"The disposal of nuclear waste IS a technical problem. This problem is inherently imposed by the politicians forcing science to its limits,...."
Huh? So, it IS political like the previous poster stated?
"What would happen if just one of these 96,000 (! over 40 years) trucks got in an accident. What if it were hit by a terrorist? Does it make sense to send this waste thousands of miles by road?
Answers in order.
A. Not much (transport containers withstand train impacts).
B. What is the likelihood? I mean what if you were struck by lightning tomorrow? I suggest you worry about something dangerous AND likely to happen.
C. Does it make sense to send this waste thousands of miles by road? Well, I guess you could send it by rail. I don't think you want to transport it by air. But if the goal is to reduce time in the open, roads get you there quicker. Unless you have developed a transporter.....
"They said that it would take 24,000 for the radioactivity to travel a 1/2 inch ON SITE... they were off by SIX orders of magnitude. It took 10 years for the radioactivity to get TWO MILES OFF SITE. That's a serious mistake!"
Yep, even for geologists. And the relevence of that site to Yucca mountain is what? Different geology, different funding, temporary site, etc. etc. etc. Oh, and you do know that Yucca mountain is located on the Nevada Test Site. We all know what a pristine location THAT is....:)
"Geologist CANNOT predict what's going to happen."
Well, DUH! We can only make forecasts.... If we could predict the future we wouldn't be working in geology....
"Politics does not play into these technological problems -- politics is what is making these problems a serious problem because it is forcing scientist to come to conclusions which aren't very well founded.."
I don't think you are saying what you think you are saying. You haven't shown an example of a problem that isn't solvable by technology. But you have shown that POLITICS causes problems-which indicates that the storage is a political one.
Look, we know where Yucca mountain is, it is highly studied. It isn't the best site. Those were excluded for political reasons. If there is a serious problem, we CAN get the waste back out.
"When two experts agree on a standard and accepted policy or interpretation, that policy or interpretation is a fact."
Hmm, different definition of fact than I have. Policies and interpretations are not facts. They may be derived from them. Or they may have no relation to them (more often the case....)
"When two opposing sides agree on common, verifiable elements, those common elements are facts."
But they may not be facts by my definition-things that are essentially true (in as much as you can prove anything, of course). You can agree on common verifiable elements and still be wrong.... Legal "facts" do not equate to "scientific" facts.
None of this should be taken to mean that the grandparent wasn't trolling and shouldn't RTFA:)
"It isn't Trolling, Offtopic, Redundent or Flamebait if someone is expressing an opinion that I disagree with. Please, everyone, metamoderate and click on the CID of messages that are modded down and see if they really are bad comments, in the full context of the conversation."
Of course, one could reasonably moderate this discussion as offtopic-it has nothing to do with the topic (X-prize) any longer.
Your experience is interesting because I find that most low rated comments that I metamoderate deserve them-they are offtopic (clearly out of place-not like this-although, if this were modded down, would it really be wrong?...), they are redundant (the same friggin' comment that has been stated before or only slightly changed) or trolling/flamebait (generally inflammatory comments-I don't have a problem with well expressed opinions that differ from mine). Of course, poorly expressed ones often will seem like trolling/flamebait-but that isn't my problem.
"but one of the things they do (are working on) is to make the gov't work more like a buisness, in the sharing of information for a common goal sense."
Oh, well then, in that case once everything is run like a business there won't be a problem. NOT.
Where do people get the idea that business is run any better than the government? Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. It gets in the way everywhere. I work for a profitable company but it is more inefficient, shares less information and is full of more clueless individuals than any government organization that I have EVER worked for.
Aside from the fact that maybe it might not be a good thing for the government to work too well, considering the apathy of the citizens.....
"The capacity for abuse is virtually unlimited if the wrong individuals have access to the wrong types of information."
Ah, yes. But that is the whole point of the argument, now isn't it? Of course, I also think it is kind of like asking you when you stopped beating your wife-it is a loaded question. If the information is private or truly safety related, I can understand not releasing it.
