If you want to get rid of DRM, you need to show them that it's not necessary. The best way you can do that is by not pirating their stuff, and actually paying for it if you feel that it's worth paying for.
Not true at all. You only need to "show them" that there are other, easier ways to copy "their stuff".
Music download services didn't go DRM-free because people stopped illegally downloading them... They went DRM-free because attempts to add DRM to CDs failed miserably, so DRM on downloads was a pointless restriction that penalized legitimate paying customers.
The same is true for Netflix. As long as people can get the videos on DVD and Blu-ray, where it's easy to rip and redistribute, there's little reason for anyone to WANT the hassle of downloading their lower quality Netflix streams, yet the DRM adds extra hassle for paying customers, and cuts off some of the potential market.
And what's more, this is a story that's repeated over and over again. Media companies resist new technology as much as possible, biting and scratching as they're dragged into the future, screaming that their business model is destroyed. Then when they finally get there, against their will, it turns out they can actually make much more money than before. It has happened before, it is happening now, and it'll happen again. The RIAA just had to face these issues slightly earlier than the MPAA, so the latter is still somewhere in the middle of their 7-stage process.
TCP guarantees in-order delivery of packets which think would be important for things like video
Not really any more of a "guarantee", it's just another layer of verification, at a lower layer, which adds unnecessary additional overhead, slow start, poor behavior (for streaming) when there is occasional packet loss or congestion, etc.
And reliable delivery is certainly NOT needed for streaming video and audio. Such codecs were designed to be able to handle some data loss. That's why most streaming protocols (RTP, RTSP) are UDP-based. You'll see video glitches if there's packet loss, but everything will keep working just fine.
Contrast that with transferring zip files, PDFs, word documents, etc., where a single bit being missing or wrong will render it completely useless.
It's from news media quoiting peopple who have no substantiation.
I'm not sure if you have psychic powers, or just assume all news stories that don't agree with you are inaccurate. In either case, thank you for wasting my time.
To say that you're not using real sources would be an understatement.
One may be suspect, the other two are from respectable news media. And most importantly, your "survey" says NOTHING about the subject, it's just a one-shot numerical breakdown by country.
"In the past five years alone, the number of people holding active ham radio licenses has dropped by 50,000, even though Morse Code is no longer a requirement."
Ham radio is losing a generation of geeks who've grown up on a more-free network and aren't interested in a restricted one. Should we just let them go?
Ham radio is absolutely hemorrhaging operators, and allowing encryption will do absolutely NOTHING to stem the tide. It's a moot point.
If you really want to get people back, the thing to do is set aside a few of the frequencies for part-95 certified devices any kid can pick up for $50 at Wal-mart. That kind of massive commoditization would be the way to get long-distance inter-operable radio communications into the hands of police/fire/medical as well as the general public, who will then have a way to make (long-distance) emergency calls when the cell network goes down. These days, you could even include high-tech features like digital trunking, digital radio mondiale, and things like GPS coordinates in every message, so that first-responders can track down distress calls, or the FCC can immediately find any idiots that need to be shut down quickly.
Personally I'm more interested in some of the MIPS chips like the Loognson Dragon that has built in X86 hardware acceleration, supposedly you get 80% of X86 speed
Last I heard, the latest Loongson processors were performing about on-par with the earliest 1GHz Pentium-4 processors. A processor well over a decade old. That's something to look forward to...
But what type of "IP" is relevant here? What is the legal basis for the restrictions?
If you had RTFA you would have seen nice little quotes like this one:
"not covered by patents so can be implemented without a license from ARM."
The original Intel Pentium was released in March 1993. This means that the patents on it should either be expired or nearing expiration
Before June 1995, patents in the US weren't 20-years from filing date. If they were, MP3, and perhaps AAC (-LC) and MPEG-2 would be free and clear by now. Instead, patent expiration was based on the patent issue date, which could be many YEARS after filing. And filing can also be up to a year after first publishing the method. I've seen pre-1995 patents that are valid for as much as 25 years after first publication, so you need to look up the USPTO patent issuance date for each patent.
16% of your effing population is living in poverty. linkie
Oops! Now you've just gone and completely backpedaled from your statement!
The poverty line is set at a certain income level, expected to provide a decent quality of life. It has next to nothing to do with your imaginary "starving/dying people".
