Suddenly those external hard drives and safe deposit box don't look so expensive.
They still do. Because to make a fair comparison, you have to compare expected values, rather than actual losses in the worst-case scenario.
Consider... This loss of 13 years of game files may be huge — probably, several millions of dollars and certainly exceeds the cost of one safe deposit box (13 years * 12 month/year * 20 dollars/month = $3120). Even if we add the weekly trip to the bank and the cost of the media, we aren't likely to exceed $30000.
But you are now thinking, everyone with a server ought to make use of such procedure and multiplying that estimate by the number of servers out there produces a huge sum, even if, with the economies of scale, the estimate can be cut by order of magnitude...
The losses such as described are rare, so you have to use a very low probability, when computing their expected value. The costs of preventing such losses are low, but not insignificant and you'll incur them with the probability of one. If you overreact, you can easily overpay for the prevention...
In other words, don't rush to renting a deposit box for your data. (For all you know, BTW, there may be a strong magnet stored in the box next to yours.) Make sure to back up to another site and make sure, the backups are disconnected (off-line), when not in use. You can automate all of this and save tons of money...
Had these people simply used a USB drive manually once a month (keeping it disconnected), they would've lost only one month worth of work (at most), instead of 13 years...
I hold the creator's right to control his creation to be self-evident.
I hold that supposed right to be bunk. Phony. A fantasy made up by weak, arrogant people in order to claim power over others.
Well, this is the root of the disagreement. You attempt to support your making a distinction between tangible and "imaginary" property by saying:
I can't play football in your yard while you're cutting the grass. I can't drive your car to Chicago at the same time you're driving it to New York. Someone has to decide how it'll be used at any given moment, and that person is the owner.
But that's not a justification at all for you can't drive my car, even if I'm not using it at the moment — unless I allow you to. You grant me, the owner, the control and decision-making over my back yard, but reject it over the book I wrote. Because:
I can read my copy while you read yours, and neither of us can possibly interfere with the other.
You can. But if I am allowed to deny strangers the use of my car, even if I am not currently using it, I ought to be able to exercise the same control over easily replicable things I own.
Also, your attempt at making a distinction presumes, that the only use of a book is reading it. But that's not true — the author needs not read it, in fact. He often wants to sell it. And his attempts at selling it are hampered by the pirates attempts at same. And yes, they can both be selling it — just like we can share a ride in my car. But it is still my car, and I get to decide, whether I want to share it and what I want to charge you (if anything).
Face it. Unless you are willing to dispense with the notion of property altogether, your attempts to do so selectively will remain ridiculous. Bring this point up on the next party meeting. See, what senior comrades tell you about your blowing your cover too early... Just kidding...
There are a dozen movies at the theater right now that I haven't seen and don't plan to see. Am I "stealing" from the theater by declining to give them my money? Certainly not.
I was not talking about people not buying his work. I was talking about people buying his work from pirates. Each such purchase is a theft from him. We don't even need to argue here, whether a free download is equivalent to a thing not bought (or a part thereof) — people are paying for his stuff. They just aren't paying him.
it's justified because it's a voluntary transaction between the pirate and the consumer. Consumer sees that pirate is offering to send a file; consumer requests file; pirate sends file; transaction is complete. No one is harmed, so it's justified by default.
The exact same line of reasoning can justify resale of (tangible) stolen goods — an obviously immoral and illegal activity. Therefor, the line of reasoning is wrong and without merit.
Many of them perform services: barber, doctor, accountant, mechanic, house painter, bus driver, CEO, and so on. They don't make something, they do something.
All of those things are not (yet) easy to replicate — fixing a car or driving a bus is hard and one is paid for every time they do it. Replicating books is trivial — writing them is hard... But we are sliding back into people getting paid, which I don't need to prove my point about the creator's right to control his creation...
I have the right to tell other people what words are written inside that book, just like I have the right to tell them where I bought it, what color the cover is, what subjects it covers, and so on.
There are many things you can't "say" and reprinting somebody else's book is far from being the most sc
I don't know anything about this gentleman, but, maybe, his writings simply go against the current Illiberal pro-Democrat bias of the paper? They weren't always this way — most famously, NYT used to be against government-mandated minimum wage until 1999.
