You ARE a dim-witted douchebag.
ARE.
Every time I see the Axe deodorant commercial I want to find the person who made it (approved it, came up with it, etc.) and kick them in the face for a very long time!
You're not nearly ambitious enough. Personally, I recommend going for the classic "double-nads-to-chesty". Difficult, yes, but the payoff is well worth it.
We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances.
So under what circumstances does Mr. Herdener believe it's okay to delete content from his customers' devices? What legitimate use is there for this capability?
That's pretty much my attitude towards IE (and every other browser, actually): I'll support whatever I'm being paid to support. My employer will happily sign off on a spec that requires IE4 compatibility as long as the client writes a big enough check. Sure, we'll tell him it's a waste of money and provide stats on browser market shares. But ultimately the client knows his users better than we do. We'll price it out, and either it's worth the money to him or it isn't.
For my personal sites I refuse to use browser specific hacks. Over the years I've found that it's better to stick with standards compliant code. I work on them in my spare time, so I want my work to have longevity. A hack could easily break in future browsers, while standard code only becomes better supported as time goes on.
If the fire marshal is getting the job done through vigorous inspections to make sure everyone's up to code, then nobody's going to question him. A fire safety inspection isn't something that offends the sensibilities. And, more importantly, it isn't illegal.
But what if this effective fire marshal claimed that the reason the city was so safe from fires was that he was torturing his employees to ensure their compliance? "I beat them regularly to keep them in line, and they get the job done. I could stop beating them, but then they would slack off and that would make the city less safe. Is relieving the suffering of a few civil servants worth putting millions of Americans in danger? I don't think so."
Regardless of how effective he is, we need to ask if this is something that we as a society want to condone. And it's certainly reasonable to ask "Is this really effective? And even if it is, are there methods that are as effective that don't involve physically assaulting the fire inspectors?"
Furthermore, some of us are going to say "Fuck it, I don't care if it works, this is wrong and he shouldn't be doing it! He needs to stop this shit right fucking now! If putting out the occasional fire is the price of living in a civilized society, then so be it."
So guys, you kept saying everyone pirates because of DRM. Well, this doesnt have one now. What excuse should we use now?
[Citation needed]
Who are these guys who said everyone pirates because of DRM?
Not necessarily sick. Just sufficiently motivated.
With 4 gigs, you have to pirate.
Bullshit. I filled up 8 gigs on my iPod just ripping my CDs. My roommate's music collection is over 50 GB, all from CDs he's purchased.
No, this is not a worthy cause and is potentially quite dangerous. This isn't about health, this is about collecting more money for the government. And that means that the government will decide what's unhealthy based on how big the budget shortfall is in any given year.
Variables don't; constants aren't.