...your moral compass has broken. When you can propose a plan of action that's "cold and uncaring," and you plan to do it anyway; that's when you know your conscience has went down for the count.
No, it does not matter to me in the least that it was just a bunch of foreigners that died. I've spent too much of my life abroad to believe that only American lives count. Perhaps the fact that my children carry dual citizenship has something to do with that.
As for this being a "matter of internal security" to the Chinese, I would have thought a denizen of Slashdot would know their Star Trek better than to accept that.
As for how we would feel if the shoe were on the other foot, I would HOPE that other nations would boycott us if it turned out that, for instance, President Obama had personally ordered those men to fire at Kent State. If we found out that President McCain had personally led Charlie Company during the My Lai Massacre, then I would HOPE we would be ostracized.
As for Japan and Germany not trading with us -- Have you been to those countries? They DON'T trade with us until they know they've got the better end of the bargain. Germany and Japan are a hell of a lot smarter than we are about trade. I can personally assure you from long experience that Japan doesn't let go of a single yen without absolute proof it's a better deal for them than the other guy.
I yearn for the day that my country is as smart about trade as Japan is.
We didn't do business with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in 1960. We utterly dismantled those countries, hung their leaders and rebuilt them from scratch before the first dollar changed hands.
Now, if that's what you're proposing for the current murderous regime in China, I could get behind that...
Well, Beardo, it's good to see one other sane person on the boards.
Current leader Hu Jintao was among those who ordered the Massacre at Tiananmen Square. As someone who saw Tiananmen live on CNN, it's disturbing to me to hear how many other people think "Well, it's been 20 years since those men killed three thousand kids. I'm sure they're trustworthy by now..."
Can you imagine if Osama Bin Laden were a major trading partner of ours in 2020? It'd be a roughly analogous situation.
Back in the 70s and 80s, it used to be possible for the Left and the Right to talk about things. It used to be possible to agree on referees to make the calls and which guys will hold escrow on the bets. Progress used to get made. Everyone used to pass what I call "The Titanic Litmus test."
For example, you and I disagree on how much money the airline industry is taking in. You and I could agree on an independent forensic auditor to get to the truth of the matter. You think I'm in for an education. I think you're in for a shock. But at the end of the day, you and I would find a way to agree on how much money was coming in and going out of their doors.
You and I disagree on what the seat sizes need to be, but we could agree that the seats need to be big enough not to cause medical issues with the passengers. We could agree to defer to the orthopedists on this issue, since the question of "How much room does a human body need to travel safely?" should be answered by experts on the human body, not accountants.
Once the orthopedists had given their answer, you and I could agree to run that answer by crash engineers at the FAA and ask them, "How much room does a plane need to safely evacuate passengers in the event of a disaster?"
You and I could agree that the question of seat size should be answered by people who know what they're talking about, not guys looking to maximize shareholder value.
Finally, once we had the real numbers and knew what a reasonable seat size would be, you and I could come up with a fair ticket price. If it turns out that a fair ticket price would not allow a private business to run, then you and I could agree this was a need not served by the private market, and as such it belonged next to mail delivery, road construction, meat inspection, fire, police and defense as a service best provided by the government.
You see, Jimicus, both the Left and the Right used to agree that what we wanted was "to Promote the General Welfare," and not to simply maximize shareholder wealth, i.e. make the rich richer. Back in the 70s, I could ask my counterpart on the Right, "Should the First Class passengers on the Titanic been placed on the lifeboats before women and children?" and they'd answer in a heartbeat, "Of course not, that's disgusting." I call people who answer this way "John Wayne Conservatives," people with integrity and hearts who simply happen to be "the Loyal Opposition."
Unfortunately, "John Wayne Conservatives" are scarce these days, and what terrifies me is that more and more, especially among the young, Conservatives are answering, "Well, those women and children should have bought a first class ticket if they wanted rescuing. You can't expect the shipping company not to take care of its best customers first."
I can find no common ground with monsters who answer this way.
