Why should you be able to excercise your right to free speech and the owners/executives of Walmart shouldnt be able to excercise theirs? After all, that is all that they are doing.
Its like when the Dixie Chicks were taken off of a lot of radio stations a while back. They were free to say what they wanted. However, if I own a radio station and dont like what they are saying, I should be equally free to voice my opinion by not playing their music.
Business owners deserve freedom of speech just as much as you or I, and there is nothing wrong nor offensive about that, especially considering that Walmart is actually PROHIBITING actual wrong and offensive material from being sold in their stores...
Actually, that's how open source brings in innovation. Since there is so many choices, there is a kind of natural selection between projects and only the best ones end up succeeding. You just have to check source forge to see how many dead projects exist, and how in the end only the projects which were more robust, documented, organized and tackled the problem more effectively are still alive.
Which only reinforces the author's ideas. Who wants to spend time and effort working on a project for one platform/language/architecture/component system/etc., only to find it dead a few months later? At least with Windows, there is the certainty that 10 years from now, your project will still perform well, with relatively minor modifications to adjust for OS updates, for a massive number of users. Contrast that your view of the open source community, and you will quickly see why many people make the decision to go with Windows.
The reality, however, is that while there are many dead projects, there is quite a bit of stability in open source, as long as you stick to the basics. Just look at the LAMP architecture, and you will see a programming paradigm that is here to stay for quite some time. Ultimately, for the well-informed developer, I would feel that, for some applications at least, open source is better than Windows. Here I'm thinking primarily of web-based applications. Developing apps for specific desktop environments in Linux, however, can be a bit more risky and time-consuming, and it is in this arena that I much prefer to stick to Windows, regardless of the fact that a program built for Windows will be accessible to a much larger target market than one built for KDE or Gnome.
Your comical (literally) argument is a bit flawed. You are operating under the assumption that not learning the local language will not hinder the immigrant. This is hardly the case. Sure, forcing immigrants to learn English may seem like a "racist" or "intolerant" idea, but lets look at it realistically: If you move to the US not knowing anything but Spanish (or move to France not knowing anything but English, for that matter), you are going to have a hard time making money and operating in our economy and our political system. When you can't read road signs, can't read tax forms, legal documents, or even a voting ballot, and can't speak to the majority of the other citizens of this (or any) country, you are going to have a difficult time being a productive member of society.
This, then, is the primary reason that we (and most other countries) require english proficiency as a requirement for legal immigration. If you have a subset of the country that can't speak the language, then whether they are laborers or brain surgeons they are going to be a drain on the country, as they cannot be as productive as english-speakers, and money must be spent either to teach them the language (which many would probably not do), or spent ensuring that they can survive without work, or with a low-income job. Plus, you have the issue of safety. I worked construction in the summers when I was in college, and in Kansas, we had a large number of mexican immigrants working as laborers (most of whom, no doubt, were illegals or descendents thereof). A large portion of those I worked with either didn't speak english, or spoke it very poorly. Trying to tell someone who doesn't speak your langauge what to do (for instance: MOVE! Something is about to fall!), is not an easy task. If that person can't understand, and subsequently is hit by falling debris, how are they going to inform the hospital workers what is wrong if they are injured (or sick)? How are they going to be able to read road signs or understand safety hazards on labelling?
I'm sure there are many examples of this happening, but generally speaking, emergency ops happen at energency speed, and the long waits are for things like hip replacements etc. where there is discomfort, but no risk of death.
And this makes it better? You pay for speed, and you pay for comfort. Ours may cost more, but thats a benefit we can claim as a direct result.
It just is what it looks like, the Bush regime trying to silence legimite criticism in the media.
Not quite. Lets take a look at what the facts show.
1. The NYT submitted an article for publication to the CIA review board. Parts were blacked out, and the CIA claims this came after one positive review by their board. While this may at first seem to incriminate the administration, in and of itself it does no such thing. The CIA is not privy to all the classified information in the US. In fact it would be more accurate to say that the CIA is not privy to a majority of all classified information in the US, or even a modest fraction. The NSA, for instance, vastly outnumbers the CIA in both personnel and classified material, most of which this review board probably didn't have access to. Senior administration officials, however, might have had such access and thus overrulled the board.
