Ironic that people are able to say - with a straight face - that CHINA's air quality is an example of the consequence of the FREE market. Really?
You guys do know that China is pretty much the prototype for police state superpower, right? Or are you just totally into cognitive dissonance?
Why don't you just exercise your inner demons, blame Bush, and get it out of your system (for now)? I mean, it's what you want to do and it's not like reality matters.
"Distance traversed in vacuum by light in 1/299792458 of a second"
Wow, you sure proved me wrong. That's not arbitrary at ALL. Of course, that was the definition in 1983.
Of course, in 1960 it was "Hyperfine atomic transition; 1650763.73 wavelengths of light from a specified transition in Krypton 86 (11th CGPM)"...Which isn't arbitrary.
"Platinum-iridium bar at melting point of ice, atmospheric pressure, supported by two rollers (7th CGPM)" (1927)
There's a lot of insightful analysis here about why people don't play games to completion, but the simple answer for me is MMOs and online play.
Back in the day, when the games were finite, it was common to play them to completion, whether it was Leisure Suit Larry or Doom.
Now, as much as I enjoyed Dragon Age or other AAAA titles, without the frisson of excitement, unpredictability, sense of "life" and (some will strongly disagree) inherent realism of MMOs*, non-online games are just fairly boring. If I want a story, I'll read a book. If I want to be involved, I'll play online.
*I don't mean realism in a system sense, but in a environmental sense. With a single-player game, nearly every situation you face is a) designed carefully, b) winnable if you do/have the right thing. In an online/MMO game, the unpredictability and spontaneity of people impacts the game in a very tangible way.
I find it amusing that people can live with such cognitive dissonance.
645 posts, the bulk of them blaming this on a president 2 years gone.
So if I understand your logic, the government before 2000 was a pristine engine of public good, respected its citizens, and was run by conscientious thoughtful bureaucrats who only wanted to do right.
2001-2008 Satan took hold, and shall forever after be blamed for anything we don't like.
The Forces of Good took over congress (2007) and the white house (2009), yet were somehow unable to mitigate any of the evil done by the previous Dark Entity.
Sorry to disrupt your 'righteous rage' but if you'd assault a TSA screener for doing this, then you're as much a douche as these parents.
Moron parents are to blame, 1000%.
Fact: children can be irrational Fact: TSA has certain minimum screening obligations Fact: the lawyers have driven common sense out of the process
First, arrive with your child FAR ahead of your flight time, so you have ample spare time to deal with BS. Second, make sure your child is well rested and well fed before even attempting to go through security. Third, especially with a 3 yr old, explain precisely what's going to happen, and WHY. Fourth, regardless of what you do, accept that you may get a tantrum. Trying to force it at that point simply won't work. Assuming you didn't suck as a parent and cave to their tantrum and give in previously, it will pass. Back up, let everyone including yourself cool down, and try it again in a few minutes. (See point #1)
Look, dealing with children takes strategy and intelligence. They are pure impulse and ego.
Explaining helps a lot: "Mr Teddy needs to go through the machine to make sure he's safe. Here, I'll send my stuff through first, see? Everything is ok. Should we let Mr Teddy go through now?" "We need to do this" doesn't wash with a child.
Give them some Hobson's choices so they feel some control of the situation (should we go through this gate or that one?), keep it light (look, we get to take off our shoes!), and even when you're going through the prescreening, mention to the TSA person that you have a child that's never done this, and you'd like to be able to pull off to the side and let others go through if need be. We always had one adult deal with the adult BS (bags, tickets, carryons, etc.) and the other adult was pure child duty.
FWIW it looks also like she's a precious little only child. I could be wrong, but my suspicion from ample experience and only watching about half the video that she was tired, hungry, the parents were short of time, and she's excessively indulged when she behaves like that generally. Stupid, selfish, hurried parents trying to force it results in scenes like that, and I blame them not her.
Traveling with small children is a challenge, but it never has to get to this point, if the parents are a) smarter than the child, and b) understand that their priorities, while important, aren't the child's.
Complete wishful bullshit. Amazing how much rationalization is going into analyzing (and trying to explain away) polling data that suggests a Democratic bloodbath. What, too much "change" in the air now?