But the monsters seem to be swallowing the John Waynes these days, and I'm at a loss to explain why.
Thank you for a reasoned, cogent post that disagrees with my own. It's a pleasure to be in a civil discussion.
I see your point. However, I simply don't believe the airlines when they constantly cry poverty. I think they're cooking their books to hide obscene amounts of money, in the same way the movie studios claim "Forrest Gump" and "Terminator 2" still haven't broken even, in the same way that Wall Street was crying "the End of the World As We know It" if we didn't give them 700 Billion dollars gift-wrapped, but this year posted record profits.
The airlines made plenty of profit the first half of my life when service was excellent and seat sizes were reasonable. They've been given untold bailouts and subsidies in the past few years, yet their service has plummeted while their rates have increased. Worse still, they're not spending money on maintenance since the average plane in service was manufactured back when cell phones were still the size and weight of bricks. They've exceeded banking and telecommunications to become the most customer-hostile industry on the planet.
However, I am willing to take them at their word. If they really are running "on a razor thin margin," then let's admit the market has failed at this service, and hand this function over to government, like we do roads, fire, police and defense. I would be more than willing to fly on an airline run by either the Navy or the Air Force, and we'd all have the added benefit that for the first time in out history, airline security would be handled by the competent.
How about this? Can we agree that the airlines have made seat sizes too small when the cramped spaces begin injuring their passengers? Can we agree that the airlines have made seat sizes too small when they begin killing 300 passengers a year?
Airlines have overcrammed more seats into each plane than the original designers would have believed possible. When people complain, they respond with "You're freakishly tall," or "You're mbidly obese," when the real answer is "The airlines are so greedy they're cramming so many people into their cargo hold it would make a slave trader of old boggle."
My 5'2", 100lb mother-in-law complains that they've made the seats too small to be comfortable, and she's been flying for 50 years. Do we really think the problem is Kevin Smith is too husky?
How about this for an answer? Let's make airline seats the same size and legroom as movie theater seats and see if the problem goes away.
It's called "contempt of cop." Hop over to the forums at "officer.com" to listen to the assembled law enforcement officers swap jokes about pulling it on some "liberal *&#$%" now and again...
OK, so everyone agrees a lens just bigger than a pair of eyeglasses isn't gonna get it done. Let's talk about getting him better gear. Can he grind a bigger lens? Can someone donate? Would an array of mirrors be possible? If MacGuyver's life depended on finding the red spot on Jupiter, and all he had was a pack of gum and a lighter, how we he get it done?
Oh, thank God and it's About Damn Time. Not only did someone post something like this, it got modded to "+5 Insightful."
Finally, please God, finally let the tide turn.
I was around in the late 70s/early 80s when Carl Icahn and T. Boone Pickens started their "Big Lie," that corporations and corporate leaders have no duty but to enrich themselves. When they first started crowing "maximize shareholder value, maximize shareholder value...," they got laughed out of the room. Of course corporations had responsibilities beyond the bottom line. The whole point of giving them tax breaks and the corporate veil against liability was because they promised to benefit society as a whole in their corporate charters.
The raiders refined their argument a bit and started arguing "Maximizing shareholder value benefits society most." (see Danny Devito in "Other People's Money" for a taste of it)
But then Ross Perot and his ilk got their hands around our schools, and a whole generation of kids came out moaning like zombies, "Corporations have no responsibility but to themselves, Corporations should only look to the bottom line..." I've been trapped in this farmhouse for 20 years now, nailing boards over the windows as fast as I can, screaming truth into the dark.
In exchange for the liability shields and massive tax considerations they are given, every corporation ever formed has given us their sworn commitment in their corporate charter that they will benefit society as a whole.
Goid bless you, Man, posts like yours give me reason to hope.
They've already had this duel. Adam's the one who's gonna get shot.
And BTW, that crack about "Real Scientists?" If you Observe, Hypothesize, Test and Repeat, then congratulations, you're a Real Scientist(tm). You need to remember to leave the door open for the patent clerks, the mud-covered mathematicians, the Idaho farmboys, and the peasant bastards...
