islamist movement. As for the US or Iraq fighting Iran, what? I think they were more mad about the collateral damage the Soviet war brought upon them.
i'm not getting into this, these arguments go in circles I know. All I will do is reiderate the facts on the first post:
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=144386
Taliban in Syria, fighting WITH the rebels. So we can say that Russia, China, AND USA have something to lose from Syria.
At 7/2/12 04:46 AM, digiman2024 wrote:
please prove that statement. because you seem to forget that in 1980's what turned out to be the taliban sure as hell didnt mind us helping out in afganistan, and in the early 90's we went after suddam because he invaded kawait. which is why obl started thinking of the U.S. as the enemy. the middle east as a whole has always been shitty dictatorship after shitty dictatorship and we most likely stay that way for as long as they (the people) keep allowing these dictators com to power.
its just a fact that Saddam was trying to kick the Taliban out of his country before we invaded. The Taliban weren't mad about us fighting Iran, they were mad about the collateral damage. And who they get as their leaders is not our responsibility to choose, it's theirs.
all of the world powers have something to lose from Arab Spring, not just Russia and China. Also note the Taliban presence in the rebelion? wow, had we never gotten involved, Osama Bin Laden would have been fighting Sadam Hussein, and would have never committed 9/11. The best part? we would have GOOD relations with the resulting new governments, as opposed to scary Muslim Brotherhood.
in a Democracy, the role of the government is to force a bunch of people into a room, and then force them to vote for things that cause people to vote out of fear rather than "will".
candidate number 1 wants to kill everyone who doesn't vote for him
candidate number 2 doesn't
everyone votes for candidate number 1 because if you do and he's not elected, it's no big deal, if you vote for number 2 and number 1 is elected, your toast, and you know everyone else is thinking the same way.
this is why a movement that had merit and potential failed. the ignorant voices drowned out the base cause of the movement. I did what I could to defend this movement on grounds that it was anti corporatism and anti corruption and was supposed to be in favour of individual liberty and human rights.
instead, the idiots kept screaming the word socialism until the movement became nothing but socialism. (and a few anti-Semites, who's voices were also amplified by the media).
basically fell to the same crap Tea Party fell to. the extremist and ignorant voices resonated over the actual cause. In fact, the page you linked to isn't even an official set of demands, its just some page that some douche bag college hipster thought he/she would make while he was probably stoned out of his/her mind thinking "I'm gonna represent these guys, yea, that will be sweet man!".
well it is safe to say that any time technology makes something easier and more accessible, some one who made money on it before is going to have a problem with it and want the government to protect their best interests.
Atlas Shrugged
At 6/26/12 11:50 PM, Ilssm wrote:MSNBC reports white racists are bringing guns to rallies because they want to kill the black presidentlolno that's an obvious edit msnbc is ight fox news is deh only really biased news ntwrk and they are evil and everyone else everywhere is good ever
Turns out that they deliberately hid the man's face because he is actually BLACK
Fucking idiots.
well no they are all kinda shitty. you can't just pretend that they aren't all full of mind rotting crap. Some are just worse than others.
At 6/26/12 12:03 AM, GuerrilleroHeroico wrote:
Joke websites and many others make ad revenue off of work that they and their users did not produce, while the original artists aren't credited.
And that is plagiarism, not Piracy.
In a previous thread I made a point about how Piracy is not theft. I figured the point was good enough to warrant a separate thread concerning Digital Piracy since this topic is so hot amongst people who weren't voted in for these issues.
Search up any painting on Google images and you will find it, You will be able to save it and print it out all for free. One could say that either A: this is theft or B: it doesn't matter they are dead. I would say that this is just a way to maintain the value of the original work piece. Piracy makes a copy of the original, and leaves it in tact, Theft takes the original from the owner and leaves nothing behind. Counterfeiting is when you make a copy of the original, and sell it at the price of the original even though you did not make it.
Now, Piracy is good for Artists, because the copies of their music produced by their record companies generate little profit for them when sold, but are mainly for the sake of advertising themselves anyway. The record companies take the bulk of the money on these deals. Record companies push for anti piracy laws because it allows the artists to spread their image faster and free of charge to the record companies. What outlawing Piracy would do is make way for legalized counterfeiting at the hands of these record companies though.
When they sell a copy of the original work for money, they rob value from the original. This is what sets Counterfeiting apart from theft and piracy, it makes a copy of the original, and then devalues the original. A world with Piracy is a world without counterfeiting, as there would be no need to pay for the copies, and the original would retain it's value. Of course you could say that the original would be worth even more if copies weren't available for free, but once again, Google images. The free copies sort of increase the value of the original, because they give the original more fame, and increase the demand for it.
