But it's a choice that is serving them well right now, as it has pushed their economies towards more consolidated land use, more mass transit, and smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
So, they live in more cramped spaces which are closer to their noisy neighbors, they crowd together with others to get to work (which they have to do on specific timetables), and they can fit less in their cars which go slower. And all of this is...a good thing?
High gas prices are here to stay and apart from a short dip when the damaged refineries are recomissioned and additional capacity added they are only going to get higher.
The futures market doesn't really agree with you. The September gaoline futures contract closed at something like $2.80. The October contract closed at $2.18. The November contract closed at $2.02. The December contract closed at $1.94. January '06 closed at $1.93. February '06 closed at $1.92. March '06 closed at $1.92.
Tax petrol, spend the tax money on developing alternatives.
I agree with the taxing part, but why spend the money on developing alternatives? We already have plenty of alternatives, the cost just isn't high enough to justify their use.
The only reason to tax gas is that burning it pollutes the environment. We should spend the tax revenue on cleaning up the environment, not on developing alternatives.
My solution was to get rid of my car, and get a bike!
Solution to what? Extracting oil from shale?
Won't work for everyone, but it worked for me.
The people who it would "work" for, those who only drive a few miles a day, don't have a problem with gas prices in the first place. I live 4.6 miles from work, and I fill up my tank on average less than twice a month. As far as just driving to work and back, I spend about $21/month in gas (at $3/gallon). If I didn't mind riding through the rain I could get a motorcycle and spend even less than that on gas.
Sure, I'm polluting the earth a little bit, but if everyone drove as little as I did, in a car as efficient as mine is, the earth would be perfectly fine. Yeah, eventually the price of gas is going to rise beyond the point where it's worth it for my car, but by then I'll have a more fuel efficient car, or maybe one that doesn't use gasoline at all.
Care to explain how raising gas taxes would launch a recession? Assuming the government spends the money it raises in the taxes, the GDP would at worst stay the same, and most likely rise because the corporations that paid the tax would have saved a portion of the money they paid in taxes.
External oil shocks can lead to stagflation, a form of recession, but this is much less likely to happen when the rising prices are due to a tax and spend government.
I suppose you could argue in terms of the Laffer curve that raising the tax rate would actually result in less revenue for the government, but the Laffer curve is really designed for a tax like the income tax which doesn't have readily available substitutes.
Since it describes those deposits as "the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world," that could be a very good thing for those of us who are currently paying anywhere from $3 on up for a gallon of regular unleaded.
Since, you could also describe the deposits as "the largest carbon deposits in the world", this could be a very bad thing for those of use who live near the coast.
You can decide not to pay Tony anything and he'll break your legs (or at least try to). You can decide not to deal with the RIAA (that includes not pirating their music, obviously you can't steal something out of a shop when you decide not to pay for it, either) and the RIAA will ignore you. You don't get their goods, they don't get your goods.
The record companies don't sell goods, they sell rights. Copying something is not stealing.
"The point is, you shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to pay a record company for making a copy of a CD you own"
In most jurisdictions you don't have to pay for that, unless you choose to distribute those copies which means you're competing with the rightsholder using his "reseach".
Well, it really depends on why you're making the copy as to whether or not you have to pay. But fine, let's say copying and distributing those copies. I shouldn't have to pay for that. I shouldn't have to pay for competing with the record companies just like I shouldn't have to pay for competing with Big Tony. Competition is essential in a free market.
It reduces the profitability of making software, likely to the point where paying lots of programmers to write it is no longer feasible.
I fail to see how this is the case.
It'll be mostly down to services then (i.e. you either pay someone because what you want doesn't exist yet or to set it up and maintain it).
In what way is "making software" not a "service"?
Remember, without the GPL there is no reason for anyone to contribute their stuff back into the main codetree
That's absolutely incorrect. There is at least one huge incentive to contribute back to the main codetree, and that is that it facilitates merging of changes made by other people. Maintaining a fork is hard, and it's not going to be done unless there are very good reasons for it. It's much easier to just send the diff to the project maintainers than it is to merge in their diffs every time they make them.