I would rather too much information be released than too little because people with ill intent will already have access to the information. All too often government claims releasing information will cause harm merely to prevent release of information-as in this case.
"The government already has a lot of information about you and me. I personally dont want all the personal data they have about me published for the public to see. To be honest, I want as little of that information as possible known to anyone."
Unfortunately, it's a bit late. I would like to know what info they have about me. Private companies probably have far more information about me than the government (and can collect more-why do you think many databases are run by private companies FOR the government?).
With all due respect, your comment sounds closer to: "Go away, you are bothering us, don't you see we have work to do" than a reasonable statement. In Ohio, at least at the agency I interned for, one of the primary purposes of the agency was answering "public requests". Fundamentally, that is what government is FOR.
Sure, it can be a PITA. But we didn't have to do it immediately (unless they were asking a question in the office). And if the request was large, we could take some time. If we didn't have the data, we didn't have to do it. But I personally spent DAYS creating NEW maps for use by PRIVATE BUSINESSES using GIS that were given away FREE. That was our JOB. Granted, there were a couple of inches of disclaimers on the maps:)
This is not to say that there wasn't a concern about giving data away free (funding has to come from some source) but we could charge duplication fees/
There is a difference I think you are ignoring-I think few people have a problem with preventing public release of PRIVATE information or truly sensitive information
"Social insurance databases"
-not to be used for identification, only benefits, easy to justify excluding.
"Driver's license db's"
- already excluded in many states based on privacy grounds. Of course, if you know a cop, you probably have access anyway...
"all police investigations, regardless of whether charges are laid."
- much of this is public, maybe hard to access, (police reports are public...). If you know a cop, well, you probably have access anyway...
"medicare payment treatment and payment records"
- private info, see above.
"nuclear missile plans."
- national defense. Although I doubt much of it is unknown in general detail at least to a potentially adversary.
"the approved architectural plans for that nice, bombable Hoover Dam."
- probably should be public record. If it can be taken out by a terrorist attack (short of nuclear attack), it probably isn't structurally sound. A rental truck full of explosives probably isn't going to do much...
"tax records of all sorts"
- much of this is public record. Individual tax returns probably not. Of course, if you know anyone in the IRS, you probably have access.....
"how the governement recognises you, as opposed to someone pretending to be you, and gives you access to your own information..."
- Well, there is a problem here. If you don't know how the government does it, how do you know it is secure, or useful? Most of this is public record anyway (hello, public servant, what info do I need to gain access to x, y, z? Oh, A, B, and C? Thanks).
"military supply orders and troop movements."
- National security.
"You have a chemical spill in Seattle. You have a real-time information system for exchange among first responders who are doing their work. It hits the news and their site gets slashdotted."
Then the method sucks and doesn't work. And the idiot who made it the only method should be fired for incompetance. And heaven forbid the public might want to protect themselves....
I suspect "data collect with public money" wasn't meant to include most of the points you brought up. And I suspect you knew it.
"I hire a guy to fix my brakes, change the oil, install a new heater and air conditioner in my house, and, frankly, I don't want to know how they do what they do."
Cool, an easy mark...:)
I know how a computer works, I fix my brakes, change my oil (most of the time), and could install a new heater or AC in a house. Hell, I could do plumbing or electric work. It is not difficult-time consuming if you are not experienced and a waste of money in many cases but I know how these things work or could do them if needed.
So why shouldn't someone know how to USE a computer? You know, basic logic/reasoning skills. Skills that would serve people well in ANY capacity. I frankly have no respect for people who revel in their ignorance and that seems to be common with people and computers (knowing you are ignorant and wanting to learn IS respected).
"He said that 9/11 was the first time that the U.S. had been the subject of an unprovoked attack on its own soil since the British attacked the U.S. in the war of 1812.I was sitting in stunned silence after he said that. I know for a fact that the U.S. burned Toronto (then called York) to the ground before the British attacked Washington. How could that be considered unprovoked?"
