"Sure, we could eradicate every genetic marker for Alzheimer's through unnatural selection, but what if that same gene protects against some far WORSE disease that then runs rampant across the entire population?"
I think this would be the case if our species made this testing mandatory. If we leave it up to choice to the parents then I don't see it being an issue, as there will always be people who'll refuse to get the testing done, which will ensure natural selection breeding is still occurring in the wild.
There will always be worse diseases out there whether your genetically modified or not, I almost think its a moot argument.
I think bob's argument can also go the other way. If content creators don't like the system in its current form then don't create the content in the first place. It's no sweat off my back as a consumer if it hasn't been created.
I prefer creators that do it for the love of doing it
This is great news. Now I'll finally have an excuse to move over to an Android phone. The only thing that was stopping me was because of all the accessories I have for the IPhone. Now they are making me switch. Good for Apple!!!
I would have to agree with Stallman here. It's to easy to take someones writings on there own opinions, and beliefs, and strew it out of context. I mean how many times have people being reported on, have to go back to the news, and explain themselves when a reporter had twisted what they had said in the interview to mean something that they didn't intend to mean, all do to being cut out or re-edited or something.
I wouldn't want to be defending myself every time someone made a new work based on my opinions, and beliefs, that were taken out of context. You could easily fall down the rabbit hole, chasing that white rabbit all your life
I agree with you Mike, that it is legal right now, but maybe it's time for it to be changed. I mean if your a corporate entity whose business is to essentially build a social hang out where anyone can join and talk to each other, then maybe First amendment rights should be applied.
Facebook is nothing more then a on online virtual courtyard for people to gather and communicate, maybe it should be turned over to the public and regulated as any other public entity. LOL.
Apple is simply trying to play catch up at this point. A lot of the electronic download sites (Juno, MixedUpMusic, etc) you can already listen to the full track let alone 90 second previews. They do this by either overlaying an audio vocal over the song at specific intervals, or only stream 30-60 sec of the song at a time, and if you want to here more of it, or specific section, you have to click on the slider.
"it makes it that much harder for Hollywood to keep charging the kinds of fees it charges."
I think thats the key point here. With the state of the world economically getting worse, and the distance widening between the rich versus the poor, "piracy" as they call it is only going spread.
I'm surprised that no one has looked at the wallets of the consumer much. (At least I haven't seen anything in the posts when I've looked, it usualy revolves around morality on the one end, and changing business models on the other) With over 5 billion people on the planet that make 10 dollars a day and less(http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats), is it any wonder why people are gravitating towards lower cost/free alternatives in the media they consume?
The black market, counterfeiting, and filesharing, is nothing more then a demographic that is not being served, and nothing more. If your making 10 dollars a day, would you buy a dvd for 3 days wages, to watch one movie over and over again, or would you spend that on a internet connection and be able to watch/download a variety of content?
Lets face it, a lot of us dont make a million dollars a year and live in penthouses, as Hollywood serves up in its movies, or the Pop stars continually spew in their lyrics!
I like the idea that was presented, but I have to agree with the various posters, that implementing this idea has it's own unique challenges. Mainly the challenge of inventors fighting over who should get tax revenue from said idea.
I have to disagree with you on this one Mike. This goes against the advertisement is content, and content is advertisment mantra. This is definitley a conflict of interest, you can't sell advertisements promoting a movie for people to go see it, and then on the next page bash it into the ground with negative reviews, telling people not to go see it. You affectively ruined all the advertisement that was paid for by your client. Which is why he is mad, and I believe rightly so. (As he stated in the post, he's not mad over the review but just the TIMING of it)
I do agree the reviews need to be impartial, but I can't see that happening in a magazine when there selling movie advertisements to clients in hopes of getting more people into the seats, and then posting negative reviews of the movies. It's like saying "Go see this movie, but don't go see this movie" Which one would you choose after seeing the ad, and review all in the same magazine. I would think the review would probably leave a more lasting impression then any ad running in it.
No it would be more like you loaning your car to your friend, and he gets busted by the cops in it spying on a girl (privacy issue). Instead of punishing your friend, they throw you in jail cause you gave him your car.