Before replying in this thread you must have at least taken a Microeconomics or a Macroeconomics university level course.

I wish!

Laws aren't made in court, in US, they are interpreted. The difference is very subtle and often judges do make laws inadvertently.

Just in college on my own again, full-time student, part time work on campus. I live with a few others who are doing better than me, so a lot of my meals consist of leftovers. I'm currently also looking for a better paying job where I can get a full 20 hours instead of just 16.

I'd be satisfied with just being able to eat more than one meal per a day. I'm applying for food stamps soon so maybe I will be able to eat three meals a day.

A great example of this is our government or the TSA. Keep in mind that 'bad' is a normative statement.

Running a service that tracks where many things some illegal and some legal are and gives directions to them and provides this information to everyone...

Generally you either have to go down to the cat's level as you say, or in some cases find something that a cat cares about and use that as a teaching tool. One friend of mine found that his cat hated being alone, so if the cat did something wrong (spray the carpet) he puts it in the closet for a minute. The cat was brilliant, it learned very quickly what it could and could not do. I think these scientists are also drawing the wrong conclusion, it probably takes more brainpower to perform many socially interactive activities, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily smarter. Honestly I prefer dogs over cats, to me dogs are honest about their behavior, you can read easily what emotion a dog is displaying, but maybe that is because I grew up around more dogs than cats.

Well if you already bought a copy for one.

In the market of competitive monopoly, which is what sale of games is. A competitive monopoly being, in this case, a firm that produces a differentiated good with legal barrier to entry(copyright). This makes the creators price makers, which means there is a large amount of sales that never happen, because there are people who won't buy at the demand price because their utility from a game is not as great as their utility from their next two weeks worth of food. Now if they implemented price discrimination via a student discount for say, poor college students, it would likely encourage me to buy a copy of your game instead of pirating it. Also it would help if you released a finished product, that wasn't broken.

TL;DR Every pirated copy is not a lost sale. Wish for student discount. Don't release buggy games.

Firesheep is as legal as Limewire... Oh wait.

Isn't this the same logic some rapist use? "Maybe she didn't deserve to be raped but she sure was asking for it!" I really don't think it works here very well either.

I fail to understand how you would think I could disagree with you on any of the above points...

Your guess was far from the mark, my anger with corporations doesn't stop me from voting libertarian. My main problems generally involve corporations that exist merely to litigate, i.e. RIAA. Then again many of the problems involving corporations are directly due to government involvement. Although I am anti-corporation, that doesn't mean I want to tear down the companies that run them, I just wish they weren't so propped up by the government, and I wish the government wasn't so propped up by them. Understandable so as corporations generally have only profit on the mind and shouldn't have a hand in political affairs in the grand scheme of things. I don't think lawsuits keep the world spinning, but they are a tool one wielded much more successfully by those with money than those without, and you are a fool if you don't think court cases don't create laws. So yes, lawsuits are very pertinent to me and anyone else who lives in the US.

Right because you can understand my entire world view from one statement on Slashdot. Do me a favor and go troll someone else.

Artificial person with the same legal rights. The case was an 1886 Supreme Court decision based on the 14th amendment, they never ruled on it but the precedent was set... "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Even though it was presented as fact by the court reporter, still doesn't exclude that such statements were made.

You can sue an individual for more than they are worth, it happens all the time, most of the time though the person merely files for bankruptcy.