No, this would justify not watching it at all. But the fact that the money paid for the film would mostly end up to people already filthy rich justifies downloading according to my sick and twisted socialist morals.

Watching The Hurt Locker caused great and irreparable waste of time that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.

This may slide a bit off topic, but how the hell professionalism got such a good reputation? Is it some measure of quality that people who create a product must be persuaded with money to do something they wouldn't otherwise do? Maybe I do too much thinking instead of watching commercials, but for me the word professional has closer connotations to prostitution than quality.

Also MythTV along with most free software projects are done by amateurs, by definition being motivated by love to what they do, so demanding professionalism is an oxymoron.

The whole field of brain imaging, be it fMRI, MEG or EEG has way too much methodological problems to be used as anything resembling "mind reading".

One big issue is whether the location of brain activation in fact says anything about the function that it supposedly causes. Even for the "known" localities (Broca's area etc.), the position varies a lot between subjects. Especially for seemingly homogeneous area such as the neocortex this is a big issue. And even for the better known localities, there aren't very clear theoretical accounts about the computation.

Also it's to be proven that the blood oxygen level in certain place of the brain really correlates that well with the computation that's done in that part. And that intensive computation in some part even tells very much about what's really being represented in the brain.

The fMRI (etc) studies are mostly correlational and any significant results usually require many test subjects. The accuracy of the results are vastly overrepresented in the public, and unfortunately often also in recent cognitive science/neurology/psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_neuroimaging#Critique_and_careful_interpretation

I don't think that the hemisphere-function division is as straightforward as you, and much of popularized psychology, suggest. From eg. lesion studies the evidence seems to hint that there are some tendencies to somewhat specialized functionality in the hemispheres, but these are quite "vague".

Some quotes from Wikipedia to back this up:

"Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about certain function (eg. logic, creativity) being lateralised, that is, located in the right or left side of the brain. These ideas need to be treated carefully because the popular lateralizations are often distributed across both sides."

"Hines (1987) states that the research on brain lateralization is valid as a research program, though commercial promoters have applied it to promote subjects and products far outside the implications of the research. For example, the implications of the research have no bearing on psychological interventions such as EMDR and neurolinguistic programming (Drenth 2003:53), brain training equipment, or management training."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

Also the study that the article refers to does some quite bold assumptions about how brain works (eg. quite strict functional localization) and the whole concept of "task" is so generally defined that it's quite easy to escape any falsification by modifying its properties.

In general, most of the stuff about psychology/cognitive science that "leaks" to public should be taken with a grain of salt. Much less about brain functioning is known that may appear to a casual reader, or to some self-criticism challenged researchers.

Nobody sane would voluntarily develop anything for Symbian. It's most probably the worst and most hostile environment for development ever created.

For some evidence to my claim see how many open source projects there are for Symbian comparing to it's market share.