Tags for this video have been changed from 'Steve Jobs Bill Gates Apple Microsoft Windows OSX Macintosh gay marri' to 'Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Apple, Microsoft, Windows, OSX, Macintosh, gay marriage' - edited by kronosposeidon

It's one thing to disagree with an opinion, it's another to disagree with a logically sound and valid argument. But nevermind that.

You don't seem to realize that shutting down the Pirate Bay changes nothing. Everything on the Pirate Bay can already be found in umpteen other places. Should the Pirate Bay lose their appeal and get taken down completely, boo-f$!*ing-hoo. You have not solved the problem - you've merely relocated it.

If you really want to stop piracy, you have to change how digital media is marketed and sold. Take a hint from Radiohead releasing "In Rainbows," or iTunes' business model of $0.99 per song. Release your indy games on XBox Live and Steam for reasonable and convenient prices. Make a subscription-based game. Or just make a damned good game that people actually think is worth the $50 price tag, like Fallout 3, Half Life, Starcraft, Call of Duty - the list goes on. The biggest deterrent to piracy is NOT MAKING GARBAGE.

You know what one of the most commonly pirated pieces of software is? It's not a game. It's Adobe CS4. Why? Because the retail price tag is over $1500 for the full suite. I guarantee you if the price was $100 or even $200 for the full suite they would see an immediate and precipitous decline in piracy. Because suddenly it doesn't cost two mortgage payments for someone to copy and paste their face onto the body of Britney Spears.

>> ^CaveBear:
>> Actually, I have. I just don't write games for Windows or Macintosh anymore, and I've shipped over a million games. Now I just write for iPhone / iPod touch since they are harder to steal. Who loses? You guys - the consumers.
I still disagree with many of the your arguments. It seems like Pirate Bay supporters just want to justify their pirating by arguing specific points to obfuscate the big picture. Pirate Bay just facilitates stealing stuff, and that's wrong. It's just as simple as that.

>> ^MaxWilder:
If you lose money due to the theft of your video games, then you need to come up with a better business model, one that takes into account modern internet usage.

Actually, I have. I just don't write games for Windows or Macintosh anymore, and I've shipped over a million games. Now I just write for iPhone / iPod touch since they are harder to steal. Who loses? You guys - the consumers.

I still disagree with many of the your arguments. It seems like Pirate Bay supporters just want to justify their pirating by arguing specific points to obfuscate the big picture. Pirate Bay just facilitates stealing stuff, and that's wrong. It's just as simple as that.

so what you're saying is...if you like macs, you have a mac but if you like PCs, you have a PC...hmmm very interesting and totally worth argument.

The whole thing is just tribalism born in the 80s...yea, remember the 80s?

-"Of the 235 million people in America, only a fraction can use a computer... Introducing Macintosh. For the rest of us."

I happen to prefer the Macintosh operating system over Windows.

I prefer the Macintosh operating system over Windows.

But I prefer the Macintosh operating system.




>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^dannym3141:
The only comedy to rival the brits over the years has been black american comedians and bill hicks

And Mr.Show, and Office Space, and Big Lebowski, Idiocracy, Strangers With Candy, The State, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Daily Show/Colbert, Zack Galafinakis, The Simpsons, Ren&Stimpy.... we can go on and on and on.

You can list stuff back and forth all day and disagree with what each other person says for fun whether you think it's true or not. So what's the point? Watch:
Mr. Show - definitely not
Idiocracy - see above
Strangers with Candy - see above
George Carlin - HUGE no
Richard Pryor - black comedian, which i listed
Daily show - close but no
Colbert - HUGE no
Now you'll just disagree with me and say those things are fucking great, but some of those make me despair, especially colbert, i can't believe you listed him
Ok so where now.......nope, nowhere, we can just disagree each other out all night, brits have definitely been the leaders in the comedy department. I'll let you have anything else, technology, success, even the things we once held proud like education and health, i'll even let you say we're getting as fat as you guys or possibly fatter, we're no longer quaint - packed with macdonalds and other terrible bland-brands that overtook better individual-brands, i'll let you say we're a bit of a hanger on internationally like the kid that hangs out with the bully, you've got the edge on industry, attractive people, land mass, weather, continental diversity within your country, most forms of entertainment, holidays, tourism, film industry, vehicles, engineering, and shit you're just generally nicer people.
But you can't have comedy, that's definitely ours, and i think i'm probably right in saying that too.. i bet a lot of americans would have to admit we've had the powerhouses of that genre.
(and probably military quality too, i'm taking that with me, that's ours, you can have military quantity and technology, i'm not greedy, and we'll share military embarassment every 1st and 3rd week)
Come on now, fair's fair.

I wont buy a Macintosh until they swear off animal testing.

