You completely missed the point of my original post.

I called your assertion that

everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.

wrong because a person's actions can only have consequences under the letter of the law.

If I am speeding and get caught, I am a wrongdoer under the law. If I'm on a bus and don't offer my seat to a 90 year old lady, I am a wrongdoer in someone's books.

One action has consequences, the other has none (ignoring any beliefs in karma etc). Thus, the law's definition of wrongdoer is the only one that matters here.

If you break the law, you should expect consequences. You should expect that your trial will be unfair. You should expect Google (or anyone else) to provide evidence about your crime. You should expect to get the maximum penalty.

Similarly, if you do something that's legal in your jurisdiction but offends someone, their opinion of your actions is ultimately inconsequential.

(By the way, the fact that people regularly break laws simply means that the benefits outweigh the risks. They don't do it to stick it to The Man, who enforces the law "capriciously and inconsistently".)

Please stop spewing out ridiculous maxims. There is only one definition of a wrongdoer that matters here, and it's defined by the law. You break the law and you can expect some consequences, especially if you leave a record of it. It's simple enough.

These popular conspiracy theories about group X holding back product/information Y are all debunked by a single thought: IF these people are truly smart enough to rule the world (or an aspect of it), they know better than to try to control every single individual in it.

What does this mean? That they are smart enough to follow free markets. They are smart enough to know that they can't predict the future of the stock market, even if they can control an aspect of it. This assumes that these groups do have a level of involvement high enough to control the government, financial and religious institutions WITHOUT being exposed. You really think that a large group of people is capable of holding a secret so large for so long? A president gets a blowjob from an intern and the whole world hears about it. I doubt an army of engineers, scientists and politicians would be quiet about what really goes on in Area 51, killing people with vaccines, peak oil conspiracies or whatever bullshit is popular that day.

So give your conspiracy theories a rest and please report some real news.

Socialism works if done correctly and capitalism works if done correctly.

Socialism does not scale very well. At the core, it attempts to set up a mechanism to control supply and demand (of jobs, goods, money, resources, etc). This can be done in a small, tight-knit community where every member has the same goals and ambitions. But expand the community to a country, and you'll find people on every end of the demand and supply curves - some want to work 90 hours a week and drive a Land Rover, others are content being on welfare and having no boss. No amount of government planning and control can take that into account.

Capitalism and free markets have their own set of problems, but at least they're not impossible to solve.

You can have Uranus, but I would have liked to vote for breasts.

Mickey has to draw and scribble his way through levels, mending broken bridges by applying the right colour paint or peering through walls after applying thinner. He can even clear rubble from his path by erasing parts of the world.

Source

It's a painting game puzzle game with retro art style. It may be darker than previous painting games, but I really doubt it's Mickey's version of Batman Begins.

What freaks me out even more is the "Alter Relationship" link right after your user name. I guess Slashdot is a very progressive website.

Apologies for the double reply, but I forgot this gem in your post:

in other words, what do we lose if they go bankrupt?

How about access to medication? Are you gonna spit into some breadcrumbs and add some spider webs next time you need penicillin?

Your argument is about as intelligent as proclaiming that we should all simultaneously stop paying taxes. The government can't do anything, LOL! Wrong. They can stop picking up your garbage, maintaining the roads you drive on and providing any other service. You give a little, you get a little - same with the drug companies.

Oh how, clever. You've taken my question and answered it with another question. However, I'll bite.

Here's why your idea of non-profit drug companies won't work:

Pay scale for non-profit companies is much lower than for-profit. This results in a brain drain towards for-profits. Even if you make it the law to be a non-profit drug company in the US, they'll either move their facilities to another country or the employees will move to a different field.

Assuming you can pay the employees the same as a for-profit, you still need to make money to stay in business. This means you have to sell your drugs and you have to convince people that they are better than your competitor's product. This requires marketing and investment into areas other than R&D and manufacturing. But that's ok, because these are costs that are somewhat easy to predict.

What's not predictable is how much failed R&D, drug recalls and lawsuits will occur. Nobody knows what these costs will be from year to year (with the possible exception of R&D, as the maximum you'll lose is what you spend on it). So you over-compensate, charge higher prices and end up with huge surpluses on the end of most years. Other years, you'll end up in court, paying out huge amounts that make the reserves from your fat years disappear.

So the notion of non-profit drug companies is pure fantasy. Simply put they need money to sit out bad times. If a non-profit drug company has a magic way of avoiding or even predicting those, I want it around, too.

Oh yeah, let's all boycott drug companies that make profit. What exactly is wrong with making profit?

Boil it down to the basics and the process works very well for everyone involved:

1) Drug company develops or buys the rights to a drug
2) Patients live longer and more comfortable lives thanks to the drugs
3) Drug company profits

Everyone wins. Hell, you can even invest in a drug company and share their profits.

And the fact that the USA has a fucked up pricing system for drugs is a discussion you should be having with your elected representative, not another Slashdotter.

I'll take people doctors, please. I don't buy the idea of euthanasia being a cure for a broken leg.

My son (who just turned 3) has been playing the DS for about 6 or 8 months now. There's some teaching involved on how to handle the hardware - don't poke the screen, don't open the hinge 180 degrees, don't touch the top screen with the stylus - but I don't worry anymore when he plays with it.

Here are some kid-appropriate games he plays:

- Crayola Treasure Adventures. Coloring games, join-the-numbers and great music. 4/5
- Smart Boys Gameroom. Puzzles, music games, counting games. Probably the most educational. 5/5
- Clubhouse Games. 42 old-school games - he plays bowling, shake the bottle, darts, hangman (called balloons) and many others. 4/5
- Meteos. Loses interest in it after a while. 2/5

I also tried out a number of other games that he may have been interested in. There was a Diego title that seemed too advanced for him, and I tried out the DS Interactive Storybook series but was not impressed by it (In the story of the 3 little pigs, the wolf or the pig call each other "idiot". I don't need my 3 year old learning insults.)

You rag on John Diefenbaker (Progressive Conservative) for cancelling a very expensive program and you whine that Stephen Harper (Conservative) is not spending enough on exploring the arctic.

You're either a troll or a disgruntled liberal will find any excuse to bash the conservatives. Frankly, I don't know how you got moderated up.