Actually, it only took one. As soon as the passengers on the fourth jet heard about the first one and found out they weren't just gonna get rerouted to Havana, they put a stop to it.
Here's the meme we need to get going: Every terrorist attack since 9/11 has been ended by civilians. In fact, the ONLY terrorist attack that was stopped on 9/11 was stopped by civilians. Not "the authorities," not "the military," and for damn sure not the TSA. The civilians on the plane will put a stop to it. These intrusions on our civil rights are not only unconstitutional, they're USELESS. The people who are pushing this care everything for their personal power and nothing for your safety.
Actually, looking at the history of mass attacks and disturbances -- the UT Tower sniper, the VA Tech shooting, the LA riots, Columbine, Katrina -- the standard police response has been to hide and cower in fear while "the authorities" screech "officer safety, officer safety" at the cameras. Hell, in Katrina the cops joined in the looting. Drop in on the forums at "officer.com" some time. It'll take about ten minutes before you hear some cop whine about how he's not gonna risk mussing up his hair for "the sheeple..."
Yeah, at this point, I'm really starting to think you're a shill. Few people are this deliberately obtuse, but on the slim chance that you are...
Four basic ways to come into possession of a thing:
For the benefit of the slow, data and ideas are not physical "things." There's no natural right to ownership. You're arguing for perpetual copyright, which means you'll need to cough up money for anything you do beyond merely existing. By the logic you're proposing, Disney owes Grimm, who owes Bavaria, who owes Sumeria because "Gilgamesh" set up that whole kind of narrative, who owes...
Eventually we come to one ancient scrawney guy in Africa whose estate now owns everything because he stumbled over "begin at the Beginning, tell the Middle, finish at the End."
Copyright is an artificial game we play, every bit as pretend as "Calvinball." (Someone needs to cut Bill Watterson a check now...) We made it up. If the corporations of the world don't want to play by the rules any more, then we can just quit playing the game.
There's no "taking" involved here, and that's the crux of our problem. Data has been copied, nothing has been removed. You're literally arguing that if I light a candle from yours, then I have stolen your candle. Actually, even that isn't a good analogy, because there would be a tiny but measurable amount of wax that would be used up to heat my wick to ignition. Under copyright infringement, bits have been copied, but absolutely nothing has been lost.
Here's your problem. Items in the real world -- plants and minerals and the things that come from them -- can be claimed and owned. Ideas, concepts and arrangements -- "here's a better way to start a campfire," "Bears like to live in caves," "Do re mi fa so la ti do" -- can't be. You can lock up your dog. You can't lock up "Ave Maria" or "Light is both a particle and a wave." Once that idea is out, it's out.
There is no natural right to what is oxymoronically called "Intellectual property." Shakespeare, Mozart and Bill Hicks belong to the whole world.
The problem is that the way things occur naturally, people who discover new things want to keep it a secret. So, to encourage these people to share and share alike -- because nobody discovers anything out of whole cloth, everybody is working off the shoulders of the giants who came before -- we artificially create and offer copyright and patents. "Tell us what you found, and we'll make sure you get sole profit from it for a while." The original Statute of Anne set this at 14 years.
The means anything from 1996 back would be public domain. Sounds generous to me.
The problem is that the greedy suits -- not the artists, not the scientists -- the suits reneged on this deal. They took the money we offered them and bribed the living Hell out of our government to grant them copyright in perpetuity, a perversion of the original idea. It's widely accepted that Mickey Mouse will never come into the public domain, which is ironic considering Walt Disney didn't create those fairy tales he animated. Under the ideas of "Intellectual Property," Disney should be paying royalties to the Grimm Brothers forever, and the Grimm Brothers owe a bunch of wizened old people in Bavaria a ton of money as well.
So here we the people are, screwed beyond belief. CBS is going to childishly, petulantly destroy forever Jack Benny's work rather than let it pass into the public domain.
You know what the statutory, black-letter penalty is for abusing copyright? You lose it. I can't think of a more perfect example of reneging on the copyright deal than to burn something rather than let it pass into public domain.