Well, considering the British started by firing on ship on the high seas (among other things-including forced conscription) you could say the British started the war....
Anyway, you both seem to have missed a minor event that happened in 1941...
Personally, I received a good public education in the US-if one of you didn't in your repective system, well, you probably didn't want one....
"Do you really want Bush to be able to dictacte LAW to us? I didn't think so."
To clarify: A president can sign all the treaties he(she) wants but until they are RATIFIED by the Senate, they are meaningless. So the President does not "dictate LAW to us" in these cases.
A president can also sign a treaty that doesn't "pass Constituional muster". The courts ultimately decide what is consistent with the Constitution (with inputs in various forms from Congress, the Executive branch and the public).
"The Chinese people aren't so stupid that they cannot put two and two together. The more we communicate, the less barriers we have, and the more likely the Chinese Government will see communication as less of a threat and more of a friendly conversation with those weird people a world away."
So, you say the Chinese people are intelligent (and I assume this means the leadership) and then you go on to say that they (leadership) will view communication as less of a threat the more it happens?!?
What fantasy world are you living in. Free and open communication IS A THREAT to the current leadership in China. It may be good for China as a whole but NOT for those currently in power. The ONLY way this will change is if they can maintain power while increasing freedom of communication-history does not support this outcome. A much more likely outcome of such freedom is leadership change, which they don't want, hence the restrictions....
will remain screwed up, whether we are there or not. They were that way before we were there and will be that way once we leave. Oh, sure, some exceptions apply. But they are that, exceptions.
We seem to happily ignore most of them anyway. And maybe, just maybe, we will earn a little more respect in the world.
"Well, your locks may actually be OK if they are older."
Well, if the magazine article reference by the grandparent is true, then they had better be older than 1992!
"The Kryptonite locks probably USED to be OK when they were first released, but then some cheapo middle-manager decided to save a few bucks on locks to increase their profit margin,..."
If there was a change it probably wasn't recent (see above comment) so I think this would fall under the category of "useless hand waving".
But while we are at it, what kind of lock company wouldn't TEST for these type of defects? I suspect I don't want an answer to that, especially if "most" is included.....
"At my bank, we trust all our employees, especially the tellers. But we still lock the vaults and count the money."
Then you don't REALLY trust your employees, especially the tellers, do you? Granted, there are good reasons to lock the vaults and count the money... And for your information I have serviced ATM's and as a result had access to large amounts of money, so I understand the drill.
I just hate the overuse of the word trust-especially when it really means "as far as we can throw you". One of the worst is the military use "trust but verify"-well, if you really trusted them, you wouldn't need to verify anything. Having to verify indicates mistrust. But I guess it's just a catchy phrase.....
In short, I trust very few people. I expect many more to do what I think they should but are never positive they will.... (what many people think of as trust).
No, they stop being his movies when he sells the rights to them....
So you saw a version of them in the theater and like it better than the new version. So what? Then remember the old version.
Yes, they have entered the pop culture. I grew up with the movies. But I could care less if he revises them. Pop culture changes. I still have my memories.
Finally, if Star Wars has created "cherished memories" which will "make life hard for a lot of people" if new versions are released, then many people have serious problems....
Well, most movies tend to decompose sitting in vaults somewhere, especially if they aren't popular... Film isn't a stable medium-that is the reason it often has to be restored even if stored properly. And Star Wars wasn't an excellent movie-it had stellar effects for the time, but only a mediocre (recycled) plot. Very popular, yes, fun to watch, yes, very good, no.
Right or wrong, movies don't belong to the public only to their owners who can do to them as they like... Sure, it may be part of our popular culture but I don't think copyright makes too many allowances for that. If you don't like that, become involved in politics.
"I don't know about you, but I'd be a hell of a lot more willing to donate if I wasn't so busy making ends meet on what little of my earnings government "allows" me to keep."