Perhaps, they are trying to score some favors from the current government in the hopes of getting substantial financial help (a bailout, that was, no doubt, already promised to them) and certain writers are no longer welcome?
One does not need to be a "rabid partisan" to fall into disfavor — until recently NYT weren't hiring such partisans anyway. Just not participating in the adoration fest could've been enough. When the company survival is at stake, one can't afford taking chances...
I, on the other hand, believe there is no such moral right, and his legal right is derived from the Constitution.
I hold the creator's right to control his creation to be self-evident. Pure and simple. To deny this right you need pages of arguments, which are very easy to prove wrong.
Aww, what a cute little strawman!
Your disdain for his lowly "wanting to get paid", as opposite to the noble "moral right" was obvious. Hence the (strong) suspicion, you hold money-making in disfavor.
If his labor as a technical writer is valuable, then people will be willing to pay him directly for it
That his work is valuable is already established — people are paying both him and the pirates for his work. But the pirates steal from him — every copy bought from the pirates is not bought from him. I fail to see, how anyone can justify this. And you've spent three postings already without trying.
the same way billions of other people get paid directly for their labor
The billions are still working on things, which are hard to replicate. Those few, who work on things, where the hardest part is design rather than replication, deserve no lesser protections from the society/government against people, who would take the fruits of their labor without compensation?
without needing any complicated royalty schemes, government-granted monopolies, or veto powers over other people's speech.
Oh, please, spare the "Freedom of Speech" strawman... I wrote the book, I own it. I can sell copies myself, or I can sell the rights to someone else, or I can rent them. It is not at all unlike tangible property, hence the wide-spread use of the "theft" metaphor, which your ilk hate because it is so apt.
And, as pointed out already elsewhere, the entire concept of property is "imaginary" and upheld by government. If I have a "government-granted monopoly" on the use of my backyard, my car, toothbrush, and computer, why can't I also enjoy the "monopoly" on the program I wrote?
Of course, I ought to be able to — and I can in all of the civilized world. To claim otherwise without also rejecting the entire concept of private property is to be inconsistent — even if you manage to hide behind the smoke screen of the "I rob the evil MafiAA, not the artists" smokescreen. And inconsistency is why you are wrong.
He's not asserting some moral right to control the flow of information
His legal right to control the fate of his work is derived from the moral right. But I can "rip you a new one" on either basis, for they aren't really distinct...
he's just trying to get paid.
Yes, and that's wrong, because we'd rather he worked for free, and fed himself and his family with free beets grown (for free) by somebody else — in the community. Money is the root of all evil...
I'm waiting for the "Imaginary property is stealing" memes
"Imaginary property" is not stealing. Unauthorized copying of it is. Yes... It is much closer to stealing, than, for example, the right to sell pornography is to petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Indeed, had the 10 Commandments been a "living and breathing document", the "Thou shall not copy thy neighbor's work without permission" would've been found in there long ago.
didn't you know that home photocopying is killing the book industry?
This is irrelevant to the principle, and you know it. Please, stick to the matter...
Let's see the "I don't believe in imaginary property" crowd come out with their memes — and see them getting a new one ripped out by people, who finally realize, that Intellectual Property is not just about stealing other people's MP3-recordings.
It is about everything, that's easy to replicate, but hard to design... Be it a book, a song, a shoe-design, or software program...
They gather evidence, interview witnesses, and see if they have enough to get a search warrant.
Interesting, may be so... I have been robbed once, but I only had one dollar on me, so I didn't call police and the robbers got away (I had to comfort my date too). So, no, I don't have much first-hand experience. I still think, an account of an off-duty copy moonlighting as the store guard might be considered heavier evidence and police can give you really "hard time" even without doing anything illegal. If their buddy asks them to rough you up, they will. Sadly, without such powers, they can't be as good against real criminals as the public wants them to be...
Lastly, I don't think a search warrant is required to search a car...
