You also cannot not tell what harm extending copyright has to creativity, for the following reason:
1. The owner of the copyright has to devote time to enforcing copyright. 2. It makes more difficult for other creators to create because they must be careful of violating other peoples copyright, also it increase their costs since they cannot you other peoples work freely. 3. The original creator now has a steady flow of income, so is now not as strongly motivated by need to make a living. Think about it, if someone today paid you a comfortable liveable wage for doing nothing, would you be more or less likely to go to work tomorrow?
I can buy the argument that giving copyright for a period of time encourages creativity, but to what extent all the factors work together to give you the best result for society it hard to reason about, you need real life experiments.
When copyrights are 75 years after death they don't spur innovation, they encourage the copyright holder to rent seek, and not develop new stuff. If you buy into the theory that creators main motivation for creating is money then giving the best ones a lifetime supply for one creation just removes that motivation.
When an 38 year old game stops someone writing a similar game you loose the whole point of copyright.
You will have no privacy, all past transaction will no longer be covered by privacy laws, The privacy of your record will be maintained by the copyright owner. your privacy will not be covered by due process. privacy is not as important as protecting copyright holders rights. Trust us with your privacy.
There mentioned it 6 times obviously the statements protect your privacy. I said it lots
Part of the reason there are so many folks who still believe in these things is just as threads above stated. Experts and professionals still only possess limited fallible reason and one tends to follow what they know or believe to be true first and foremost. Other compelling reasons likely happen at the genetic level. Tearing ourselves from disciplines of Astronomy and Physics for a second and focusing on the bit of Anthropology atheists prefer to ignore; man has ALWAYS believed in a higher power. We have scientific evidence of this. We know that abilities and quirks that we EVOLVE with are there for a reason. We can only theorize and therefore fork, but not discount at this point, Creationism as a possibility.
We evolved to be overly optimistic, for good reason, otherwise we would just give up and die. http://www.ted.com/talks/tali_sharot_the_optimism_bias.html, There may be other reason that we evolved religion, (e.g. religion allows control and organisation, which may be beneficial ) they may not require a higher power to actually exist.
Where I live you are about as likely to win the lottery as you are to be murdered but I am sure that much more people are sitting there thinking they may win the lottery each week than be murdered.
Just because it would be nice to be true, doesn't make it so for a scientific theory need more than you can't prove me wrong. You need at evidence to support your claim. Sure evolution may be wrong too, people are wrong all the time. But evolution can be disproved where as God cannot since you can say well God doesn't want to be found out (to test your faith). That is what make makes evolution a theory and creationism religion.
So you either have Tyranny of the minority instead of the majority. Both have the disadvantages. In order to have direct democracy I think you need rules in place like: It is only now that direct democracy is actually feasible.
1. You must balance the books (probably a good rule representative democracy) 2. Don't vote unless you actually have some knowledge of what you are talking about. (some testing system that has to be factual not political). I am not talking about hard test just something that says you have investigated the issue more than read a 5 word headline. Again probably a good idea for representative democracy as well. 3. A good constitution to protect civil rights, again good idea for representative democracy as well.
The problem with representative democracy is: 1. Your practical choices are very limited. 2. You know very little about how the representatives actually think. 3. You have no easy way of having a say on individual issues that may be very important to you. 4. Once they are in power they can even pass laws that violate what they said they where going to do.
Sure it may not work, its scary to try since what we have never really done it. it may take a few tries to get it right.
personally I think transparency in government is more important, nothing should be kept secret for ever.
You do understand that, the rate is basically flat for 39 years in that graph so the trend is flat. Doesn't mean it is getting worse but 14% seems high. and its not getting better.
You are right, that science doesn't state if something is right or wrong. But it can tell you what is likely make you happier or sadder (psychology sciences). So in a sense can tell you how to live you life.
You can derive a purpose to life without religion, you can still believe something is worthwhile, you do have to make some assumptions like life is good. Or even just being happy is good for me. Then you can reason about what will make you the most happy, or make the most people happy. It is best if you think long term happiness not short term. But this is much harder task (I think) than believing it is good because god said so. But it is also dangerous to take someone's word for what is good and evil without questioning and analysing it.
Copyright is now what? 75 years after death of the creator (and growing), how is that any better than trade secrets. Very few pieces of software have a life greater than 5 years. New versions would be copyrighted again (well the new part it). If someone can come up with a better enhancement than you well good luck to them. Anything you could keep a secret you would do it now unless you think someone else has a good chance of coming up with the same thing. I don't see most developers (that are trying to make money) releasing source code, and saying oh well it copyrighted, I'm protected. No they do keep it a trade secret as long as they can. If they can keep it on a cloud to stop people copying they will copyright or not.
I would much rather have trade secrets than perpetual copyright. Copyright is only useful if the information is usable in a timely manner, even 20 years in software development is far too long.
And for what reason would anyone want to get a patient and no make any money it for 20 years. Only a patent troll but that could be eliminated by having to prove you where actually working releasing the product.
How do you publish your idea, yes you can post it in a couple of places but do you really think someone at the patient office is going to read it. Yes later you can point to the statement and say look I published this earlier, but if you are up against a multinational corporation do you really think you will have the resources to prove it in court.
Well good point, I believe most (if not all) patents are more detrimental than good but, software patients practically bad but I am probably biased because that is the industry I work in. Perhaps we do not need to exclude software patients but fix the entire system. Removing software patents will possibly only hide the bigger problem.
The definition of stealing includes depriving the owner of something. If see your house colour, paint my house the same colour it I haven't stolen the paint from your house. Now you could say copying a movie deprives the owner the profit, however I don't think anyone has the right to profit, and if they where never actually going to profit from the copier then nothing was stolen. Copyright law may have be broken however.
Why? I see no reason why this should be the case. Unless more people are uncertain of its quality of the movie so less likely to spend there money (and pirate copies could then be considered advertising). But you could argue that a small movie would not be available as soon pirated, also people may not be as willing to pirate a small movie.
Apart from picking a random number out of the air how did you come up with that 25% number.
But if you look at the way people behave apparently it is important. People sleeping on the streets to get the latest iPhone (or other gadget) straight away. Queue for the latest harry potter book. Personally I can wait a couple of days just to avoid spending hours in the queue. Hell want to watch the Avengers movie, but I can wait the years until it comes out on TV. But I know I am a freak and the norm is to want something right now. If this wasn't the case why would people borrow to by things like TVs that they can't afford at the moment.
And the movie makers know people are like this, stagger the release to get maximum hype.
I think you could implement, pay the ticket price watch the movie, didn't like the movie get a refund but you would have to fill in an application form.
You would get a couple of people scamming the system but I think most people wouldn't be bothered.
I think counterfeit should be illegal digital or not, it is simply a lie you are selling something as something else. If you by a counterfeit Rolex expecting a real on the you have been cheated. If you know it is a fake well then that is Ok. If you buy some music expecting some money to go to the artist and it doesn't then again that is fraud. Any copy not making the artist money should have to be clearly labelled as such.
I think copyright in a MUCH more limited form may be necessary, but as it stands now it seem that you are being ripped off. People are generally honest, don't look at me that way, they are (not all of them but the majority) otherwise society would just not function. Buy an album for 10s of dollars when it clearly costs cents to produce each item you fell ripped off and are less likely to feel empathy for the seller.
Yes you may say it costs a lot to make a movie but a lot of that cost is due the presence of copyright itself (amongst others, paying royalties for music and stories) paying actors, producers a lot of money because they can demand a lot of money since if they are famous they will ensure that the movie makes lots of money. If movies made less then they would simply be paid less.
If we truly value creativity we must drive down cost of entry, make it less of a risk (by making the cost low) create a truly initiative work, so almost anyone can produce it. We have to stop forcing artists going to big media companies to beg them for a contract, because guess what unless they are already famous you are going to be screwed over. If you do not believe me look at the latest block busters, or TV are they original, for me the answer is a clear no. If anything the low budget movies are where the innovation occurs. 3D version of old movie X, now that took a creative genius to think of that.
Why should it cost $100,000 to produce a song? $500,000,000 million to make a move it is waste created by monopolies. And the studios like it because it keeps the hoi polloi, out. We need to take these monopolies down they are no longer needed.
The best way I can see to do this is make it not so profitable. Buy reducing the copyright to a couple of years, haven't made a profit after 2 years tough.
Far too much resources are being devoted to policing copyright, when someone illegally copies something all it does is distribute money in a different manner (maybe non-optimal). When you take someone to court, or introduce DMR you take up someone time (lawyers, customer of DMR, writer of DMR) the take up real resource that can be used for other things.
It's not about if it is was intended to be offensive or not, or they should be offended, or have the right to be offended, its about marketing.
You wouldn't sell coffee called "Nigger coffee" once you found out it was offensive, to a significant portion of the population because a lot of people would not buy it because of the name even if it was the best coffee in the world.
I wear a suite to a job interviews (even though I dislike it, since it is a bit of a deception, I'm a slob) since I want the job and I know most people judge you on such shallow things, I think they shouldn't but they do. But I want the job so I suck it up.
If the developers of GIMP want to GIMP to be successful and the name offends people, or more likely makes them think the product is not that professional, then they should just change it.
Providing the world with a free (or even affordable) quality image manipulation tool seems like a much more noble cause than fighting over a name.
Despite the fact that it's become easier, it's still not easy enough for the general public. Compounding this problem, the "Easy" bar has moved significantly further away now that OSX and iOS are becoming the consumer platforms of choice.
I don't know what you mean by the MAC being easy to use, I have been using a MAC for several months now and it has been far from easy to use.
Software updates have failed. It told me to I had to reboot to install, did that, it installed nothing and just said I had to reboot to install again. Not until I upgraded the non rebooting packages first (which failed the first time) did it finally decide to install.
The Wireless connection sometimes fails to reconnect after going to sleep. Took me 1/2 an hour to figure out that Duplicate replaced the save as menu item. (versioning file system about time)
Xcode wouldn't install from the.dmg file that I had I just said fail to install no reason (It worked on another computer), I had to take 4 hours to download from the apple store (ok slow internet connection but I had the.dmg).
Releasing a product on the market is one of the most convoluted processes I have seen, it should be as easy set up account, select publish menu, but no you have to set up a development certificate, then a distribution certificate, got to itunes connect site to set up the application, why it can't be on the developer web site I don't know. fix the bug in Xcode (had to use command line) that meant it couldn't publish to the apple store. Make sure you have iOS (or your phone) selected before you build for archive because xcode couldn't possible figure that out for you.
The error messages tend to be "I got an error" and have no information in them, because MACs don't get errors.
if X11 is running (maybe with an app open) you shut down nothing happens it just never shuts down.
Are MACs pretty (but not as pretty as I was lead to believe) , yes, are they cool yes, easy to use no, in my experience.
They are about the same to install in my experience. Yes drivers are not as supported because hardware manufactures don't generally support linux and linux supports so much more hardware than Apple. If you could go to the shop and buy a "Supports Linux" machine that would be solved.
Disclaimer: I may be biased against the MAC but I have tried to be fair as I possibly can, Maybe I don't use it in a standard way, but then again what is standard web browser and email. Not a big difference there on any platform. There a a lot of aspiring App developers out there.
You are assuming you can get 100% clearly evil, I don't believe this is the case.
I think there's a very fine line between 100% clearly evil and psychopathy. Is Anders Breivik evil, or just plain screwball nuts? Six of one and a half a dozen of the other, methinks.
again maybe he is crazy, maybe I am. I am fairly sure he will not be found not guilty by reason of insanity. He definitely odd but there are other people out there that think the same way. Is murder wrong if so why? If you believe in heaven you are just sending them there a bit sooner. I am always aware that my value system may be flawed. (Just to be clear I do think murder is wrong). Plenty of societies have condoned murder , (human sacrifice). going to war over religion.
If you took a poll of how many people thought rape was evil, and how many people thought a non-poaching agreement was evil I am fairly sure that rape would win hands down.
I wonder if either really fits the bill of evil. I'm not all that sure rape should be considered evil. Ripping the heads off defenceless children is certainly evil, but rape? That happens to females of all species all the time (do elephants or lions negotiate prior to sex?), yet only human females appear to believe it's a life changing event. Praying Mantis females eat their mates while mating.
I'm not advocating a male right to rape, but I think human females do blow it way out of proportion. Geez girl, get over it. It's not like it disfigures you or anything. Carry a knife with you from now on if you don't like it.:-P
That is my point I was not saying rape was or wasn't evil, just that defining what is clearly evil is hard, you will not get agreement, personally I think rape sad and pathetic, not necessarily evil, why would you want to have sex with a woman that doesn't want to have sex with you (the logic eludes me, but emotions aren't that logical). Killing the defenceless children also happens in nature,Some animals eat their young. Evil/Good is something that assumes we are more than just our instincts and have some ability to control our actions otherwise just are, neither good nor evil.
As for the effects on women I can't say since I am not one. I just have to take their word for it (I do not think they are lying) , I don't necessarily believe it is worse than murder like some women have argued since at least you have a chance to recover.
But just to restate my point I am having a discussion on pretty much everything I implied might be clearly evil. further proving my point that it is not clear what is evil.
You are assuming you can get 100% clearly evil, I don't believe this is the case.
Anders Breivik thinks he was doing the "right" thing i.e. he doesn't think he is evil, terrorist think they are doing the "right" thing and other people support them. I would call them evil but just because it is clear to me or you doesn't mean it is clear to 100% of people.
if you took a poll of how many people thought rape was evil, and how many people thought a non-poaching agreement was evil I am fairly sure that rape would win hands down.
So rape by my definition would be clearly more evil because more people would recognise it as evil.
I understand determining evil buy democracy is not necessarily the way to go, it is just a way to gauge the clearness to people.
Slashdot Mirror
You also cannot not tell what harm extending copyright has to creativity, for the following reason:
1. The owner of the copyright has to devote time to enforcing copyright.
2. It makes more difficult for other creators to create because they must be careful of violating other peoples copyright, also it increase their costs since they cannot you other peoples work freely.
3. The original creator now has a steady flow of income, so is now not as strongly motivated by need to make a living. Think about it, if someone today paid you a comfortable liveable wage for doing nothing, would you be more or less likely to go to work tomorrow?
I can buy the argument that giving copyright for a period of time encourages creativity, but to what extent all the factors work together to give you the best result for society it hard to reason about, you need real life experiments.
When copyrights are 75 years after death they don't spur innovation, they encourage the copyright holder to rent seek, and not develop new stuff. If you buy into the theory that creators main motivation for creating is money then giving the best ones a lifetime supply for one creation just removes that motivation.
When an 38 year old game stops someone writing a similar game you loose the whole point of copyright.
You will have no privacy, all past transaction will no longer be covered by privacy laws, The privacy of your record will be maintained by the copyright owner.
your privacy will not be covered by due process. privacy is not as important as protecting copyright holders rights. Trust us with your privacy.
There mentioned it 6 times obviously the statements protect your privacy. I said it lots
I agree, contents join, and separate nature goes on. Nature isn't fragile however a practical species maybe that includes humans.
Part of the reason there are so many folks who still believe in these things is just as threads above stated. Experts and professionals still only possess limited fallible reason and one tends to follow what they know or believe to be true first and foremost. Other compelling reasons likely happen at the genetic level. Tearing ourselves from disciplines of Astronomy and Physics for a second and focusing on the bit of Anthropology atheists prefer to ignore; man has ALWAYS believed in a higher power. We have scientific evidence of this. We know that abilities and quirks that we EVOLVE with are there for a reason. We can only theorize and therefore fork, but not discount at this point, Creationism as a possibility.
We evolved to be overly optimistic, for good reason, otherwise we would just give up and die. http://www.ted.com/talks/tali_sharot_the_optimism_bias.html, There may be other reason that we evolved religion, (e.g. religion allows control and organisation, which may be beneficial ) they may not require a higher power to actually exist.
Where I live you are about as likely to win the lottery as you are to be murdered but I am sure that much more people are sitting there thinking they may win the lottery each week than be murdered.
Just because it would be nice to be true, doesn't make it so for a scientific theory need more than you can't prove me wrong. You need at evidence to support your claim. Sure evolution may be wrong too, people are wrong all the time. But evolution can be disproved where as God cannot since you can say well God doesn't want to be found out (to test your faith). That is what make makes evolution a theory and creationism religion.
So you either have Tyranny of the minority instead of the majority. Both have the disadvantages. In order to have direct democracy I think you need rules in place like:
It is only now that direct democracy is actually feasible.
1. You must balance the books (probably a good rule representative democracy)
2. Don't vote unless you actually have some knowledge of what you are talking about. (some testing system that has to be factual not political). I am not talking about hard test just something that says you have investigated the issue more than read a 5 word headline.
Again probably a good idea for representative democracy as well.
3. A good constitution to protect civil rights, again good idea for representative democracy as well.
The problem with representative democracy is:
1. Your practical choices are very limited.
2. You know very little about how the representatives actually think.
3. You have no easy way of having a say on individual issues that may be very important to you.
4. Once they are in power they can even pass laws that violate what they said they where going to do.
Sure it may not work, its scary to try since what we have never really done it. it may take a few tries to get it right.
personally I think transparency in government is more important, nothing should be kept secret for ever.
You do understand that, the rate is basically flat for 39 years in that graph so the trend is flat. Doesn't mean it is getting worse but 14% seems high. and its not getting better.
for a comparison with other countries I found:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/346943/20120530/childhood-poverty-u-s-second-highest-rate.htm
I think the answer is yes physical goods only since the grandparent stated
intangible imaginary goods in exchange (since increasingly they produce very little.)
You are right, that science doesn't state if something is right or wrong. But it can tell you what is likely make you happier or sadder (psychology sciences). So in a sense can tell you how to live you life.
You can derive a purpose to life without religion, you can still believe something is worthwhile, you do have to make some assumptions like life is good. Or even just being happy is good for me. Then you can reason about what will make you the most happy, or make the most people happy. It is best if you think long term happiness not short term. But this is much harder task (I think) than believing it is good because god said so. But it is also dangerous to take someone's word for what is good and evil without questioning and analysing it.
Copyright is now what? 75 years after death of the creator (and growing), how is that any better than trade secrets. Very few pieces of software have a life greater than 5 years. New versions would be copyrighted again (well the new part it). If someone can come up with a better enhancement than you well good luck to them. Anything you could keep a secret you would do it now unless you think someone else has a good chance of coming up with the same thing. I don't see most developers (that are trying to make money) releasing source code, and saying oh well it copyrighted, I'm protected. No they do keep it a trade secret as long as they can. If they can keep it on a cloud to stop people copying they will copyright or not.
I would much rather have trade secrets than perpetual copyright. Copyright is only useful if the information is usable in a timely manner, even 20 years in software development is far too long.
And for what reason would anyone want to get a patient and no make any money it for 20 years. Only a patent troll but that could be eliminated by having to prove you where actually working releasing the product.
How do you publish your idea, yes you can post it in a couple of places but do you really think someone at the patient office is going to read it.
Yes later you can point to the statement and say look I published this earlier, but if you are up against a multinational corporation do you really think you will have the resources to prove it in court.
you could make it, minimum of 5 years after first sale, or 17 years
Well good point, I believe most (if not all) patents are more detrimental than good but, software patients practically bad but I am probably biased because that is the industry I work in. Perhaps we do not need to exclude software patients but fix the entire system. Removing software patents will possibly only hide the bigger problem.
The definition of stealing includes depriving the owner of something. If see your house colour, paint my house the same colour it I haven't stolen the paint from your house. Now you could say copying a movie deprives the owner the profit, however I don't think anyone has the right to profit, and if they where never actually going to profit from the copier then nothing was stolen. Copyright law may have be broken however.
It's a mixture, but what percentage is hard to define because you can't measure what someone would have done.
Why? I see no reason why this should be the case. Unless more people are uncertain of its quality of the movie so less likely to spend there money (and pirate copies could then be considered advertising). But you could argue that a small movie would not be available as soon pirated, also people may not be as willing to pirate a small movie.
Apart from picking a random number out of the air how did you come up with that 25% number.
But if you look at the way people behave apparently it is important. People sleeping on the streets to get the latest iPhone (or other gadget) straight away. Queue for the latest harry potter book. Personally I can wait a couple of days just to avoid spending hours in the queue. Hell want to watch the Avengers movie, but I can wait the years until it comes out on TV. But I know I am a freak and the norm is to want something right now. If this wasn't the case why would people borrow to by things like TVs that they can't afford at the moment.
And the movie makers know people are like this, stagger the release to get maximum hype.
I'm not sure but it might be that the networks get a discount on the old movies from the studios, after all it is advertising for the new movie.
I think you could implement, pay the ticket price watch the movie, didn't like the movie get a refund but you would have to fill in an application form.
You would get a couple of people scamming the system but I think most people wouldn't be bothered.
I think counterfeit should be illegal digital or not, it is simply a lie you are selling something as something else. If you by a counterfeit Rolex expecting a real on the you have been cheated. If you know it is a fake well then that is Ok. If you buy some music expecting some money to go to the artist and it doesn't then again that is fraud. Any copy not making the artist money should have to be clearly labelled as such.
I think copyright in a MUCH more limited form may be necessary, but as it stands now it seem that you are being ripped off. People are generally honest, don't look at me that way, they are (not all of them but the majority) otherwise society would just not function. Buy an album for 10s of dollars when it clearly costs cents to produce each item you fell ripped off and are less likely to feel empathy for the seller.
Yes you may say it costs a lot to make a movie but a lot of that cost is due the presence of copyright itself (amongst others, paying royalties for music and stories) paying actors, producers a lot of money because they can demand a lot of money since if they are famous they will ensure that the movie makes lots of money. If movies made less then they would simply be paid less.
If we truly value creativity we must drive down cost of entry, make it less of a risk (by making the cost low) create a truly initiative work, so almost anyone can produce it. We have to stop forcing artists going to big media companies to beg them for a contract, because guess what unless they are already famous you are going to be screwed over. If you do not believe me look at the latest block busters, or TV are they original, for me the answer is a clear no. If anything the low budget movies are where the innovation occurs. 3D version of old movie X, now that took a creative genius to think of that.
Why should it cost $100,000 to produce a song? $500,000,000 million to make a move it is waste created by monopolies. And the studios like it because it keeps the hoi polloi, out. We need to take these monopolies down they are no longer needed.
The best way I can see to do this is make it not so profitable. Buy reducing the copyright to a couple of years, haven't made a profit after 2 years tough.
Far too much resources are being devoted to policing copyright, when someone illegally copies something all it does is distribute money in a different manner (maybe non-optimal). When you take someone to court, or introduce DMR you take up someone time (lawyers, customer of DMR, writer of DMR) the take up real resource that can be used for other things.
It's not about if it is was intended to be offensive or not, or they should be offended, or have the right to be offended, its about marketing.
You wouldn't sell coffee called "Nigger coffee" once you found out it was offensive, to a significant portion of the population because a lot of people would not buy it because of the name even if it was the best coffee in the world.
I wear a suite to a job interviews (even though I dislike it, since it is a bit of a deception, I'm a slob) since I want the job and I know most people judge you on such shallow things, I think they shouldn't but they do. But I want the job so I suck it up.
If the developers of GIMP want to GIMP to be successful and the name offends people, or more likely makes them think the product is not that professional, then they should just change it.
Providing the world with a free (or even affordable) quality image manipulation tool seems like a much more noble cause than fighting over a name.
Despite the fact that it's become easier, it's still not easy enough for the general public. Compounding this problem, the "Easy" bar has moved significantly further away now that OSX and iOS are becoming the consumer platforms of choice.
I don't know what you mean by the MAC being easy to use, I have been using a MAC for several months now and it has been far from easy to use.
Software updates have failed. It told me to I had to reboot to install, did that, it installed nothing and just said I had to reboot to install again. Not until I upgraded the non rebooting packages first (which failed the first time) did it finally decide to install.
The Wireless connection sometimes fails to reconnect after going to sleep.
Took me 1/2 an hour to figure out that Duplicate replaced the save as menu item. (versioning file system about time)
Xcode wouldn't install from the .dmg file that I had I just said fail to install no reason (It worked on another computer), I had to take 4 hours to download from the apple store (ok slow internet connection but I had the .dmg).
Releasing a product on the market is one of the most convoluted processes I have seen, it should be as easy set up account, select publish menu, but no you have to set up a development certificate, then a distribution certificate, got to itunes connect site to set up the application, why it can't be on the developer web site I don't know. fix the bug in Xcode (had to use command line) that meant it couldn't publish to the apple store. Make sure you have iOS (or your phone) selected before you build for archive because xcode couldn't possible figure that out for you.
The error messages tend to be "I got an error" and have no information in them, because MACs don't get errors.
if X11 is running (maybe with an app open) you shut down nothing happens it just never shuts down.
Are MACs pretty (but not as pretty as I was lead to believe) , yes, are they cool yes, easy to use no, in my experience.
They are about the same to install in my experience. Yes drivers are not as supported because hardware manufactures don't generally support linux and linux supports so much more hardware than Apple. If you could go to the shop and buy a "Supports Linux" machine that would be solved.
Disclaimer: I may be biased against the MAC but I have tried to be fair as I possibly can, Maybe I don't use it in a standard way, but then again what is standard web browser and email. Not a big difference there on any platform. There a a lot of aspiring App developers out there.
You are assuming you can get 100% clearly evil, I don't believe this is the case.
I think there's a very fine line between 100% clearly evil and psychopathy. Is Anders Breivik evil, or just plain screwball nuts? Six of one and a half a dozen of the other, methinks.
again maybe he is crazy, maybe I am. I am fairly sure he will not be found not guilty by reason of insanity. He definitely odd but there are other people out there that think the same way. Is murder wrong if so why? If you believe in heaven you are just sending them there a bit sooner. I am always aware that my value system may be flawed. (Just to be clear I do think murder is wrong). Plenty of societies have condoned murder , (human sacrifice). going to war over religion.
If you took a poll of how many people thought rape was evil, and how many people thought a non-poaching agreement was evil I am fairly sure that rape would win hands down.
I wonder if either really fits the bill of evil. I'm not all that sure rape should be considered evil. Ripping the heads off defenceless children is certainly evil, but rape? That happens to females of all species all the time (do elephants or lions negotiate prior to sex?), yet only human females appear to believe it's a life changing event. Praying Mantis females eat their mates while mating.
I'm not advocating a male right to rape, but I think human females do blow it way out of proportion. Geez girl, get over it. It's not like it disfigures you or anything. Carry a knife with you from now on if you don't like it. :-P
That is my point I was not saying rape was or wasn't evil, just that defining what is clearly evil is hard, you will not get agreement, personally I think rape sad and pathetic, not necessarily evil, why would you want to have sex with a woman that doesn't want to have sex with you (the logic eludes me, but emotions aren't that logical). Killing the defenceless children also happens in nature,Some animals eat their young. Evil/Good is something that assumes we are more than just our instincts and have some ability to control our actions otherwise just are, neither good nor evil.
As for the effects on women I can't say since I am not one. I just have to take their word for it (I do not think they are lying) , I don't necessarily believe it is worse than murder like some women have argued since at least you have a chance to recover.
But just to restate my point I am having a discussion on pretty much everything I implied might be clearly evil. further proving my point that it is not clear what is evil.
You are assuming you can get 100% clearly evil, I don't believe this is the case.
Anders Breivik thinks he was doing the "right" thing i.e. he doesn't think he is evil, terrorist think they are doing the "right" thing and other people support them. I would call them evil but just because it is clear to me or you doesn't mean it is clear to 100% of people.
if you took a poll of how many people thought rape was evil, and how many people thought a non-poaching agreement was evil I am fairly sure that rape would win hands down.
So rape by my definition would be clearly more evil because more people would recognise it as evil.
I understand determining evil buy democracy is not necessarily the way to go, it is just a way to gauge the clearness to people.