That's right - no legitimate online provider will sell it in Canada and the customer would have paid for it if it was remotely reasonable. So its more like whining Ferrari get stolen more when they can only be bought as a bundle with an entire car dealership. Then claiming car thieves, not idiotic business practices against all rules of microeconomics, are the problem to push for harsher laws.

1. Excitedly rush to iTunes to buy Game of Thrones Season 2 - I didn't know I could buy it!

2. Discover AC is a lying, prick.

3. Return to paying criminals who actually know how to provide a service

I would love to be able to vote with my wallet. I see that's not possible through legal means, at least where I live. I hereby declare my downloads to represent a lost sale caused entirely by being unable to give money for the product I want.

The US never used to have this problem. Something like a $50/hour technician would maintain a machine doing the work of 100 Chinese workers that the company had invested time and money into developing.

The reason American/European/whoever were paid more per hour is that they were more productive per hour. Basically the GDP/capita thing. But there has always been cheaper labor in other countries that the US traded with and it was not a problem.

There are many reasons the why the US is destroying its competitiveness that can be argued at length. A lot of it boils down to loosing to countries like China or Brazil that are investing in their own country and people. Consider a few things like how class mobility in China has drastically increased, while in the US this is decreasing. If there is a huge financial barrier to get a University education, will you get the best and brightest or stupid rich kids with degrees? Is the US more or less of a place that rewards talent? If there are higher environmental standards to manufacture in the US, do you A) allow companies to move manufacturing out of the country, pollute more and sell the product back to you or B) only freely trade with those meeting your standards.

Except warmer air holds more humidity. Increasing average temperature slightly with CO2 then increases humidity, which amplifies the warming effect and this is one of the lines of reasoning that leads to run away effects and tipping points. The entire 'water vapor' fact argues very strongly in favor of limiting global warming, the anti-global warming crowd is just so willfully ignorant of the subject that they think this argues in their favor.

To help you out some, you can safely ignore anyone claiming AGW doesn't exist or is doubtful. It's been over 15 since there's been what a lay person would call 'reasonable doubt' about that. There is, however, very large uncertainties about just how large an effect humans are having and, therefore, just how effective global warming reduction methods would be. Anyone legitimate on the 'anti-global warming' side is making these types of very real arguments, not obvious nonsense like 'CO2 promotes plant growth' which would stop atmospheric CO2 from rising so cannot be happening. However, what to do about about global warming is at least as much an economic question (probably much more so) as a climate science question. So far, on the whole, it appears that money spent reducing global warming is among the least cost-effective environmental spending there is.

A carbon tax would promote nuclear energy because nuclear power doesn't produce carbon dioxide. The same is true of many other methods of generating power. Why wouldn't they promote an effective, market driven approach to accounting for the cost?
AGW hasn't been in any real dispute for a long time. In The Skeptical Environmentalist it was pointed out that back then there was no real dispute among anyone who knew about climate science. Of course it also pointed out that environmentally the 'bang for buck' on global warming spending was worse than about anything else and economically didn't look sensible. There is dispute over how big the effect is, which is being lost because these people are getting lumped in with the 'it is not happening' denialists who seem immune to evidence or facts.

The news was fond of the next ice age thing. People studying climate were never very convinced and as more and more data came in global warming kept looking more and more probable. Don't confuse media hype with the state of research or an informed opinion.

> 'Zhang then tested his theory in living cells, and the results exceeded his expectations.' That is real research, real testing and discovery that the combination works better than expected. No one else published that yet.

It's obvious the US does not intend to stop illegal immigrants form Mexico, it's just a show to buy votes and hand juicy gobs of taxpayer money to friends. It would be profitable and easy to just fine companies employing illegal immigrants until it was cheaper to hire Americans. It seems this isn't acceptable because some of those companies would just move to Mexico/India/China. Any other method that might actually work has similar problems. But the "I'll spend massive amounts of tax payer dollars on obviously ineffective solutions" seems to work really, really well on America voter if you phrase it right.

No, the increased solar activity was part of the warming, just a smaller part. Roughly 20% if I remember right, but that still left the majority of global warming not coming from solar activity.

Train the most able not stupid rich kids if you want to remain competitive. Degrees are less value if they are not indicators of talent or ability.

That was the reasoning used in my current company to never, ever risk integrating GPL software into our code, despite the fact that we never sell or release software. (We use the custom software internally to help build a physical product.)

This seems at odds with the GPL FAQ:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA

Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.

Is there something I'm missing? Are there specific provisions that should be included in NDAs and employee contracts to do this safely?

Why doesn't this bother you more? A great many of you even seem to think this is right. Why is punishing technical disobedience of the law to do the right thing so important?

Is it because he is a minor and attends the school, so is almost effectively helpless? Obedience to law must trump benefiting the public, nip it in the bud? Is it criminal and cocky to out smart people society has designated your superior?

Is there no principal, law or philosophy of what once made the USA a respected country that you will not tear down and piss on? Does it hurt to be reminded?

No, really. Its not funny anymore.