and computers and keyboard and mice and printers and paper and pencils and markers and charcoal and papyrus and
Then maybe they shouldn't break the law.
I think if the guys with the power to make decisions at MS could chose between making $100M and killing the global economy, or not, they'd take the $100M, quickly get it put into their Swiss bank account, and retire in Switzerland while the rest of the world goes to hell. Maybe I'm being cynical, but if MS (or any other overly-huge corporation, like say AIG pre-recession) were to just disappear from the global economy, it'd be like ripping a kidney out of your body. You just might survive, but it sure is not going to be pleasant. If we handle the situation differently, and slowly kill MS off (by essentially shutting down everything but say support and whatever people are necessary to keep the systems relatively secure), the rest of the world will be much more able to adequately adjust.
They would need some other way of proving you were at the scene to say you were. You can't argue that just because the one bit of fake DNA they found was trying to be yours, you couldn't have been at the crime scene. At least that sounds like the logical solution. Best I can do is hope that's how the legal system actually sees it.
Give each station a unique id for its name, and store all the other information in a spreadsheet.
It might just be that the defense mechanisms take less energy than otherwise. I'm not an expert on eucalyptus trees though, to know.
It's only been 500 years since moas went extinct, not 1500. Your point only gets stronger from that though. 500 years is nothing to the time it took for just about every other evolutionary change.
Right, so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell? Yet you want all of this at the terms you?
There is nothing wrong with "wanting" to use a product some creator/publisher creates, or "wanting" to set the terms of the transfer. It's called demand, something I am very sure you are aware of, seeing as how you are so insistent on maintaining a Free Market.
If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, you don't get to use the product.
This certainly would be a great rule to use, in the case where each party in an agreement offers fair terms. However, in the cases where one party imposes terms and conditions that a significant portion of the public perceives as unjust, then the public pirates/steals/recreates their benefits of the agreement. In each of those cases, the victim of the piracy/theft/recreation does not gain a thing. This is the public's revenge for creating unjust terms in the first place, and unfortunately the piracy/theft/recreation victim does suffer an actual loss in the case of theft (I like to think that if the public could just as easily create an actual copy of the desired device as steal it, they would make the copy, so this loss in the case of theft is mostly a secondary effect caused by physical constraints rather than a primary effect of obtaining the technology of the device). And the public gains technology.
I have absolutely no issue with any of what's going on except for two things:
I agree that corporations shouldn't be allowed to buy legislation. That's just stupid for any government remotely close to democracy. I don't know if corporations are 'buying' legislation so much as just spending an outrageously disproportionate amount of money on legislation compared to money from person-oriented PACs, which is still stupid, in my opinion, though the blame in this case isn't so much on the system, as it is on the players.
As far as Government Bailouts, and letting businesses fail when they fail go, I would agree with you, in a world where a business goes down because it was out-competed by some other company, who is there to pick up new customers marooned by the failed business. In some cases, however, like the case of AIG, etc., I don't think there were other businesses capable of providing the same services AIG/etc provided on the level AIG/etc provided them. The unfortunate thing is that there isn't much in the way of alternatives for dealing with AIG-like situations, so our congressmen came up with the great idea of copying the big-bank business strategy of giving/loaning out large quantities of money it never had. The only way to 'solve' this crisis completely is to go back in time and keep it from happening to the scale it did; basically to force AIG/etc to be a significantly smaller business, so that when it failed, it didn't take half the world (exaggeration) with it. For now though, we just deal with the fact that we screwed up, and try to regain normalcy as quickly as we comfortably can (hence the strategy of loaning/giving out money).
Sorry if this isn't entirely understandable. I'm not the most eloquent writer. And for the record, I would mod your post up, so that at the very least it gets refuted by more adept writers, or confirmed by more advanced thinkers. I just figured nobody would ever actually come back to this story and reply to you.
A Nintendo DS with a cart to allow homebrew, or a PSP with functionally the same thing.
Fits 1 perfectly (unless your cousin has small pockets)
Fits 2, as long as your cousin doesn't care about doing what Nintendo and Sony don't want him to.
Fits 3 partly. You can buy the DS or PSP and the storage medium (Usually microSD) in the US, with cash. The interface to let you play homebrew is another story though.
Hopefully your cousin can compromise on part 2 and part 3.
Why you got modded insightful is beyond me.
(Please note that any addresses of 'you' refer to the person that commits suicide because they were solicited male enhancement, who you addressed as 'I')
As far as I know, Lori Drew committed this crime fully aware that the girl had psychological problems. That's like spammers sending you messages because they are fully aware your penis is small. They obviously aren't (unless you advertise it online, or happened to have slept with one of them). So if you decide to off yourself because some random person is sending 'enhancement' spam to thousands or millions of people, including yourself, and you interpret their spam as demeaning, then you are clearly at more fault than the spammer is. Interpreting impersonal e-mails offering assistance for your insecurity as demeaning requires some sort of psychological problem on your part, probably depression caused by insecurity (which in and of itself would be a psychological problem).
In the case of this girl, Drew intentionally bullied her. The messages Drew sent the girl could easily be interpreted as bullying by just about anyone of sane mind. Drew also intentionally addressed the messages specifically to this girl--it was not some 'you suck' e-mail send to every person on a million-person address book.
As far as I know, nobody's privacy was questionably respected/disrespected in this case (I don't see anybody ranting about it on slashdot), so your concerns for burning people for their diary entries are ill-founded.
Blogs are essentially anonymously-addressed e-mails for anyone who cares to read them. This case sets no precedence for what is (as far as my above argument is concerned) essentially equivalent to spam that people may choose to read. Your concerns for the public's right to blog are also ill-founded.
Here is my case for you simply (in case you misinterpreted anything I said above, which tends to happen when two people disagree):
Before you get concerned over nanny-states consider whether the analogies you base your conclusions on are actually relevant and correct. In this case they are not.
Weird that for the most part, only people east of the Mississippi really give a damn about flag burning. The other half (geographically speaking) just doesn't care.
Well that or it's mostly people east of the Mississippi that use this OkCupid thing.
I don't really see much of an argument against considering video games as art. The longer ones, with stories and what-not are very similar to written books. Both have different methods of engaging the player or reader, but both do provide a fully-fledged story, complete with morals, themes, and a message that can change a player's or reader's opinion on a matter. The shorter games, like in the mentioned Space Invaders controversy, are very similar to paintings. There isn't much of a story to them, but they still are fully capable of affecting a player or viewer.
In general, I'd say that something is art if it's capable of affecting its 'experiencer' in some sort of opinion- or emotially-related way. The fact that 2+2 is 4 isn't art (written on paper, it might be, but not the simple fact itself), while little aliens blowing up the WTC is.
The F-15 Eagle: If it's up, we'll shoot it down. If it's down, we'll blow it up. -- A McDonnel-Douglas ad from a few years ago