And so, if CBS, Disney and Sony want to revoke the deal we extended copyright under, then so be it. There is no copyright. Let a thousand hackers bloom, and may the children of Napster and Bittorrent march forever.
And when the suits finally cry "Uncle," then let's talk about setting copyright to a more reasonable seven year term.
Seriously though, EVERY profession thinks outsiders are fools. Cops call civilians "sheeple," plumbers and mechanics think people who don't turn a wrench all day are suckers, doctors routinely think of themselves as God Almightier.
If you're not a computer geek and don't like Unix, then why are you hanging out on a forum called "/."?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Gee, I learned the word "molarity" in middle school, but OK, we'll play in your ballpark and confine ourselves to a grade school vocabulary.
You're arguing that we should call "copyright infringement" "theft" because the word "infringement" is too difficult for people to understand. Well, OK, maybe the people you hang out with, but tell you what, I'll give it to you. Honestly, I think you want to use the word "theft" not because it's simpler, but because it has stronger connotations of violence and violation --
Dammit, I did it again, didn't I? I'm sorry, grade school, I know, grade school...
Let's try it this way. We'll use the words "copying without someone said OK" instead of "copyright infringement."
How's that? Does it still make your head hurt? I know the words are still big. Let's try to sound them out together....
When the penalty for actual, physical, potential-to-cause-real-violence theft is three orders of magnitude smaller than point-and-click infringement, then no, it's a very important distinction.
The words "tart" and "molarity" can both be used to indicate degrees of acidity, but even though they can both mean essentially the same thing, there's an important difference.
Slashdot Mirror
...your moral compass has broken. When you can propose a plan of action that's "cold and uncaring," and you plan to do it anyway; that's when you know your conscience has went down for the count.
No, it does not matter to me in the least that it was just a bunch of foreigners that died. I've spent too much of my life abroad to believe that only American lives count. Perhaps the fact that my children carry dual citizenship has something to do with that.
As for this being a "matter of internal security" to the Chinese, I would have thought a denizen of Slashdot would know their Star Trek better than to accept that.
As for how we would feel if the shoe were on the other foot, I would HOPE that other nations would boycott us if it turned out that, for instance, President Obama had personally ordered those men to fire at Kent State. If we found out that President McCain had personally led Charlie Company during the My Lai Massacre, then I would HOPE we would be ostracized.
As for Japan and Germany not trading with us -- Have you been to those countries? They DON'T trade with us until they know they've got the better end of the bargain. Germany and Japan are a hell of a lot smarter than we are about trade. I can personally assure you from long experience that Japan doesn't let go of a single yen without absolute proof it's a better deal for them than the other guy.
I yearn for the day that my country is as smart about trade as Japan is.
...so it's OK to hire him as a babysitter here?
We didn't do business with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in 1960. We utterly dismantled those countries, hung their leaders and rebuilt them from scratch before the first dollar changed hands.
Now, if that's what you're proposing for the current murderous regime in China, I could get behind that...
Well, Beardo, it's good to see one other sane person on the boards.
Current leader Hu Jintao was among those who ordered the Massacre at Tiananmen Square. As someone who saw Tiananmen live on CNN, it's disturbing to me to hear how many other people think "Well, it's been 20 years since those men killed three thousand kids. I'm sure they're trustworthy by now..."
Can you imagine if Osama Bin Laden were a major trading partner of ours in 2020? It'd be a roughly analogous situation.
Back in the 70s and 80s, it used to be possible for the Left and the Right to talk about things. It used to be possible to agree on referees to make the calls and which guys will hold escrow on the bets. Progress used to get made. Everyone used to pass what I call "The Titanic Litmus test."
For example, you and I disagree on how much money the airline industry is taking in. You and I could agree on an independent forensic auditor to get to the truth of the matter. You think I'm in for an education. I think you're in for a shock. But at the end of the day, you and I would find a way to agree on how much money was coming in and going out of their doors.