That's one viewpoint. My opinion is that people are generally cheap bastards (myself included), and wouldn't donate more if we weren't taxed at all. After all, don't poorer people donate more money (by percentage) than richer people, despite having less disposable income?
How many religious people do you know that tithe? Despite earning eternal salvation? I think this goes to my point above (cheap bastards....)
If you have the right to life, that implies some measure of good health.... Access to health care does not imply good health, only the potential for it.
"2) Experience shows that anything the state touches, it corrupts."
Hmm, so, as the state has pretty much touched everything, everything is corrupt? More to the point, the state is made up of people, if the state is corrupt, that means people are corrupt. Libertarianism isn't going to help that.
Sure, if you believe EULA's are legal. If you are a small developer struggling to make money, you don't want to be the test case (but are most likely to be one).
Second, what if they don't use legal means? Maybe they go after your website?
Okay, so the person didn't have permission to use the software. I can certainly understand the urge to do something like this.
However, consider the consequences. The publisher could get sued. Sure, he probably will (might?) win, but it costs money to defend. Oops, there goes more profit. The publisher loses goodwill (hard to define-but not all publicity is good publicity....). Oh, and maybe the publisher gets hacked/cracked by someone he has pissed off (people pirating software may not have the strongest morals/ethics/logic but some may be good at computers). Oops. There goes more profit.
In short, I see a lot of downside and little upside. And I sure as heck wouldn't want to use a product as a LEGITIMATE user if I knew it was designed to screw up my system (even if only for illegitimate users).
Slashdot Mirror
"...and the relative merit of heading blinking red lights on the instrument panel."
:)
But you can safely ignore the yellow and orange ones, right?
"The disposal of nuclear waste IS a technical problem. This problem is inherently imposed by the politicians forcing science to its limits,...."
:)
Huh? So, it IS political like the previous poster stated?
"What would happen if just one of these 96,000 (! over 40 years) trucks got in an accident. What if it were hit by a terrorist? Does it make sense to send this waste thousands of miles by road?
Answers in order.
A. Not much (transport containers withstand train impacts).
B. What is the likelihood? I mean what if you were struck by lightning tomorrow? I suggest you worry about something dangerous AND likely to happen.
C. Does it make sense to send this waste thousands of miles by road? Well, I guess you could send it by rail. I don't think you want to transport it by air. But if the goal is to reduce time in the open, roads get you there quicker. Unless you have developed a transporter.....
"They said that it would take 24,000 for the radioactivity to travel a 1/2 inch ON SITE... they were off by SIX orders of magnitude. It took 10 years for the radioactivity to get TWO MILES OFF SITE. That's a serious mistake!"
Yep, even for geologists. And the relevence of that site to Yucca mountain is what? Different geology, different funding, temporary site, etc. etc. etc. Oh, and you do know that Yucca mountain is located on the Nevada Test Site. We all know what a pristine location THAT is....
"Geologist CANNOT predict what's going to happen."
Well, DUH! We can only make forecasts.... If we could predict the future we wouldn't be working in geology....
"Politics does not play into these technological problems -- politics is what is making these problems a serious problem because it is forcing scientist to come to conclusions which aren't very well founded.."
I don't think you are saying what you think you are saying. You haven't shown an example of a problem that isn't solvable by technology. But you have shown that POLITICS causes problems-which indicates that the storage is a political one.
Look, we know where Yucca mountain is, it is highly studied. It isn't the best site. Those were excluded for political reasons. If there is a serious problem, we CAN get the waste back out.
"When two experts agree on a standard and accepted policy or interpretation, that policy or interpretation is a fact."
:)
Hmm, different definition of fact than I have. Policies and interpretations are not facts. They may be derived from them. Or they may have no relation to them (more often the case....)
"When two opposing sides agree on common, verifiable elements, those common elements are facts."
But they may not be facts by my definition-things that are essentially true (in as much as you can prove anything, of course). You can agree on common verifiable elements and still be wrong.... Legal "facts" do not equate to "scientific" facts.