From TFA: "the U.S. government considers many citizens statistically impoverished despite their ability to sufficiently meet their basic needs"
"lower-income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger houses than many middle-income Western Europeans"
You've wasted enough of my time with your your poor attempts to rub two neurons together. Goodbye.
and at least one of the BSDs actually has a Linux compatibility layer to run binary Linux applications.)
Good god you're making me feel old. Not only have all the big three BSD OSes had Linux binary emulation for a long damn time... but I distinctly recall writing how-to's for a couple of them (that bounced around the internet and got translated into many languages I don't speak) some time LAST MILLENIUM.
No exaggeration there. The date on OpenBSD's compat_linux man page is March 1995. FreeBSD may have been a couple years earlier.
getting something back in return in the form of improvements OR writing code that's used by a huge group of users without ever getting anything (not even kudos) back *ever*, I'd go for option number one.
Your mistake is conflating what each license supposedly requires, with what actually happens in the real world. You're likely to get MORE back from BSD licensed code. Many companies contribute code and/or money to BSD/MIT licensed projects (e.g. Apache is doing just fine). And as I've said, there are very commonly network effects that the GPL can never get.
You can't claim the GPL's superiority IN THEORY. You've got to actually prove it in practice, and I've given several counter-examples that directly undermine your claim.
And if what MUST happen according to the letter of the license is all you've got, which seems to be the case by your repeated emphasis, then you're not so much an open source advocate, as you are an obsessive compulsive, micro-managing busybody.
Option number one is not to 'no one's benefit' it's to the benefit of members of a like minded group, with that group growing once the benefits become clearer to people outside that group
No, usually the projects completely die off in short order, and all the work benefited no-one. Back before NFSv4 came out, NFSv3 was showing its age, and there were TONS of GPL-licensed network file systems shuffling to take its place, with improved features like encryption, clustering, better security, etc. There were TONS of such projects, and every single one simply disappeared.
Those big companies you are actively seeking to harm (you said so yourself) are big supporters of open source, and are big enough forces to establish defacto standards. Sabotaging their use of your project works against your own goals.
BSD minded people probably believe that furthering technology is more important than freedom. I would rather not have cool technology if it meant that it's completely closed off and non-free.
Utter nonsense.
"BSD-minded people" MAKE freedom... They made it. It's there. You can hold it in your hands and do whatever you want with it.
"GPL-minded people" make lock-in. They yell loudly and swing a club, threatening all others out there. They don't want freedom, they want compensation in exchange for allowing anyone else to play in their sandbox. They (like you) may criticize BSD/MIT licenses left and right, but they're only too happy to take it, and lock up their changes under the GPL, never contributing anything back.
Yes, but you have to be smart enough to know to leave it in a very low-fee index fund (typically based on the S&P 500) and not fall for the crap the sales team pitches you about about their ultra-complex derivatives that are absolutely positively going to pay you 15% for the next 30 years... Then start moving it into a more stable investment like bonds bit by bit for several YEARS before retirement.
It seems most people just aren't that smart, though, and swallow the marketing, making bankers richer, while they lose their retirement.
I am sure that if both BSD and Linux were both using the GPL licence, Sony would still not have gone through the trouble of developing their very own
I am sure that you're wrong. Sony would have licensed some embedded OS, like every other device before them.
GPL: had BSD been licenced under GPL, then I would not just have worked as free labour for Sony, but Sony actually had to give something in return for using my code (not money, but improvements).
Just because the BSD doesn't FORCE everyone to contribute back to the project, doesn't mean they WONT. Maybe code, maybe cash, or maybe they'll release some in-house project as BSD-licensed.
And companies that follow the GPL to the letter doesn't actually benefit anyone. Apple's changes to Webkit didn't get integrated back upstream until public pressure made them go above and beyond just releasing a tarball with code. Google's changes to the kernel for Android didn't get included upstream until many months later, when Google worked and worked on making them acceptable for the kernel dev team. Xen kernel changes were kept separate from Linux for years as well, until they put in lots of effort to integrate them.
The GPL doesn't may ANY of this happen. It would have happened with BSD licensed code just the same. The difference with the GPL is that, if there's ONE LINE OF CODE MODIFICATIONS that a company just can't release, they simply can't use GPL licensed code at all, so they'll work with the BSD-licensed equivalent project instead, or build one themselves. The GPLv3 license change for GCC compelled the BSDs and Apple to develop LLVM into a viable alternative. Despite there being nothing in the license to force them to do so, Apple has spent lots of money on the project, and contributed lots of code to the project.
