Michael Archer

Depends on the context. If the government decrees I can't own a car or limits the production of cars, that's cutting civil liberties. If the government decrees how many Doritos a store can sell to what people on whatever condition, that's cutting civil liberties.

Yeah, I guess so. If you like South Park, that's fine; to each his own I guess. I just realized the irony of me criticizing South Park for being juvenile when I'm the guy that has a Rainbow Dash avatar. On the other hand, being "grown-up" doesn't mean making crude jokes...

You're right Vampymid: America is a democracy. That's why American school children, every morning, pledge allegiance to the flag and to the democracy for which it stands. That's why Article IV, Section IV of America's constitution explicit says it's a democratic form of government and not a republican one. That's why when the Union Army marched against the traitors to the South in 1861, they sang the "Battle Hymn of the Democracy." Also, this is me, apparently, but I wouldn't read too much into it, since it says I'm a libertarian. (I'm clearly not):

I think it would be nice that, if you saw a post by a certain user, you could click on that user's name in the post which will take you to their profile.

LOL, Americans, your country is really declining. I shouldn't laugh though, it's only a matter of time before Canada follows suit.

How dare you squander such great potential, City Interactive! You could've done so much with the sniping mechanics! Here's hoping Sniper Elite V2 (comes out tomorrow!) is better. COD 4 was absolutely phenomenal. COD4 2 was great. How could you make such an abomination after two great games?

God, I fucking hate this show. Despite its *occasional* funny moment (e.g. Nigger guy, zombie episode), it's humor for twelve-year-olds. Family Guy--FUCKING FAMILY GUY--is a more mature show than South Park...and that's saying a lot! I can understand why people like show; it's just not for me.

Today's xkcd made me really sad. I wouldn't have minded it so much had it not been for the mouse-over text. I'm sad at the fact that Randall Munroe, a man who is so deified on the internet, still holds credibility when he makes such stupid fucking scarecrow arguments. I mean, I wouldn't have minded it so much had Cyanide and Happiness made the same "joke," but XKCD has always had some semblance of seriousness (he frequently posts about his fianceé having cancer), but I considered XKCD to be more intellectual and smart; today, xkcd stopped being clever, and became immature, obnoxious, and stupid. And the worst part? Munroe is still considered to be "smart."

As spine-shiveringly awesome as "This Day Aria" is, Pinkie's Smile Song is still better.

121: When you know who people are, despite the frequent avatar and name changes.

Good luck with your taxes, Ross; I hope they don't fleece you too much! Also, I hope your donations aren't taxed. That's A LOT for a machinima director; Machinima.com doesn't mind that on top of your regular paycheck? Taxes are so goddamn complex, and I don't think it's fair that an individual like yourself can go to jail and literally not now what he did wrong (e.g. initialed instead of signed). Flat tax is looking better all the time, huh?

Machinima.com sucks in general. I probably made an account here since Ross is one of the few machinima directors who is actually entertaining, makes me laugh, and doesn't squeeze humor out of applying real world logic to video game logic (well, maybe not so much for the last part!). It's good that one of Ross' series got the recognition it deserves.

NC is hilarious. He makes me laugh 'till I cry quite frequently. His "The Room" review and his Tommy Wiseau impression made me almost suffocate from laughter.

I guess if you think that an individual has the right to his own mind, and the product of his work, don't believe in intellectual property rights, and don't believe someone possesses his mind by right--rather, its purpose is to be used by other people, then I guess you're right. If you don't consider intellectual property theft a cost. I'd say that's a negative effect. Just because you think that you're entitled to someone else's work doesn't make you entitled. If you don't think they deserve to be paid, don't buy their property. In any case, they have a right to their own work and property and nothing anyone says, even if they're the majority, will change that. Bullseyeshit. I know some. By declaring that the author has no right to decide how his property is distributed and that you're entitled to his work, you've morally devalued the property. You don't believe the owner should be paid for it, therefore, it's not valuable. "If I know how to steal something without being caught, that makes it ok!" I actually don't believe that's their intent. Personally, I don't believe that the RIAA is thinking "we're supporting SOPA, because we want to take over the Internet, and thus, THE WORLD!" I think that they're just fed up that Congress isn't taking harsher action against pirates. Now, whether Congress responded appropriately, that's what this thread is about. Well, when you put it like that, it sounds stupid. When you put it as, "they sued a person who made an illegal copy of copyrighted material without the owner's express permission," it sounds better. I'm sure you loved those stores, and I'm not trying to offend you, but if you ask me, those stores went out of business ever since music became electronic. I don't support SOPA. I think the DMCA is a great document and I applaud efforts made by the government to protect intellectual property owners, as property owners have been getting the middle finger from a lot of society. I've been thinking about this and I haven't got an answer yet: is it really unreasonable to shut down a site while it's under investigation? On one hand, it may be necessary for the investigation; on the other hand, it might violate the "innocent until proven guilty" legal maxim. No, but you do have the right that if, you find probable cause, to obtain a search warrant, and for the government to raid the house, and for the person to stand trial for what they've done. It's true that there's a risk to damaging reputable sites, but I don't want to go there, since I feel this is kind of like asking, "We shouldn't outlaw X, because legitimate people may go to jail."