"Apple didn't come from behind in the smartphone market. They created the market. "

Well, that's one view into the reality distortion field.

I wasn't replying to the GP. If someone owns media with the content, I have no ethical issue with them acquiring another copy via download. That doesn't mean it's legal, though, although fair use may apply.

A refutation would involve simply pointing to another case of and Apple patent lawsuit. You're just trolling.

They needed to do physical work to survive, they didn't have the luxury of sitting still.

"Probably no one wants to go to work in an Atlanta July without a working A/C."

If the settlers were such wimps, Atlanta wouldn't be a city.

Government is the people. This is a matter of regaining control from the evil overlords.

Interesting, thanks for that. That seems a much better counter-argument than the claims that an electrical starter can be assured to work.

But, what about generators in cold environments? Isn't some glow plug heating required in order to start?

Good luck with that. Copyright law is pretty clear:

(Section) 106 . Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...

(Section) 501. Infringement of copyright

(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122... is an infringer of the copyright...

USC, Title 17

If you're downloading and saving a work, you are "reproducing" a copy. And before you quibble about semantics, that's exactly what "reproduction" refers to - playing a work is called "performance." Of course, in your attempt to rationalize your illegal activity, you've conveniently ignored that word.

You're the one who's confused. I was responding to the GP, who claimed "Given the opportunity cost of the money an investor spent on buying Amazon stock, it's pretty much effectively a loss."

Amazon increased their net assets by about $3/share FY12-FY13 (on revenue per share of ~$170, so less than 2%), so re-investment doesn't explain their lack of significant bottom-line profits. They're just working on low margins.

You're in the "slow classroom," aren't you?

Oh, bullshit.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. When one says X Bq were released, the meaning is that radioactive material which releases radiation at that rate has been released.

AMZN in 1997 was $4. It's over $300 now. How is that "effectively a loss?" If you want to pick specific dates to make your point, I can do the same for some other company which makes real profits, and show a loss for investors.

They are making money, just not by selling goods and services - if you bought AMZN back in 1998, you'd have a greater than 6400% profit now.

The headline here was way off - this was over 1 TBq being release to the atmosphere recently over a single 4 hour period. It resulted in radioactive contamination of crops 20 km away. The total amount of radioactive material released from the site is obviously much, much greater.

It's amazing how many people actually believe that the Constitution gives us rights. It only lists some of them. Likewise, many people think the gov't can do whatever they want unless specifically prohibited, they don't understand how the gov't derives only limited, enumerated, powers from the people through the Constitution.

Don't get me started about how the federal gov't itself thinks that everything under the sun is somehow "interstate commerce," begging to be regulated.