None of this should be taken to mean that the grandparent wasn't trolling and shouldn't RTFA
"It isn't Trolling, Offtopic, Redundent or Flamebait if someone is expressing an opinion that I disagree with. Please, everyone, metamoderate and click on the CID of messages that are modded down and see if they really are bad comments, in the full context of the conversation."
Of course, one could reasonably moderate this discussion as offtopic-it has nothing to do with the topic (X-prize) any longer.
Your experience is interesting because I find that most low rated comments that I metamoderate deserve them-they are offtopic (clearly out of place-not like this-although, if this were modded down, would it really be wrong?...), they are redundant (the same friggin' comment that has been stated before or only slightly changed) or trolling/flamebait (generally inflammatory comments-I don't have a problem with well expressed opinions that differ from mine). Of course, poorly expressed ones often will seem like trolling/flamebait-but that isn't my problem.
"Still, if we're going to fight a war we can't win, wouldn't it be better to fight one of the dangers that really do face us on a daily basis?"
:( Or at least some are trying....
You have an excellent point. But it appears that we CAN win a war on our liberty
"but one of the things they do (are working on) is to make the gov't work more like a buisness, in the sharing of information for a common goal sense."
Oh, well then, in that case once everything is run like a business there won't be a problem. NOT.
Where do people get the idea that business is run any better than the government? Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. It gets in the way everywhere. I work for a profitable company but it is more inefficient, shares less information and is full of more clueless individuals than any government organization that I have EVER worked for.
Aside from the fact that maybe it might not be a good thing for the government to work too well, considering the apathy of the citizens.....
"Who's going to spend the time to photograph the Atlantic at 1M resolution?"
Anyone who gets the funding.....
"The capacity for abuse is virtually unlimited if the wrong individuals have access to the wrong types of information."
Ah, yes. But that is the whole point of the argument, now isn't it? Of course, I also think it is kind of like asking you when you stopped beating your wife-it is a loaded question. If the information is private or truly safety related, I can understand not releasing it.
I would rather too much information be released than too little because people with ill intent will already have access to the information. All too often government claims releasing information will cause harm merely to prevent release of information-as in this case.
"The government already has a lot of information about you and me. I personally dont want all the personal data they have about me published for the public to see. To be honest, I want as little of that information as possible known to anyone."
Unfortunately, it's a bit late. I would like to know what info they have about me. Private companies probably have far more information about me than the government (and can collect more-why do you think many databases are run by private companies FOR the government?).
With all due respect, your comment sounds closer to: "Go away, you are bothering us, don't you see we have work to do" than a reasonable statement. In Ohio, at least at the agency I interned for, one of the primary purposes of the agency was answering "public requests". Fundamentally, that is what government is FOR.
:)
Sure, it can be a PITA. But we didn't have to do it immediately (unless they were asking a question in the office). And if the request was large, we could take some time. If we didn't have the data, we didn't have to do it. But I personally spent DAYS creating NEW maps for use by PRIVATE BUSINESSES using GIS that were given away FREE. That was our JOB. Granted, there were a couple of inches of disclaimers on the maps
This is not to say that there wasn't a concern about giving data away free (funding has to come from some source) but we could charge duplication fees/
There is a difference I think you are ignoring-I think few people have a problem with preventing public release of PRIVATE information or truly sensitive information
"Social insurance databases"
-not to be used for identification, only benefits, easy to justify excluding.
"Driver's license db's"
- already excluded in many states based on privacy grounds. Of course, if you know a cop, you probably have access anyway...
"all police investigations, regardless of whether charges are laid."
- much of this is public, maybe hard to access, (police reports are public...). If you know a cop, well, you probably have access anyway...
"medicare payment treatment and payment records"
- private info, see above.
"nuclear missile plans."
- national defense. Although I doubt much of it is unknown in general detail at least to a potentially adversary.
"the approved architectural plans for that nice, bombable Hoover Dam."