Alternatively, let me put it this way. The GPL doesn't require you to contribute your stuff back to the main codetree either.
it'd be pretty much the way BSD is now
With one major exception, a company couldn't take a piece of software, modify it, and copyright that derivative work. Sure, they wouldn't be required to release the source, but without the ability to sell shrinkwrapped software for more than the cost of the media that's not very useful. The source code clause of the GPL isn't the main thing that distinguishes it from the BSD license, the copyleft is. Things wouldn't be like the BSD licence or the GPL license, they'd be more like the Creative Commons ShareAlike license.
Or do you want to abolish trade secrets and NDAs as well and nuke the entire research sector?
I'd probably abolish trade secrets but not NDAs. Nuking the entire research sector would be a bad thing.
Also, without pressure from market demands the system wouldn't be very userfriendly (because there's noone paying for the development outside of large companies and those will only do what benefits them).
I don't see why it'd only be large companies, in fact I think small companies probably have more of a demand for software. But even if it is, why do you think that large companies don't demand user friendly products?
To supply a population of X with all the demanded goods, you need
I suggest you read up on Say's Law and the Broken Window Falacy. You might also want to look at In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell.
The error you're making is that you're treating demand as some finite property which can be satisfied. Furthermore, if global demand is satisfied, that means everyone has everything he or she wants. If we all have everything we want, who cares if we're un
Well, I specifically said the record companies, not the RIAA.
They charge the musician for the recording equipment, the advertising, the distribution and whatever else they can think of and deduct that from the already small cut the musician gets. Those who don't have huge fanbases buying their recordings will often end up owing the record company money.
That's almost never the case. What is much more likely is that the cost of "the recording equipment, the advertising, the distribution and whatever else they can think of" is taken as a draw from the future commissions of the record company. If the band ends up not having a big fanbase, they don't owe the record company anything. Further, there are usually advances given to the band, and even these usually don't have to be paid back if the band is not successful.
But even if it were true that the band owed money to the record companies, the record companies would still be taking a huge risk, because if the band flops it is going to go bankrupt, and even if the record company is owed money by them it's not going to be collectable.
"There are thousands or even millions of people making their living from extortion and racketeering too."
Those aren't businesses you can vote with your wallet against
I don't understand what you're saying here. You can certainly choose not to pay someone who is extorting you. If Big Tony threatens to break your legs if you don't withdraw your competing bid for a government contract you certainly can choose to withdraw the bid. If Big Tony tells you 10% of your business kicks up to him, you can always refuse to pay it.
And sure, there are some people who deal with Big Tony voluntarily, just like there are some people who deal with the record companies voluntarily. But what about all of us who don't deal with the record companies voluntarily?
The point is, you shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to pay a record company for making a copy of a CD you own (and yes, you own the CD, you might not own the copyright on the CD, but you own the CD).
An extortionist involves you against your will but you can choose not to buy or listen to certain kinds of or all music.
I have chosen not to buy music from RIAA-affiliated artists. But that doesn't give them a right to dictate what I can or can't listen to. I shouldn't need anyone's permission to listen to something, just like I shouldn't need anyone's permission to bid on a government contract or run a pizza store.
There are other jobs dependent on copyright, for example almost the entire IT industry.
Actually, if copyright were abandoned the IT industry would probably boom. Sure, Microsoft might fail, but people still need software. Where there's a supply and a demand there will be a market, and getting rid of copyright isn't going to eliminate the supply or the demand.
The entire software, movie, music and writing industry would collapse if they couldn't prevent people from selling their software for the cost of a CDR or downloading it.
The industries would change, but they wouldn't collapse. The game software industry would probably be in trouble, at least for those games which couldn't adapt to online subscription versions. Windows would most likely die, and be replaced by Linux. There would be a lot of programmers getting paid to improve Linux, and a whole lot of people working in software support. Production in business applications would still be strong, but the workload would be much lighter, because there wouldn't be so much redundancy. So the rate of development would increase dramatically. Instead of being hired for a software company, programmers would be hired by the companies that use the software. They'd be there partly for support and integration, but while they weren't working on that they would be working on merging their changes in with the main project (to facilitate
Copyleft is good in theory, but for a site with as many contributors as Wikinews it doesn't work very well in practice. The biggest problem is that all the different copylefts are incompatible with each other. This isn't too bad with software, because the GPL is pretty much accepted as *the* de-facto copyleft, but for text content this isn't at all the case.
