They don't try to improve on an idea or at least reinterpret it. They merely recreate it.
When the inhibiting factor in the use of certain types of software is cost, then the goal isn't really improving, but rather recreating, but for free. Improvements are a bonus; people will even accept deficiencies as long as the price is right. Of course, Facebook is already free, at least from a monetary perspective, so you're right.
and Dunkin' Donuts regulars don't often consider actually dunking their doughnuts
Obviously. The question is whether or not they consider dunkin' their donuts.
Scientists discover new extremophiles every year
More like every day...and just by reading Slashdot.
The only solution is legal
Pretty much any time I read the word "only" in contexts such as these, it ends up being what amounts to a quickly-reached and myopic false dichotomy, as if the onlypossible options are legal/regulatory or private/technological. But perhaps, like anything else in life, the best overall solution is a combination of the best lower-level solutions, especially as the globe gets more global and things like jurisdictions and corporate partnerships get more and more nebulous.
And for what it's worth, I think you meant to write that sometimes the regulation is NOT worse than the alternative, right? Maybe I missed something.
...and the "bad guys" get away the more we enforce the constitution...
I mod you -1 for disagree.
The "problem" is that the "bad guys" really do get away with more the more we enforce the constitution. No matter your political ilk or even if you claim not to have one (riiiiiiiight...), it's easier to get away with more crap the more freedom you have. And the Constitution takes its freedom VERY seriously, something I am very happy about.
As such, the issue is really about whether or not it's better to live in a place where we live with this sort of potential for crime because it goes hand-in-hand with freedom, or whether it's worth it to forsake certain freedoms to obtain greater control over certain bad (and really bad) behaviors.
It's easy to swing ridiculously to one side, but there are good arguments on both sides, and even amongst some of the crazier fringes. Unfortunately debates about stuff like this usually devolve into (choose your favorite or select all 6!): 1 - A bunch of tools having what amounts to a libertarian pissing contest 2 - An argument about legalizing marijuana 3 - Something where someone mentions the military industrial complex (this happens regardless of the issue actually...) 4 - Some guy talking about yelling out "Fire!" in a crowded theater 5 - A bunch of thoughts that all begin with "Well, I'm an independent, but..." 6 - Someone talking about "pigs" and how evil they are, usually in relation to something someone experienced regarding #2 above
Anyhow, when you talk about "unelected, abusive, thugs" you lose credibility and hurt your own arguments (while helping the bad cops that you dislike) via your imbalance. Not every cop is an abusive thug, nor would having to elect every cop be a good idea -- mostly because you'd have a hybrid cop/politician which is a terrifying concept. Even for someone that generally supports the police like me.
imagine. one video goes viral and you are on top of the world in just a few hours. keep quality content up, and youll get subscribers in no time.
Yeah - because "viral" videos are "quality content". Whatever.
All that would do is encourage local news outlets to air the stupid or sensational kind of content that exemplifies "viral", something they already do and tell viewers "you can see this again on our website".
If it's a bridge collapse, I suppose that's one thing. If it's a dog that scares itself with its own farts, I'd say this decreases quality. The way to keep consistent viewers at the local level -- something local advertisers with real, local money desperately want and are willing to pay for, in general -- is to have pertinent, quality content given by professional broadcasters with as little bias as possible. Online "news" outlets (mini agenda mills), the alphabet affiliates (5 minutes of actual news per 30 minute broadcast) and the cable outlets (even bigger agenda mills) provide the exact opposite of these things.
I can look at REAL tits, thanks.
"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department