- probably should be public record. If it can be taken out by a terrorist attack (short of nuclear attack), it probably isn't structurally sound. A rental truck full of explosives probably isn't going to do much...
"tax records of all sorts"
- much of this is public record. Individual tax returns probably not. Of course, if you know anyone in the IRS, you probably have access.....
"how the governement recognises you, as opposed to someone pretending to be you, and gives you access to your own information..."
- Well, there is a problem here. If you don't know how the government does it, how do you know it is secure, or useful? Most of this is public record anyway (hello, public servant, what info do I need to gain access to x, y, z? Oh, A, B, and C? Thanks).
"military supply orders and troop movements."
- National security.
"You have a chemical spill in Seattle. You have a real-time information system for exchange among first responders who are doing their work. It hits the news and their site gets slashdotted."
Then the method sucks and doesn't work. And the idiot who made it the only method should be fired for incompetance. And heaven forbid the public might want to protect themselves....
I suspect "data collect with public money" wasn't meant to include most of the points you brought up. And I suspect you knew it.
"Yeah, HP is turning into a bunch of vacuum cleaner salesmen, just like Dell."
Problem is, they do not seem to be very good vacuum cleaner salesmen. Unlike Dell.....
"I hire a guy to fix my brakes, change the oil, install a new heater and air conditioner in my house, and, frankly, I don't want to know how they do what they do."
:)
Cool, an easy mark...
I know how a computer works, I fix my brakes, change my oil (most of the time), and could install a new heater or AC in a house. Hell, I could do plumbing or electric work. It is not difficult-time consuming if you are not experienced and a waste of money in many cases but I know how these things work or could do them if needed.
So why shouldn't someone know how to USE a computer? You know, basic logic/reasoning skills. Skills that would serve people well in ANY capacity. I frankly have no respect for people who revel in their ignorance and that seems to be common with people and computers (knowing you are ignorant and wanting to learn IS respected).
"He said that 9/11 was the first time that the U.S. had been the subject of an unprovoked attack on its own soil since the British attacked the U.S. in the war of 1812.I was sitting in stunned silence after he said that. I know for a fact that the U.S. burned Toronto (then called York) to the ground before the British attacked Washington. How could that be considered unprovoked?"
Well, considering the British started by firing on ship on the high seas (among other things-including forced conscription) you could say the British started the war....
Anyway, you both seem to have missed a minor event that happened in 1941...
Personally, I received a good public education in the US-if one of you didn't in your repective system, well, you probably didn't want one....
"Do you really want Bush to be able to dictacte LAW to us? I didn't think so."
To clarify:
A president can sign all the treaties he(she) wants but until they are RATIFIED by the Senate, they are meaningless. So the President does not "dictate LAW to us" in these cases.
A president can also sign a treaty that doesn't "pass Constituional muster". The courts ultimately decide what is consistent with the Constitution (with inputs in various forms from Congress, the Executive branch and the public).
"The Chinese people aren't so stupid that they cannot put two and two together. The more we communicate, the less barriers we have, and the more likely the Chinese Government will see communication as less of a threat and more of a friendly conversation with those weird people a world away."
So, you say the Chinese people are intelligent (and I assume this means the leadership) and then you go on to say that they (leadership) will view communication as less of a threat the more it happens?!?
What fantasy world are you living in. Free and open communication IS A THREAT to the current leadership in China. It may be good for China as a whole but NOT for those currently in power. The ONLY way this will change is if they can maintain power while increasing freedom of communication-history does not support this outcome. A much more likely outcome of such freedom is leadership change, which they don't want, hence the restrictions....
will remain screwed up, whether we are there or not. They were that way before we were there and will be that way once we leave. Oh, sure, some exceptions apply. But they are that, exceptions.
We seem to happily ignore most of them anyway. And maybe, just maybe, we will earn a little more respect in the world.
"Well, your locks may actually be OK if they are older."
..."