Besides, what if you are still on the mall? Even if you run to your car, it may take you a few minutes to get out of eyesight. All I am saying is, while refusal to cooperate with the policeman is not in itself a probable cause, a store's complaint of theft is... The complaint will eventually prove bogus, but the police will be justified in investigating it — and stopping/detaining you in the process...
If you want to harass the store guards, you can, although I — being a libertarian — would rather you just don't go into a store, whose policies you disagree with. But you should cooperate with the official police. If the cop is wrong, you can complain about him later. You may also want to return the merchandise to the store right away in protest.
No, the cop will not have probable cause. "I found it suspicious he wouldn't let me search him" is still not going to stand up in court.
It will not stand up in court, when the dust settles. But, while the dust is still in the air, the cops are likely believe the store guard. The guard will tell them, you stole something and here is your license plate... They might need more than that to get a warrant to search my home, but to stop and search my car and person no formal warrant is needed...
Once you're off-site, chasing you down is not going to be the cop's first reaction - gathering evidence at the scene of the crime before putting out an APB
Actually, I believe (and would prefer it to be) the opposite. If you call the cops after you'are robbed and give them the robber's license plate, wouldn't you rather they believe you and begin looking for that car immediately? Because if you are making a bogus claim, they can just apologize to the inconvenienced person. But if you are right — and that's more likely — then they let the robber get away, which is worse, than stopping an average person, who will, most likely, cooperate with the cop and be on his way in a few minutes...
My favorite tactic? When the guy at the door demands to look in your bag you demand to look in his wallet, since some of your money might be in there.
You can be as "smart ass" as you want to be with the guy at the door (not that it is entirely fair, but whatever). But even if you shrug him off — and in New York, for example, they can not detain you (and I did once witness a homeless man trying to sneak out of EMS with a new jacket — they took the jacket back from him, but could not hold him) — they can call police and make an accusation. After that, police will be looking for you with the probable cause to search your vehicle.
And if, as often happens, the shrugged-off guy is an off-duty or ex-cop, he can talk the talk to them, that will be quite convincing — because he himself will be sincerely convinced, you are a thief... Which means, you better convince the officer, that "catches" you on the road, that you stole nothing — by letting him inspect the bag. Except by then, he'll be suspicious enough to want to search your entire trunk and body, for whatever little gizmo you could've stolen (and taken out of the bag already). Unlike the guard at the door, the cop will have probable cause...
Only the police, with probable cause, can search it
Wouldn't a store's accusation, that you stole something give the probable cause? Say, you make it pat the guard and get into your car. By the time you are on the highway, the cops know your plate number and are lead to believe, you are a thief. Can they not search your car — and arrest you for trying to stop them (and royally mess up the car while towing)?
calling REI seattle branch (888.873.1938 toll free) directs you to REI Public Affairs information. their number is 253.395.5958
Before referring me to the "public affairs" for "more current" information, the manager told me, that REI have not in fact accused the guy of "trespassing":
He took me out of the cell and took off the cuffs, had me sign a "You have been trespassed by REI and can't go back for a year" form then Officer Abed walked me out the door. And that was that.
In other words, it seems like the pig lied. Surprise, surprise...
"No cost". Right... I love it, actually — the spin-management at its finest. Here are two identical questions. Guess, which one is more likely to get a positive answer from a busy voter:
Do you want to be able to get a free gizmo?
Do you want to pay for somebody else's gizmo?
This is how taxpayers get suckered into paying for more and more stuff through the government — causing 30-70% to be wasted (through theft, incompetence, and — mostly — "legitimate" overhead), while handing the politicians (and their cronies) greater and greater control of our lives...
Yes, yes, this might sound like a knee-jerk reaction to government doing anything new. It may even seem like a troll. But do consider the history...
First we decided, that all kids are entitled to education — at the taxpayers' expense. Because some poor parents could not (or would not) pay for their children's schooling. It was believed to be an overall win for society, if all its members learned some basics. Ok...
Then we discovered, that getting to free school is a problem for some kids, and school buses got introduced — at taxpayers' expense, of course. Not so obviously Ok...
Then came school breakfasts and/or lunches — hungry children don't learn well somebody figured out. So, we have to feed them, otherwise we'll just be throwing out the money spent on teaching them, wouldn't we? WTF?
