Personally I believe that red light timings should be more about personal safety than revenue. I'm just saying that I can't imagine a legal argument for federal regulation which the OP suggests.

Also, on your second to last statement (racial assumptions aside): do you really believe that criminals will stop being criminals if we only just accept them? Isn't socially deviant behavior the reason why criminals get pushed out of society?

If everybody followed the current traffic laws, such as the legal set distance between cars and stopping as soon as the light turns yellow, then there wouldn't be the safety concerns. Therefore, the problem arises from people who are technically breaking the law. How could the federal government interfere with a state's rights concerning the health and safety of people during criminal acts?

This is why I drink.

For one, we are discussing software piracy, not the necessity of social programs. In one instance I do not believe there can be a valid argument for. My conclusion stands firm. If you are the type of person who thinks all software pirates are just poor down trodden souls who would only pay if they could, then you are the type of person naive enough to think that all people on welfare truly need it. Fyi I'm from the poor segment of society and I can assure you there are plenty of people taking advantage of the system.

Blackberry sales have declined because for many businesses, Blackberries became "good enough". Many of my stepfather's business associates, himself included, have been looking forward to the Blackberry Z10/Q10 for awhile now. Just anecdotal evidence, but I think Blackberry will see a growth in market share with these and their upcoming devices.

I'm not arguing either for or against the idea that piracy could put a company out of business. I was merely commenting on the OP troll's assumption that all software pirates can not afford or would not be willing to pay for software that they pirate. The fact that there are plenty of people out there who could otherwise afford to pay for their software, but won't, is a reality that people need to be intellectually honest about.

Just like how only people who truly need it will take welfare. It has nothing to do with the fact that many people feel that they deserve to get "free" stuff just for being born.

I've known plenty of people who would have otherwise bought software if there had been no option to pirate it.

The real criminals sadly don't get caught because they are harder to catch.

That's why we have a "legal system" not a "justice system".

Add this to your analogy, copying the contents of said mail and then selling the contents to a reporter.

I buy plenty of music from independent artists through iTunes, and have done so for quite a few years now.

You stated that your dad was paid to "defend people, whether what they did was right or wrong", and that "Not all lawyers are evil." So was it not evil when your father successfully defended a guilty person and they were set free? Society suffers because a criminal is let loose by the ability of your father to convince some people that the criminal did not commit the crime when he did. Wonderful.

Yes, but the religion haters on Slashdot will do everything they can equate your church with CoS because so many of them are angry at Christianity and willfully ignore all of the contributions Christianity brings to society. I'm in the same boat as you, although I'm not Mormon, I'm Catholic which is another favorite target of Slashdotters.

As someone who is extremely colorblind, I have two different types, I have a tendency to stay away from games that rely on color. You are right, it is like seeing the world differently I suppose, because I have absolutely no idea what the world would look like otherwise. I imagine the world is much more bland to me than to other people.

Who does it belong to?