You'll find innumerable similar examples out there. The GPLv3 which is supposed to give you more "freedom" from corporate "opression" is instead just making everyone flee from projects that use the new license, to no-one's benefit.
Actually, it's the BSD license cheer-squad who are odd. you clap and cheer at something that does not benefit you, or anyone else (except Sony. or Apple. etc).
If it wasn't for the fact that OpenSSH is BSD licensed, we'd still have TELNET all over the place. I benefit from that.
The same is true for every other standard internet service. TCP/IP, HTTPD, SMTP, DNS, DHCP, FTP, LDAP, NTP, etc. Just try to name one service that has become a defacto standard, which only had a GPL-licensed reference implementation... They don't exist.
I benefit from that, you benefit from that. And it's solely the domain of BSD/Apache-licensed software. NOT GPL'd software.
1. with a GPL code-base, the user has the *right* to get, modify, use, and re-distribute the source code. the product manufactuer MUST release the source code to GPL-derived works under the same terms as the GPL. a win for the user and the world.
The right to get a tarball is of almost no practical value. Look at things like Xen, Android, Webkit, etc. A publicly available blob of code helps no one. It can't get integrated upstream without those companies going far above and beyond what the GPL requires. And if they go above and beyond what the GPL requires, there's no reason to believe they won't go far above and beyond what the BSD license requires.
2. with a BSD licensed code-base, the user has no right to the source code, at all. the product manufacturer might voluntarily make some of their code public, under any licensing terms of their choosing. no benefit to the user or to the world.
It's in the companies' self-interest to release their code changes under the same license for upstream integration. And even if they chose not to, there's no HARM to the public or the contributors, as the upstream source is still available under the same license as always.
And with the BSD license, companies have the option to contribute in other ways if they can't release source code. Money to the upstream project is almost always more beneficial than a blob of changes. One example, while Apple may have locked-up their Darwin OS under a different license, they've still contributed plenty back to BSD. LLVM comes to mind, but there are many others as well.
The *ONLY* "freedom" you get with the BSD license that you don't get with the GPL is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
It's not FREEDOM to compel others to give their hard work to you, for free. And others choosing not to do so, does NOT imping upon your own FREEDOM. You had the same amount of freedom before and after they used some BSD licensed code in their own project. The GPL may just as well have a clause saying you must donate X dollars to the FSF if you want to use the software. You seem to think it's "FREEDOM" when penalizing anyone who uses GPL software, so that should be just as good...
And you should be very careful with that line of thinking... The GPLv3 has been a flaming pile of failure, because it forced too many demands upon those who wished to use licensed code. It caused a surge of BSD development, most notably projects like LLVM which are on-course to replace GCC, all despite not having a license that forces people to support the project.
I'm fairly intelligent... I'm a native English speaker with a strong technical background. And I've been reading/. quite regularly for an obscene numbers of years. But I've never seen a summary so completely incomprehensible as this one.
I got that it's about Google Fiber running into another city, but that's absolutely all I got. It seems to jump around talking about several completely random factoids about a completely different subject... the fiber rollout in Kansas City, where it started, never really saying anything about the actual supposed subject. And I'm struggling to understand all the different factoids, as they're not in any kind of order or context.
Am I the only one scratching my head here? Did everyone else understand every word, and something in my brain is just hitting processing faults on this specific writing style?
How strange it is that Russia has become the bastion of human rights
Maybe it would be strange if it was true in the slightest... But it's not.
Here, it's just a question of historical enemies, probably NOT having a very good working relationship or extradition treaties.
If you piss off the US, you really want to stay out of the UK, Israel, South Korea, Japan, etc. (many, many others, really, but those are the ones with the closest ties).
China is hit-or-miss. They're somewhat antagonistic to the US, but they also have very close economic ties. So I'd expect a case-by-case decision from the top, as to whether the political points are worth it.
Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and others, have few economic ties with the US to worry about, and are often diametrically opposed to US policies, and I'd expect would openly welcome anyone who made the US look bad, and might even give them a comfortable lifestyle as a minor celebrity.
Of course it goes the other way too... Piss off Russia or China, and the US is a good place to go.
