"I have no problem with revenge against useless fucks too lazy to do anything to help others."

Ironically, this very attitude is the reason why I wouldn't help someone like you. /points-at-you

If you aren't able to control your emotions any better than that, I'm sure you're also one of those people who would sue me for pulling you out of a car wreck. I figure at that point, the only winning strategy is not to play. That means letting you die or whatever.

Sorry bub...

Maybe before they knew about it, it wasn't, but it sure as hell is now:

"I'm not a Nazi, my buddies had that tattooed on me while I was drunk and I decided to just leave it there."

Uh huh...

Good riddance indeed. Next on the list of undesirable are those people spend more time than me playing, are better players than me, and especially the ones that are better at manipulating the AH than I am.

It gives them an unfair advantage, and screws with the game economy, just like botting. Throw them under a buss I say! /spit

I love how everyone's all self righteous about the whole thing. In case you weren't aware, Apple doesn't care about YOU as an individual customer, any more than Pystar, or any other corporation for that matter.

I just can't wait until Apple takes a big chunk out of the hands of the fanbois that feed them. When they find a prettier girl to court, you'll be in the same boat as the submitter...

In plain view means just that, in plain view. Even using your analogy of headlights on a police cruiser, you still can't use headlights to peer into someone's house THROUGH THE WALL or ROOF.

The spirit of the law is that people have the right to do just about whatever they want in their house, behind closed doors/walls without being subject to a "casual inspection" by the police. Sure, it allows some people to do "bad things" without getting caught sometimes, but more importantly, it keeps the government from being able to micromanage your daily life.

Sure, because of "global terror" and a bunch of other scary words, people are more readily giving up their personal rights for "safety", but that doesn't automatically make it a good/smart thing.

Basically, if it isn't grossly obvious that you're doing something illegal, the Police should leave you the hell alone and go find someone who IS breaking the law in public. In my experience, that's not a very difficult thing to find...

Stallman has talked about the ethical dilemma for years and as far as I can tell, it exists with all propriety software:

-I write propriety software.
-I decide I don't want to support it any more.
-You "really need" or want to use my software. You paid for it, so you should be able to use it, right?
-You find a bug that is a "show stopper" for you in some way.
-You ask me to fix it.
-I politely tell you to "stuff it".

Is it ethical to break a license to fix software that you didn't create? Even if I don't care if you fix it, if I don't give you written permission to do so, you are probably still breaking the law. What if fixing the software illegally will help save someone's life in some odd way?

That's the whole "ethical" dilemma and I agree with him that it is an absurd situation to be in and it makes no practical sense when you take money out of the picture.

Exactly!

Scientist X: No, no, no! Your theory is all wrong, there are only 95.3 Jigga-watts in a Mega-Joule of Amptonium!

Scientist Y: Preposterous, my paper PROVES that there are indeed 98.6 Jigga-watts in a Mega-Joule of Amptonium!

Joe Sixpack: What the hell is a Jigga-watt!?!?

So by your line of thinking, if someone thought YOU were "bad" (whatever that means), you wouldn't object to them killing YOU? Jews were "bad" by some people's definition, so I guess that was OK too, huh?

"Killing all the bad people" won't make the problem go away, it just makes room for the next wave of "bad" people. Grow up.

"Information doesn't have rights -- people do."

That, is a very good point. I'm sure it falls on deaf ears here, but a good point regardless of what the anti-social "nerd patrol" here thinks.

"The difference is the methods involved, where people artificially interfere with breeding and natural selection by means of selecting crops themselves or directly cut and paste genes to that effect."

And that's the whole point. You want to be logical, OK. Let's be logical and scientific about it:

History has shown me time and again that giant multinational corporations are more concerned with doing things the PROFITABLE way, which is not necessarily, the safest/smartest/cleanest/healthiest way. So WHY should I believe that ADM, etc. won't do something "bad" to my food, cover it up, and lie about it?

It's not about being a luddite, it's about knowing, from experience, that the CEO of the company in charge of "Engineering the Future of Our Food!" is probably an asshole who doesn't care what impact he has on other people or the environment.

Additionally, I don't know about you, but I gave up on the notion of the "noble researcher/scientist a long time ago. From his (scientist) perspective, his job with the big food multi-national is probably just as soul-crushing as any other corporate gig.

"Should I check those test results one more time? Fuck it! It's Tuesday, my boss is an ahole, I've got to fill out my 10 page quarterly review, and I just don't fucking care right now. I'm going to Chotchkie's..."

Yeah, I want those guys tinkering around with the basic building blocks of my food.

TLDR: You assume there's no reason to NOT trust them, and I say there's no reason TO trust them.

I think you're an idiot so I guess we're even then.

Too bad more things can't work themselves out like that, huh?