Fwiw and purely anecdotally, I've always seen results skew 4+ percent to the right of polls, because consevatives (even 'engaged' ones), are far more likely to share their view with a pollster, while liberals - especially the young - LOVE to tell everyone how liberal they are.
1) The fact that the US hasn't ratified 2 of them (dunno if that's true, not taking the time to look it up) would conversely confirm that we DO take them very seriously, not the opposite. 2) if you want to talk about conforming strictly to the Geneva conventions, then the US military would have been totally within its right to summarily execute all non-uniformed combatants in Iraq or Afghanistan. Either it's a war, and they are nonuniformed combatants that can be executed, or they are bandits operating in a combat zone, who may be similarly treated. I think Guantanamo was stupid both operationally and public-relationally, but it's not nearly as cut and dried as you make it seem. 3) showing humanity - that's an ironic plea on the behalf of declared combatants whose tactics are wholesale slaughter of civilians (regardless of losses) in the hopes that they kill 1 American soldier. This is even setting aside totally the animalistic brutality that they perform on our soldiers that they capture. I do NOT believe that we should descend to their level, but unlike some who draw unjustified moral equivalence, I don't see that the occasional (and punished) dumbass hick naked hogpiling of prisoners is in any way comparable toward a widespread POLICY of brutality and terror. To see them as equal - much less see the US as worse - that's simply a complete dissociation from reality.
"Gravitation works at the speed of light" Stupid question: do we know that for sure?
I guess it's testable, short of creating/annihilating a source of gravity (which was my first thought) - somehow measure the gravitational pull of a source that's changing distance at a known rate, and if the gravitational change over time exactly matches a visible change (since that should also be arriving at light speed, no?), then they are identical in speed.
1) I get paid, they take taxes. 2) I buy something like a house, I pay sales tax. 3) Then continuing to own that house, I pay a % of value on that house as a tax every year. 3.5) if I sell the house, and make a net profit over what I paid, I pay a tax on that profit as income" 4) if it's a valuable house/property, if I will it to my children on my death, they get hit with a massive estate tax.
It's a great system....if you're a government.
I sell my hammer to my neighbor, according to the government I should be paying taxes on that transaction. Why, again, are they entitled to that?
Perhaps it is pedantry, or perhaps your signature makes that relevant - but doesn't any life form that integrates external genetic material into its own reproductive process (like sexual reproduction) making "intentional changes to their heritable scaffolding"?
I don't know if these bacteria do that, but it seems that - while I agree with your point that anthropomorphizing evolution is silly - simply selecting a mating partner, or choosing this glob of genetic material over that one, is in actuality CONTROLLING evolution in a small but very real way at the individual level.
(damn ineditable comment system)...as it climbs even higher, we'll inevitably wean ourselves away from petroleum as an energy source and move to more portable, renewable, and probably cleaner systems simply out of economic necessity.
IMO Adam Smith is more successful getting people to make sensible decisions over the long term than political parties or shrieking enviro-marxists.
Peak oil is only validated if you believe that price floats freely in an actual open market system. To suggest that the price has anything more than a trivial connection with supply is naive. Finally, look at the excellent fixed-dollar graphs of the price of oil since 1947 at wtrg: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif How many other commodities have increased in value less than 1.5%/year since 1948?
"Peak Oil" as an imminent danger (some might say "sky is falling" danger) has been a theory for 60+ years. It seems superficially logical that yes (unless you're someone who believes in the theories of abiogenic oil) the oil supply is finite, and as the supply of oil is consumed, the remainder will get more valuable over time.
However, it's not quite that simple. I'm not even going to get into the ever-increasing world reserve numbers over, as they are suspect due to OPEC's mechanism of setting member-production quotas based on reserves. Setting that aside, there is a TON of oil out there in places where it is simply economically or politically infeasible to retrieve it. In the US EEZ alone, there are the Rocky mountain oil shales - alone an estimated 1500-1800bn bbl - not to mention offshore reserves or single fields of known high-quality oil that's not currently retrievable (like the Bakken field).
This is compared to current total Saudi reserves of 220bn bbl.
Finally, to suggest that "there hasn't been a major new energy source in the last half century" is meaningless. First, simply developing new sources of energy is stupid if they don't do something better than what we currently have. Witness the push in the US for ethanol - if converting food production to fuel production for a net loss of efficiency in both isn't pure idiocy, I'm not sure what is.