Don't blame me, just because you don't understand the subject.
Besides all that, you're ignoring most of my post. I don't concede that non-block based encoding of JPEG or I-frames is more efficient... Unless you've got a source, I'm going to assume your original point is you making crap up, just like your reply here.
Because abstractly, potentially taking a few weeks/months/years off of several people's lives, is quite a long distance from murder.
People who smoke cigarettes, over-eat and don't exercise, share needles, or spend too much time in the sun, aren't generally charged with attempted suicide. Would you like to change that, too?
Slashdot Mirror
Not true at all. You only need to "show them" that there are other, easier ways to copy "their stuff".
Music download services didn't go DRM-free because people stopped illegally downloading them... They went DRM-free because attempts to add DRM to CDs failed miserably, so DRM on downloads was a pointless restriction that penalized legitimate paying customers.
The same is true for Netflix. As long as people can get the videos on DVD and Blu-ray, where it's easy to rip and redistribute, there's little reason for anyone to WANT the hassle of downloading their lower quality Netflix streams, yet the DRM adds extra hassle for paying customers, and cuts off some of the potential market.
And what's more, this is a story that's repeated over and over again. Media companies resist new technology as much as possible, biting and scratching as they're dragged into the future, screaming that their business model is destroyed. Then when they finally get there, against their will, it turns out they can actually make much more money than before. It has happened before, it is happening now, and it'll happen again. The RIAA just had to face these issues slightly earlier than the MPAA, so the latter is still somewhere in the middle of their 7-stage process.
Not really any more of a "guarantee", it's just another layer of verification, at a lower layer, which adds unnecessary additional overhead, slow start, poor behavior (for streaming) when there is occasional packet loss or congestion, etc.
And reliable delivery is certainly NOT needed for streaming video and audio. Such codecs were designed to be able to handle some data loss. That's why most streaming protocols (RTP, RTSP) are UDP-based. You'll see video glitches if there's packet loss, but everything will keep working just fine.
Contrast that with transferring zip files, PDFs, word documents, etc., where a single bit being missing or wrong will render it completely useless.
Networking 101.
I'm not sure if you have psychic powers, or just assume all news stories that don't agree with you are inaccurate. In either case, thank you for wasting my time.
One may be suspect, the other two are from respectable news media. And most importantly, your "survey" says NOTHING about the subject, it's just a one-shot numerical breakdown by country.
"The number of ham radio operators worldwide has dropped by about 10 per cent over the last decade, he added."
http://www.w0abr.com/ham-stories/internet-saps-ham-radio-popularity
"In the past five years alone, the number of people holding active ham radio licenses has dropped by 50,000, even though Morse Code is no longer a requirement."
http://www.politicalchowder.com/number/2009/number032209.htm
I see you're right about there being an uptick in the US recently, BUT it's not much better than the attrition rate, AND:
"Retirees and 'emergency groups,' are the main sources of the new licenses"
"the recession and high levels of unemployment are driving people towards the relatively low-cost hobby."
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/ham-radios-popularity-at-all-time-high.php
That sounds a lot like a very temporary and unsustainable increase.
It seems you replied to the wrong comment. Oops.
Oh noes! Not my wabpage!
Those wascally wabpages...
Ham radio is absolutely hemorrhaging operators, and allowing encryption will do absolutely NOTHING to stem the tide. It's a moot point.
If you really want to get people back, the thing to do is set aside a few of the frequencies for part-95 certified devices any kid can pick up for $50 at Wal-mart. That kind of massive commoditization would be the way to get long-distance inter-operable radio communications into the hands of police/fire/medical as well as the general public, who will then have a way to make (long-distance) emergency calls when the cell network goes down. These days, you could even include high-tech features like digital trunking, digital radio mondiale, and things like GPS coordinates in every message, so that first-responders can track down distress calls, or the FCC can immediately find any idiots that need to be shut down quickly.
Last I heard, the latest Loongson processors were performing about on-par with the earliest 1GHz Pentium-4 processors. A processor well over a decade old. That's something to look forward to...
If you had RTFA you would have seen nice little quotes like this one:
Before June 1995, patents in the US weren't 20-years from filing date. If they were, MP3, and perhaps AAC (-LC) and MPEG-2 would be free and clear by now. Instead, patent expiration was based on the patent issue date, which could be many YEARS after filing. And filing can also be up to a year after first publishing the method. I've seen pre-1995 patents that are valid for as much as 25 years after first publication, so you need to look up the USPTO patent issuance date for each patent.
