As a lifelong proud geek, I'd have to file this one under "with great power comes great responsibility."
What our hypothetical student did brought no harm to anyone, but what these people have done takes the legal system and perverts it, potentially bringing life-destroying harm upon their victims. Judge Pregerson understands this; he's as outraged about how "They used our court system for illegal purposes -- to extort money" as all of us have been for the last few years now.
So yes, I certainly believe in making the punishment fit the crime. You fraudulently ruin people's lives: let your life be ruined in return!
Yes, I think that's the whole point. We want to watch this. Everything they've been doing since the beginning makes them look like the worst type of shysters, who think they're a whole lot smarter than they actually are, and we want to watch everything they've done come crumbling in on them.
I mentioned my observations of the Argentine electoral process above. This is another interesting point of theirs: legally, everyone is required to vote, with a few very specific, very narrow exemptions. But one of the valid choices is votar en blanco (to submit a blank ballot). Doing so is seen as a protest vote.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seems Apple doesn't want to compete with free.
Value = quality (fitness for use) divided by Cost.
Every iPhone comes with no real keyboard, only an on-screen keyboard.
If you hold the phone vertically, ("portrait" orientation,) the "keys" are tiny and accuracy suffers horribly.
If you hold the phone horizontally, ("landscape" orientation), the keys are decent-sized, but the keyboard blocks a significant amount of the screen space, so it's very hard to see what you're working on.
Either way, it violates Einstein's maxim: make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Value = fitness for use / cost. 0 divided by anything = 0. Only an iDiot would buy an iPhone.
To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers... It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
"Competition is a sin."
-- John D. Rockefeller
There is nothing new under the sun -- Ecclesiastes, The Bible
Re: Re: Re: Re: "two diametrically-opposed political parties"? Wha?
...in some issues. Definitely in regards to money and corporate power.
Socially, on the other hand, if anyone from the 80s or even the 90s were to look at the state of US politics today and the way that things like marijuana legalization and gay marriage have gotten such widespread acceptance, they'd say we've moved crazy-far to the left. So it all depends on your perspective.
In the end, after all the campaign money is spent, politicians still need to get elected by the people, and if enough people make it clear that they aren't going to stand for X, X will end up not happening.
Don't get me wrong, most countries see an increase in attack ads near elections,
Do they? This may not be accurate, but I've read that in "most countries" with democratic elections, attack ads are flat-out illegal.
And whether that's true or not, I would definitely like it to be true in the USA! We voted in our last three presidents, not because of who they were, but because of who they were not, (Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama all got into office skillfully riding a wave of backlash and positioning themselves as the opposite of the guy before them,) and all three have been disastrous presidents. We need to put a stop to it.
Re: Re: Re: "two diametrically-opposed political parties"? Wha?
It's not "a single person wing." It's a faction within the Democratic Party that call themselves "the Warren Wing" because they subscribe to her views. It's still fairly new, so the name might not last as things continue to progress. (I kind of hope it does change, actually; if you're for an idea, you should be for it because it's a good idea, not because some person, even an admirable person, is for it.) But for the moment, that's what they're calling it.
Re: "two diametrically-opposed political parties"? Wha?
To be fair, things are changing quite a bit in the last couple years, with the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and the "Warren Wing" on the political scene. We've got people actually talking very seriously about breaking up the big banks, mass debt forgiveness on student loans, expanding Social Security by raising taxes on the rich rather than cutting it in an attempt to keep it solvent for longer, and all sorts of stuff that would have been essentially unthinkable ten years ago.
(Note: I'm not advocating all this stuff. I agree with some parts of it and disagree with other parts. But it's a fact, not a matter of opinion, that a strong, viable, closer-to-diametrically-opposed political platform is currently emerging in US politics. It'll be interesting to see where it goes.)