Anti piracy laws would only cheat the artists out of more money than they would make the artist. First, it would hurt the ability for quality artists to get their name out. Second, it would reduce the value of their live performances because the only way to see what they sound like live would be to pay for a copy of their live performance on a DVD or an MP3/4 purchased online (this devaluation also cheats the fans who paid to see the original out as well). And third, it means more of the rewards of their efforts go to the record company, rather than the artists who made the effort. The most famous artists are shouting to have these laws implemented as well because they are already on top and famous, these laws would kill their less known competition, so the privileged few artists would benefit at the expense of developing majority.
This could also be attributed to the unchanging environment modern art seems to inhabit. (ex, why its taking so long for the now ever so repetitive Pop to faze out). It is at the point where the only way to get big and famous is to sell your ass to the record companies that push for these laws. So don't try to bring the starving artist argument into this thread, its null and void, if not more beneficial to my side of the argument.
At 6/25/12 11:18 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: "Piracy" ensures that the original copy will retain its value while the copies are next to worthless.
you know what? I'm making a separate thread on this.
At 6/24/12 07:36 PM, WizMystery wrote:
An example of this is of course the free culture movement, supporting piracy under the assumption that art has no value.
Why?
Art does have value, and the name you make for yourself makes it worth even more, so the greatest become the richest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_painting s
Now the prices on these may be impressive, "Piracy" ensures that the original copy will retain its value while the copies are next to worthless. You can "pirate" most of these works of art on Google images. As for Music, people pay big bucks to see you play your music live. Pirating digital copies of their songs isn't theft from the artist, the record companies are the ones who make most of the money off those, and they aren't the original work, they are copies.
The more we devalue, the worse the situation gets. Speculatively the music industry is slowing down because fewer risks can be taken. There is very little difference between pop acts of 2000 and the pop acts of today - there's no longer a "decade divide" where things become drastically different.
Things are changing whether you know it or not. 90s had Grunge, new millennium had pop, and this decade, calling it now, will be heavy techno (ex, the infamous dubstep) What is slow to catch on is not the artists, its the outlet hosts who are afraid of innovation. People will get sick of hearing how awesome it is to be rich and beautiful all the time soon enough.
I think we should monetize more. I believe that the sole reason money is an inadequate measure of what we demand it to measure in the modern era is because much human activity goes unrewarded. There's no money in community service, and that's precisely its problem. There are very people who do things purely out of empathy - the human spirit is much more complicated than that. Empathy is a transient experience - poverty is forever. Proof? Kony 2012. You've most likely forgotten about the problem, but it's still there. You may have donated, but the issue still persists. If you were one of the skeptics (and let's not make this thread about that), chances are that even the inefficiencies of the organization are completely gone from your mind. If you were to gain money for helping, if you were to gain money for improving, chances are it may have been a much larger part of your life than it is.
On the contrary, the free market will take over what ever voluntarism isn't sufficient enough to handle. And some issues like Kony 2012 are just fads designed to turn pacifist teen aged hipster sheep into warmongering sheep just like their parents. Voluntarism isn't about being scammed, it is a way people help themselves by helping each other as our success often times relies on the success of others. It can be effected by the free market "supply and demand" physic as well. Not enough people donated to Kony 2012 because our success was not tied to the success of Uganda. Uganda will have to make success for itself.
At 6/25/12 02:35 PM, Ilssm wrote:
Frankly, idgaf what happens. It won't affect me personally either way.
democracy in a nut shell, its okay if it effects others, just as long as it doesn't effect me.
the really funny thing about the Golden Dawn is that they are just leftists with xenophobia.
At 6/19/12 01:47 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:
Do atheists believe in nothing happening after you die? Cuz that would kind of mean they disbelieve science as well (energy can not be created or destroyed)
This also begs the question of what "you" is, because if your energy is preserved, atheists must find some way to dissociate that energy from consciousness and the "I-being" of the Tao te Ching, which they can't prove, so really, atheism is as empty a belief, from a scientific standpoint, as deism is, if they can't come up with a decent answer to this question.
Energy can not be created or destroyed, but it can be converted. Mechanical energy can slowly be transferred to thermal energy through friction would be one example. Energy can also become matter, and matter can become energy.
Woodrow Wilson set the stage, but the puppet show didn't really kick off until the cold war.
At 6/19/12 12:33 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Corporations have much power in today's society, but I do not think of them as a government.
The majority of first world countries follow the path of fascism, part of that means the merging of corporations and state. They don't rule the country alone, but they influence your government way more than your votes do.