I do believe Musepack was around earlier, outperforming Vorbis (and *everything else*) and is still being developed.
Oops! Now you've just gone and completely backpedaled from your statement!
The poverty line is set at a certain income level, expected to provide a decent quality of life. It has next to nothing to do with your imaginary "starving/dying people".
From TFA:
"the U.S. government considers many citizens statistically impoverished despite their ability to sufficiently meet their basic needs"
"lower-income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger houses than many middle-income Western Europeans"
You've wasted enough of my time with your your poor attempts to rub two neurons together. Goodbye.
Good god you're making me feel old. Not only have all the big three BSD OSes had Linux binary emulation for a long damn time... but I distinctly recall writing how-to's for a couple of them (that bounced around the internet and got translated into many languages I don't speak) some time LAST MILLENIUM.
No exaggeration there. The date on OpenBSD's compat_linux man page is March 1995. FreeBSD may have been a couple years earlier.
Your mistake is conflating what each license supposedly requires, with what actually happens in the real world. You're likely to get MORE back from BSD licensed code. Many companies contribute code and/or money to BSD/MIT licensed projects (e.g. Apache is doing just fine). And as I've said, there are very commonly network effects that the GPL can never get.
You can't claim the GPL's superiority IN THEORY. You've got to actually prove it in practice, and I've given several counter-examples that directly undermine your claim.
And if what MUST happen according to the letter of the license is all you've got, which seems to be the case by your repeated emphasis, then you're not so much an open source advocate, as you are an obsessive compulsive, micro-managing busybody.
No, usually the projects completely die off in short order, and all the work benefited no-one. Back before NFSv4 came out, NFSv3 was showing its age, and there were TONS of GPL-licensed network file systems shuffling to take its place, with improved features like encryption, clustering, better security, etc. There were TONS of such projects, and every single one simply disappeared.
Those big companies you are actively seeking to harm (you said so yourself) are big supporters of open source, and are big enough forces to establish defacto standards. Sabotaging their use of your project works against your own goals.
Utter nonsense.
"BSD-minded people" MAKE freedom... They made it. It's there. You can hold it in your hands and do whatever you want with it.
"GPL-minded people" make lock-in. They yell loudly and swing a club, threatening all others out there. They don't want freedom, they want compensation in exchange for allowing anyone else to play in their sandbox. They (like you) may criticize BSD/MIT licenses left and right, but they're only too happy to take it, and lock up their changes under the GPL, never contributing anything back.
Yes, but you have to be smart enough to know to leave it in a very low-fee index fund (typically based on the S&P 500) and not fall for the crap the sales team pitches you about about their ultra-complex derivatives that are absolutely positively going to pay you 15% for the next 30 years... Then start moving it into a more stable investment like bonds bit by bit for several YEARS before retirement.
It seems most people just aren't that smart, though, and swallow the marketing, making bankers richer, while they lose their retirement.
Fox News called it... Gay marriage is going to kill us all!
I am sure that you're wrong. Sony would have licensed some embedded OS, like every other device before them.
Just because the BSD doesn't FORCE everyone to contribute back to the project, doesn't mean they WONT. Maybe code, maybe cash, or maybe they'll release some in-house project as BSD-licensed.
And companies that follow the GPL to the letter doesn't actually benefit anyone. Apple's changes to Webkit didn't get integrated back upstream until public pressure made them go above and beyond just releasing a tarball with code. Google's changes to the kernel for Android didn't get included upstream until many months later, when Google worked and worked on making them acceptable for the kernel dev team. Xen kernel changes were kept separate from Linux for years as well, until they put in lots of effort to integrate them.
The GPL doesn't may ANY of this happen. It would have happened with BSD licensed code just the same. The difference with the GPL is that, if there's ONE LINE OF CODE MODIFICATIONS that a company just can't release, they simply can't use GPL licensed code at all, so they'll work with the BSD-licensed equivalent project instead, or build one themselves. The GPLv3 license change for GCC compelled the BSDs and Apple to develop LLVM into a viable alternative. Despite there being nothing in the license to force them to do so, Apple has spent lots of money on the project, and contributed lots of code to the project.
