alexisgreat: We have enough copyright BS going on the States, it's tempting me to start free distributing music and movies (which I care nothing about) because the only ones making money off them are the large corporations, who already have too much money as it is.
Why don't you freely distribute your OWN work instead of somebody else's? Or is it that your own work is not nearly as valuable?
The infantile rationalization that you can infringe copyright because you don't approve of the law or other people making money off of the fruit of their labors has got to be one of the most puerile arguments on the 'net, not to mention so cliched that it's hard not to think of you as some disgruntled Slash-dotter nattering in his parents' basement.
jimby_99: I think that Sony really needs to look up the definition of "translucent." The last thing I want is a translucent mirror. A semi-transparent mirror would be more like it.
I'll ignore your antisocial, pedantic and completely unattractive personality for now to inform you that the terms "translucent" and "transparent" have very specific meanings in the discussion of optics., and they DON'T mean the same thing. There is a good discussion on the Wikipedia page on transparency to which I will refer you for more information. Just because you can look up a word on Webster doesn't mean you understand how that word applies to the specific subject matter in question. You can selectively quote dictionaries all you want and still not have any comprehension of the science behind the use of the word.
And by the way, I studied Latin for four years and have made my living in the optics and photographic fields, so I have more than a passing knowledge of the etymology of the words in question.
Nice try, though.
I think that Sony really needs to look up the definition of "translucent." The last thing I want is a translucent mirror. A semi-transparent mirror would be more like it.