Now taxpayers are going to provide kids not only with the schooling itself, with means of getting to school, with food, but also with computers — all using the same illogic, that the State needs to be more worried about the children's well-being and education, than their parents are.
So, where does it stop? Clothing — ought the taxpayers not provide clothes for the pupils, so that nobody skips school for having nothing to wear? Unhappy parents affect children's school performance, no doubt — should the State begin sponsoring all people with school-age children to keep them happy(ier)? The same illogic can take us very far. In fact, it already did — public schools proved to be a "gateway drug". Innocuous in itself they made Americans happy to accept government assistance, which always comes with strings attached... Had the early advocates of them foreseen, how far it would go, they would, likely, not have insisted as much...
That the actual public schools continue to suck, despite gobs of money thrown at them, is not even that important to the point I'm making, although it sure helps support it: Not only is it wrong in principle, it does not actually work...
Newspapers operate on an outlived business model. Nothing can change this fact, and nothing short of government sponsorship (more unconstitutional than use of school vouchers at parochial schools) can keep the newspapers afloat.
Internet has made them obsolete — we now have means of delivering information directly from the reporter to reader. Yes, a quality editor used to add value, but that's not why their profession appeared — they were to decide, whose writings get printed in the limited space, that newspapers had. We, the readers, can now visit blogs of different people without them having to reside under the same roof (or even agree with each other).
With e-readers evolving, however, even the books may become obsolete soon — and we might stop felling as many trees as we currently do.
Here is how government works with respect to industry (rephrasing closer to the original -mi):
If it moves, TAX it.
If it keeps moving, REGULATE it.
When it stops moving, SUBSIDIZE it.
Yes, this is exactly, what happened to the US car industry over the decades... The last stage is unfolding right now with the government not only subsidizing it itself, but arm-twisting private banks into similar subsidizing.
How exactly are you going to cut the funding AND raise teachers' pay?
Only about 50% of the salaries paid in public schools is paid to actual teachers. By contrast, roughly 80% is spent on teachers in private schools... So, one could fire half of the various "counselors" and what not working in public schools and combine cost-cutting with raising teacher's pay. (Didn't Obama promise to cut government spending to us — "using scalpel" — while mocking McCain's supposed intent to "use hatchet"?)
That's just one — and minor — reason of why private schools must be encouraged. School vouchers are the key, otherwise only the very rich (like Obamas) will be able to afford private schools for their children and there will remain very few (and very expensive) private schools...
I still don't see how offering to pay people for things they actually should be doing for free is anything like not paying people for things they shouldn't be doing for free.
If they "should be doing it for free", but aren't, then paying them is just wrong — because it eliminates the "for free" part, does not it? All of a sudden, the government becomes an (even bigger) employer, with tax-payers nationwide sponsoring some "community organizer" somewhere, going around herding high-schoolers in need of "college credits" to do stuff, that no real charity deemed worthy of doing already... It is a stupid thing to do, but it is all worth it, because "community organizers" are the most reliable part of the ruling regime's electorate... That's reality — sorry to break it for you. The theory of government-induced volunteerism is different: people want to volunteer, we just need to "help" them.
Verizon and others are just exploiting that same desire to volunteer, that people really do have, for a worthy purpose. And — being a competitive business — they are smarter and more efficient about it, than the government will ever be.
Anyway, are not "peer recognition" and fame, that these companies use to lure unpaid tech-geeks to their forums, what the proponents of abandoning the concept of "Intellectual Property" say, can replace monetary rewards for writers, musicians, and other content-creators?
The simple point was that there will always be some option to view content.
Only for as long as the concept of "Intellectual Property" continues to exist. When/if the people I mentioned prevail (which is likely, because "free" stuff is so tempting, the temptation crowds-out reason), the only content for you would be, what the government or other wealthy sponsors pay for... If you dislike "commercials" now, the stuff loaded with propaganda and/or product-placements will be completely intolerable. Quality movies will cease to exist and even quality books will be harder to come by, because authors — unable to live off their creations — would need to be independently wealthy to be able to write them.