2. The NYT, after recieving the edited article, printed the government's version. Here is where I become a bit skeptical of the NYT's intentions (although the fact that the NYT is as far left as Fox news is right perhaps should have tipped me off earlier). The NYT doesn't exactly have a long and distinguished history of printing only things the government wants. Hell, they just sent several of their reporters to jail for printing classified information (well, failing to reveal the source thereof, but essentially the same). Now that might make them less likely to print classified material in the future, but if this material was classified, then the "censoring" was valid, and the attacks on the Bush administration have no basis. If the material was not, in fact, classified, then the NYT is at fault for not printing it.
My best guess at what is happening here is that the NYT is taking yet another attack at the administration. They sent an article in for review, it was declared classified, and they are trying to claim that because the CIA board reviewed it and found it ok, that that means it should be able to be printed. The fact is, they are wrong, and most likely they know it. If they felt that the information really was ok to print, and that information would be detrimental to the administration, obviously they would print it. This is just more of the same from the NYT.
No one in mainstream judaism honestly suggests death for homosexuality. Compare this to some of the (let's be honest) hate speech coming from the Christian Right.
Actually, I live pretty much right in the middle of the "Christian Right," about an hour from Topeka, KS. And, with the exception of the Phelps, I've never heard ANY such rhetoric. And as far as the Phelps go, the rest of the "Christian Right" would rather kill them than kill gays.
And eating meat taken from an animal that spent its life in a pen, and was killed by the hundreds in a blood-soaked processing plant is more ethical?
Anyone who thinks that eating meat from a restaurant or store is more human than eating meat you took yourself, by getting out into the elements, tracking, shooting, and butchering an animal (a process which often takes many days, and is done in winter), either doesn't know what they are talking about or has a twisted sense of morality.
Actually, a bit off your topic, but nevertheless relevant:
The ultimate kill with a rifle is only the very end of the process. It's kinder than the older methods, such as a bow and arrow, which often wound an animal without killing it, and you have to track it to put it out of its misery. A rifle can drop an animal immediately.
Not entirely true. Modern bows and arrows are actually considered by many hunters to be the quicker and cleaner weapons, one reason why bow-hunters are becoming more and more prevalent. Modern bows are very accurate with sufficient training and practice, and fire at a very high speed. Furthermore, modern arrows are razor sharp and highly deadly. They penetrate, and usually pass through an animal before it knows it was hit, severs the nerves, and causes very rapid bleeding. A gun is possibly more lethal, but not necessarily more humane. All in all, it really depends on the skill of the hunter, which I think you would find is significantly higher in bow hunters than rifle hunters.
The question I have for you, is how is this ANY DIFFERENT from letting sighted people hunt? The way you describe it, its more dangerous for SIGHTED people to hunt than for blind people. Your guilt issue aside, you haven't made 1/10 of a compelling argument that hunting should be limited to sighted people. Your argument seems to want to restrict hunting altogether.
The parent was modded funny, but really this is pretty insightful, and is almost exactly what I was thinking. Hunting is a great passtime, I've been hunting regularly (> 50 days a year) for most of my life, I've introduced many people to it, and without fail they've all loved it. It teaches you a respect for nature that you can't get buying chicken at KFC or burgers at McDonalds, and gives you the kind of thrill that can only come from doing something that man was built to do. Once you've got to get out into the elements, find, kill, and clean your own game, you'd probably feel the same way (unless you are a PETA nutjob).
However, with blind people, a lot of that respect and a lot of that work is lost. Being led into the woods, told to shoot at a target you can't even see, and then letting someone else do the rest of the work for you...that's just not the same. It becomes too focused on the kill. For that matter, a blind person can't even appreciate a trophy. Something about it just turns me off.
That said, while I may have appeared to state the opposite, I think that blind people should have every right to hunt, as I think that they should have every right to do anything (safely) that sighted people can. As long as the hunter they are with is experienced enough to keep it safe, there shouldn't be any cause for concern. Well, at least insofar as safety is concerned.
What I'd really be interested in is a study on how effective advertising is, and the trends over time, on several types of advertisements. I can't remember ever buying a product based on an advertisement. At the same time, I can recall many times when I've promised myself NOT to buy a product as a result of a terrible, or invasive/unwanted advertisement. As ads permeate our lives more and more, I imagine I'm not alone. Personally, when I'm looking for a product, I pointedly search for reviews on it, and descriptions of features. Generally I look at the company website and, if available, third-party ratings and tests. With the Internet coming into more and more prevalent use in our daily lives, perhaps the old paradigm of "push it till they are sick of it, and will remember it" should trend towards "give them a place to find it, and information on it, if they want it."