Secondly, we haven't developed a new source of energy because we haven't needed to; oil, natural gas, and coal have been abundant for our purposes in the industrial age, and natural gas/coal are projected to continue to be abundant for centuries. Humans have been staggeringly successful at being flexible. As oil crosses $100/bbl for sustained periods, we will inevitably develop more efficient systems for using it - better mileage in cars, for example. As it climbs even higher
I have to admit it's one of the more tiresome aspects of today's discourse that most people can't be bothered to try to understand historical context before they pass judgement on historical personalities.
It's terrifically naive to say that someone pursuing Alchemy was a wierdo, or that trying to prove physics based on the bible was goofy, or that examining the floorplan of the Temple of Solomon for mathematical insights was silly. Yes, it's silly to US, in the 21st century, with our (nearly) universal understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, etc. that were all complete mysteries to people of that time. They didn't KNOW about germs, about atoms, electricity, or even what stars were.
Alchemy was AT LEAST as valid a 'science' as any other in Newton's time. It's through their brilliance and insight that we are able to separate actual science from fantasy today.
They are 'protected' by the same system only if we're both playing by the rules, which was my original point.
If we're playing cards, I'm playing by the rules and you're cheating at every hand, I'm not sure that's a great argument for the quality or usefulness of the 'rules'.
As far as I know, pretty much every US state also requires its power companies to buy any consumer-generated power added to the grid.
Germany OTOH forces its power companies to buy solar-generated electricity at a high, above-market fixed rate. This and other massive subsidies to the solar power industry are calculated at anywhere from $60 billion euros to $180 billion euros - a HUGE amount, at least until you consider the $180 billion that's subsidizing Germany's decrepit domestic coal industry.
"they're (sic) government is a bunch of anti-tax cranks" - frankly, I don't disagree with you.
However, quick quiz: who put that government in power?
I really would like the world to work the way that you claim it should work. I do. But at what point is the individual responsible for his choices? You claim that this is a 'broken system'...ok sure. It's broken. What if THAT GUY WHOSE HOUSE BURNED was the deciding vote in FAVOR of that system? Would it be his own fault then? What if he was the one who proposed such a system in the first place to save the county money?
I'll let you in on a secret: I don't care about human suffering when it's self-inflicted by allegedly self-aware adults. When I do something stupid myself, I don't look for someone else to blame, or assert that simple human decency requires that someone else compensate for my failures.
For what it's worth, I'd DIRECTLY dispute your case about the general amplification of human suffering. It's very simple to prove: what has Western food aid to the perennially drought-stricken regions of Africa done, except allow the poor bastards living there to breed and increase the population in an area that couldn't support their ORIGINAL numbers? I'd argue that in this case, your kind of kindness has directly increased the number of people in dire misery. Ethiopia's population during the 1980's famines was 39 million. Now it's 80 million. Congratulations?
Even a child can understand this on their own scale. If the kid sitting next to her in school needs a pencil, there's nothing wrong with lending him one if she has a spare. If he needs one again tomorrow, sure, loan him another one if you have a spare. But by the third day, if he once again doesn't have a pencil, even a first-grader would figure out that she's just "enabling" him to never bother to remember a pencil.
It seems like your system would teach people that they don't need to plan, don't need forethought, or to provide or care for themselves, because there will always be some poor sucker nearby whom you would castigate as "a monster" if he fails to mitigate their "human suffering".
It's a brilliant plan, as long as there's always an Ant nearby you can mooch off of; but what happens when all the Ants decide to act like Grasshoppers?
So yeah, you're wrong. I wish you weren't, but you are. The world doesn't give a shit if you're naive. Sorry about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironic that people are able to say - with a straight face - that CHINA's air quality is an example of the consequence of the FREE market. Really?
You guys do know that China is pretty much the prototype for police state superpower, right? Or are you just totally into cognitive dissonance?
Why don't you just exercise your inner demons, blame Bush, and get it out of your system (for now)? I mean, it's what you want to do and it's not like reality matters.
"Distance traversed in vacuum by light in 1/299792458 of a second"
Wow, you sure proved me wrong. That's not arbitrary at ALL.
Of course, that was the definition in 1983.