The effects will not be limited to entertainment — all things, that are hard to design, but easy to reproduce (like fashion design, for example) will similarly suffer.
(This is, largely, how the world used to be, BTW, before "Intellectual Property" was invented — little choices, literature glorifying the leader-of-the-day, and quality music available only to the upper crusts of society able to pay for live performers.)
Similarly, the scientific progress will suffer as scientists-employing firms will not be able to sell the patents and will have to be parts of conglomerates able to not only devise new things, but produce stuff using the inventions. As China's explosion attests, manufacturing is a "solved problem" — a reasonably modern factory can make anything, having the designs. And, as "3D-printers" like this take hold (and move beyond one-part-at-a-time), designs will matter more and more. And yet, the designers will be just as few and far between, as the above-mentioned composers and writers, unless the Intellectual Property concept survives...
Those who oppose the use of force are forever at the mercy of those who don't
George Orwell said it better: Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
Of course peolpe helping each other and a solid community are great, but in the context of this happening in lieu of large for-profit organizations providing quality service? I think not.
Let's instill volunteerism in young people — and those, who aren't excited by the possibility of unpaid labor, might find it harder to get into college (the linked to bill mentions "college credits" for participants). I mean, it worked so well for the USSR, we ought to try it — but not for a corporation, oh no!
Slashdot Mirror
They still do. Because to make a fair comparison, you have to compare expected values, rather than actual losses in the worst-case scenario.
Consider... This loss of 13 years of game files may be huge — probably, several millions of dollars and certainly exceeds the cost of one safe deposit box (13 years * 12 month/year * 20 dollars/month = $3120). Even if we add the weekly trip to the bank and the cost of the media, we aren't likely to exceed $30000.
But you are now thinking, everyone with a server ought to make use of such procedure and multiplying that estimate by the number of servers out there produces a huge sum, even if, with the economies of scale, the estimate can be cut by order of magnitude...
The losses such as described are rare, so you have to use a very low probability, when computing their expected value. The costs of preventing such losses are low, but not insignificant and you'll incur them with the probability of one. If you overreact, you can easily overpay for the prevention...
In other words, don't rush to renting a deposit box for your data. (For all you know, BTW, there may be a strong magnet stored in the box next to yours.) Make sure to back up to another site and make sure, the backups are disconnected (off-line), when not in use. You can automate all of this and save tons of money...
Had these people simply used a USB drive manually once a month (keeping it disconnected), they would've lost only one month worth of work (at most), instead of 13 years...
Well, this is the root of the disagreement. You attempt to support your making a distinction between tangible and "imaginary" property by saying:
But that's not a justification at all for you can't drive my car, even if I'm not using it at the moment — unless I allow you to. You grant me, the owner, the control and decision-making over my back yard, but reject it over the book I wrote. Because:
You can. But if I am allowed to deny strangers the use of my car, even if I am not currently using it, I ought to be able to exercise the same control over easily replicable things I own.
Also, your attempt at making a distinction presumes, that the only use of a book is reading it. But that's not true — the author needs not read it, in fact. He often wants to sell it. And his attempts at selling it are hampered by the pirates attempts at same. And yes, they can both be selling it — just like we can share a ride in my car. But it is still my car, and I get to decide, whether I want to share it and what I want to charge you (if anything).
Face it. Unless you are willing to dispense with the notion of property altogether, your attempts to do so selectively will remain ridiculous. Bring this point up on the next party meeting. See, what senior comrades tell you about your blowing your cover too early... Just kidding...
I was not talking about people not buying his work. I was talking about people buying his work from pirates. Each such purchase is a theft from him. We don't even need to argue here, whether a free download is equivalent to a thing not bought (or a part thereof) — people are paying for his stuff. They just aren't paying him.
The exact same line of reasoning can justify resale of (tangible) stolen goods — an obviously immoral and illegal activity. Therefor, the line of reasoning is wrong and without merit.
All of those things are not (yet) easy to replicate — fixing a car or driving a bus is hard and one is paid for every time they do it. Replicating books is trivial — writing them is hard... But we are sliding back into people getting paid, which I don't need to prove my point about the creator's right to control his creation...