Actually you are incorrect. The RIAA, as the copyright holder for much of American music (most likely, we can assume, they hold the copyrights on the music that the children downloaded), has the right to choose who they want to sue, and who they don't want to sue. As unfair as this sounds, it is absolutely necessary for our civil law system to function. For example, you could make the very same argument about.... errr... a friend of mine. You see, just because the RIAA hasn't sued my friend, who has downloaded a significant amount of music, doesn't mean that they can't sue anyone else. If someone was required to sue EVERYONE who had committed a violation of their copyright in order to sue ONE person who had violated it, tort law would break down pretty fast.
The fact that the downloaders in this case were the children of the Warner Music CEO is irrelevant to anything but a moral argument, although even in this case its not cut and dry. I detest the policies of the music industry as much as the next guy, but much of their heavy-handedness notwithstanding, the underlying issue, that they should be paid for every copy of their product distributed, is morally defensible (although lets not get into the issue of them actually paying the artists a fair amount). For example, lets say I had spent a year developing a computer application for retail. In order to eat/clothe myself/pay rent/etc, I would have to recieve compensation. If, however, somone decided to start copying my application and distributing it for free, I would have no problem suing them, and it would take a pretty twisted world-view to argue that the copier is on the moral high ground (assuming the application is consumer-friendly, i.e. free of malware/heavy-handed eulas, etc). I would have no problem suing such a person. However, if I had children, and one of them were to download one of these copies, I certainly wouldn't sue them. I would definantly talk to them, and they would be in trouble, but I wouldn't bring my own children to court over it. And, in not doing so, the pirate that I DID sue for making illegal copies does not gain the moral high ground, nor do I forfeit it. Its a simple matter of treating my family better than I would a stranger, and I hardly think that that is unusual or detestable.
This dragged on longer than I expected, but the bottom line is this: The RIAA is no saint, but ultimately, while their means are in many cases despicable, their most underlying claim: that they have the right to compensation for all distributions of their music, is not. And, just because this CEO didn't sue his children, but is suing strangers for the same thing is not neceassarily reprehensible, nor is it unjust, and it certainly won't invalidate any of the lawsuits in court. I would imagine that in a similar position, most of us would do the exact same thing.
You know, making vague, warrantless, unevidenced accusations about "the authorities" (who are "the authorities"? The CIA? The NSA? The FBI? The executive branch? Congress? The House of Representatives? The local police station? The PTA?) attempting to "limit... freedom" is a pretty standard indicator of delusional paranoia.
Whenever you tuned into US national news during the Iraq war, it's been a display of the technological advancement of the war machinery and one-sided government-friendly reporting
This is a joke, right? I think the last government-friendly news report I've seen on the national news were in the days leading UP to the war.
The governing body of internet domain names, ICANN, has been advised of the proposed order. It says however that it cannot comply with any such order as it has neither the ability nor the authority to do so. Only the internet registrar with which the registrant has a contractual relationship can suspend an individual domain name, ICANN says.
If even ICANN says it won't comply, and the judge hasn't even signed the order, why is this a big deal, and furthermore, how is this "heating up?" Sounds to me like a bunch of fuss about a non-issue. Now, if ICANN was actually going to comply, then we'd have something to talk about.
"Game publishers (and most companies for that matter) really only care about profits. Quality is a distant second to profit."
One important thing to note here is that this has been the case long since Wal Mart became this supposed driving force in gaming. The problems with the gaming industry kowtowing to Wal Mart play a very distant second to the erosion of the industry itself due to its OWN massive corporations, i.e. Sony and EA, that stifle innovation in what are, quite literally, game building sweatshops.
Unfortunately, a bunch of monopolies (and duopolies) control the last few miles from the backbone to your house. How would you like it if there was a 'free' 12-lane interstate highway out there that your tax dollars paid for, but some local cartel charges you $50 per month to drive on their dirt road from your driveway to the interstate on-ramp? I know I'd be pissed.
So bring in the Better Business Bureau, hold a government inquiry, tell them they can't monopolize the wires. Don't have the government build a competing highway right next to it, spending even MORE money, then still charge you to drive on it.