I'm sure these people are also aware that producing a CD is already risky enough for the musicians and that they might decide to release no recordings of their songs (or record only a select few, reserving most of the stuff for concerts) and only perform live.
I wasn't even aware of that. I thought the record companies were the ones taking the bulk of the risk, and that the musicians basically only make money off their live performances anyway.
And besides, what benefit to humanity does "free music" have?
Somewhat more than the benefit of expensive music, which isn't that much, but it's something.
If they were fighting hunger or diseases I'd agree with you but fighting "the artist's stranglehold on his works" is just a freeloader mentality.
I disagree. I shouldn't have to pay anyone to distribute a copy of something using resources I've provided. The only one with a freeloader mentality here is the record companies.
Fact is that we have thousands or even millions of people making their living from copyright, saying these people can go to hell because there's more people wanting stuff for free than people living off the money made from that stuff is mob rule.
There are thousands or even millions of people making their living from extortion and racketeering too. Doesn't mean we should give them carte blanche to continue in that career. I'm not saying these people who can't continue in their career without copyright should go to hell (and I think the numbers are smaller than you are making them out to be, most musicians for instance could make a living off live concerts). I'm just saying if the free market doesn't pay them for what they're doing maybe they should think about getting a real job. Like you said yourself, music just isn't *that* important. If these people were fighting hunger or diseases maybe they'd have a bit more job security.
If humanity benefits from free art, I'd say humanityy also benefits from higher quality art, which is something you won't be seeing as much without compensation for art.
In my experience the best quality art is made for the sake of making art, not for a profit, so I don't think you're right.
If there's "a small EULA" which depends on copyright for its force, then it's not public domain.
Since EULAs are governed by state contract law and not federal copyright law, no, you can have an EULA and still be in the public domain. In fact, one of the most prominent cases over EULAs was ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, which was a dispute over the redistribution of a public domain work.
If you're implying that works without a copyright symbol attached are in the public domain, you are mistaken.
No, I'm implying that works that are explictly placed into the public domain or are produced by an employee in the US government as part of her duties is in the public domain.
Few people on this site dispute that the ability to automatically have your work copyrighted by default helps Sam Slashdot by making it easier to cover his stuff.
I'd certainly dispute this. How much stuff does Sam Slashdot produce which wasn't a work for hire and for which the copyright on it is actually useful? Little to nothing, I'd say.
When I first read the article title, I thought this was going to be a story about how everything would be public domain in 35 years. You'd think a guy like Lessig would be more optimistic about things.
Anyway, I predict that in 35 years the pendulum will have swung. The zeal of the war on piracy will have gone too far for too long, and people will fight back. Sure, the fight will start with copyleft, as it already has begun to do so, but once copyleft has won the establishment will be forced to move in the opposite direction, and lessen the stranglehold of copyright laws.
Maybe a few companies would discover this and deny you a job because of it, but "anything in IT requiring any sort of security" is a gross exaggeration.
But you, as an adult, have rights. Minors don't seem to have those anymore.
I'm not sure if that statment is naiive or just superfluous. Minors do in fact have rights.
Consider this: my school's paranoia (Calgary,Alberta,Canada) has gone so far that they make us display school-issued picture ID if we're logged into a school computer.
Many companies, including ones that I've worked for, have done the same thing.
Of course, there's the page upon page of legaleze that we have to accept at the beginning of the year as well.
What happens if you refuse to accept it? In any case, you can fully expect to sign page upon page of legalease when you graduate and enter the working world.
I guess the big difference is, unless you're emancipated, you have to do what your parents tell you to do.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's a choice that is serving them well right now, as it has pushed their economies towards more consolidated land use, more mass transit, and smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
So, they live in more cramped spaces which are closer to their noisy neighbors, they crowd together with others to get to work (which they have to do on specific timetables), and they can fit less in their cars which go slower. And all of this is...a good thing?
High gas prices are here to stay and apart from a short dip when the damaged refineries are recomissioned and additional capacity added they are only going to get higher.
The futures market doesn't really agree with you. The September gaoline futures contract closed at something like $2.80. The October contract closed at $2.18. The November contract closed at $2.02. The December contract closed at $1.94. January '06 closed at $1.93. February '06 closed at $1.92. March '06 closed at $1.92.