You'll find innumerable similar examples out there. The GPLv3 which is supposed to give you more "freedom" from corporate "opression" is instead just making everyone flee from projects that use the new license, to no-one's benefit.
If it wasn't for the fact that OpenSSH is BSD licensed, we'd still have TELNET all over the place. I benefit from that.
The same is true for every other standard internet service. TCP/IP, HTTPD, SMTP, DNS, DHCP, FTP, LDAP, NTP, etc. Just try to name one service that has become a defacto standard, which only had a GPL-licensed reference implementation... They don't exist.
I benefit from that, you benefit from that. And it's solely the domain of BSD/Apache-licensed software. NOT GPL'd software.
The right to get a tarball is of almost no practical value. Look at things like Xen, Android, Webkit, etc. A publicly available blob of code helps no one. It can't get integrated upstream without those companies going far above and beyond what the GPL requires. And if they go above and beyond what the GPL requires, there's no reason to believe they won't go far above and beyond what the BSD license requires.
It's in the companies' self-interest to release their code changes under the same license for upstream integration. And even if they chose not to, there's no HARM to the public or the contributors, as the upstream source is still available under the same license as always.
And with the BSD license, companies have the option to contribute in other ways if they can't release source code. Money to the upstream project is almost always more beneficial than a blob of changes. One example, while Apple may have locked-up their Darwin OS under a different license, they've still contributed plenty back to BSD. LLVM comes to mind, but there are many others as well.
It's not FREEDOM to compel others to give their hard work to you, for free. And others choosing not to do so, does NOT imping upon your own FREEDOM. You had the same amount of freedom before and after they used some BSD licensed code in their own project. The GPL may just as well have a clause saying you must donate X dollars to the FSF if you want to use the software. You seem to think it's "FREEDOM" when penalizing anyone who uses GPL software, so that should be just as good...
And you should be very careful with that line of thinking... The GPLv3 has been a flaming pile of failure, because it forced too many demands upon those who wished to use licensed code. It caused a surge of BSD development, most notably projects like LLVM which are on-course to replace GCC, all despite not having a license that forces people to support the project.
I'm fairly intelligent... I'm a native English speaker with a strong technical background. And I've been reading /. quite regularly for an obscene numbers of years. But I've never seen a summary so completely incomprehensible as this one.
I got that it's about Google Fiber running into another city, but that's absolutely all I got. It seems to jump around talking about several completely random factoids about a completely different subject... the fiber rollout in Kansas City, where it started, never really saying anything about the actual supposed subject. And I'm struggling to understand all the different factoids, as they're not in any kind of order or context.
Am I the only one scratching my head here? Did everyone else understand every word, and something in my brain is just hitting processing faults on this specific writing style?
Because McCarthy was some random jackass making flippant comments, that had tremendous power because he worked for a state's water board, right?
Yeah, I think your comments is just about overblown as this idiot calling people terrorists.
Which doesn't matter one bit, if those actions run afoul of the Constitution.
Maybe it would be strange if it was true in the slightest... But it's not.
Here, it's just a question of historical enemies, probably NOT having a very good working relationship or extradition treaties.
If you piss off the US, you really want to stay out of the UK, Israel, South Korea, Japan, etc. (many, many others, really, but those are the ones with the closest ties).
China is hit-or-miss. They're somewhat antagonistic to the US, but they also have very close economic ties. So I'd expect a case-by-case decision from the top, as to whether the political points are worth it.
Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and others, have few economic ties with the US to worry about, and are often diametrically opposed to US policies, and I'd expect would openly welcome anyone who made the US look bad, and might even give them a comfortable lifestyle as a minor celebrity.
Of course it goes the other way too... Piss off Russia or China, and the US is a good place to go.
Probably has a lot to do with the fact that marijuana is still a schedule-1 drug, and completely illegal at the federal level.
Don't blame me, just because you don't understand the subject.
Besides all that, you're ignoring most of my post. I don't concede that non-block based encoding of JPEG or I-frames is more efficient... Unless you've got a source, I'm going to assume your original point is you making crap up, just like your reply here.
Because abstractly, potentially taking a few weeks/months/years off of several people's lives, is quite a long distance from murder.
People who smoke cigarettes, over-eat and don't exercise, share needles, or spend too much time in the sun, aren't generally charged with attempted suicide. Would you like to change that, too?