While I agree with the elusive naming practices being a definate negative, I think the issue in most cases is a little deeper. Why vote for something you know is flawed? Sadly, this happens all the time, and on both sides of the aisle. Partially because of the political consequences of not passing something that most americans would think (whether its true or not) is a good thing, and partially because in order to pass legislation in todays senate, you pretty much HAVE to include things which your constituency may not agree with. Its politics at its best and worst. And I can sum up the solution in one line:
I would also add that most of the fears come from those claiming that a Dubai-based company could secretly introduce terrorist workers into the docks. What they apparently miss (or more likely, gloss over) is that all the labor on the docks is contracted to AMERICAN UNION LONGSHOREMEN. You aren't going to be seeing dock work handed over en-masse to Abdul and Jafar, in fact, you aren't going to be seeing ANY changes to the dock workforce.
The problem is convincing the people profiting from software patents that they are bad.
Not quite. While this would certianly aid in the fight, it is probably not possible to convince these people that patent trolling, which may net them millions, is bad. The people you need to convince are the legislators. It is going to come down to legislation to fix this problem, not convincing patent trolls that they are immoral.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it wrong and offensive?
Why should you be able to excercise your right to free speech and the owners/executives of Walmart shouldnt be able to excercise theirs? After all, that is all that they are doing.
Its like when the Dixie Chicks were taken off of a lot of radio stations a while back. They were free to say what they wanted. However, if I own a radio station and dont like what they are saying, I should be equally free to voice my opinion by not playing their music.
Business owners deserve freedom of speech just as much as you or I, and there is nothing wrong nor offensive about that, especially considering that Walmart is actually PROHIBITING actual wrong and offensive material from being sold in their stores...
Which only reinforces the author's ideas. Who wants to spend time and effort working on a project for one platform/language/architecture/component system/etc., only to find it dead a few months later? At least with Windows, there is the certainty that 10 years from now, your project will still perform well, with relatively minor modifications to adjust for OS updates, for a massive number of users. Contrast that your view of the open source community, and you will quickly see why many people make the decision to go with Windows.
The reality, however, is that while there are many dead projects, there is quite a bit of stability in open source, as long as you stick to the basics. Just look at the LAMP architecture, and you will see a programming paradigm that is here to stay for quite some time. Ultimately, for the well-informed developer, I would feel that, for some applications at least, open source is better than Windows. Here I'm thinking primarily of web-based applications. Developing apps for specific desktop environments in Linux, however, can be a bit more risky and time-consuming, and it is in this arena that I much prefer to stick to Windows, regardless of the fact that a program built for Windows will be accessible to a much larger target market than one built for KDE or Gnome.
Your comical (literally) argument is a bit flawed. You are operating under the assumption that not learning the local language will not hinder the immigrant. This is hardly the case. Sure, forcing immigrants to learn English may seem like a "racist" or "intolerant" idea, but lets look at it realistically: If you move to the US not knowing anything but Spanish (or move to France not knowing anything but English, for that matter), you are going to have a hard time making money and operating in our economy and our political system. When you can't read road signs, can't read tax forms, legal documents, or even a voting ballot, and can't speak to the majority of the other citizens of this (or any) country, you are going to have a difficult time being a productive member of society. This, then, is the primary reason that we (and most other countries) require english proficiency as a requirement for legal immigration. If you have a subset of the country that can't speak the language, then whether they are laborers or brain surgeons they are going to be a drain on the country, as they cannot be as productive as english-speakers, and money must be spent either to teach them the language (which many would probably not do), or spent ensuring that they can survive without work, or with a low-income job. Plus, you have the issue of safety. I worked construction in the summers when I was in college, and in Kansas, we had a large number of mexican immigrants working as laborers (most of whom, no doubt, were illegals or descendents thereof). A large portion of those I worked with either didn't speak english, or spoke it very poorly. Trying to tell someone who doesn't speak your langauge what to do (for instance: MOVE! Something is about to fall!), is not an easy task. If that person can't understand, and subsequently is hit by falling debris, how are they going to inform the hospital workers what is wrong if they are injured (or sick)? How are they going to be able to read road signs or understand safety hazards on labelling?
Not quite. Lets take a look at what the facts show.