Tax petrol, spend the tax money on developing alternatives.
I agree with the taxing part, but why spend the money on developing alternatives? We already have plenty of alternatives, the cost just isn't high enough to justify their use.
The only reason to tax gas is that burning it pollutes the environment. We should spend the tax revenue on cleaning up the environment, not on developing alternatives.
My solution was to get rid of my car, and get a bike!
Solution to what? Extracting oil from shale?
Won't work for everyone, but it worked for me.
The people who it would "work" for, those who only drive a few miles a day, don't have a problem with gas prices in the first place. I live 4.6 miles from work, and I fill up my tank on average less than twice a month. As far as just driving to work and back, I spend about $21/month in gas (at $3/gallon). If I didn't mind riding through the rain I could get a motorcycle and spend even less than that on gas.
Sure, I'm polluting the earth a little bit, but if everyone drove as little as I did, in a car as efficient as mine is, the earth would be perfectly fine. Yeah, eventually the price of gas is going to rise beyond the point where it's worth it for my car, but by then I'll have a more fuel efficient car, or maybe one that doesn't use gasoline at all.
Republicans aren't evil.
You had me in total agreement up to that statement.
Here's my single calculation: http://www.google.com/search?q=3+euro+a+litre+to+d ollars+per+gallon.
3 (Euro a litre) = 14.2225492 U.S. dollars per US gallon
Care to explain how raising gas taxes would launch a recession? Assuming the government spends the money it raises in the taxes, the GDP would at worst stay the same, and most likely rise because the corporations that paid the tax would have saved a portion of the money they paid in taxes.
External oil shocks can lead to stagflation, a form of recession, but this is much less likely to happen when the rising prices are due to a tax and spend government.
I suppose you could argue in terms of the Laffer curve that raising the tax rate would actually result in less revenue for the government, but the Laffer curve is really designed for a tax like the income tax which doesn't have readily available substitutes.
Since it describes those deposits as "the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world," that could be a very good thing for those of us who are currently paying anywhere from $3 on up for a gallon of regular unleaded.
Since, you could also describe the deposits as "the largest carbon deposits in the world", this could be a very bad thing for those of use who live near the coast.
"But hey, if we're so efficient we're just begging for something to do, why not go down to New Orleans and help rebuild that city?"
Because I'm roughly on the other side of the planet and Bush declined the help my country offered.
I'm sure whatever your country is there's something that needs to be done, and something that you're capable of doing.
You can decide not to pay Tony anything and he'll break your legs (or at least try to). You can decide not to deal with the RIAA (that includes not pirating their music, obviously you can't steal something out of a shop when you decide not to pay for it, either) and the RIAA will ignore you. You don't get their goods, they don't get your goods.
The record companies don't sell goods, they sell rights. Copying something is not stealing.
"The point is, you shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to pay a record company for making a copy of a CD you own"
In most jurisdictions you don't have to pay for that, unless you choose to distribute those copies which means you're competing with the rightsholder using his "reseach".
Well, it really depends on why you're making the copy as to whether or not you have to pay. But fine, let's say copying and distributing those copies. I shouldn't have to pay for that. I shouldn't have to pay for competing with the record companies just like I shouldn't have to pay for competing with Big Tony. Competition is essential in a free market.
It reduces the profitability of making software, likely to the point where paying lots of programmers to write it is no longer feasible.
I fail to see how this is the case.
It'll be mostly down to services then (i.e. you either pay someone because what you want doesn't exist yet or to set it up and maintain it).
In what way is "making software" not a "service"?
Remember, without the GPL there is no reason for anyone to contribute their stuff back into the main codetree
That's absolutely incorrect. There is at least one huge incentive to contribute back to the main codetree, and that is that it facilitates merging of changes made by other people. Maintaining a fork is hard, and it's not going to be done unless there are very good reasons for it. It's much easier to just send the diff to the project maintainers than it is to merge in their diffs every time they make them.
Alternatively, let me put it this way. The GPL doesn't require you to contribute your stuff back to the main codetree either.
it'd be pretty much the way BSD is now
With one major exception, a company couldn't take a piece of software, modify it, and copyright that derivative work. Sure, they wouldn't be required to release the source, but without the ability to sell shrinkwrapped software for more than the cost of the media that's not very useful. The source code clause of the GPL isn't the main thing that distinguishes it from the BSD license, the copyleft is. Things wouldn't be like the BSD licence or the GPL license, they'd be more like the Creative Commons ShareAlike license.
