I would say boycott the avenger if they kept this guy, but since they dumped him it is ok. However any company that keeps this asshat needs to be boycotted.

But you are vastly missing out if you don't get the unicorn horn. It just changes the whole cup.

I don't view pharmaceutical companies in a bad light because the pills are expensive. I understand the expense I am paying for is the drug (including all the research) not the individual pill. The only time I view them in a bad light is when they try to lock in a price past time for the patent to expire because they want to keep making big profits past their allotted time.

The same thing is true of games for me. I understand I'm not paying for the 1s and 0s being put on my machine. I'm paying for the development on it.

I have been asked to do this in a programmer position. It was a rotating thing. I hated it, but it was part of the job to mop the floors in the bathroom.

Those are the wuss version of lawn jarts. It isn't real lawn jarts if it isn't made of metal with a 3 inch spike on one end.

I don't think this is flamebait. Every person I knew in college with an art history degree realized they were going to have a hard time finding a job and a few switched majors due to that. I know lots of people who picked education paths because of the prospect of a job out the other end. High school is where you're supposed to grow up and become an adult. Not college. You're supposed to be an adult when you go to college.

If I made a dollar 3 years ago and had it stolen this year how much did I have stolen this year? $0 because I didn't make that dollar this year?

I don't believe the $500 billion estimate either but refuting it based upon how much money was made in the US in 2010 doesn't sound right to me.

Like say Google's source code for their search index was stolen how much is that valued at? Does the value only count for parts that were developed in the past year or could it have just been made MORE valuable in the last year.

This is one of the most insightful posts I have ever read.

So a total rewrite of laws whenever a new technology causes some societal change instead of understanding when the writers wrote something like "Making copies of copyrighted works and distributing them is illegal" they meant the copyright holder should be able to control distribution?

And how about words that are no longer common parlance? Should we write all our laws in Latin so that the meaning doesn't change over time with respect to language evolution?

A lot of the questions about how laws are intended to be interpreted are decided by the courts and that was part of the system of checks and balances originally thought of by the founders

I don't think you would want to live in a country where libel and harassment were legal. It leads to things like lies being accepted as truth and you have to defend yourself from being fired because someone says you told company secrets and you have no legal recourse to go through. Harassment has often led too suicide. Maybe you are completely well balanced and can handle mob harassment or someone constantly being derogatory to you because of some small thing they don't like, but that's not everyone.

NO I completely disagree! All cars should just always remain in first gear. That way we all drive at much more reasonable speeds too!

not to mention you know... how many lives have been saved because someone on the road witnessed an accident and called for an ambulance without having to look for a rest stop.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaay

Maybe the higher price point is because Xerox had to you know actually research these ideas and Apple just said ooo gimme and pay me some money for this paper. I don't have all the details but if the story is as I'm reading here, I don't see how it would be possible for Xerox to have competed with apple on price.

NetZero launched as a free to use service that derived revenue from ads. Now when they dropped that, they definitely should have changed the misleading name.