Whether they're guilty or not, they're gonna lie. Everyone lies. Murderers lie because they have to; witnesses and other participants lie because they think they have to; everyone else lies for the sheer joy of it, and to uphold a general principle that under no circumstances do you provide accurate information to a cop.
Rule #9 of the American Justice System: To a jury, any doubt is reasonable; the better the case, the worse the jury; a good man is hard to find, but 12 of them, gathered together in one place, is a miracle.
Piracy is tricky.
People who produce content do have some right to keep other people from stealing it.
Define "stealing" in this context. Because "stealing" patents by utilizing the underlying ideas in more or less spelled out ways in a patent application are the basis of most industries in their foundations. It's only much later is there any real recognition of patents, generally, as companies (and people) feel a need to create artificial barriers of entry to preempt competition.
Now, the case in point is copyright, and certainly there's a much greater view of respect for that field precisely because it is, in theory, supposed to be of a much more narrow scope. But, we're so far down that rabbit hole--the very definition of a derivative work has become so warped and the time span for a copyright to last has grown so large--that the respect for copyright at all has really had a falling out.
It is very difficult to track down individual pirates, so most get away and reasonable fines are not a deterrent. This leads to a sort of reverse-lottery where lots of people take a chance at disastrous penalties.
Which is the problem, full stop. If reasonable fines are not a deterrent, well, they're simple not a deterrent. Sometimes justice and punishment aren't a deterrent. That's life. Strive to correct this in some way only makes the situation worse. I mean, by the logic stated, jay walking should carry perhaps 20 years or even a death sentence. That's absurd.
Part of the problem is that the public is very split on what is reasonable.
A more major part is that those writing the laws are being effectively bribed with money from copyright holders into writing laws beneficial to copyright holders. So, that there is a "split on what is reasonable" is true. But, we live in a democracy, and I'm quite certain that way more than 90% of people are not in the "fine a person into oblivion". Hell, ever time you see a story showing the vast majority of a nation are committing piracy, it's a good sign you should rethink your laws to decriminalize it more, not try to crack down harder on it. That doesn't inherently mean that content creators won't be paid at all--although they may have to come to terms with the idea that even fewer will make a living wage from it. But, it may mean devising another system than copyright to facilitate it.
Some people are happy with any arrangement that industry wants because the purchase is voluntary
Piracy is voluntary too, between two consenting people to copy some bit of data. The rub is of course that it's piracy that's the issue, not whether people are somehow obtaining content from the industry directly without paying.
It would be interesting to see a survey of opinions on this and see how well public opinion matches the law.
See above. I'd say Napster was a good effective opinion poll of a sort. I am wary, though, of how any survey may be stacked one way or another to distort the message people wish to express. After all, most people may feel guilty about piracy, but that doesn't mean they feel they should be punished for it. Self-guilt happens in lots of circumstances which are clearly entirely victim-less, so it's important to not extrapolate unwarrantedly even if surveys did suggest that some sort of fine or whatever would be appropriate.
Look at the whole puzzle, not just the price tag.
Nest understands that their product is expensive up front, but delivers far more than the price tag in energy savings over it's lifetime. People like to bitch about the up-front cost of LED lighting too, but everyone around here at least understands the savings of those products.
And Muphry's law still applies
I see waht you did there.
Yes, XP needs to die, because it is made to deal with threats from 2000-2001, with added security patches strapped on as the need arose. Windows 7 and newer help address this issue.
Help address this issue..except not really.
That MS has chosen to not push more updates for Windows XP is the only real major thing hindering (b), but that speaks relatively little of XP. The only other major, possibly, beef is the hassle of installing so many incremental security patches. That's a major reason, of course, for Service Packs and slipstreaming.
Nah, really, the only place XP needs to "die" is in that hardware has continued to evolve and XP has been left out of a lot of developments, in large part because fundamentally some things didn't exist when XP was released. That Windows 7/8 already exists and supports said hardware as part of a new system...then XP can "die" when you switch to a new system inherently. But, that still leaves plenty of years for fully functional hardware to keep using XP for a long while.
It reminds me of a funny statement from Woz in "Accidental Empires" about how he couldn't wait for Moore's Law to reach its limit, so hardware would stop changing and schools could afford to spend the money on hardware that'd be around for 10-20 years like most other equipment. Ignoring that the actual time scale has shifted so much because of how cheap computers, not the PCs envisioned, have gotten, the mindset that old software shouldn't reasonably be supported for 10-20 years does sort of kill a lot of good ideas when it comes to reasonably using computer hardware. I guess there's always a long-term support contract with IBM and Linux...
"Newtown took place in the heart of gun-nut country, not the inner cities."
And that was 28 deaths, right? Add that total to all of Conn for 2012 and what do you have?
What was Chicago? Over 500? That's a Newtown every two weeks, isn't it?
You can pick an anomaly and base your reactions off it and the passions they invoke -- and not solve the problem. Or you can look at the over all stats and WHERE the problems are and have a simpler smaller target to address. Then MAYBE you can reduce those numbers dramatically.
About 40 people I was going to hire to start this business won't see the light of day.
Vampire-based businesses traditionally don't do well anyway. Employee retention is difficult because when you tell them you're going to give them a stake in the "business" they misunderstand and flee.
There is simply no free lunch. The guy you are outsourcing to is in it for the money. He will make sure he makes his money off of you.
If he can do it more efficiently then can't he make a profit while still making it cheaper for me?
We, the employed (or employment-seeking) coders of the world do not want more coders. It's one of the last jobs you can actually sort of get paid a living wage for. The last thing we need is competition.
So far as I can tell he has never managed to 
That's an interesting choice of words. If he really was more tolerant, you would say "he doesn't want to". But you didn't, because he isn't. He wants to abolish all theism and impose atheism, he has said as much many times, he takes advantage of the tolerance of others in order to advance his agenda, and he can get away with it because he doesn't dare go where there is true, "we will behead you" intolerance. And that was the point.
Yes, it really would. At one point just about every major piece of technology and science we have today would have been considered supernatural/metaphysical. Given the abundance of anecdotal evidence of "parapsychological" effects, it is completely reasonable to perform controlled experiments in order to evaluate whether those effects can be reproduced. That is the very nature of science.
It is also completely reasonable and scientific to periodically continue to perform those experiments as our tools and understanding grow, and to continue to ensure that the earlier falsification was justified and correct.
. If you're willing to entertain anything more than that then you're dealing with quasi-claims for which no amount of evidence can be used to substantiate or disprove them.
Simple solution: buy a device that doesn't have a baseband / access to the cellular network. There's the iPod touch, and $130 cheaper iPads. There are also a myriad of android devices from china that you probably shouldn't trust anyway.