1. The NYT submitted an article for publication to the CIA review board. Parts were blacked out, and the CIA claims this came after one positive review by their board. While this may at first seem to incriminate the administration, in and of itself it does no such thing. The CIA is not privy to all the classified information in the US. In fact it would be more accurate to say that the CIA is not privy to a majority of all classified information in the US, or even a modest fraction. The NSA, for instance, vastly outnumbers the CIA in both personnel and classified material, most of which this review board probably didn't have access to. Senior administration officials, however, might have had such access and thus overrulled the board.
2. The NYT, after recieving the edited article, printed the government's version. Here is where I become a bit skeptical of the NYT's intentions (although the fact that the NYT is as far left as Fox news is right perhaps should have tipped me off earlier). The NYT doesn't exactly have a long and distinguished history of printing only things the government wants. Hell, they just sent several of their reporters to jail for printing classified information (well, failing to reveal the source thereof, but essentially the same). Now that might make them less likely to print classified material in the future, but if this material was classified, then the "censoring" was valid, and the attacks on the Bush administration have no basis. If the material was not, in fact, classified, then the NYT is at fault for not printing it.
My best guess at what is happening here is that the NYT is taking yet another attack at the administration. They sent an article in for review, it was declared classified, and they are trying to claim that because the CIA board reviewed it and found it ok, that that means it should be able to be printed. The fact is, they are wrong, and most likely they know it. If they felt that the information really was ok to print, and that information would be detrimental to the administration, obviously they would print it. This is just more of the same from the NYT.
As soon as you explain where I used the word "rifle" in my post.
And eating meat taken from an animal that spent its life in a pen, and was killed by the hundreds in a blood-soaked processing plant is more ethical?
Anyone who thinks that eating meat from a restaurant or store is more human than eating meat you took yourself, by getting out into the elements, tracking, shooting, and butchering an animal (a process which often takes many days, and is done in winter), either doesn't know what they are talking about or has a twisted sense of morality.
The question I have for you, is how is this ANY DIFFERENT from letting sighted people hunt? The way you describe it, its more dangerous for SIGHTED people to hunt than for blind people. Your guilt issue aside, you haven't made 1/10 of a compelling argument that hunting should be limited to sighted people. Your argument seems to want to restrict hunting altogether.
The parent was modded funny, but really this is pretty insightful, and is almost exactly what I was thinking. Hunting is a great passtime, I've been hunting regularly (> 50 days a year) for most of my life, I've introduced many people to it, and without fail they've all loved it. It teaches you a respect for nature that you can't get buying chicken at KFC or burgers at McDonalds, and gives you the kind of thrill that can only come from doing something that man was built to do. Once you've got to get out into the elements, find, kill, and clean your own game, you'd probably feel the same way (unless you are a PETA nutjob).
However, with blind people, a lot of that respect and a lot of that work is lost. Being led into the woods, told to shoot at a target you can't even see, and then letting someone else do the rest of the work for you...that's just not the same. It becomes too focused on the kill. For that matter, a blind person can't even appreciate a trophy. Something about it just turns me off.
That said, while I may have appeared to state the opposite, I think that blind people should have every right to hunt, as I think that they should have every right to do anything (safely) that sighted people can. As long as the hunter they are with is experienced enough to keep it safe, there shouldn't be any cause for concern. Well, at least insofar as safety is concerned.
Dont forget about the Insight.com Bowl! Or the GalleryFurniture.com Bowl!
What I'd really be interested in is a study on how effective advertising is, and the trends over time, on several types of advertisements. I can't remember ever buying a product based on an advertisement. At the same time, I can recall many times when I've promised myself NOT to buy a product as a result of a terrible, or invasive/unwanted advertisement. As ads permeate our lives more and more, I imagine I'm not alone. Personally, when I'm looking for a product, I pointedly search for reviews on it, and descriptions of features. Generally I look at the company website and, if available, third-party ratings and tests. With the Internet coming into more and more prevalent use in our daily lives, perhaps the old paradigm of "push it till they are sick of it, and will remember it" should trend towards "give them a place to find it, and information on it, if they want it."
Actually you are incorrect. The RIAA, as the copyright holder for much of American music (most likely, we can assume, they hold the copyrights on the music that the children downloaded), has the right to choose who they want to sue, and who they don't want to sue. As unfair as this sounds, it is absolutely necessary for our civil law system to function. For example, you could make the very same argument about .... errr ... a friend of mine. You see, just because the RIAA hasn't sued my friend, who has downloaded a significant amount of music, doesn't mean that they can't sue anyone else. If someone was required to sue EVERYONE who had committed a violation of their copyright in order to sue ONE person who had violated it, tort law would break down pretty fast.