You and I disagree on what the seat sizes need to be, but we could agree that the seats need to be big enough not to cause medical issues with the passengers. We could agree to defer to the orthopedists on this issue, since the question of "How much room does a human body need to travel safely?" should be answered by experts on the human body, not accountants.
Once the orthopedists had given their answer, you and I could agree to run that answer by crash engineers at the FAA and ask them, "How much room does a plane need to safely evacuate passengers in the event of a disaster?"
You and I could agree that the question of seat size should be answered by people who know what they're talking about, not guys looking to maximize shareholder value.
Finally, once we had the real numbers and knew what a reasonable seat size would be, you and I could come up with a fair ticket price. If it turns out that a fair ticket price would not allow a private business to run, then you and I could agree this was a need not served by the private market, and as such it belonged next to mail delivery, road construction, meat inspection, fire, police and defense as a service best provided by the government.
You see, Jimicus, both the Left and the Right used to agree that what we wanted was "to Promote the General Welfare," and not to simply maximize shareholder wealth, i.e. make the rich richer. Back in the 70s, I could ask my counterpart on the Right, "Should the First Class passengers on the Titanic been placed on the lifeboats before women and children?" and they'd answer in a heartbeat, "Of course not, that's disgusting." I call people who answer this way "John Wayne Conservatives," people with integrity and hearts who simply happen to be "the Loyal Opposition."
Unfortunately, "John Wayne Conservatives" are scarce these days, and what terrifies me is that more and more, especially among the young, Conservatives are answering, "Well, those women and children should have bought a first class ticket if they wanted rescuing. You can't expect the shipping company not to take care of its best customers first."
I can find no common ground with monsters who answer this way.
But the monsters seem to be swallowing the John Waynes these days, and I'm at a loss to explain why.
Thank you for a reasoned, cogent post that disagrees with my own. It's a pleasure to be in a civil discussion.
I see your point. However, I simply don't believe the airlines when they constantly cry poverty. I think they're cooking their books to hide obscene amounts of money, in the same way the movie studios claim "Forrest Gump" and "Terminator 2" still haven't broken even, in the same way that Wall Street was crying "the End of the World As We know It" if we didn't give them 700 Billion dollars gift-wrapped, but this year posted record profits.
The airlines made plenty of profit the first half of my life when service was excellent and seat sizes were reasonable. They've been given untold bailouts and subsidies in the past few years, yet their service has plummeted while their rates have increased. Worse still, they're not spending money on maintenance since the average plane in service was manufactured back when cell phones were still the size and weight of bricks. They've exceeded banking and telecommunications to become the most customer-hostile industry on the planet.
However, I am willing to take them at their word. If they really are running "on a razor thin margin," then let's admit the market has failed at this service, and hand this function over to government, like we do roads, fire, police and defense. I would be more than willing to fly on an airline run by either the Navy or the Air Force, and we'd all have the added benefit that for the first time in out history, airline security would be handled by the competent.
How about this? Can we agree that the airlines have made seat sizes too small when the cramped spaces begin injuring their passengers? Can we agree that the airlines have made seat sizes too small when they begin killing 300 passengers a year?
Now google DVT for me.
"it is not that bad."
And yet you're calling it the Goat Locker?
"It was Hell. It was a little warm."
Pick one. Either it's a goat locker, or it's not that bad. Which is it?
Airlines have overcrammed more seats into each plane than the original designers would have believed possible. When people complain, they respond with "You're freakishly tall," or "You're mbidly obese," when the real answer is "The airlines are so greedy they're cramming so many people into their cargo hold it would make a slave trader of old boggle."
My 5'2", 100lb mother-in-law complains that they've made the seats too small to be comfortable, and she's been flying for 50 years. Do we really think the problem is Kevin Smith is too husky?
How about this for an answer? Let's make airline seats the same size and legroom as movie theater seats and see if the problem goes away.
...See? Better ideas already. :-)
It's called "contempt of cop." Hop over to the forums at "officer.com" to listen to the assembled law enforcement officers swap jokes about pulling it on some "liberal *&#$%" now and again...
