Some people want the issue of stem cell research to be explored. But exploring an issue like this requires a discussion of the ethics involved. That's good because a free and honest debate can give form to a general consensus. ... Some people want the science of stem cells to be explored. But only science in its truest form can provide useful knowledge, because it does not assign valuations of bad or good. Within science, knowledge of stem cell therapy benefits are valued as highly as knowledge of stem cell therapy failures. Philosophy only proves there are no certainties.

Some people might believe that invoking a great power can embue them an ability to take ownership of what isn't theirs. But only within that power's domain of providence will they not be seen as thieves. And great powers also exist among one another; And great powers also, at times, make invokations.

I am interested in right of way permits. Please tell me more.

If an action occurs, and upon examining this action there can be seen no logical cause, and then later when that action and its causes are explained sufficiently to be recognized both as logical, what describes the transformation of non-logic to logic?

I think this points to a dichotomy of belief, in that one says, "logical thought is the only acceptable motive for action," and an other that says, "logical thought and illogical thought are acceptable motives for action." My thought is that while logical thought will produce a consistent result, it is not the sole progenitor of intelligent action. This does not address any use of the word "reasonable". But what isn't the definition of reason.

I believed too hastily that this was accurate. My sense of honesty begs me to correct this: The point of this is to increase the accuracy with which some authors get more exposure than others. "The point of this is to enhance the precision by which some authors get more exposure than others," is a statement that is cryptic, and is subject to different interpretations.

In case of doubt, I'll state my opinion: There's the for-profits, the non-profits, and the non-players. In the case of a profit-leveled playing field, the non-players simply fall off, and are only rarely unaffected.

In addition, there are also individual parties who have not chosen to shoulder the moral obligation that influencing public policy entails. If it's a very tilted playing field, which position do these individuals occupy?

The point of this is to enhance the precision by which some authors get more exposure than others. There is a real incentive here: If an author has ideas you like, you can buy more exposure for him. If you don't like his ideas, just save your money. Over time this can create a world that's more comfortable for you and whoever shares your ideas. In effect, you buy your future prosperity. Shakespeare will not be affected. His works have lasted long enough to become engrained. Had this ability of "idea control" arisen only a hundred years after Shakespeare's time, how would his work be viewed now? To change the recent past is easier than to change the distant past. (Our ability to control our present future is evolving wildly.)

Whom is the target of this program? Supposedly it is consumers unprepared for the transition, that being those not yet digitally equipped. Why aren't they yet? Given the addictive nature of television, I can't think of a reason other than that they are not addicted. If television addicts are already eqipped for digital TV, and everyone else just doesn't care, who will benefit from the program? Because it doesn't exist for consumers, but for the fear that less consumers may watch TV, it will help neither the consumers nor those with the fear. It'll only help whomever ends up with the money.

Don't be too quick to assign one political action to any specific group. Those who are benfitted by an undertaking such as this often comprise an entity that trancends conventional categories. For such entity, the world provides no environment for jurisdiction, at present.

No kidding, it's almost as old as the internet. Older still if you count pre-tech endeavors. The only difference is that today it is completely visible; which incidentally is why attempts are currently underway to "normalize" this behavior.

I don't get it. Why would someone want to encrypt their media? I thought the more music and video gets around, the more people see it; the more that happens, the more channels of opportunity open for the originators of the media. Encryption seems to limit the exposure a piece of media gets. Did the people at Adobe ever think this through? I guess they don't have to be great thinkers, if they can make things that work and find people to buy them. Oh, and also as long as these Applian folks are there to catch them when they fall. Lucky Adobe, you've got an angel on your shoulder.