Wilber

Then who is going to put up the massive investment to develop those drugs which your life or someone you love may depend on? You? They have to charge higher prices initially to recoup their investment because their patents are only in effect for a limited time. Then Joe is free to knock them off as much as he pleases. Also, for every successful and profitable drug they develop, they have spent millions on ones that didn't work out. How many did Joe develop in the same time? How many did he even try to develop? That's the whole idea, it makes developing new products worthwhile.

No, you are over estimating it. What makes you believe that they are so different from you other than your own prejudices?

What your saying is ludicrous. If you tag anyone with the minority label then all others should be tagged with the appropriate I.D. label also, i.e.: 1. Deaf person = part of handicapped invisible minority group 2. A Francophone= part of linguistic visible minority group 3. English speaking person= part of linguistic visible majority group 4. A Black deaf person= part of Black handicapped linguistic minority group 5. A White Francophone= part of White majority, linguistic minority group And the list goes on. Can't you see how racist this all is? For I.D. purposes, either vocal or written, for whatever official purpose, you call it for what factual information properly describes the individual and applies to everyone. No I don't but lets just call everyone green, doesn't matter if it means anything but heaven forbid that we recognize people are different.

Taking someone else's property and marketing it yourself without compensating them is theft. Why would someone like Pfizer or GSC invest hundreds of millions into developing new drugs if they knew they would have no hope of recouping their investment because Joe's Knock Off Drug Company who's only investment is the machinery to copy their product is going to rip it off and flood the market? Why would anyone invest in a company that develops drugs? Why would any company spend millions developing any products and why would anyone invest in them if they knew that would be the result? If in your free market knocking off others products and selling them without even changing the name is legal, why shouldn't counterfeiting the nations currency be legal. What's the difference? People seem to be pissed when these companies are successful and make lots of money. That's the whole idea behind having a free market.

You can only give away the car you bought, which is your right. You are not making an selling copies.

I would think that knowing anything you spent time an resources developing could be legally ripped off by anyone who had access to it without compensating you would be an even bigger impediment to a free market. So the guy that bought your wheat would have the right to put your name on any wheat he grew from it and sold to someone else. Of course putting his own name on someones intellectual property would be plagiarism or is that OK in a free market as well. A free market does not legitimize profiting from the fruits of another persons name, capital or labour without compensating that person. That's called stealing. In your free market are people compensated for what they achieve or what they steal?

So what you are saying that it is OK to knock off and sell anything that you are able to including using the original designer and manufacturers name and logo.

So at least buy the DVD before you copy it.

Legality of the substance is not the issue here, it is who it was being given to and who was doing the giving.

Exactly. That is what many who question the evangelical zeal of so many global warming/climate change advocates are trying to point out. Many were pointing the finger at global warming due to human CO2 production when we were having those storms. Turns out that probably wasn't the cause. As often as not, when you jump to conclusions you end up waisting time and resources on the wrong thing, while doing nothing to solve a problem which might not even be solvable or even a problem.

"visible minorities" is racist. How so? It separates minorities you can identify by sight from those you cannot. Dwarfs and midgets would be a visible minority, deaf people would not. It is only racist in your mind. Should we not acknowledge that we have any minorities at all because it would be derogatory to identify them?

Why would anyone produce Windows or anything else if they had to give it away for free. At least there would be no support problems. I'm amazed there are people who feel it is somehow ethical to profit from the labour and investment of others without compensating them for it. That's what common thieves do.

DEL

DEL

Should you be allowed to feed your two year old gin? A two year old can't commit a crime but the adult who feeds it to them sure as hell should be.

I hate to break it to you but civil airiliners have been using GPS based navigation for years. It is so accurate that separation mimima has been cut in half on non radar controlled airways. You can be in the middle of the Pacific and pass another aircraft a thousand feet above with its nav system programed for the same track and you will pass directly below it. Not close, exactly below. Like WD says, ditch the tin foil. The US military put those GPS satellites up there and let everyone in the world use them. Those swine.

There is no value added. On the contrary, the quality usually sucks. It's theft pure and simple.

Show biz

So it was just all show biz. Who'd a thunk it.

Bull

They've had nukes for over sixty years, the Soviet Union has been gone for seventeen, so why haven't they? You forget that the US is a democracy who's government is accountable to the people. Most of these other places are not. The government you love to hate will be history in a year and a half by peacefull democratic means. These other guy's? You and MM seem to work on the philosophy that if the cops have guns, the town will be a safer place if the crooks have them to. Really, how many nuclear weapons have been used since there has been an imbalance? Your theory that more nukes are better and it doesn't matter who has them is downright scary.

And of course there is much less lunacy in Iranian politics.

Yup, lets just give more money to the Federal Government. That'l fix everything.

The awarding of a VC is not an empty act, it is a most serious act. The unknown soldier is a symbol. Giving the highest award for bravery to a symbol is an empty act. He is a symbol but there is a real soldier who died in a real war under that monument.

Disagree again. Any nation that has nuclear weapons will continually review it's options, including a first strike. Making that public is not a threat but a warning of what is possible when dealing with any country that possesses nuclear weapons and has the ability to deliver them. It is big stick diplomacy. The US is no more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other country and I still maintain that the first time one is used it will not involve the US unless they are the first victim.