Of course, in 1960 it was "Hyperfine atomic transition; 1650763.73 wavelengths ...Which isn't arbitrary.
of light from a specified transition in Krypton 86 (11th CGPM)"
"Platinum-iridium bar at melting point of ice, atmospheric pressure, supported by two rollers (7th CGPM)" (1927)
Nope, not arbitrary either.
I'm so embarrassed at my obvious ignorance.
There's a lot of insightful analysis here about why people don't play games to completion, but the simple answer for me is MMOs and online play.
Back in the day, when the games were finite, it was common to play them to completion, whether it was Leisure Suit Larry or Doom.
Now, as much as I enjoyed Dragon Age or other AAAA titles, without the frisson of excitement, unpredictability, sense of "life" and (some will strongly disagree) inherent realism of MMOs*, non-online games are just fairly boring. If I want a story, I'll read a book. If I want to be involved, I'll play online.
*I don't mean realism in a system sense, but in a environmental sense. With a single-player game, nearly every situation you face is a) designed carefully, b) winnable if you do/have the right thing. In an online/MMO game, the unpredictability and spontaneity of people impacts the game in a very tangible way.
"C is exactly 299792458 ms" ...which is precisely as arbitrary, if more widely accepted, than cubits per moon phase.
I swear, metric evangelism is becoming more rabid every week. Oh wait, I'm sorry, it's becoming more rabid every 2/100ths of a year.
I find it amusing that people can live with such cognitive dissonance.
645 posts, the bulk of them blaming this on a president 2 years gone.
So if I understand your logic, the government before 2000 was a pristine engine of public good, respected its citizens, and was run by conscientious thoughtful bureaucrats who only wanted to do right.
2001-2008 Satan took hold, and shall forever after be blamed for anything we don't like.
The Forces of Good took over congress (2007) and the white house (2009), yet were somehow unable to mitigate any of the evil done by the previous Dark Entity.
Is that right?
Sorry to disrupt your 'righteous rage' but if you'd assault a TSA screener for doing this, then you're as much a douche as these parents.
Moron parents are to blame, 1000%.
Fact: children can be irrational
Fact: TSA has certain minimum screening obligations
Fact: the lawyers have driven common sense out of the process
First, arrive with your child FAR ahead of your flight time, so you have ample spare time to deal with BS.
Second, make sure your child is well rested and well fed before even attempting to go through security.
Third, especially with a 3 yr old, explain precisely what's going to happen, and WHY.
Fourth, regardless of what you do, accept that you may get a tantrum. Trying to force it at that point simply won't work. Assuming you didn't suck as a parent and cave to their tantrum and give in previously, it will pass. Back up, let everyone including yourself cool down, and try it again in a few minutes. (See point #1)
Look, dealing with children takes strategy and intelligence. They are pure impulse and ego.
Explaining helps a lot: "Mr Teddy needs to go through the machine to make sure he's safe. Here, I'll send my stuff through first, see? Everything is ok. Should we let Mr Teddy go through now?" "We need to do this" doesn't wash with a child.
Give them some Hobson's choices so they feel some control of the situation (should we go through this gate or that one?), keep it light (look, we get to take off our shoes!), and even when you're going through the prescreening, mention to the TSA person that you have a child that's never done this, and you'd like to be able to pull off to the side and let others go through if need be. We always had one adult deal with the adult BS (bags, tickets, carryons, etc.) and the other adult was pure child duty.
FWIW it looks also like she's a precious little only child. I could be wrong, but my suspicion from ample experience and only watching about half the video that she was tired, hungry, the parents were short of time, and she's excessively indulged when she behaves like that generally. Stupid, selfish, hurried parents trying to force it results in scenes like that, and I blame them not her.
Traveling with small children is a challenge, but it never has to get to this point, if the parents are a) smarter than the child, and b) understand that their priorities, while important, aren't the child's.
"CHANGE"
*LESS likely...
Damn no edit button.
Complete wishful bullshit.
Amazing how much rationalization is going into analyzing (and trying to explain away) polling data that suggests a Democratic bloodbath. What, too much "change" in the air now?
Fwiw and purely anecdotally, I've always seen results skew 4+ percent to the right of polls, because consevatives (even 'engaged' ones), are far more likely to share their view with a pollster, while liberals - especially the young - LOVE to tell everyone how liberal they are.
I'd prefer that id spend a little more time on GAME, less on getting said product to run on the phone in your pocket.
