Not just atheists. Anyone who understands the scientific method would oppose the teaching of both alchemy and creationism as science in public schools. This includes many people of faith. On the other hand, nobody would object to teaching creationism in the context of religious studies.
We're talking politics and what citizens care about. Copyright isn't an issue that citizens riot about. Food can be.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. True, copyright in and of itself isn't an issue that citizens riot about. It doesn't affect them; they consider it irrelevant and ignore it. On the other hand, attempts to enforce copyright through DMCA takedowns, ludicrous statutory damages and the criminalization of civil tort does affect citizens.
I'm sure nobody in North Africa gave a damn about illegal fruit trading until Mohamed Bouazizi made it an issue.
I believe Mr Khanna needs to be returned to Congress for the public good. Is there perhaps a safe Republican seat where he might mount a primary challenge for 2014? Texas 21st District would be good. I have my check book out.
Re: Does Stockholm Syndrome make us love the Grim Reaper?
Since most of the diseases that make people miserable and long for death are related to aging, extending lifetime by preventing senescence should take care of that problem nicely. Imagine living 80 or 90 years in the body of a 25 year old. Life would be pretty sweet.
Unfortunately, if such a technology were developed, only the most unsuitable people would be able to afford it.
every year the internet eats more destructively into the business case for old-fashioned journalism. That is at least one of the reasons why some journalists have been driven to behave so disgracefully
What a load of bollocks. Tabloid journalists behave disgracefully because they are unprincipled shits and know no other way to behave. It's not like this behavior is anything recent. I worked for a company in England, in the early 1990s. One of my colleagues kept on his desk a radio scanner and a cassette recorder. When I asked him why, he told me that we were within range of a cell tower that was, in turn, within range of a Royal residence, and back in those days, cell tower relays were analog and unencrypted. Occasionally, if you paid attention, you could catch one side of a conversation between a princess and her lover, for which Rupert Murdoch's Sun tabloid would pay handsomely. He had already sold them several.
As for the internet, back in those days I'd be surprised if any journalist had ever heard of it. I myself had only read stories about it in Phrack.
While on the face of it this sounds like a good thing, why is the solution always more laws? A law for "internet freedom" will end up as a reservation, with everything not specifically included being excluded by default. We need the opposite, repeal of the laws that threaten internet freedom. We could start with the DMCA.
Maybe if people would stop calling the fuckers "lawmakers" and start calling them "representatives", they might get their priorities right.
"One regional staff accountant ran into the "no-porn" wall 1,800 times in a two week period, yet remained still employed."
There, restated the problem in two words. I doubt if an individual in private industry would get much further than a tenth of that block total before he was asked to step into the boss's office. The problem with government jobs is they're all carrot, no stick.
Bring it on, I say. There's a wonderful opportunity here for a killer app (patent pending) that automatically turns pages and makes cross-reference notes while the owner eats, drinks and sleeps. Great scores all round, $$$ for me.
...it raises serious questions about why they were purchased and put into use in the first place...
Oh, I think we all know why they were purchased. As for why they were put into use, it's a principle established by long precedent that the government never negotiates away or takes out of service any piece of Congressional pork until it's been paid for and its sponsors adequately compensated.
Let's say that I make available a copyrighted work in a share folder, and the 1,000 people download it from me. Under Mike's view, where there's no distribution right, I haven't done anything wrong since I didn't violate the reproduction right.
If you want to get pedantic about it, you did violate the reproduction right when your computer retrieved the data and transmitted it on request. I did not violate the reproduction right when I simply received and stored the data that you reproduced for me.