Arkady Renko

I had foot-surgery senior year of high school. Chopped up my toe and took out a bone, long-story. Anyway, they gave me Vicodin and it just made me sleepy and only took away the pain, not the swelling. Motrin handled both better, I found out.

I agree with Coy Wire, it is harder to argue against stricter copy protection when people act like they don't have to pay for anything. On this board I might seem like a pretty liberal guy when it comes to the DRM issue, but at college I often stood alone advocating that people actually purchase for their music and movies once in awhile. (While I am not always perfect, I slowly reformed after my freshman and sophomore years. I can change, so can you.) While there always will be abusers of the system, I do not believe it has to be as rampant as it is today, DRM or no-DRM. Since Napster, young people don't think they have to pay for music and movies just like they don't have to take a test honestly. They think they aren't hurting anyone, but they actually are just making it more costly for everyone else to stay honest. It is a selfish, childish attitude that must and can change. People are always going to be able to circumvent copy protection. In the long-run, however, I don't think more draconian rules is the way to go. We, as a society, just need to work harder to change this attitude. What bothers me on the RIAA/MPAA side is that if they had free rein, they would ride roughshod over the public. And unfortunately, they have disproportionate influence in government. EFF doesn't really have the same kind of clout as they do. Also, unlike most industries, there really isn't the same opportunity for a company to compete by offering more liberal use-rights. These two organizations act like a trust for their industries. The process of creating universal standards for HD-Broadcasts and DVD-formats offers little wiggle room when it comes to companies being more liberal in the DRM arena. Just my half-pence. Didn't mean to preach, my bad. I apologize for any offensive statements that I might have made. Now Coy, maybe you might have more time to work on your safety play if you didn't spend so much time arguing about IP law.

Hasn't the RIAA recently hinted that they wanted to exact royalties from used CD sales? What about the crack down on restaurants playing music off of CDs?

Operant or classical?

Sorry, I meant Tom Brady

Weren't the lengths of copyrights and patents much shorter back at our nation's founding? I am too lazy to look this up.

What about that Gay guy?

Dude, I like the show, but Darin's point is valid. He has a different standard for a show's realism than others might. I wish I could come up with a good example, but this is what comes to mind now. Let's say there's a movie about professional football. In the movie, it is considered normal for players to be 45 years old. Despite the fact that it is not reality, we would criticize that, wouldn't we? The standard to question stuff like that differs person to person.

I sure hope not. That would stretch the believability of the show even past its own wide-standards. I saw Kiefer on Leno one night and he was intimating that Palmer might come back, so maybe you'll are right.

I'll grant you that, but I think the ideal back-up can fill in both roles. For example, doesn't Kevin Faulk fill both for New England?

I would say that Drew Bledsoe's problem with short-pass touch is the main reason why we haven't thrown screens. McGahee is a better pass-catcher, but still... this has been a knock on Bledsoe for a long time. I do, though, think your criticisms of Henry are accurate and speak to why TH will never be a good back-up for us. While I think he will be a good starter somewhere, I believe a good bacl-up RB should also be a good third-down back. Henry's problems catching and blocking disqualify him from 3rd down duties.

Doesn't McGahee's contract last another 3 years at least? At that point, we might be moving on to another RB considering the average career span for RBs in the NFL.

I doubt TD will get the swapping 2nd round picks as part of this deal. There will be a compromise where either we get a low round pick thrown in instead, swapping of third-rounders, or a conditional pick.

Is there an argument hidden in this post or is it just name-calling?

I'll bring the cake!

Excellent post.

Wait, there are Cardinal fans? When did this happen?

People are crapping on him because they cannot see how he could upset over what happened to him. Everyone here would be happy if they were demoted at their job and had to kiss up to the guy they replaced and the guy who demoted them!

Rowland has nothing to do with Pataki. In fact, how does Rowland have anything to do with New York State politics? I don't like Pataki, but saying that he's the biggest cause of the bloated budget and high taxes is asinine. Some people here seem to think that the executive branch in the state and federal level control everything. The Assembly is the one that keeps pushing for higher spending and thus causing higher taxes to offset that. Take some time and look at where Pataki and the Assembly's budgets differ... The only thing that the Assembly cuts is upstate education spending. Pataki would be a spendthrift everywhere else besides New York. Here, he is the one keeping the Assembly from making things worse.

All upstate cities are dying, besides Albany.

Dude, pay attention to the budget debates and maybe you'd understand. Pataki puts out a budget, the assembly bitches that he cuts too much, and he's forced to sign a much higher budget. Every year. When was the last time you saw an ad saying Pataki was spending too much in his proposed budget? No, they just B word that he's spending too little.

Pataki is one of the few forces of fiscal discipline in this state. In any other state he would be the symbol of excess. That's New York for ya! Watch TV in NY, everyone just whines about how they don't have enough money when we already have the highest burden in the country. Let's spend a lot on education so our kids can get good jobs in other states....

I think this a good point. Who you are and what you do should be independent of a political argument. Disagreements should focus on what is said, not who said it. It's tempting to try to expose hypocrisy, but personal attacks do nothing to address the issue raised. For example, people attack Bush on Iraq saying his motivation was for oil. That's all well and good, but that does not address whether or not invading Iraq in itself was the right thing to do. It just changes the subject from the actual issue being debated. Ad hominem attacks or something. I didn't take Latin... Googled it and this explains it pretty well. That being said, people who defend Travis Henry are all perverts who we shouldn't be listened to.

I guess they better stop reading the Declaration of Independence too... Oh wait, they already did that. We should accept that our past leaders, like our current ones, were flawed along with the times. We shouldn't celebrate their sins, but we shouldn't ignore their accomplishments either. Baby, bathwater, etc.

The shed has to be in Europe. But seriously, this is why I ain't a big Andrew Jackson fan.