The fact that the downloaders in this case were the children of the Warner Music CEO is irrelevant to anything but a moral argument, although even in this case its not cut and dry. I detest the policies of the music industry as much as the next guy, but much of their heavy-handedness notwithstanding, the underlying issue, that they should be paid for every copy of their product distributed, is morally defensible (although lets not get into the issue of them actually paying the artists a fair amount). For example, lets say I had spent a year developing a computer application for retail. In order to eat/clothe myself/pay rent/etc, I would have to recieve compensation. If, however, somone decided to start copying my application and distributing it for free, I would have no problem suing them, and it would take a pretty twisted world-view to argue that the copier is on the moral high ground (assuming the application is consumer-friendly, i.e. free of malware/heavy-handed eulas, etc). I would have no problem suing such a person. However, if I had children, and one of them were to download one of these copies, I certainly wouldn't sue them. I would definantly talk to them, and they would be in trouble, but I wouldn't bring my own children to court over it. And, in not doing so, the pirate that I DID sue for making illegal copies does not gain the moral high ground, nor do I forfeit it. Its a simple matter of treating my family better than I would a stranger, and I hardly think that that is unusual or detestable.
This dragged on longer than I expected, but the bottom line is this: The RIAA is no saint, but ultimately, while their means are in many cases despicable, their most underlying claim: that they have the right to compensation for all distributions of their music, is not. And, just because this CEO didn't sue his children, but is suing strangers for the same thing is not neceassarily reprehensible, nor is it unjust, and it certainly won't invalidate any of the lawsuits in court. I would imagine that in a similar position, most of us would do the exact same thing.
You know, making vague, warrantless, unevidenced accusations about "the authorities" (who are "the authorities"? The CIA? The NSA? The FBI? The executive branch? Congress? The House of Representatives? The local police station? The PTA?) attempting to "limit ... freedom" is a pretty standard indicator of delusional paranoia.
Whenever you tuned into US national news during the Iraq war, it's been a display of the technological advancement of the war machinery and one-sided government-friendly reporting This is a joke, right? I think the last government-friendly news report I've seen on the national news were in the days leading UP to the war.
The governing body of internet domain names, ICANN, has been advised of the proposed order. It says however that it cannot comply with any such order as it has neither the ability nor the authority to do so. Only the internet registrar with which the registrant has a contractual relationship can suspend an individual domain name, ICANN says.
If even ICANN says it won't comply, and the judge hasn't even signed the order, why is this a big deal, and furthermore, how is this "heating up?" Sounds to me like a bunch of fuss about a non-issue. Now, if ICANN was actually going to comply, then we'd have something to talk about.
So bring in the Better Business Bureau, hold a government inquiry, tell them they can't monopolize the wires. Don't have the government build a competing highway right next to it, spending even MORE money, then still charge you to drive on it.
While I agree with the elusive naming practices being a definate negative, I think the issue in most cases is a little deeper. Why vote for something you know is flawed? Sadly, this happens all the time, and on both sides of the aisle. Partially because of the political consequences of not passing something that most americans would think (whether its true or not) is a good thing, and partially because in order to pass legislation in todays senate, you pretty much HAVE to include things which your constituency may not agree with. Its politics at its best and worst. And I can sum up the solution in one line:
line item veto.
I would also add that most of the fears come from those claiming that a Dubai-based company could secretly introduce terrorist workers into the docks. What they apparently miss (or more likely, gloss over) is that all the labor on the docks is contracted to AMERICAN UNION LONGSHOREMEN. You aren't going to be seeing dock work handed over en-masse to Abdul and Jafar, in fact, you aren't going to be seeing ANY changes to the dock workforce.
So really, what IS the big deal?
The problem is convincing the people profiting from software patents that they are bad. Not quite. While this would certianly aid in the fight, it is probably not possible to convince these people that patent trolling, which may net them millions, is bad. The people you need to convince are the legislators. It is going to come down to legislation to fix this problem, not convincing patent trolls that they are immoral.
You spelled Mercantile wrong. I guess slashdot posters are getting dumber by the day :)
No, they're too busy comparing the GOP senators to plantation owners...