Here are reasons I have no stake in this argument:

• I am not a female.
• I use contraception when fucking, so noone gets pregnant.
• I am not self-centered enough to force my opinion on someone elses reproductive choices.
• I prefer the Macintosh operating system.

I happen to prefer the Macintosh.

Other countries' socialist policies, like in say, the whole of Europe, do quite well compared to us.

Actually, this is causation without correlation. If you go to Europe, living situations are deteriorating. Their massive amounts of welfare have created a situation in which immigrants are coming not for opportunity, but to be subsidized by programs they haven't paid into their whole lives like existing citizens. Sound familiar? Our programs are being strained by the same problem. I won't deny that they've made better decisions with their socialist powers over the past twenty years. If you want to make this an argument about whose dictator is doing a better job at emulating the market, then certainly Europe wins. France, for example, gets 80% of their energy from nuclear power and is the largest energy exporter in Europe. I'm jealous. That's what the market would have chosen. Our dictators, however, have been blocking it for thirty years due to the influence of the radical environmentalist lobby. Our government-directed economy has also pumped billions of forcibly appropriated money into agri-business bio-fuels like ethanol. It reduced the supply of food because it became more profitable after all the subsidies to grow corn for ethanol than some other crop for food. And it takes almost as much energy to create as it produces. Negative net result, that money would have been better off staying in the hands of people who really couldn't afford to have it taken away. We realize this now, but it never needed to happen. Any product that wouldn't be able to compete on the market without being funded with stolen money isn't worth a damn. So why did we think a bill could do something the market couldn't? All subsidies are retarded, they have collusive anti-competitive redistribution written all over them, and that's exactly what we got despite election year promises that it would give us miracles.

In fact, imagine if a stranger comes to your house and says "Hi, I'd like to take some of your money from your paycheck every week because I think I can spend it better than you can on products and services for your life. You look pretty busy, irresponsible, and unintelligent." Would you give it to them? Why would you do that? That's essentially socialism in a nutshell. People spending other people's money on the claim they can do so with greater thrift than the person that earned it.

Another thing that we do different than Europe is maintain a gigantic military empire. Of course their socialist programs are better, they don't have a military industrial complex sucking trillions of dollars away from them. It's really not necessary in the nuclear age. No nuclear power has ever been invaded domestically. Because it's a losing proposition. If you win the ground war, they have nothing to lose so they launch them. But we're idiots over here, we have this manchausen syndrome where our CIA creates problems that eventually blow back in our face, at which point we can launch all out invasions under the pretense of self-defense. This might include installing the Shah in Iran. Or giving bioweapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq conflict. Or arming afghani warriors to fight the Soviets. Or paying off Musharraf in Pakistan to be a puppet. Terrorist propaganda becomes effective because of this shit.

Nowhere else in the world has a more libertarian system than us, as near as I can tell, and it handicaps us.

Price fixing interest rates = socialist
Bailout out bankruptcy with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Allowing one industry to loan out money they don't have, at interest = socialist
Subsidizing one company and not another = socialist
Taxing one company and not another = socialist
Nationalizing private industry to be financed with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Directing industry and research with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Declaring lending standards discriminatory to low income people and forcing banks to remove them via the Community Reinvestment Act = socialist
Issuing a non-market determined or constitutional money, banning competing currencies, and taxing dollar debasement gains on gold as if it were income = socialist
Blocking nuclear power for 30 years = socialist
Blocking domestic oil drilling for 20 years = socialist


Actually no, they would just need to get enough market power, and apply it ruthlessly to stomp out competition wherever it rises.

Bullshit, no one but the government has endless streams of capital to buy up anything and everything. Only government monopolies are self-sustaining, because they're the only monopolies financed with forcibly appropriated money.

In your version of the world, AMD shouldn't exist. Aptera Motors shouldn't exist. Right? I mean, giant corporations a thousand times their size existed before they even entered the market. They should have been bought out. Oh, wait, what's that? Not all companies are publicly traded.

The reality is, in order for a MARKET monopoly (note: in an environment where they don't have access to government specific powers like inflation and subsidization) to stay that way is to continue to offering the best product at the best price. Because then there's no window, no opportunity for someone else to come in and eat into that marketshare. If a company is delivering crap or overcharging, however, that immediately opens a window for someone else to come in. That's how AMD got so large, Intel was doing exactly that with netburst architecture. Even with a monopoly position, competition was waiting in the wings.

Suppose Microsoft took XP off the market and put Windows 3.1 on the shelf? Do you think they wouldn't go bankrupt? Do you think a competitor wouldn't arise to take their place? Because they're an all-powerful monopoly, right? They don't have to deliver shit, they can just buy Macintosh and anyone else while they pay thousands of programmers to create a product that doesn't sell.

