I don't understand this rationale at all. It's not cheating, it's just better than you are. Is it cheating that Deep Blue can beat world chess champions because it can successfully counter world chess champion strategies?

If cyborgs existed, would they all be cheaters because they could naturally do what was done in the video?

Are humans who are gifted with unnaturally good reflexes cheaters because their abilities deviate beyond what we might consider "normal"?

Then again, I guess it is human nature to drop the cheating card when they lose.

I don't really understand the problem people have with Wikipedia's method of funding. Begging so a free service can remain free without advertisers since apparently as I've heard parroted over and over again, having ads on Wikipedia would somehow compromise everything it stands for? So what?

No, we really don't.

What a stupid suggestion.

That must be great for you.

Because most clients actually handle folders well.

Nope. Not true.

Sounds good to me.

Do hardware manufacturers provide refunds to people who paid full price for hardware when it came out, as the price gradually goes lower and lower?

Should they?

Economies of scale. Having this single source is the most economically viable option for this particular cheap but costly to manufacture drug. Building and maintaining the laboratories needed to generate this stuff is not cheap and not worth the cost it would require.

Being modded down on slashdot isn't the same thing at all. The "offending" comments are all still there and easily accessed. Finding dissenting opinions on Wikipedia is a lot more involved, requiring you to iterate through the article history comparing the past and present for differences.

Hell, I view slashdot at -1 just so I don't miss comments that shied too far away from the groupthink.

Nope, it's still just as bad, if not worse. Just last week I had some contributions I made to an inconsequential article on a particular anime reverted because apparently, and I'm paraphrasing, "someone else handles all the summaries" - I mean, what? Looking at it now, it's still as empty as it was when I first saw it. Whoever they're relying on to do them isn't. It's bizarre.

The point is public perception. It has nothing to do with rational thinking.

No, lets put "thief" into the context of the actual article here, replacing "hacking" with "stealing": "We like stealing things and we don't want to stop"

We know what sort of negative connotation "hacking" has become despite it being the most ridiculous thing, but the "thief" angle is actually a pretty good one. If I say I'm a thief and I never want to stop thieving, it sends all kinds of negative connotations about who you are and what you do. Maybe you like stealing from people whom you have a prior arrangement to test their security, seeing how much loot you can get away with to show them how secure or insecure their home is with no intent to keep any such loot. Do you think the average person is going to think an angle like that is present, or just that you really like stealing things from people?

It's crap, but fairness is not a part of this. It's all about perceived notions by laypeople. Hackers are just bad people. That's the thought.

The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest federal court in the country, doesn't have the jurisdiction to challenge the NSA? What kind of bullshit is that?