Well, if the magazine article reference by the grandparent is true, then they had better be older than 1992!
"The Kryptonite locks probably USED to be OK when they were first released, but then some cheapo middle-manager decided to save a few bucks on locks to increase their profit margin,
If there was a change it probably wasn't recent (see above comment) so I think this would fall under the category of "useless hand waving".
But while we are at it, what kind of lock company wouldn't TEST for these type of defects? I suspect I don't want an answer to that, especially if "most" is included.....
"At my bank, we trust all our employees, especially the tellers. But we still lock the vaults and count the money."
Then you don't REALLY trust your employees, especially the tellers, do you? Granted, there are good reasons to lock the vaults and count the money... And for your information I have serviced ATM's and as a result had access to large amounts of money, so I understand the drill.
I just hate the overuse of the word trust-especially when it really means "as far as we can throw you". One of the worst is the military use "trust but verify"-well, if you really trusted them, you wouldn't need to verify anything. Having to verify indicates mistrust. But I guess it's just a catchy phrase.....
In short, I trust very few people. I expect many more to do what I think they should but are never positive they will.... (what many people think of as trust).
No, they stop being his movies when he sells the rights to them....
So you saw a version of them in the theater and like it better than the new version. So what? Then remember the old version.
Yes, they have entered the pop culture. I grew up with the movies. But I could care less if he revises them. Pop culture changes. I still have my memories.
Finally, if Star Wars has created "cherished memories" which will "make life hard for a lot of people" if new versions are released, then many people have serious problems....
Well, most movies tend to decompose sitting in vaults somewhere, especially if they aren't popular... Film isn't a stable medium-that is the reason it often has to be restored even if stored properly. And Star Wars wasn't an excellent movie-it had stellar effects for the time, but only a mediocre (recycled) plot. Very popular, yes, fun to watch, yes, very good, no.
Right or wrong, movies don't belong to the public only to their owners who can do to them as they like... Sure, it may be part of our popular culture but I don't think copyright makes too many allowances for that. If you don't like that, become involved in politics.
"I don't know about you, but I'd be a hell of a lot more willing to donate if I wasn't so busy making ends meet on what little of my earnings government "allows" me to keep."
That's one viewpoint. My opinion is that people are generally cheap bastards (myself included), and wouldn't donate more if we weren't taxed at all. After all, don't poorer people donate more money (by percentage) than richer people, despite having less disposable income?
How many religious people do you know that tithe? Despite earning eternal salvation? I think this goes to my point above (cheap bastards....)
"1) You do not have a right to good health."
If you have the right to life, that implies some measure of good health.... Access to health care does not imply good health, only the potential for it.
"2) Experience shows that anything the state touches, it corrupts."
Hmm, so, as the state has pretty much touched everything, everything is corrupt? More to the point, the state is made up of people, if the state is corrupt, that means people are corrupt. Libertarianism isn't going to help that.
And I thought I was a pessimist at times....
"might back you up legally enough."
Sure, if you believe EULA's are legal. If you are a small developer struggling to make money, you don't want to be the test case (but are most likely to be one).
Second, what if they don't use legal means? Maybe they go after your website?
Okay, so the person didn't have permission to use the software. I can certainly understand the urge to do something like this.
However, consider the consequences. The publisher could get sued. Sure, he probably will (might?) win, but it costs money to defend. Oops, there goes more profit. The publisher loses goodwill (hard to define-but not all publicity is good publicity....). Oh, and maybe the publisher gets hacked/cracked by someone he has pissed off (people pirating software may not have the strongest morals/ethics/logic but some may be good at computers). Oops. There goes more profit.
In short, I see a lot of downside and little upside. And I sure as heck wouldn't want to use a product as a LEGITIMATE user if I knew it was designed to screw up my system (even if only for illegitimate users).
Huh? Whether or not it was a documentary is irrelevant. I thought I made that clear. I guess not.
In any case, it seems to be listed as a documentary. Seems to fit the dictionary definition. YMMV.