There are many things you can't "say" and reprinting somebody else's book is far from being the most sc
I don't know anything about this gentleman, but, maybe, his writings simply go against the current Illiberal pro-Democrat bias of the paper? They weren't always this way — most famously, NYT used to be against government-mandated minimum wage until 1999.
Perhaps, they are trying to score some favors from the current government in the hopes of getting substantial financial help (a bailout, that was, no doubt, already promised to them) and certain writers are no longer welcome?
One does not need to be a "rabid partisan" to fall into disfavor — until recently NYT weren't hiring such partisans anyway. Just not participating in the adoration fest could've been enough. When the company survival is at stake, one can't afford taking chances...
I hold the creator's right to control his creation to be self-evident. Pure and simple. To deny this right you need pages of arguments, which are very easy to prove wrong.
Your disdain for his lowly "wanting to get paid", as opposite to the noble "moral right" was obvious. Hence the (strong) suspicion, you hold money-making in disfavor.
That his work is valuable is already established — people are paying both him and the pirates for his work. But the pirates steal from him — every copy bought from the pirates is not bought from him. I fail to see, how anyone can justify this. And you've spent three postings already without trying.
The billions are still working on things, which are hard to replicate. Those few, who work on things, where the hardest part is design rather than replication, deserve no lesser protections from the society/government against people, who would take the fruits of their labor without compensation?
Oh, please, spare the "Freedom of Speech" strawman... I wrote the book, I own it. I can sell copies myself, or I can sell the rights to someone else, or I can rent them. It is not at all unlike tangible property, hence the wide-spread use of the "theft" metaphor, which your ilk hate because it is so apt.
And, as pointed out already elsewhere, the entire concept of property is "imaginary" and upheld by government. If I have a "government-granted monopoly" on the use of my backyard, my car, toothbrush, and computer, why can't I also enjoy the "monopoly" on the program I wrote?
Of course, I ought to be able to — and I can in all of the civilized world. To claim otherwise without also rejecting the entire concept of private property is to be inconsistent — even if you manage to hide behind the smoke screen of the "I rob the evil MafiAA, not the artists" smokescreen. And inconsistency is why you are wrong.
His legal right to control the fate of his work is derived from the moral right. But I can "rip you a new one" on either basis, for they aren't really distinct...
Yes, and that's wrong, because we'd rather he worked for free, and fed himself and his family with free beets grown (for free) by somebody else — in the community. Money is the root of all evil...
"Imaginary property" is not stealing. Unauthorized copying of it is. Yes... It is much closer to stealing, than, for example, the right to sell pornography is to petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Indeed, had the 10 Commandments been a "living and breathing document", the "Thou shall not copy thy neighbor's work without permission" would've been found in there long ago.
This is irrelevant to the principle, and you know it. Please, stick to the matter...
All authors — be they literature writers, musicians, programmers, or scientists — need copyright just about equally.
This is not about a "business model". It is about the concept of Intellectual Property, which, in itself, does not have much to do with "business".
Let's see the "I don't believe in imaginary property" crowd come out with their memes — and see them getting a new one ripped out by people, who finally realize, that Intellectual Property is not just about stealing other people's MP3-recordings.
It is about everything, that's easy to replicate, but hard to design... Be it a book, a song, a shoe-design, or software program...
Interesting, may be so... I have been robbed once, but I only had one dollar on me, so I didn't call police and the robbers got away (I had to comfort my date too). So, no, I don't have much first-hand experience. I still think, an account of an off-duty copy moonlighting as the store guard might be considered heavier evidence and police can give you really "hard time" even without doing anything illegal. If their buddy asks them to rough you up, they will. Sadly, without such powers, they can't be as good against real criminals as the public wants them to be...
Lastly, I don't think a search warrant is required to search a car...
Besides, what if you are still on the mall? Even if you run to your car, it may take you a few minutes to get out of eyesight. All I am saying is, while refusal to cooperate with the policeman is not in itself a probable cause, a store's complaint of theft is... The complaint will eventually prove bogus, but the police will be justified in investigating it — and stopping/detaining you in the process...
