Don't get me wrong, this really sucks for the guy and is completely unfair. But this sort of thing happens all the time. If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms. It's sort of not newsworthy anymore.
I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, and maybe I even deserve it, but it's true.
Hey, you must be new here. This is what corporations do. They can't get in trouble for stuff no one knows about. Parents won't sue Sega for a malady that they didn't know had been inflicted on their kids.
Actually, this would be perfect for all that hypochondriac that lives more than a few hours walk from a doctor in a third world country, but has a smartphone.
I think it's pretty well documented at this point that piracy in most cases has at worst an only slightly negative effect, and in many cases a positive one. People who don't want to pay simply aren't going to, even if that means they just don't play the game at all. But people who do play, even if they pirated, may generate sales for the company through word of mouth.
Why not? They already sort of have government granted monopolies of certain areas of the country, there's very little competition, etc. Regulation would be the key to prevent a company from taking advantage of these situations to adversely hinder a user's right to consume what they have paid for.
Woah there, playing god is simply an expression. There's actually no need to bring religion into the discussion of ethics. Ask most atheists, and they'll agree that morality can and does exist outside of religious rules/regulations/whathaveyou.
On the one hand, this is pre-implantation and thus does not require the abortion of a fetus - no harm no foul, right?. One the other hand, it could easily be argued that one is playing god when you begin screening embryos for superficial traits.
Of course, if you choose to make the second argument, then one would also be playing god when embryos are screened for diseases, and thus should be disallowed as well.
I disagree; I believe that we really do punish people because we ascribe responsibility to the actions that other people take. This ultimately results in the true rebellion many people feel against the problem of free will. It is my intuition that people would be willing to accept that free will is illusory, but unable to accept that punishment for the "bad" or "wrong" actions that some people commit are unfair and, ultimately, undeserved.
Second: If you're looking for absolute certainty in anything you won't find it anywhere. Even cogito ergo sum falls apart in the search for "for sure".
There are indeed lots of alternative energy sources, but none of them are as cheap and easy to harness as oil is. Photovoltaic cells currently require oil to produce, ship, distribute, etc. They are also prohibitively expensive. If society as a whole were funding the research and production capabilities to harness alternative energy sources then I would agree with you, but as things stand I believe that the diminishing oil supplies are going to hit the world economy like a ton of bricks.
But what about fake uses? Like when your server farm goes down and you need to set up a network of cell phones to get your site up and running again? Did you stop to think about that?
Slashdot Mirror
Hoo brother, you have no idea how many libraries of congress this thing outputs.
Too bad this story can't be combined with this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20docs.html?_r=2
That would save us all a lot of trouble.
THANK YOU. Wish I had mod points.
Don't get me wrong, this really sucks for the guy and is completely unfair. But this sort of thing happens all the time. If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms. It's sort of not newsworthy anymore. I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, and maybe I even deserve it, but it's true.
Hey, you must be new here. This is what corporations do. They can't get in trouble for stuff no one knows about. Parents won't sue Sega for a malady that they didn't know had been inflicted on their kids.
Agreed. And while we're at it, are there ANY nanotube products on the market yet?
Actually, this would be perfect for all that hypochondriac that lives more than a few hours walk from a doctor in a third world country, but has a smartphone.
You should go stand in front of an unprotected x-ray machine or microwave for a while and tell me how your little theory works out for you.
I think it's pretty well documented at this point that piracy in most cases has at worst an only slightly negative effect, and in many cases a positive one. People who don't want to pay simply aren't going to, even if that means they just don't play the game at all. But people who do play, even if they pirated, may generate sales for the company through word of mouth.
They should have at least thrown in a couple grams of blow.
I've actually broken one, which is why I don't use them anymore.
I must say, good response.
Why not? They already sort of have government granted monopolies of certain areas of the country, there's very little competition, etc. Regulation would be the key to prevent a company from taking advantage of these situations to adversely hinder a user's right to consume what they have paid for.
Woah there, playing god is simply an expression. There's actually no need to bring religion into the discussion of ethics. Ask most atheists, and they'll agree that morality can and does exist outside of religious rules/regulations/whathaveyou.
On the one hand, this is pre-implantation and thus does not require the abortion of a fetus - no harm no foul, right?. One the other hand, it could easily be argued that one is playing god when you begin screening embryos for superficial traits.
Of course, if you choose to make the second argument, then one would also be playing god when embryos are screened for diseases, and thus should be disallowed as well.
Btw, I hate to be a nazi, but it's fell swoop and not well swoop. Fell as in deadly.
I disagree; I believe that we really do punish people because we ascribe responsibility to the actions that other people take. This ultimately results in the true rebellion many people feel against the problem of free will. It is my intuition that people would be willing to accept that free will is illusory, but unable to accept that punishment for the "bad" or "wrong" actions that some people commit are unfair and, ultimately, undeserved.
First: Ugh, grue and bleen. Don't get me started.
Second: If you're looking for absolute certainty in anything you won't find it anywhere. Even cogito ergo sum falls apart in the search for "for sure".
There are indeed lots of alternative energy sources, but none of them are as cheap and easy to harness as oil is. Photovoltaic cells currently require oil to produce, ship, distribute, etc. They are also prohibitively expensive. If society as a whole were funding the research and production capabilities to harness alternative energy sources then I would agree with you, but as things stand I believe that the diminishing oil supplies are going to hit the world economy like a ton of bricks.
Are you taking Peak Oil into account when you talk about the end of scarcity?
You actually looked to see where people are getting their information? GTFO.
Thank god, someone with some information I can use. Where is it, again, that I can put blow on my credit card?
And Cylon cells? Hoo boy.
It's a simple epistemological rule that you can't know something that is false.
But what about fake uses? Like when your server farm goes down and you need to set up a network of cell phones to get your site up and running again? Did you stop to think about that?