Yeah, no, you're right. I was thinking of someone who had gender reassignment surgery . . . which still doesn't make them a hermaphrodite . . . so I'm way off.

I'm not sure where the benefit would be for movie studios to allow us to legally watch their movies online for free? I guess they wouldn't be spending money on researching how to stop us from downloading.

Does anyone have a source on any statistics on the cost of piracy to the movie studios?

If you loved dogs, but you were also equally fond of cats, would you want an ungodly mutilated amalgamation of the two?

When there are plenty of movie still grossing 200 million during the summer months I'm guessing that the affect of piracy is problem not as far reaching as the movie studios think. Then again, I'm not a movie studio, nor do I have the numbers in front of me.

Still, at the same time you can't fault the studio for trying to protect their property. I think these days we all think we're entitled to free entertainment because it's so accessible, and it's easy not to feel guilty when you're plucking intellectual property from giant movie studios that have truck loads of money. The reality is that the films are their work, and they have a right to control where and how is it distributed, just as much as a student film makes has control over his work.

Kind of depends on the level of manipulation. Most photo manipulation for newspapers and the like are simple contrast, color and brightness correction, sometimes necessary for the photo to be publishable. Other manipulations can be innocent ones that are more about composition of then anything.

Of course, it goes without saying that any photo editing that would deliberately mislead the public should be punishable, but in my view this is no different than an article that is deliberately misleading, they should both be handled in a similar way.

The science of global warming is extensive, complicated and confusing, particularly when you try to listen to both sides of the anthropogenic argument. Both sides have points and counter points for each other and the debate over the cause and effects of global warming will likely never reach a consensus. Trying to make heads or tails of the issue is a stressful experience, and I think I'd rather punch myself in the balls for half an hour, at least that's predictable. I hit my nuts, pain is felt. Easy. Simple.

However, as others have pointed out, there are many reasons to cut back our burning of fossil fuels even with global warming aside. Do you like the convenience of a plastic spoon? Hard to eat Wendy's chili without one. Guess what, all that stuff comes from petroleum, and we don't have an infinite amount of that stuff.

Also, the fact that the city of Toronto has something called the AQI (Air Quality Index). If our whether reports include a number that indicates how safe the air outside is to breath, we are already in serious trouble.

Big corporations are not universally bad, indeed many large corporations contribute to the high level of convenience we enjoy as consumers. A large corporation holds powerful buying power that is returned to consumers as low, affordable prices on various necessary or unnecessary products. Large corporations also facilitate the delivery of cultural meccas such as motion pictures and television programs. Without large, big profit corporations it would be difficult to be entertained by high budget shows such as Heroes or Grey's Anatomy every week.

Having said that, the corporate structure that is so pervasive in our economy dispenses a unique brand of social, political and environmental injustices on an unwitting public.

Corporations are bound to the will of the share holder, whose primary investment goal is to see their stock. For this reason the corporate structure must remain in a perpetual state of growth to ensure continued investment. A CEO of any given corporation will particularly feel the heat to grow. Considering the often short life span of their jobs, CEO will be more than motivated to make a large profits in a short period of time.

Big profits and continuous growth leads the corporate world to seek whatever advantage is available. If labourers will work for literally peanuts in South Asia, then setting up a factory overseas just makes good business sense. Of course there is little concern for working conditions or fair wages, that sort of defeats the purpose.

Regulations, particularly those pesky environmental ones, are sometimes view as road blocks to a windfall of profit. While there maybe some regulations in place that are unfair to business, the majority of regulations are in place to protect the environment, or uphold fair business practices. Corporations have the ability, however, have a disproportionate voice compared to the people to lobby for their interests through the government. To lobby isn't always a bad thing, but a corporation will typically be able to afford smarter, more experienced lobbyists than say an environmental group.

Large corporations aren't a bad thing, but there needs to be a better balance between their needs and the needs of the environment, and the environment.

L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer, a bad one, who just happens to be the father of a "religion" touting space aliens inhabiting our brains. Is there any doubt it's made up?

"Xenu . . . was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Scientology holds that their essences remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm."

Is there any doubt it's retarded?

Best video game of all time? It has to be Super Mario World, doesn't it? Dynamic gameplay, brilliant SNES graphics, tons of unlockable levels and a soundtrack that I still whistle to this very day. It turned out that Super Mario World would be the last greatest 2D Mario platformer as the next proper Mario game would be Mario 64 (an amazing, genre defining game in it's own right).

Being Canadian I don't know much about which news channel is most watched in the States. If MSNBC is "virtually unwatched" as you say, I'll have to take you at your word.

It worries me that people, such as yourself, can watch Fox News and feel that it's balanced. Truth be told, most news outlets in the States seem to be more about opinion than actual reporting. To get a good taste of the difference I suggest reading the BBC News, or even CBC News up here in Canada. While no news will ever be completely unbiased, these two networks at least attempt to present news with some sense of balance.

Equal airtime for right wing and left wing analysts is great, and you're right, I do see that a lot of Fox News, but if you think that they are being any at all fair to those left wing analysts, my friend, you are not watching close enough. Being yelled down by O'Reilly, or having him cut their mics is not a fair way to treat opposing viewpoints. Hannity performs this feat quite effectively as well.

Fair and balanced isn't about cheerleading a sitting president, it's not about starting political fires about people's middle name's being Hussein, or barking about someone not wearing an american flag pin. This is all bad reporting, in every conceivable fashion, and if you think otherwise, then I'm very afraid for your country's future.