Doh. Someone doesn't understand basic market principles.

One of my favorites from the roaring 20's was the rate war. Slash your prices to nearly nothing, and let your company lose a lot of money, on the premise that the smaller company will go bankrupt before you do.

Actually, large businesses with lots of workers have far more overhead and are much more inefficiently run. That's why most businesses today are small businesses. My mother owns an advertising business for wedding directories with no one but herself employed. A local newspaper owned by the Gannett company recently created a staff of twenty people to try and compete with her. They lasted two years before the magazine ended the operation. It was costing way more money than it was bringing in, and the so-called greedy megagiant slashed it.

Nuttery, Ron Paul is the only politician who believes in the law? Seriously, that's what you're saying? He's probably the only Republican who believes in the law being supreme, but there's more than a few Democrats who believe in the supremacy of law (including some joker with a law degree from Harvard running for President...).

Supreme law is the constitution doofus. It's the law that came before all other laws, it's the laws against government to prevent them from becoming a tyrannical, collusive nuthouse like all other governments before it by assessing which powers, which enablements, it shouldn't have under any circumstances. And inflation was one of them. But after a couple hundred years, people became complacent, arrogant, and ignorant, like yourself, and politicians found that they could ignore it with impunity. There was no longer a bunch of gun-toting, tea-hating radicals ready to hang them on the nearest tree when they broke it. There was nothing but the opposing party. But that party loves to spend, too. So they compromise by allowing the other to break it so long as they get to break it in another way. Remember how the bailout failed and then got passed? They put some extra pork in there to get the votes they needed. Rum and arrowheads...

http://www.greenfaucet.com/economy/porky-the-bailout-bill/19680

Welcome to our country, and the socialist enablements that make this spending possible.

No, but he can still bribe the politicians to look the other way on violation of rights. They do it now, and I'm not sure why it would change, just because the companies have more money to spend (according to your theory).

The bottom line here is that attacking Democrats as being socialist is a huge fucking straw man. We like the free market, and we want it to work.

No, you don't, You don't even know what it is.

Most investment banks are now crying out to be regulated in the wake of this credit crisis, and given that they bribed the government into deregulating them in the first place, that should tell you something.

They're not crying to be regulated, they're crying to be bailed out after being regulated. What do you think regulation is exactly? Do you realize that the fundamental way in which banks operate is fraudulent? How do you regulate that? How do you oversee to make sure fraud is being conducted in the best way possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Money_creation

This is the type of nonsense I hear from the republicrat camp. Regulation, the buzzword of the day. It's meaningless. To "regulate" the bank runs this system was causing, the Federal Reserve was created to backstop bankruptcy. Yes, failure, that free market pinnacle that makes private business suffer and fear consequences for risk and imprudent policy. Or how about the FDIC, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE on deposits. Don't worry, now you don't have to fear about losing your deposit on this scam industry. We've regulated it with the FDIC. OOPS, THE FEAR OF LOSING ONE'S DEPOSIT WAS WHAT DETERRED PEOPLE FROM GIVING IT TO HIGHLY LEVERAGED INVESTMENT BANKS OFFERING ABNORMAL YIELDS, CAUSING THAT BUSINESS MODEL TO GROW, CAUSING OTHER BANKS TO FOLLOW SUIT IN ORDER TO COMPETE.

The problem is regulation on fraudulent activity that should have never been allowed. It slowly but surely eliminated basic deterrents and self-regulating principles by backstopping risk and rewarding bad behavior.

if we're having a retro session.. i remember getting to art college and being proudly shown some shiny new macintoshes which "can open a high resolution photoshop file in only one minute!"

>> ^CaveBear:
As a professional software developer for 18 years, I find it so ironic that I create all my products on a Mac and then port them over to a PC in the end. We sell about 75% of our products to PC platform and 25% Mac. Macs are certainly not perfect, but Windows does suck in so many ways.


Oh I agree. Windows does have many problems. But I like this video because Mac fans are the loudest at thumping their chests saying that Macs are perfect. Well I'm sorry, but Macs have just as many problems as Windows does.

Good point Looris. In the car world, 25 years is minimum age to be considered a classic. On the other hand, any 68k Macintosh would have to qualify, even though the last of those appeared in the mid-90s.

There are definitely some posts, though, that I really don't know how to handle. I looked up this thread because I wasn't sure if this post qualifies or not. It was made quite recently, but the topic is very old. My instinct was to put it in vintage, but as I noted in the comment there, most of the channel invocations for that one would be more of a joke.

Heh, I thought this was a Macintosh ad until I got halfway through this. The number of *music references in the tags point out that it also belongs in said channel.