What year F-150 was it?
The G37 debut 15 years ago, and if you really meant the G35, it's an even older engine design. The F-150 is also one of the best selling vehicles on the road and its design keeps up with modern standards much more than a sporty Nissan.
I can't believe how organizations like LTB and RHEU (the latter of which I'm just learning about today) are falling behind. This should be the one thing that both landlords and tenants should agree on: timely justice.
This seems most plausible. OP, if you have a multimeter you could try to trace which TRS terminal has continuity with the damaged wire (if it's exposed) and see which signal it's supposed to carry.
Ever heard of anti-trust?
If the road tests do nothing for promoting safety, why not abolish them completely?
Sincere question: do you use a unique, secure password on your Spotify account, and are you sure that it's never been compromised? Your story sounds very similar to a case where a Spotify account was being used by someone else.
Reply All episode about it: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/j4he7lv
I think I understand how I ended up believing you were pirating even though you weren't: @zaphod makes it seem like you're doing something remotely unethical when you not only use a legitimate subscription service but also support the artists through other ways! I'm not sure what more an artist could ask from a patron such as yourself.
By your definition of harm, no artist creating non-material goods (books, movies, music, etc) could ever experience harm due to any one individual’s actions. “I was never going to pay, so taking it without paying is a victim less crime,” etc, etc.
False. I acknowledge that there could be harm if a consumer would otherwise be able to afford to pay for all of the music they listen to. The distinction here is that if a consumer is already spending as much as they can truly afford then artists aren't going to get any more money out of this consumer, regardless of whether or not they pay for it.
In other words: if you pirate because you must = no harm; if you pirate because you can = some harm.
That's an interesting thought experiment about the cheating spouse, though. Thank you for the interesting perspective! This makes me want to re-visit my philosophy notes.
For the record, I pay for Spotify and also support artists through Bandcamp, merch, vinyl, and live concerts. I also pirate music which isn't otherwise available through Spotify and/or Bandcamp (e.g. The Grey Album by Danger Mouse, and up until recently The Flamingo Trigger by Foxy Shazam) and don't feel guilty about those instances.
My mistake! I lost the thread when typing my response. Don't worry, I'll call the RIAA today and cancel the snitch report I made ;)
My argument isn't simply utilitarian either. It would be utilitarian to say, "It's moral to pirate music as long as your enjoyment exceeds the harm caused to the artist." But I'm saying that there is no harm caused by OP pirating in this situation. Don't most moral arguments involve some kind of measure of harm? (Honest and sincere question)
It's been a while since I studied philosophy, but for my own knowledge, do you know if there is some distinction between this sort of argument (e.g. "no victim = no crime") and plain old utilitarianism?
In other words, what ethical theory is your moral argument based on?
But maybe the answer is to value the effort of musicians and either pay them for their work or consume less?
What benefit would that decision have? Artists would still receive the same amount of royalties. @Plume would still spend the same amount of money. What benefit is there to artificially limit his music listening hobby because of copyright law?
If you distribute that PDF, users will be able to search, highlight, and copy "highlighted" text, no problem.