Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

kaa

Members
  • Content Count

    5,412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About kaa

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  1. yes, it's a jack-centric episode.and everyone is headed to the hospital right... sun and jin, locke and ben, sawyer and miles, sayid, etc.somehow it's going to end with jack being the hero, even though he hasn't been extremely relevant as a character in the show since season 4Yah and then it'll turn out to be a mental hospital and they are all in there with Hurley and Libby. The entire island thing has been a psychological experiment on crazy people.
  2. Another red herring. Given American Idol viewership has dropped from 39m to 18.4m, the fact that it is still the most watched show in America does not mean viewers have NOT left in droves.
  3. Sure...The show has lost well over half its audience. Its been between 9-10 million viewers this season, and even dipped into the 8 million range for "recon". At Lost's peak, early season 2, it drew over 23 million viewers. So yeah, a LOT of people have given up.And despite that, ABC can still command some near record Ad rates for the Series Finale. ABC is in no way dissatisfied with the audience size they are getting.Red herring. The truth is viewers have left in droves. Speculation on ABC satisfaction quotient is not pertinent.
  4. Sure...The show has lost well over half its audience. Its been between 9-10 million viewers this season, and even dipped into the 8 million range for "recon". At Lost's peak, early season 2, it drew over 23 million viewers. So yeah, a LOT of people have given up.
  5. The more interesting question is why did UnLocke throw Desmond into the well? Why not just kill him? Either the rules say he can't kill Desmond, or he needs him for something.
  6. Yeah, I took it as an attempt to keep MIB from having a vessel to jump to.The problem is when the MIB asked Desmond who he thought he was at the well, Desmond responded "You're John Locke!"
  7. Oh, we were here. We were just in an alternate universe.
  8. He just put Locke in the hospital by running him over. I imagine that way he meets up with either Lack at the hospital, or Ford because he investigates the assault. Or both. And that jars his memory.
  9. In your case, I think its more a question of how long it will take before each of these things becomes truly a commodity. There was a time a few hundred years where few people knew how to write. If you could write, you could be employed in a nice job. Fast forward a few hundred years, and the ability to write is a pure commodity. No-one will pay you to write.Each of these things you mention, creating a painting, writing games, writing songs, making a movie, eventually robots and computers will be smart and creative enough to do all of these things, reducing their value to zero.
  10. Drinking alcohol is wrong. Let's just admit that. Its terribly unhealthy for you. Among the bad things are that you can get killed and/or kill others by driving drunk. You can become overweight. You can wreck your liver. As a rational society, alcohol should be banned. But it won't happen. Its been tried. People ultimately just subvert the law. And I think thanks to modern technology, file sharing is now in the same category with alcohol. It is something that some people consider stealing, but the general public will never, ever accept that. They will revolt against that. So, ultimately, it will become socially acceptable. It will no longer be considered stealing. The industries affected will just adjust.
  11. In terms of injury, the music owner has only suffered as much as had fred decided to not buy his music. The owner has not been deprived of anything. Fred may have incurred an undeserved benefit, but he hasn't taken any economic benefit away from the owner. So let's put ourselves in the position of the rational music owner. He knows that Fred will occassionally copy his music without paying, but that Fred will also buy more music than someone who doesn't occassionally copy his music. And he also knows that by copying his music, Fred will drive more music buyers to his store. The rational music owner prefers fred to Joe, who just doesn't buy the music (just assume these facts for the sake of the hypothetical).There are a couple of ways to conceptualize why we should protect property in the first place. Maurile would make the moral argument that when we mix our labor with the natural world, we have a moral right to the product of that labor. I would argue differently. I would argue that unless we protect personal property, individuals will devote a lot more effort to protecting stuff they've already produced rather than producing more. Under my conception of personal property, a property right only makes sense if it makes things more efficient. In the hypothetical, the IP right doesn't improve efficiency. It doesn't make the owner better off.You could draw some comparison to professional boxing. There was a time where boxing was given away for free on network TV. And the effect was similar to how to describe Fred occasional copying of music. If Fred consumes boxing content for free on occasion via TV, he might also buy more tickets to see boxing live in his area. He might drive more people to see live boxing events. But boxing moved towards a pay-per-view model. It wasn't as accessible as in the past. When that happened, it dropped out of the public consciousness. And the industry ultimately killed its own market.BUT it was boxing's decision.When they were free on TV, it wasn't really free - they were paid by TV. Just as the NFL is paid by TV today.Boxing thought they could get more money by Pay per view. So they tried. Whether it worked or not is entirely up to them.JI'm just pointing out the benefits of people getting and sharing free content.
  12. OK, so it would be OK for me to steal soup if I could get it for free from a soup kitchen? Of course, the soup kitchen only plays soup at certain times of day, and I can't always guarantee that they'll play the soup that I want, but because it's free, I can just steal any soup I want and play it any time I want?Its not ok to steal. The point being made is that file sharing is no longer stealing. Society is changing.I don't think so. Simply because technology moved faster than the industry could handle, does not mean that society thinks file "sharing" is acceptable. Taken to a logical conclusion - it would allow for a single purchase, and then unlimited sharing of that single purpose. I don't think anyone would argue that is fair. I think you're wrong. Technology is forcing a change on society.
  13. In terms of injury, the music owner has only suffered as much as had fred decided to not buy his music. The owner has not been deprived of anything. Fred may have incurred an undeserved benefit, but he hasn't taken any economic benefit away from the owner. So let's put ourselves in the position of the rational music owner. He knows that Fred will occassionally copy his music without paying, but that Fred will also buy more music than someone who doesn't occassionally copy his music. And he also knows that by copying his music, Fred will drive more music buyers to his store. The rational music owner prefers fred to Joe, who just doesn't buy the music (just assume these facts for the sake of the hypothetical).There are a couple of ways to conceptualize why we should protect property in the first place. Maurile would make the moral argument that when we mix our labor with the natural world, we have a moral right to the product of that labor. I would argue differently. I would argue that unless we protect personal property, individuals will devote a lot more effort to protecting stuff they've already produced rather than producing more. Under my conception of personal property, a property right only makes sense if it makes things more efficient. In the hypothetical, the IP right doesn't improve efficiency. It doesn't make the owner better off.You could draw some comparison to professional boxing. There was a time where boxing was given away for free on network TV. And the effect was similar to how to describe Fred occasional copying of music. If Fred consumes boxing content for free on occasion via TV, he might also buy more tickets to see boxing live in his area. He might drive more people to see live boxing events. But boxing moved towards a pay-per-view model. It wasn't as accessible as in the past. When that happened, it dropped out of the public consciousness. And the industry ultimately killed its own market.
  14. OK, so it would be OK for me to steal soup if I could get it for free from a soup kitchen? Of course, the soup kitchen only plays soup at certain times of day, and I can't always guarantee that they'll play the soup that I want, but because it's free, I can just steal any soup I want and play it any time I want?Its not ok to steal. The point being made is that file sharing is no longer stealing. Society is changing.