I mean, have you actually PLAYED the last 3 crap titles from id? Bleargh.
I will always respect id for what they invented for computer gaming. The number of hours I wasted trying to control Canalzone alone....
But really, they haven't produced a game worth PLAYING since Quake2.
1) The fact that the US hasn't ratified 2 of them (dunno if that's true, not taking the time to look it up) would conversely confirm that we DO take them very seriously, not the opposite.
2) if you want to talk about conforming strictly to the Geneva conventions, then the US military would have been totally within its right to summarily execute all non-uniformed combatants in Iraq or Afghanistan. Either it's a war, and they are nonuniformed combatants that can be executed, or they are bandits operating in a combat zone, who may be similarly treated. I think Guantanamo was stupid both operationally and public-relationally, but it's not nearly as cut and dried as you make it seem.
3) showing humanity - that's an ironic plea on the behalf of declared combatants whose tactics are wholesale slaughter of civilians (regardless of losses) in the hopes that they kill 1 American soldier. This is even setting aside totally the animalistic brutality that they perform on our soldiers that they capture. I do NOT believe that we should descend to their level, but unlike some who draw unjustified moral equivalence, I don't see that the occasional (and punished) dumbass hick naked hogpiling of prisoners is in any way comparable toward a widespread POLICY of brutality and terror. To see them as equal - much less see the US as worse - that's simply a complete dissociation from reality.
So if I'm moving forward in time right now, I'm awesome?
"Gravitation works at the speed of light"
Stupid question: do we know that for sure?
I guess it's testable, short of creating/annihilating a source of gravity (which was my first thought) - somehow measure the gravitational pull of a source that's changing distance at a known rate, and if the gravitational change over time exactly matches a visible change (since that should also be arriving at light speed, no?), then they are identical in speed.
Has someone done that?
I'd love it if I was only taxed twice.
1) I get paid, they take taxes.
2) I buy something like a house, I pay sales tax.
3) Then continuing to own that house, I pay a % of value on that house as a tax every year.
3.5) if I sell the house, and make a net profit over what I paid, I pay a tax on that profit as income"
4) if it's a valuable house/property, if I will it to my children on my death, they get hit with a massive estate tax.
It's a great system....if you're a government.
I sell my hammer to my neighbor, according to the government I should be paying taxes on that transaction. Why, again, are they entitled to that?
Perhaps it is pedantry, or perhaps your signature makes that relevant - but doesn't any life form that integrates external genetic material into its own reproductive process (like sexual reproduction) making "intentional changes to their heritable scaffolding"?
I don't know if these bacteria do that, but it seems that - while I agree with your point that anthropomorphizing evolution is silly - simply selecting a mating partner, or choosing this glob of genetic material over that one, is in actuality CONTROLLING evolution in a small but very real way at the individual level.
(damn ineditable comment system) ...as it climbs even higher, we'll inevitably wean ourselves away from petroleum as an energy source and move to more portable, renewable, and probably cleaner systems simply out of economic necessity.
IMO Adam Smith is more successful getting people to make sensible decisions over the long term than political parties or shrieking enviro-marxists.
Meh.
Peak oil is only validated if you believe that price floats freely in an actual open market system. To suggest that the price has anything more than a trivial connection with supply is naive. Finally, look at the excellent fixed-dollar graphs of the price of oil since 1947 at wtrg: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
How many other commodities have increased in value less than 1.5%/year since 1948?
"Peak Oil" as an imminent danger (some might say "sky is falling" danger) has been a theory for 60+ years. It seems superficially logical that yes (unless you're someone who believes in the theories of abiogenic oil) the oil supply is finite, and as the supply of oil is consumed, the remainder will get more valuable over time.
However, it's not quite that simple. I'm not even going to get into the ever-increasing world reserve numbers over, as they are suspect due to OPEC's mechanism of setting member-production quotas based on reserves. Setting that aside, there is a TON of oil out there in places where it is simply economically or politically infeasible to retrieve it. In the US EEZ alone, there are the Rocky mountain oil shales - alone an estimated 1500-1800bn bbl - not to mention offshore reserves or single fields of known high-quality oil that's not currently retrievable (like the Bakken field).
This is compared to current total Saudi reserves of 220bn bbl.