Or do you want to abolish trade secrets and NDAs as well and nuke the entire research sector?
I'd probably abolish trade secrets but not NDAs. Nuking the entire research sector would be a bad thing.
Also, without pressure from market demands the system wouldn't be very userfriendly (because there's noone paying for the development outside of large companies and those will only do what benefits them).
I don't see why it'd only be large companies, in fact I think small companies probably have more of a demand for software. But even if it is, why do you think that large companies don't demand user friendly products?
To supply a population of X with all the demanded goods, you need
I suggest you read up on Say's Law and the Broken Window Falacy. You might also want to look at In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell.
The error you're making is that you're treating demand as some finite property which can be satisfied. Furthermore, if global demand is satisfied, that means everyone has everything he or she wants. If we all have everything we want, who cares if we're un
The RIAA doesn't take any risks.
Well, I specifically said the record companies, not the RIAA.
They charge the musician for the recording equipment, the advertising, the distribution and whatever else they can think of and deduct that from the already small cut the musician gets. Those who don't have huge fanbases buying their recordings will often end up owing the record company money.
That's almost never the case. What is much more likely is that the cost of "the recording equipment, the advertising, the distribution and whatever else they can think of" is taken as a draw from the future commissions of the record company. If the band ends up not having a big fanbase, they don't owe the record company anything. Further, there are usually advances given to the band, and even these usually don't have to be paid back if the band is not successful.
But even if it were true that the band owed money to the record companies, the record companies would still be taking a huge risk, because if the band flops it is going to go bankrupt, and even if the record company is owed money by them it's not going to be collectable.
"There are thousands or even millions of people making their living from extortion and racketeering too."
Those aren't businesses you can vote with your wallet against
I don't understand what you're saying here. You can certainly choose not to pay someone who is extorting you. If Big Tony threatens to break your legs if you don't withdraw your competing bid for a government contract you certainly can choose to withdraw the bid. If Big Tony tells you 10% of your business kicks up to him, you can always refuse to pay it.
And sure, there are some people who deal with Big Tony voluntarily, just like there are some people who deal with the record companies voluntarily. But what about all of us who don't deal with the record companies voluntarily?
The point is, you shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to pay a record company for making a copy of a CD you own (and yes, you own the CD, you might not own the copyright on the CD, but you own the CD).
An extortionist involves you against your will but you can choose not to buy or listen to certain kinds of or all music.
I have chosen not to buy music from RIAA-affiliated artists. But that doesn't give them a right to dictate what I can or can't listen to. I shouldn't need anyone's permission to listen to something, just like I shouldn't need anyone's permission to bid on a government contract or run a pizza store.
There are other jobs dependent on copyright, for example almost the entire IT industry.
Actually, if copyright were abandoned the IT industry would probably boom. Sure, Microsoft might fail, but people still need software. Where there's a supply and a demand there will be a market, and getting rid of copyright isn't going to eliminate the supply or the demand.
The entire software, movie, music and writing industry would collapse if they couldn't prevent people from selling their software for the cost of a CDR or downloading it.
The industries would change, but they wouldn't collapse. The game software industry would probably be in trouble, at least for those games which couldn't adapt to online subscription versions. Windows would most likely die, and be replaced by Linux. There would be a lot of programmers getting paid to improve Linux, and a whole lot of people working in software support. Production in business applications would still be strong, but the workload would be much lighter, because there wouldn't be so much redundancy. So the rate of development would increase dramatically. Instead of being hired for a software company, programmers would be hired by the companies that use the software. They'd be there partly for support and integration, but while they weren't working on that they would be working on merging their changes in with the main project (to facilitate
If you don't want it to be seen by the world, don't publish it to the world...
Eh, I somewhat agree, but at the same time, if you don't want it to change out from under you, copy it, don't link to it.
Copyleft is good in theory, but for a site with as many contributors as Wikinews it doesn't work very well in practice. The biggest problem is that all the different copylefts are incompatible with each other. This isn't too bad with software, because the GPL is pretty much accepted as *the* de-facto copyleft, but for text content this isn't at all the case.