Didn't Tony Stark already solve that one?
Everybody knows you use a snowblower to bury cops.
Is this that case last month where the police detective reponded to a college snowball fight by threatening students with his sidearm?
OK, so everyone agrees a lens just bigger than a pair of eyeglasses isn't gonna get it done. Let's talk about getting him better gear. Can he grind a bigger lens? Can someone donate? Would an array of mirrors be possible? If MacGuyver's life depended on finding the red spot on Jupiter, and all he had was a pack of gum and a lighter, how we he get it done?
Oh, thank God and it's About Damn Time. Not only did someone post something like this, it got modded to "+5 Insightful."
Finally, please God, finally let the tide turn.
I was around in the late 70s/early 80s when Carl Icahn and T. Boone Pickens started their "Big Lie," that corporations and corporate leaders have no duty but to enrich themselves. When they first started crowing "maximize shareholder value, maximize shareholder value...," they got laughed out of the room. Of course corporations had responsibilities beyond the bottom line. The whole point of giving them tax breaks and the corporate veil against liability was because they promised to benefit society as a whole in their corporate charters.
The raiders refined their argument a bit and started arguing "Maximizing shareholder value benefits society most." (see Danny Devito in "Other People's Money" for a taste of it)
But then Ross Perot and his ilk got their hands around our schools, and a whole generation of kids came out moaning like zombies, "Corporations have no responsibility but to themselves, Corporations should only look to the bottom line..." I've been trapped in this farmhouse for 20 years now, nailing boards over the windows as fast as I can, screaming truth into the dark.
In exchange for the liability shields and massive tax considerations they are given, every corporation ever formed has given us their sworn commitment in their corporate charter that they will benefit society as a whole.
Goid bless you, Man, posts like yours give me reason to hope.
They've already had this duel. Adam's the one who's gonna get shot.
And BTW, that crack about "Real Scientists?" If you Observe, Hypothesize, Test and Repeat, then congratulations, you're a Real Scientist(tm). You need to remember to leave the door open for the patent clerks, the mud-covered mathematicians, the Idaho farmboys, and the peasant bastards...
Jon-Erik Hexum would like a word.
Actually, it only took one. As soon as the passengers on the fourth jet heard about the first one and found out they weren't just gonna get rerouted to Havana, they put a stop to it.
Here's the meme we need to get going: Every terrorist attack since 9/11 has been ended by civilians. In fact, the ONLY terrorist attack that was stopped on 9/11 was stopped by civilians. Not "the authorities," not "the military," and for damn sure not the TSA. The civilians on the plane will put a stop to it. These intrusions on our civil rights are not only unconstitutional, they're USELESS. The people who are pushing this care everything for their personal power and nothing for your safety.
Actually, looking at the history of mass attacks and disturbances -- the UT Tower sniper, the VA Tech shooting, the LA riots, Columbine, Katrina -- the standard police response has been to hide and cower in fear while "the authorities" screech "officer safety, officer safety" at the cameras. Hell, in Katrina the cops joined in the looting. Drop in on the forums at "officer.com" some time. It'll take about ten minutes before you hear some cop whine about how he's not gonna risk mussing up his hair for "the sheeple..."
Yeah, at this point, I'm really starting to think you're a shill. Few people are this deliberately obtuse, but on the slim chance that you are...
Four basic ways to come into possession of a thing:
For the benefit of the slow, data and ideas are not physical "things." There's no natural right to ownership. You're arguing for perpetual copyright, which means you'll need to cough up money for anything you do beyond merely existing. By the logic you're proposing, Disney owes Grimm, who owes Bavaria, who owes Sumeria because "Gilgamesh" set up that whole kind of narrative, who owes...
Eventually we come to one ancient scrawney guy in Africa whose estate now owns everything because he stumbled over "begin at the Beginning, tell the Middle, finish at the End."
Copyright is an artificial game we play, every bit as pretend as "Calvinball." (Someone needs to cut Bill Watterson a check now...) We made it up. If the corporations of the world don't want to play by the rules any more, then we can just quit playing the game.
