[still going through old drafts] I agree that killing is for most intents/purposes the same as letting die since trying to ascertain a difference between the two is trying to find the 'natural' state of whatever is being killed/let die, and that is often very hard if not impossible to establish. I also agree that in some cases (relevantly, wherein a killing is empathetic, although I would not extend that assertion so categorically as you seem to) death is a good thing - although I generally do not use such sensitive examples, the death of an ailing person is also their relief from further extensive suffering.
Extending such a poignant topic to Google's actions seems quite inappropriate, which was the intended air of my two sentences you quoted above. If we do, however, some things hold: While it is disappointing that Google dropped the service (let it die), how could we compare it to them 'killing' a service? It seems that the difference might be dependent on whether Reader would continue existing in it's previous state independent of Google, even if Google disappeared. Unless the company sells Reader, it seems obvious that it would not. Whether that actually counts as a significant difference is up for debate. -Arlo James Barnes
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
