The only problem with this argument is that by every legal or moral standard parents have responsibilities towards their offsprings that they don't have towards other human beings.

It's not that I disagree with the bottom line, I think the previous comment sums this up quote well. I'm just pointing out that this particular argument is flawed.

A better approach vector is if that person suddenly dependent on the victim is a half-clone sharing part of their DNA which was all of a sudden and without consent implanted in the host's body.

(I think there is a movie based on a similar concept...)

It's not as simple as that. You are missing the usual "but we are geeks" syndrome. For a /.er disabling all cookies and then inspecting incoming ones individually to decide which to enable might be something they can do and willing to invest the time in. For normal people doing that for every website they use isn't really a viable option.

Hence a law that forces website owners to breakdown cookies to roles and present Mr. Normal Person a simple explanation of what they do and allow them to enable them or not.

Think about it like Firebug's cookies tab for non-techies.

And if he does that's a whole different horror movie!

No. "Crowd Input" is one aspect of social media. The other aspect is the viral aspect. You want to spread your message across the social web through each node's personal connection by seeding a select few initial nodes. The advantage of that over traditional media is that you can try and generate a buzz. Everybody talking about it, liking, commenting, sharing. Not everything is suiteable for broadcasting via social networks, but this is definitely one major aspect of social networking.

I guess he means "Single player big-world adventure games".

"Single player Massive Multiplayer Online" is an oxymoron. But nobody would understand what you say if you said "Single player BWAG"...

I sincerely hope this one doesn't leave the lab...

Well his assets were US-based so it makes sense if the US decided to seize them in response to him breaking US-laws. Next time when you break US-laws and taunt the US-companies that complain about you, move your money to Switzerland first.

In other news: NZ isn't in Europe (your post is slightly ambiguous on that point...)

The Kindle's battery lasts for a month. I think if the power is out for a whole month there would be much bigger things that we'll be worried about than charging our Kindles...

Maybe if Apple's ludicrous patent streak will be ludicrous enough and go on for long enough it will cause lawmakers to question the current state of the patent system?

OMG did I write this? I swear my English is usually better and I'm not drunk. Just didn't proof read... ><

While I agree with your analogy, the reason for the "Y ISN'T PERFECT! Y ISN'T PERFECT" mentality, is the "Y IS BETTER THAN X! Y IS BETTER THAN X!" mentality on the other side. This is the same cause for it in politics. As the (left|right) claims that their way of doing things is better and then mocks / forces it on the (right|left) responds by showing that the (left|right)'s way actually isn't perfect and then mock it / forces it way.

I think you missed the point,

The "Like" button is a powerful commercial instrument. If you've worked with the FB API you'd know what data-mining you can do with it to find out things about your users. Namely - what they like. So you can try and sell that to them. Compare it to Google ads - super-sophisticated backend algorithms trying to figure out what you are looking for by analysing your recent browsing and the massive history and profiling they keep about you (because every website has google ads so they can follow you through the internet) - all so that they can serve you just the right ad.

And here FB comes along and just *prompt* you to tell them what you like! How simple - and we do it. Not only that but that comes free with who you are, where you live, who your friends are, what things interest you and a whole wealth of information about you. Without not a fraction of the computing power and algorithmic sophistication that Google needed to invest to reach the same result. There is a reason why Google were upset with FB when they came out with the embeddable Like button, why they tried to compete with the +1, and why next to SEO companies talk about FBO as well now.

The "Want" button is just the next logical step up from that. The reason I hate it and mock is because it's so obvious. With the like button there was an element of "social" "niceness" to it and you could argue that its roots where in social interaction rather than commercial opportunities. With the "Want" button they will basically drop the act - tell us what you *want* so that we can try and sell that to you. Seriously, what are the masses going to click *Want* about? World peace? Or that latest gadget from company X? They might "Like" all sort of things every now and then that don't directly give you meaningful information for your company's commercial efforts. The "Want" button weeds away the funny comments and silly videos and gets right down to what people *want*.

So yeah, they might create a "Support" button along the way if it's not any additional hassle and doesn't clutter the UI or takes your attention away from the "Want" button. But they couldn't give a toss about it. Unless of course it turns out that they can sell the information to politicians, in which case they'll add it with friggin bells on.

So we know who fucked whom.

What else is left?

As someone who went through the legal process in the UK I can tell you that I have a good "profile" (senior developer, high earning power, middle class background etc) and I barely made it in because I didn't have an academic degree. In fact the points system keeps changing and today I wouldn't be accepted.

I don't have a problem with it, countries aren't obligated to let anyone in. But when you talk about legal immigration you should understand that the systems are built to only allow the cream of the crop in. Scientists, Engineers, Doctors, Entrepreneurs - high earning power, money, education. In many countries that means higher social economic background to begin with.

95% of the people wouldn't be able to get in through the legal process. At the same time the US, Western Europe and friends and basically sucking in the best minds of the third world and developing countries.

I'm not justifying or criticising either side, just trying to shed some light on why many people might choose the illegal route.

In other words:
1. Over the past decade growth in the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors has been observed in India, Brazil, Singapore and other countries with emerging economies.
2. Over the past decade increases in patents in the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors in India, Brazil, Singapore and other countries with emerging economies.

I would guess these new companies that grew over the past decade in the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors in India, Brazil, Singapore and other countries with emerging economies *for various reasons*, have also secured their achievements with patents as in this days not doing so is suicidal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation