Yes, frequently. The condition of man, etc. etc...
the bartender is unlikely to use his position to promote his views in the way that Card can.
Indeed, it would be hard for a bartender, qua bartender, to do so. Bartenders have a relatively small audience and people mostly don't go to a bar with political questions in mind that don't involve artificial turf. If a bartender were an ardent follower of Fred Phelps and using his time at the bar preaching against homosexuals, then, as others have noted, he would be doing his job as bartender. If this is the case, then by no means ought one to get paid for work he doesn't do. Likewise, our evangelical would be justified in withhold payment if the barista informed him he didn't serve people who walk around with WWJD bracelets on. The barista, qua barista, is failing at his job.
When you speak of the bartender 'using his position' and the artist 'using his position', however, two different things seem to be going on. When the bartender uses his position as bartender to oppose homosexuality, he hangs a flag in the bar. When an artist uses his position as an artist to oppose homosexuality, he does not do so by acting as a board member of an anti-SSM advocacy group. Rather the artist, qua artist, creates anti-homosexual art. Anyone pro-SSM would rightly regard this art in the same way as a bar with such a flag hanging in it. But GP does not complain that the art is anti-homosexual. Indeed, as far as I'm familiar with OSC's art, he treats homosexuals as sympathetically as any other characters and, given his politics, his inclusion of homosexuals is a credit to his tolerance that his detractors here have not recognized. I think you're quite right, therefore, that GP has deemed the person of OSC unfit for payment.
The analogy, therefore, is not between OSC and a bartender who hangs dehumanizing flags in his bar, but between OSC and a bartender who treats gay patrons as decently as straight patrons, but went to Liberty University and gives money to Focus on the Family. Should such a bartender be rejected? I think we should hesitate before we deem a person unfit to receive money for services they provide. Many have made analogies involving neo-Nazis or KKK members or the like, but I think it is telling that they should go so far. OSC, qua citizen and fellow countryman, opposes SSM. This puts him in league with James Dobson, to be sure, but also with most Americans just a few years ago--including our current President.* Popular opinion on SSM has changed quickly, very quickly if how fast these things have developed in the past is any indication. I would suggest that regarding people as unfit to be paid (for the things they do which we otherwise appreciate) just because they're views haven't changed as fast as everyone else's is not without danger of its own bigotry and intolerance. SSM will win the day (polling and demographics SSM to be the de facto victor; but I think we'll all be better off if the side which loses isn't labeled heretic or thoughtcriminal or unfit. If we can do this, maybe we can get around to enjoying art and other aspects of life without everything being politicized.
*Of course, I do not mean to imply that the moral and ethical question is one of popularity. Only to indicate that OSC's views are not so far outside the the mainstream as to merit the kind of abusive comparisons to fringe groups as have been made here. OSC wants to keep the status quo on marriage. The KKK wants to lynch homosexuals. There is a difference.
Re: "would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it."
I would not object if GP thought Ender's Game was homophobic and therefore refused to give money for it. But based on his desire to get the movie through bittorrent, GP thinks Ender's Game is something he'd enjoy. His objection, therefore, isn't to this particular work of art, but strictly to the views of the artist. So you're quite right to say that he doesn't deem the artist fit to receive money.
To make clear my objection to this, I'd ask whether the same attitude ought to be applied in other spheres of life. If you regard the bartender as homophobic, does that mean you wouldn't pay him for beer (since, believing and saying things you consider reprehensible, you've deemed him unfit to receive money)?
Or to put this another way, imagine a different set of circumstances. Imagine an evangelical walking into a Starbucks and buying a coffee. This evangelical receives very good service and is about to give a tip but notices the barista has an earring in his right ear. What would we think of this evangelical if he did not then give the tip because he regarded the barista as unfit to receive it? (Mind, I'm not trying to say all evangelicals would do such a thing--some undoubtedly would but most are just ordinary folks like the rest of us.) Is it anyway to participate in a society, not to distinguish between a worker and his work when the work is not what we find reprehensible?
Card has some gay characters in his work and they're portrayed sympathetically (or, at least as much as any other of his characters), so the "anti-gay hate speech" can't be referring to his art. So it must refer to statements he's made on his personal blog, etc.
If this is the case, I can only reconstruct your reasoning thus (please feel free to let me know if I'm missing your point): 1) Card says things I consider reprehensible; 2) Giving him money supports his ability to say reprehensible things; 3) Therefore, if I pay for his work, I am implicated in the reprehensible things he does.
If I am correct in understanding this line of reasoning, it must be a terrible burden to bear. For consistency's sake, it would implicate you in the wrong doing of anyone to whom you pay for services, whether a news-paper editor who runs the local daily, a car mechanic, or a doctor. We could imagine the editor, the doctor, and the mechanic attend rallies on the weekend where they say things we consider reprehensible. But according to this line of thought, by paying for the weekly classified ads, getting bronchitis treated, and having brakes checked, is funding reprehensible speech. To be truly consistent in this line of reasoning, you'd need to evaluate the politics (or morals, if you prefer) of everyone you interact with in civil society before exchanging money with them.
This notion of "funding people [...] you don't support" is totalizing: it politicizes all acts in civil society. One might deem it a good thing to do this, but it is not a step toward a tolerant and diverse society.
I think there are some very good reasons for pirating, opposing current copyright law, etc. I do not think the fact that the artist who produced something you enjoyed is one of those reasons.
In case you're referring to his political views, I'd have you consider an excerpt from Janis Ian, a friend of Card's whose personal life is also relevant to the recent controversies surrounding him:
I'm sorry you appear ready to discount or avoid a writer of Card's stature, because I consider Scott one of the finest writers of my generation, period. His short stories about musicians and music are the best I've ever read. What a pity, to deny yourself and your friends the illumination that level of artistry can provide!
I suppose we'd also have to discount Wagner because of the Nazi connection? James Joyce and Ezra Pound for their anti-Semitism? Thomas Jefferson, who believed slavery was God-intended? Most, if not all, of the founding fathers, who considered black Africans sub-human?
Continuing in that vein, we should probably discount Picasso, a sexist pig. And Beethoven, a royalist and a snob if you ever met one - and if memory serves, an anti-Semite.
Not to mention the current pope, who's called homosexuality as big a threat to the world as global warming, and warned that it would destroy civilization as we know it if gays were allowed to marry.
Should I discount every faithful Catholic writer, dump Tennessee Williams, Madeleine L'Engel, Flannery O'Connor, because their religion's figurehead is a lunatic?
Sorry if you're Catholic...
Scratch any artist, in any form, and you'll find things you don't like. You can't judge art by the artist; it has to be judged seperately, on its own merits. The artist himself has to be taken in the context of his times, and of his own culture, including his religion.
So long as that art isn't being used to actively cause or promote harm to someone, as in a "Triumph of the Will," I don't think anyone has the right to judge the work by the artist's personal beliefs.
But that's my own take.
Just for the record, as a gay person who campaigned for and voted for Obama - Obama doesn't think we should be able to marry, either. For many of the same reasons. And I'm sure you're aware of his former pastor's views on not just gays, but whites, and Jews. I have no idea what Obama thinks about gay people, and I fear it's "hate the sin, love the sinner," which I find condescending and disrespectful in the extreme. I'm still glad he's president, and I still think he's an honorable man.
Again, I'd hate to think anyone avoided great art just because they disagreed with the artist...
On a last note, to say someone is "crazy" or a "lunatic" because they deeply disagree with you, well, that's just as narrow, isn't it?
Janis
[Emphasis mine] Appreciate art on its own merits and you'll be the happier for it. Not everything has to be politicized. When everything is politicized, we become incapable of finding common ground with people we disagree with. When we can't even appreciate art together with others who have views we disagree with, how can we ever learn to tolerate each other? How can we have unity amidst diversity if we do not, as Plato said, have a communion of pleasure where we might at least rejoice and mourn over some things we hold common?
Indeed. Also, re: 1), my right to defend myself does not require the permission or even recognition of any other person, governing body, or law enforcement. It comes from the fact that I am human. Further:
(2). you give examples of older people using guns to defend themselves... but you're missing the point that they still needed to do that, so the guns DID NOT PREVENT crimes being at least attempted,
The presence or absence of guns will not change human nature. People will try to kill people, with pointy sticks or bare hands if needs be. These examples weren't about preventing that from happening, but about giving the weak a better fighting chance than they'd have with bare hands.
(3). I have no data, but I rather suspect that given a thug/criminal with a gun vs. decent, law-abiding individual with a gun, in most situations, the former will have the upper hand on account of the fact that the law-abiding individual isn't expecting whatever crime that's happening to happen right then.
Perhaps. It does not follow from this, however, that one ought to increase the thug/criminal's advantages.
For those don't want to read the whole article, here's his Facebook post:
I’m not in reality, So when u see me (expletive) go insane and make the news, the paper, and the (expletive) federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t (expletive) cry or be worried because all YOU people (expletive) caused this (expletive) [...] (Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!
The summary makes the kid seem more sympathetic by comparing it to investigations on account of rap lyrics and introducing him as a high schooler (which he is, but he's also 18, a legal adult, though "high schooler can mean anything from 14-19; the term high schooler was chosen to make him sympathetic). While he is--and should be!--considered innocent until proven guilty, our summary writer left out some relevant details:
D’Ambrosio was charged last year with threatening to stab his sister to death. The case was dismissed last month.
It seems that the summary wants to make a free speech/police persecution issue of an 18 year old acting like an aggressive moron threatening to attack a city. Perhaps this was actually for a song, and he made it clear he was attempting the song for artistic purposes. Maybe it was a commentary on the mindset that produces such violence. But the article does not give any details to that effect.
I'm sure it is. I was actually just attempting to make a smartass remark about the need for a CapsLock warning on a password prompt (doubtless encouraged by the common tendency to forget the key exists). I think, perhaps, my smartassery should have been more direct, or maybe just more clever.
Many times I'd like to see my password in clear text (like when entering new passwords, to make sure they're correct). It would be convenient to have some way to temporarily turn off asterisk masking.
I solve this problem by making all my passwords ********.
A button or hot-key for those that want to see their passwords would be acceptable [...]
Exactly. And easy to implement. We just have to find a key on the keyboard that people are unlikely to use but is always present. How about this "CapsLk" one?
Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow...
Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.
Staples has reversed its recent decision to sell 3-D printers. To remain above reproach, the company will also be cancelling orders for some product lines.
According to Nielsen’s research, the vast majority of TV viewing is still on a traditional set.
The Nielsen company also indicates that Nielsen ratings remain the premier audience measurement metric in the modern world and will remain so regardless of new, internet-based fads.
PHB: "I want to fire Wally, but I can't risk it. He says he's the only one who can program the Zeberpupin system." Wally: "The word you're trying to think of is 'indispensable.'"
It makes me wonder if a printable gun, even if as technically complex as an AR, would qualify as a simple weapon in Orwell's view. Looking at the examples he offered, it seems less a question of real complexity and more a question of the amount and distribution of capital involved. I've made bows. I know guys who make flintlock rifles using their own forge. The ability to fashion modern semi-autos may also be this democratized as technology changes.
It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.
I agree. [I]t's just higher call volume.That's the same situation that TFS describes with social networks.
As first responders treated the wounded and the minutes ticked past, news organizations began vacuuming up Twitter and Facebook posts from around Boston and posting it on their Websites
The communications medium is being used more, but since it is an internet based medium it's treated as something new. What's especially odd about this piece is that it's acting like the "Tech Websites" were somehow remarkable in their actions. I was looking at CNN.com to get updates on this and it too featured live updates lifted or repeated from social media. If the there are sites we use to get news, and we go to these tragedy or no, then it is utterly unsurprising that these sites reported as much as they could about this news. (And as one Slashdotter helpfully pointed out yesterday, Slashdot was up when many other sites were down on 9/11, so maybe a proliferation of important news like this isn't a bad thing.) One almost suspects that the scare term "cyber" should have been attached to this somehow (e.g. cyber-exploitation, cyber-yellow-journalism etc.) to enhance the feeling it's something new. The most puzzling thing about this piece is this:
When a disaster strikes, and many of those same news Websites post 'live updates' that incorporate tons of social-networking posts, they face accusations of exploiting the tragedy in the name of pageviews and revenue.
There are only two concrete accusations mentioned in the linked (which, incidentally, is to a Slashdot article). FTFA:
“Your tech news site shouldn’t be live-blogging this,” journalist John Paul Titlow Tweeted at one point, a sentiment echoed (and reposted) by others.
“Tech blogs poking their amateurish noses into areas in which they offer neither authority nor insight is depressing,” Milo Yiannopoulos wrote in an email a few hours later. “It’s also spreading: shameless, tasteless pageview-chasing was to be expected after today’s tragedy in Boston from the likes of Mashable and TechCrunch. But how surprising, and how sad, to see The Verge and Wired getting in on the act as well.” This isn’t journalism, he insisted: “It’s attention-seeking.”
From whom do the vague accusations come? Well we've a tech journalist who tweets down his nose at tech websites, apparently reckoning that a website that normally talks about tech can't pass on info from social media to meet the high standards of real news sites like CNN. Oddly enough this doesn't stop him from retweeting a pic of the bombing from Josh Robin. And then we've a brief complaint excerpted from an email by Milo Yiannopoulos, a Slashdot contributor. His complaint again amounts to the notion that tech websites can't act as intermediaries for twitter and facebook updates as well as legitimate journalists. These were the only two concrete complaints and they, in turn, were reported by Nick Kolakowski on Slashdot and linked in a summery here.
Here's my new journalistic law, may Betteridge approve:
"Any article or article summary that claims an entity 'faces accusations' without mentioning the accusers is itself stirring said controversy for the sake of traffic."
People made calls and sent texts immediately. This affects their monthly bill. Based on this TFS's reasoning, should we not see AT&T and Sprint as exploiting the tragedy as well?
This is clearly a solid comparison since I found a related correlation between Moore's law and humanity. Having met humanity, I can definitively say that the software doesn't take full advantage of the hardware's advances.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, frequently. The condition of man, etc. etc...
Indeed, it would be hard for a bartender, qua bartender, to do so. Bartenders have a relatively small audience and people mostly don't go to a bar with political questions in mind that don't involve artificial turf. If a bartender were an ardent follower of Fred Phelps and using his time at the bar preaching against homosexuals, then, as others have noted, he would be doing his job as bartender. If this is the case, then by no means ought one to get paid for work he doesn't do. Likewise, our evangelical would be justified in withhold payment if the barista informed him he didn't serve people who walk around with WWJD bracelets on. The barista, qua barista, is failing at his job.
When you speak of the bartender 'using his position' and the artist 'using his position', however, two different things seem to be going on. When the bartender uses his position as bartender to oppose homosexuality, he hangs a flag in the bar. When an artist uses his position as an artist to oppose homosexuality, he does not do so by acting as a board member of an anti-SSM advocacy group. Rather the artist, qua artist, creates anti-homosexual art. Anyone pro-SSM would rightly regard this art in the same way as a bar with such a flag hanging in it. But GP does not complain that the art is anti-homosexual. Indeed, as far as I'm familiar with OSC's art, he treats homosexuals as sympathetically as any other characters and, given his politics, his inclusion of homosexuals is a credit to his tolerance that his detractors here have not recognized. I think you're quite right, therefore, that GP has deemed the person of OSC unfit for payment.
The analogy, therefore, is not between OSC and a bartender who hangs dehumanizing flags in his bar, but between OSC and a bartender who treats gay patrons as decently as straight patrons, but went to Liberty University and gives money to Focus on the Family. Should such a bartender be rejected? I think we should hesitate before we deem a person unfit to receive money for services they provide. Many have made analogies involving neo-Nazis or KKK members or the like, but I think it is telling that they should go so far. OSC, qua citizen and fellow countryman, opposes SSM. This puts him in league with James Dobson, to be sure, but also with most Americans just a few years ago--including our current President.* Popular opinion on SSM has changed quickly, very quickly if how fast these things have developed in the past is any indication. I would suggest that regarding people as unfit to be paid (for the things they do which we otherwise appreciate) just because they're views haven't changed as fast as everyone else's is not without danger of its own bigotry and intolerance. SSM will win the day (polling and demographics SSM to be the de facto victor; but I think we'll all be better off if the side which loses isn't labeled heretic or thoughtcriminal or unfit. If we can do this, maybe we can get around to enjoying art and other aspects of life without everything being politicized.
*Of course, I do not mean to imply that the moral and ethical question is one of popularity. Only to indicate that OSC's views are not so far outside the the mainstream as to merit the kind of abusive comparisons to fringe groups as have been made here. OSC wants to keep the status quo on marriage. The KKK wants to lynch homosexuals. There is a difference.
Re: "would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it."
I would not object if GP thought Ender's Game was homophobic and therefore refused to give money for it. But based on his desire to get the movie through bittorrent, GP thinks Ender's Game is something he'd enjoy. His objection, therefore, isn't to this particular work of art, but strictly to the views of the artist. So you're quite right to say that he doesn't deem the artist fit to receive money.
To make clear my objection to this, I'd ask whether the same attitude ought to be applied in other spheres of life. If you regard the bartender as homophobic, does that mean you wouldn't pay him for beer (since, believing and saying things you consider reprehensible, you've deemed him unfit to receive money)?
Or to put this another way, imagine a different set of circumstances. Imagine an evangelical walking into a Starbucks and buying a coffee. This evangelical receives very good service and is about to give a tip but notices the barista has an earring in his right ear. What would we think of this evangelical if he did not then give the tip because he regarded the barista as unfit to receive it? (Mind, I'm not trying to say all evangelicals would do such a thing--some undoubtedly would but most are just ordinary folks like the rest of us.) Is it anyway to participate in a society, not to distinguish between a worker and his work when the work is not what we find reprehensible?
Card has some gay characters in his work and they're portrayed sympathetically (or, at least as much as any other of his characters), so the "anti-gay hate speech" can't be referring to his art. So it must refer to statements he's made on his personal blog, etc.
If this is the case, I can only reconstruct your reasoning thus (please feel free to let me know if I'm missing your point): 1) Card says things I consider reprehensible; 2) Giving him money supports his ability to say reprehensible things; 3) Therefore, if I pay for his work, I am implicated in the reprehensible things he does.
If I am correct in understanding this line of reasoning, it must be a terrible burden to bear. For consistency's sake, it would implicate you in the wrong doing of anyone to whom you pay for services, whether a news-paper editor who runs the local daily, a car mechanic, or a doctor. We could imagine the editor, the doctor, and the mechanic attend rallies on the weekend where they say things we consider reprehensible. But according to this line of thought, by paying for the weekly classified ads, getting bronchitis treated, and having brakes checked, is funding reprehensible speech. To be truly consistent in this line of reasoning, you'd need to evaluate the politics (or morals, if you prefer) of everyone you interact with in civil society before exchanging money with them.
This notion of "funding people [...] you don't support" is totalizing: it politicizes all acts in civil society. One might deem it a good thing to do this, but it is not a step toward a tolerant and diverse society.
Apologies: that should read, "I do not think that the artist who produced something you enjoyed might get paid is one of those reasons.
I think there are some very good reasons for pirating, opposing current copyright law, etc. I do not think the fact that the artist who produced something you enjoyed is one of those reasons.
[Emphasis mine] Appreciate art on its own merits and you'll be the happier for it. Not everything has to be politicized. When everything is politicized, we become incapable of finding common ground with people we disagree with. When we can't even appreciate art together with others who have views we disagree with, how can we ever learn to tolerate each other? How can we have unity amidst diversity if we do not, as Plato said, have a communion of pleasure where we might at least rejoice and mourn over some things we hold common?
Which is obviously untrue. People with bullet holes in them are far more representative of residents of Camden.
The presence or absence of guns will not change human nature. People will try to kill people, with pointy sticks or bare hands if needs be. These examples weren't about preventing that from happening, but about giving the weak a better fighting chance than they'd have with bare hands.
Perhaps. It does not follow from this, however, that one ought to increase the thug/criminal's advantages.
The summary makes the kid seem more sympathetic by comparing it to investigations on account of rap lyrics and introducing him as a high schooler (which he is, but he's also 18, a legal adult, though "high schooler can mean anything from 14-19; the term high schooler was chosen to make him sympathetic). While he is--and should be!--considered innocent until proven guilty, our summary writer left out some relevant details:
It seems that the summary wants to make a free speech/police persecution issue of an 18 year old acting like an aggressive moron threatening to attack a city. Perhaps this was actually for a song, and he made it clear he was attempting the song for artistic purposes. Maybe it was a commentary on the mindset that produces such violence. But the article does not give any details to that effect.
FTFY. Cat's outta the bag now.
I'm sure it is. I was actually just attempting to make a smartass remark about the need for a CapsLock warning on a password prompt (doubtless encouraged by the common tendency to forget the key exists). I think, perhaps, my smartassery should have been more direct, or maybe just more clever.
I solve this problem by making all my passwords ********.
Exactly. And easy to implement. We just have to find a key on the keyboard that people are unlikely to use but is always present. How about this "CapsLk" one?
Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.
Staples has reversed its recent decision to sell 3-D printers. To remain above reproach, the company will also be cancelling orders for some product lines.
After much deliberation, they thought "Palestine Beta" would cause yet more controversy.
The Nielsen company also indicates that Nielsen ratings remain the premier audience measurement metric in the modern world and will remain so regardless of new, internet-based fads.
PHB: "I want to fire Wally, but I can't risk it. He says he's the only one who can program the Zeberpupin system." Wally: "The word you're trying to think of is 'indispensable.'"
It makes me wonder if a printable gun, even if as technically complex as an AR, would qualify as a simple weapon in Orwell's view. Looking at the examples he offered, it seems less a question of real complexity and more a question of the amount and distribution of capital involved. I've made bows. I know guys who make flintlock rifles using their own forge. The ability to fashion modern semi-autos may also be this democratized as technology changes.
George Orwell, "You and the Atomic Bomb"
So, I'm guessing you're not a Red Dwarf fan.
Well I'm certainly not going to pay enough for it to be HBO.
I agree. [I]t's just higher call volume.That's the same situation that TFS describes with social networks.
The communications medium is being used more, but since it is an internet based medium it's treated as something new. What's especially odd about this piece is that it's acting like the "Tech Websites" were somehow remarkable in their actions. I was looking at CNN.com to get updates on this and it too featured live updates lifted or repeated from social media. If the there are sites we use to get news, and we go to these tragedy or no, then it is utterly unsurprising that these sites reported as much as they could about this news. (And as one Slashdotter helpfully pointed out yesterday, Slashdot was up when many other sites were down on 9/11, so maybe a proliferation of important news like this isn't a bad thing.) One almost suspects that the scare term "cyber" should have been attached to this somehow (e.g. cyber-exploitation, cyber-yellow-journalism etc.) to enhance the feeling it's something new. The most puzzling thing about this piece is this:
There are only two concrete accusations mentioned in the linked (which, incidentally, is to a Slashdot article). FTFA:
From whom do the vague accusations come? Well we've a tech journalist who tweets down his nose at tech websites, apparently reckoning that a website that normally talks about tech can't pass on info from social media to meet the high standards of real news sites like CNN. Oddly enough this doesn't stop him from retweeting a pic of the bombing from Josh Robin. And then we've a brief complaint excerpted from an email by Milo Yiannopoulos, a Slashdot contributor. His complaint again amounts to the notion that tech websites can't act as intermediaries for twitter and facebook updates as well as legitimate journalists. These were the only two concrete complaints and they, in turn, were reported by Nick Kolakowski on Slashdot and linked in a summery here.
Here's my new journalistic law, may Betteridge approve:
People made calls and sent texts immediately. This affects their monthly bill. Based on this TFS's reasoning, should we not see AT&T and Sprint as exploiting the tragedy as well?
This is clearly a solid comparison since I found a related correlation between Moore's law and humanity. Having met humanity, I can definitively say that the software doesn't take full advantage of the hardware's advances.