If you want to harass the store guards, you can, although I — being a libertarian — would rather you just don't go into a store, whose policies you disagree with. But you should cooperate with the official police. If the cop is wrong, you can complain about him later. You may also want to return the merchandise to the store right away in protest.
It will not stand up in court, when the dust settles. But, while the dust is still in the air, the cops are likely believe the store guard. The guard will tell them, you stole something and here is your license plate... They might need more than that to get a warrant to search my home, but to stop and search my car and person no formal warrant is needed...
Actually, I believe (and would prefer it to be) the opposite. If you call the cops after you'are robbed and give them the robber's license plate, wouldn't you rather they believe you and begin looking for that car immediately? Because if you are making a bogus claim, they can just apologize to the inconvenienced person. But if you are right — and that's more likely — then they let the robber get away, which is worse, than stopping an average person, who will, most likely, cooperate with the cop and be on his way in a few minutes...
You can be as "smart ass" as you want to be with the guy at the door (not that it is entirely fair, but whatever). But even if you shrug him off — and in New York, for example, they can not detain you (and I did once witness a homeless man trying to sneak out of EMS with a new jacket — they took the jacket back from him, but could not hold him) — they can call police and make an accusation. After that, police will be looking for you with the probable cause to search your vehicle.
And if, as often happens, the shrugged-off guy is an off-duty or ex-cop, he can talk the talk to them, that will be quite convincing — because he himself will be sincerely convinced, you are a thief... Which means, you better convince the officer, that "catches" you on the road, that you stole nothing — by letting him inspect the bag. Except by then, he'll be suspicious enough to want to search your entire trunk and body, for whatever little gizmo you could've stolen (and taken out of the bag already). Unlike the guard at the door, the cop will have probable cause...
Wouldn't a store's accusation, that you stole something give the probable cause? Say, you make it pat the guard and get into your car. By the time you are on the highway, the cops know your plate number and are lead to believe, you are a thief. Can they not search your car — and arrest you for trying to stop them (and royally mess up the car while towing)?
Before referring me to the "public affairs" for "more current" information, the manager told me, that REI have not in fact accused the guy of "trespassing":
In other words, it seems like the pig lied. Surprise, surprise...
Yes... Just like:
See the idiocy of your strawman (non-)argument?
"No cost". Right... I love it, actually — the spin-management at its finest. Here are two identical questions. Guess, which one is more likely to get a positive answer from a busy voter:
This is how taxpayers get suckered into paying for more and more stuff through the government — causing 30-70% to be wasted (through theft, incompetence, and — mostly — "legitimate" overhead), while handing the politicians (and their cronies) greater and greater control of our lives...
Yes, yes, this might sound like a knee-jerk reaction to government doing anything new. It may even seem like a troll. But do consider the history...
First we decided, that all kids are entitled to education — at the taxpayers' expense. Because some poor parents could not (or would not) pay for their children's schooling. It was believed to be an overall win for society, if all its members learned some basics. Ok...
Then we discovered, that getting to free school is a problem for some kids, and school buses got introduced — at taxpayers' expense, of course. Not so obviously Ok...
Then came school breakfasts and/or lunches — hungry children don't learn well somebody figured out. So, we have to feed them, otherwise we'll just be throwing out the money spent on teaching them, wouldn't we? WTF?
Now taxpayers are going to provide kids not only with the schooling itself, with means of getting to school, with food, but also with computers — all using the same illogic , that the State needs to be more worried about the children's well-being and education, than their parents are.
So, where does it stop? Clothing — ought the taxpayers not provide clothes for the pupils, so that nobody skips school for having nothing to wear? Unhappy parents affect children's school performance, no doubt — should the State begin sponsoring all people with school-age children to keep them happy(ier)? The same illogic can take us very far. In fact, it already did — public schools proved to be a "gateway drug". Innocuous in itself they made Americans happy to accept government assistance, which always comes with strings attached... Had the early advocates of them foreseen, how far it would go, they would, likely, not have insisted as much...
That the actual public schools continue to suck, despite gobs of money thrown at them, is not even that important to the point I'm making, although it sure helps support it: Not only is it wrong in principle, it does not actually work...
