This is why I would like to see a feature that would allow readers to collapse entire threads in the comments. It would allow readers to "filter" out the derailed sections and focus better on the actual discussions.
I must agree with several others here, it is not a generational issue. What I think you were attempting to describe is an opposition of two world views. I agree that largely the two views are composed of people of different generations, but the views are not a result of their generations. Some have pointed out the for many the worldview they have chosen is a result of where they derive their livelihood.
To sum up; To be old or young, by itself, does not give you a worldview for or against technology.
Adding the phrase "on the internet" to the end of a statement does not create a whole new universe requiring a special set of laws to be RE-created. Fraud is fraud the use of a computer does not change that. The only thing that changed is how it was done. Using everyone's favorite analogy the automobile: If you unlawfully break in to a house it doesn't matter if you use a crow bar or a car bumper, the illegal act is breaking in and not what tool you used to do it with.
"... make leaking information to the press the equivalent of espionage and aiding the enemy."Well in essence it is.However I think the real problem is who is considered "the enemy". The enemy becomes whomever you wish to keep from knowing the information in question. This could be any or all of your: superiors, subordinates, rivals, adversaries, or friends. This is the dilemma that happens when there is no clear and accountable rules for what constitutes information should be kept from whom.
My personal opinion is that there is no reason to keep most secrets. It is one thing to keep people and resources safe, (don't compromise access etc.) But is is another thing completely to keep the population in the dark about policies and practices.The government *should* fear the people and I believe if they kept far fewer secrets they would have far less to fear.
I notice you didn't offer the so-called 'correct' quote. If you're going to challenge someone to an argu-... discussion you should at least have the courtesy to state the challenge and the exact words of phrase you are contesting.
Certainly all artist take inspiration from everywhere. Anything an artists sees, hears or feels throughout their life contributes to any work they create.
My opinion about the claim in this instance is that Watterson created something quite unique. You can clearly see imagery in his work that one can attribute to other's works (A. A. Milne's 'Tigger' comes to my mind). However Watterson's use of the influences is new and unique, and not transformative.
I happen to like the works that Den Beste created, but I respect Watterson's desires (even though I don't agree with them). At the end though works that utilize direct replicas of other works as primary elements don't quite qualify and wholly new creations.
I think an elegant solution would have been for the publisher devise some deal work with Den Beste to keep the images available. Possibly have some type of input governing where and how Watterson's imagery is used. But an even better solution would be for Den Beste to create new charaters to use in his works.
They're beginning to realize that the metric tons of cash they're already raking in aren't filling the hole in their chest where their heart should be. So now they're looking for something else they hope will make them feel alive. It looks like physical control and subjugation of the people is their next power-trip.
While I personally dislike policies that are apparently arbitrary in their application, where the "accused" has no apparent recourse against the policy or his accuser, I have to say in many cases such policies fall in a category of "the right to refuse service to anyone." The "accused is not being tried, convicted, or punished (specifically), only denied access to a service. Yes there are many questions and debates to be had about "Was payment rendered for the service?", and "Is said service such a great necessity that users have some right to access it?". But those discussion have been, so far, avoided.
I agree the "accusers" are avoiding those discussions, and I agree these types of policies are rigged against the consumer, "the people." I'm also sorry I don't have a better suggestion than to stop doing business with companies that pursue these policies, but I see no other way to effect change than to show said companies that policies and related actions like these adversely affect the "bottom line."