I'm sure these people are also aware that producing a CD is already risky enough for the musicians and that they might decide to release no recordings of their songs (or record only a select few, reserving most of the stuff for concerts) and only perform live.
I wasn't even aware of that. I thought the record companies were the ones taking the bulk of the risk, and that the musicians basically only make money off their live performances anyway.
And besides, what benefit to humanity does "free music" have?
Somewhat more than the benefit of expensive music, which isn't that much, but it's something.
If they were fighting hunger or diseases I'd agree with you but fighting "the artist's stranglehold on his works" is just a freeloader mentality.
I disagree. I shouldn't have to pay anyone to distribute a copy of something using resources I've provided. The only one with a freeloader mentality here is the record companies.
Fact is that we have thousands or even millions of people making their living from copyright, saying these people can go to hell because there's more people wanting stuff for free than people living off the money made from that stuff is mob rule.
There are thousands or even millions of people making their living from extortion and racketeering too. Doesn't mean we should give them carte blanche to continue in that career. I'm not saying these people who can't continue in their career without copyright should go to hell (and I think the numbers are smaller than you are making them out to be, most musicians for instance could make a living off live concerts). I'm just saying if the free market doesn't pay them for what they're doing maybe they should think about getting a real job. Like you said yourself, music just isn't *that* important. If these people were fighting hunger or diseases maybe they'd have a bit more job security.
If humanity benefits from free art, I'd say humanityy also benefits from higher quality art, which is something you won't be seeing as much without compensation for art.
In my experience the best quality art is made for the sake of making art, not for a profit, so I don't think you're right.
If there's "a small EULA" which depends on copyright for its force, then it's not public domain.
Since EULAs are governed by state contract law and not federal copyright law, no, you can have an EULA and still be in the public domain. In fact, one of the most prominent cases over EULAs was ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, which was a dispute over the redistribution of a public domain work.
Please-kindly-note that while YOU may release anything you write on Wikipedia into the public domain, Wikipedia itself IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN
Wikinews is, but some people are trying to change that. If you want to see Wikinews stay in the public domain, create an account and vote here.
For something to enter the public domain today, it must've been created around the early part of last century.
Not true. Consider this, or this, or this.
If you're implying that works without a copyright symbol attached are in the public domain, you are mistaken.
No, I'm implying that works that are explictly placed into the public domain or are produced by an employee in the US government as part of her duties is in the public domain.
Few people on this site dispute that the ability to automatically have your work copyrighted by default helps Sam Slashdot by making it easier to cover his stuff.
I'd certainly dispute this. How much stuff does Sam Slashdot produce which wasn't a work for hire and for which the copyright on it is actually useful? Little to nothing, I'd say.
Actually, I doubt that's true. In hindsight it would have been a good purpose, but that doesn't mean it actually was the purpose.
When I first read the article title, I thought this was going to be a story about how everything would be public domain in 35 years. You'd think a guy like Lessig would be more optimistic about things.
Anyway, I predict that in 35 years the pendulum will have swung. The zeal of the war on piracy will have gone too far for too long, and people will fight back. Sure, the fight will start with copyleft, as it already has begun to do so, but once copyleft has won the establishment will be forced to move in the opposite direction, and lessen the stranglehold of copyright laws.
Plenty of things fall into the public domain every second of every day. In fact, I'm going to release this post into the public domain right now.
Maybe a few companies would discover this and deny you a job because of it, but "anything in IT requiring any sort of security" is a gross exaggeration.
But you, as an adult, have rights. Minors don't seem to have those anymore.
I'm not sure if that statment is naiive or just superfluous. Minors do in fact have rights.
Consider this: my school's paranoia (Calgary,Alberta,Canada) has gone so far that they make us display school-issued picture ID if we're logged into a school computer.
Many companies, including ones that I've worked for, have done the same thing.
Of course, there's the page upon page of legaleze that we have to accept at the beginning of the year as well.
What happens if you refuse to accept it? In any case, you can fully expect to sign page upon page of legalease when you graduate and enter the working world.
I guess the big difference is, unless you're emancipated, you have to do what your parents tell you to do.
Good job Mark, proof by assertion.
Yeah, we didn't kill them, we just let them die, and decreased the surplus population.