Now you've got it:
"taking something that isn't yours"
There's no "taking" involved here, and that's the crux of our problem. Data has been copied, nothing has been removed. You're literally arguing that if I light a candle from yours, then I have stolen your candle. Actually, even that isn't a good analogy, because there would be a tiny but measurable amount of wax that would be used up to heat my wick to ignition. Under copyright infringement, bits have been copied, but absolutely nothing has been lost.
Here's your problem. Items in the real world -- plants and minerals and the things that come from them -- can be claimed and owned. Ideas, concepts and arrangements -- "here's a better way to start a campfire," "Bears like to live in caves," "Do re mi fa so la ti do" -- can't be. You can lock up your dog. You can't lock up "Ave Maria" or "Light is both a particle and a wave." Once that idea is out, it's out.
There is no natural right to what is oxymoronically called "Intellectual property." Shakespeare, Mozart and Bill Hicks belong to the whole world.
The problem is that the way things occur naturally, people who discover new things want to keep it a secret. So, to encourage these people to share and share alike -- because nobody discovers anything out of whole cloth, everybody is working off the shoulders of the giants who came before -- we artificially create and offer copyright and patents. "Tell us what you found, and we'll make sure you get sole profit from it for a while." The original Statute of Anne set this at 14 years.
The means anything from 1996 back would be public domain. Sounds generous to me.
The problem is that the greedy suits -- not the artists, not the scientists -- the suits reneged on this deal. They took the money we offered them and bribed the living Hell out of our government to grant them copyright in perpetuity, a perversion of the original idea. It's widely accepted that Mickey Mouse will never come into the public domain, which is ironic considering Walt Disney didn't create those fairy tales he animated. Under the ideas of "Intellectual Property," Disney should be paying royalties to the Grimm Brothers forever, and the Grimm Brothers owe a bunch of wizened old people in Bavaria a ton of money as well.
So here we the people are, screwed beyond belief. CBS is going to childishly, petulantly destroy forever Jack Benny's work rather than let it pass into the public domain.
You know what the statutory, black-letter penalty is for abusing copyright? You lose it. I can't think of a more perfect example of reneging on the copyright deal than to burn something rather than let it pass into public domain.
And so, if CBS, Disney and Sony want to revoke the deal we extended copyright under, then so be it. There is no copyright. Let a thousand hackers bloom, and may the children of Napster and Bittorrent march forever.
And when the suits finally cry "Uncle," then let's talk about setting copyright to a more reasonable seven year term.
Sarah? Sarah Palin, is that you? :-)
Seriously though, EVERY profession thinks outsiders are fools. Cops call civilians "sheeple," plumbers and mechanics think people who don't turn a wrench all day are suckers, doctors routinely think of themselves as God Almightier.
If you're not a computer geek and don't like Unix, then why are you hanging out on a forum called "/."?
'Cause I'd really appreciate all that.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Gee, I learned the word "molarity" in middle school, but OK, we'll play in your ballpark and confine ourselves to a grade school vocabulary.
You're arguing that we should call "copyright infringement" "theft" because the word "infringement" is too difficult for people to understand. Well, OK, maybe the people you hang out with, but tell you what, I'll give it to you. Honestly, I think you want to use the word "theft" not because it's simpler, but because it has stronger connotations of violence and violation --
Dammit, I did it again, didn't I? I'm sorry, grade school, I know, grade school...
Let's try it this way. We'll use the words "copying without someone said OK" instead of "copyright infringement."
How's that? Does it still make your head hurt? I know the words are still big. Let's try to sound them out together....
You mean I don't have to spend 100 bucks on bulbs, ammo and spackle every month?!
When the penalty for actual, physical, potential-to-cause-real-violence theft is three orders of magnitude smaller than point-and-click infringement, then no, it's a very important distinction.
The words "tart" and "molarity" can both be used to indicate degrees of acidity, but even though they can both mean essentially the same thing, there's an important difference.