Newspapers operate on an outlived business model. Nothing can change this fact, and nothing short of government sponsorship (more unconstitutional than use of school vouchers at parochial schools) can keep the newspapers afloat.
Internet has made them obsolete — we now have means of delivering information directly from the reporter to reader. Yes, a quality editor used to add value, but that's not why their profession appeared — they were to decide, whose writings get printed in the limited space, that newspapers had. We, the readers, can now visit blogs of different people without them having to reside under the same roof (or even agree with each other).
With e-readers evolving, however, even the books may become obsolete soon — and we might stop felling as many trees as we currently do.
Yes, this is exactly, what happened to the US car industry over the decades... The last stage is unfolding right now with the government not only subsidizing it itself, but arm-twisting private banks into similar subsidizing.
And a really slow hard-drive...
And very difficult to extend...
Only about 50% of the salaries paid in public schools is paid to actual teachers. By contrast, roughly 80% is spent on teachers in private schools... So, one could fire half of the various "counselors" and what not working in public schools and combine cost-cutting with raising teacher's pay. (Didn't Obama promise to cut government spending to us — "using scalpel" — while mocking McCain's supposed intent to "use hatchet"?)
That's just one — and minor — reason of why private schools must be encouraged. School vouchers are the key, otherwise only the very rich (like Obamas) will be able to afford private schools for their children and there will remain very few (and very expensive) private schools...
Citation needed.
If they "should be doing it for free", but aren't, then paying them is just wrong — because it eliminates the "for free" part, does not it? All of a sudden, the government becomes an (even bigger) employer, with tax-payers nationwide sponsoring some "community organizer" somewhere, going around herding high-schoolers in need of "college credits" to do stuff, that no real charity deemed worthy of doing already... It is a stupid thing to do, but it is all worth it, because "community organizers" are the most reliable part of the ruling regime's electorate... That's reality — sorry to break it for you. The theory of government-induced volunteerism is different: people want to volunteer, we just need to "help" them.
Verizon and others are just exploiting that same desire to volunteer, that people really do have, for a worthy purpose. And — being a competitive business — they are smarter and more efficient about it, than the government will ever be.
Anyway, are not "peer recognition" and fame, that these companies use to lure unpaid tech-geeks to their forums, what the proponents of abandoning the concept of "Intellectual Property" say, can replace monetary rewards for writers, musicians, and other content-creators?
Only for as long as the concept of "Intellectual Property" continues to exist. When/if the people I mentioned prevail (which is likely, because "free" stuff is so tempting, the temptation crowds-out reason), the only content for you would be, what the government or other wealthy sponsors pay for... If you dislike "commercials" now, the stuff loaded with propaganda and/or product-placements will be completely intolerable. Quality movies will cease to exist and even quality books will be harder to come by, because authors — unable to live off their creations — would need to be independently wealthy to be able to write them.
The effects will not be limited to entertainment — all things, that are hard to design, but easy to reproduce (like fashion design, for example) will similarly suffer.
(This is, largely, how the world used to be, BTW, before "Intellectual Property" was invented — little choices, literature glorifying the leader-of-the-day, and quality music available only to the upper crusts of society able to pay for live performers.)
Similarly, the scientific progress will suffer as scientists-employing firms will not be able to sell the patents and will have to be parts of conglomerates able to not only devise new things, but produce stuff using the inventions. As China's explosion attests, manufacturing is a "solved problem" — a reasonably modern factory can make anything, having the designs. And, as "3D-printers" like this take hold (and move beyond one-part-at-a-time), designs will matter more and more. And yet, the designers will be just as few and far between, as the above-mentioned composers and writers, unless the Intellectual Property concept survives...
George Orwell said it better: Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
I asked a question...
And how long will that remain a viable option, if the likes of The Pirate Bay and their sympathizers prevail?
I bet, you have no problem with the government doing it, do you?
Let's instill volunteerism in young people — and those, who aren't excited by the possibility of unpaid labor, might find it harder to get into college (the linked to bill mentions "college credits" for participants). I mean, it worked so well for the USSR, we ought to try it — but not for a corporation, oh no!