Finally, to suggest that "there hasn't been a major new energy source in the last half century" is meaningless. First, simply developing new sources of energy is stupid if they don't do something better than what we currently have. Witness the push in the US for ethanol - if converting food production to fuel production for a net loss of efficiency in both isn't pure idiocy, I'm not sure what is.
Secondly, we haven't developed a new source of energy because we haven't needed to; oil, natural gas, and coal have been abundant for our purposes in the industrial age, and natural gas/coal are projected to continue to be abundant for centuries. Humans have been staggeringly successful at being flexible. As oil crosses $100/bbl for sustained periods, we will inevitably develop more efficient systems for using it - better mileage in cars, for example. As it climbs even higher
I have to admit it's one of the more tiresome aspects of today's discourse that most people can't be bothered to try to understand historical context before they pass judgement on historical personalities.
It's terrifically naive to say that someone pursuing Alchemy was a wierdo, or that trying to prove physics based on the bible was goofy, or that examining the floorplan of the Temple of Solomon for mathematical insights was silly. Yes, it's silly to US, in the 21st century, with our (nearly) universal understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, etc. that were all complete mysteries to people of that time. They didn't KNOW about germs, about atoms, electricity, or even what stars were.
Alchemy was AT LEAST as valid a 'science' as any other in Newton's time. It's through their brilliance and insight that we are able to separate actual science from fantasy today.
"Ubi sunt", indeed. :\
No post about the "ballooning" military budget?
Except for the rather glaring failure of identifying FRODO as BILBO.
Whups.
...but XKCD pretty clearly was inspired by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wallchart_of_World_History (first version 1890).
It's a pretty cool visualization, illustrating in a very superficial way how each state mutates and evolves politically into its descendants.
They are 'protected' by the same system only if we're both playing by the rules, which was my original point.
If we're playing cards, I'm playing by the rules and you're cheating at every hand, I'm not sure that's a great argument for the quality or usefulness of the 'rules'.
As far as I know, pretty much every US state also requires its power companies to buy any consumer-generated power added to the grid.
Germany OTOH forces its power companies to buy solar-generated electricity at a high, above-market fixed rate. This and other massive subsidies to the solar power industry are calculated at anywhere from $60 billion euros to $180 billion euros - a HUGE amount, at least until you consider the $180 billion that's subsidizing Germany's decrepit domestic coal industry.
"they're (sic) government is a bunch of anti-tax cranks" - frankly, I don't disagree with you.
However, quick quiz: who put that government in power?
I really would like the world to work the way that you claim it should work. I do. But at what point is the individual responsible for his choices? You claim that this is a 'broken system'...ok sure. It's broken. What if THAT GUY WHOSE HOUSE BURNED was the deciding vote in FAVOR of that system? Would it be his own fault then? What if he was the one who proposed such a system in the first place to save the county money?
I'll let you in on a secret: I don't care about human suffering when it's self-inflicted by allegedly self-aware adults. When I do something stupid myself, I don't look for someone else to blame, or assert that simple human decency requires that someone else compensate for my failures.
For what it's worth, I'd DIRECTLY dispute your case about the general amplification of human suffering. It's very simple to prove: what has Western food aid to the perennially drought-stricken regions of Africa done, except allow the poor bastards living there to breed and increase the population in an area that couldn't support their ORIGINAL numbers? I'd argue that in this case, your kind of kindness has directly increased the number of people in dire misery. Ethiopia's population during the 1980's famines was 39 million. Now it's 80 million. Congratulations?
Even a child can understand this on their own scale. If the kid sitting next to her in school needs a pencil, there's nothing wrong with lending him one if she has a spare. If he needs one again tomorrow, sure, loan him another one if you have a spare. But by the third day, if he once again doesn't have a pencil, even a first-grader would figure out that she's just "enabling" him to never bother to remember a pencil.
It seems like your system would teach people that they don't need to plan, don't need forethought, or to provide or care for themselves, because there will always be some poor sucker nearby whom you would castigate as "a monster" if he fails to mitigate their "human suffering".
It's a brilliant plan, as long as there's always an Ant nearby you can mooch off of; but what happens when all the Ants decide to act like Grasshoppers?
So yeah, you're wrong. I wish you weren't, but you are. The world doesn't give a shit if you're naive.
Sorry about that.
...Precisely why we should pay any more respect for their IP than they have to anyone else's?