> If you mean not the same for all positions, conservation of linear momentum goes out the
> window.

To be clear, that effectively means either Newton's second law (in it's generalized F = dp/dt form) or Newton's third law is wrong.

You mean paragraph 13?

Having read the whole thing, it actually seems refreshingly balanced to me. The beginning of the part you quoted is really kind of a summary of the consequences pointed out by Kenneth Arrow. I'm willing to believe that, in a world with instant communication, the rate of invention might slow down somewhat if there was no IP.

In the next paragraph the author points out that IP rights are detrimental to consumers and that governments have to strike a balance between encouraging investment in knowledge generation and the detrimental effects from those policies (decreased competition, higher prices).

I can't imagine one of the regular IP organizations even suggesting that IP rights could be in any way detrimental to anyone.

I worked for a test-prep company and everytime we got someone with a visual or hearing impairment we dreaded it. Since the offices had their own budgets, it could be extremely expensive to get materials printed or provide sign interpreters for these folks (interpreters could run $100/hr with all their expenses). I don't wish the afflictions on anyone, but it was just so expensive to accomodate, and seems like there could be a better system.

Even scarier, my good friend went to a top 10 med school and there was a legally blind girl there that wanted to be a doctor. She had alot of problems and it was so expensive for the school to provide her with special equipment to be able to blurrily see things she couldn't see anyways. She had a really hard time getting a residency, and I don't think she ever got into a good residency program. Would you want a doctor examining you who couldn't see you clearly? I wanted to go to Med School too, but I didnt have the stomach for the smells and sights of it. If I have the grades and the MCAT scores, should the school allow me not to look at the corpses and not have to do the nasty stuff? I don't think so. How about I go and do something that I actually can do. People with visual disabilities can do so many things, and its not society's fault that there will unfortunately be a handful of things out of reach or prohibitively expensive.

Paying writers more won't get you better writers. The problem they have is that they are a sick little intellectually inbred nepotistic community. Paying more to writers just gets you the same writers, only now they can afford TWO antique espresso machines at their house in Pacific Palisades instead of just one.

Maybe that's because you missed the point.

See also: Negativland Interviews U2's The Edge

No problem, I just have to figure out all the URLs to whitelist... if I don't get around to it tonight, I should have it ready within the next couple days.

This one is VB.net.

Not ideal, but definitely an improvement over the old model.

The reverse is also true. It is difficult to come up with a solid argument that it's "best for the public good" to censor practitioners of breastfeeding. Who are they protecting, and why ? It's not the children, they're the ones being fed! Is it the mature consenting adults ? Oh noes! Somebody save the adults!

Those who look to be offended, usually find "offensive" things everywhere they look.

Use a strong root password, DUH. The Bears and Elk up in canada cant hold down shift

Yeah, but that still leaves you vulnerable to brute force attacks. Especially from moose.

I don't see how building useful infrastructure is "pork".

Controlled breeding is time-tested, genetic modification is not. That doesn't mean 'don't do it', it means 'extensive research should be done first'.

"Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives"(pdf)

We still do not have a comprehensive understanding of the risks of transgene introgression. We know that genes can be naturally introgressed between different species, albeit at generally low frequencies and over long periods of time. However, government regulators of transgenic plants are interested in specific transgenes, transgenic events, crops and wild relatives, in time spans of tens of years and beyond. Also, risks must be measured against benefits.

"The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants"

Discussions of the environmental risks and benefits of adopting genetically engineered organisms are highly polarized between pro- and anti-biotechnology groups, but the current state of our knowledge is frequently overlooked in this debate. A review of existing scientific literature reveals that key experiments on both the environmental risks and benefits are lacking. The complexity of ecological systems presents considerable challenges for experiments to assess the risks and benefits and inevitable uncertainties of genetically engineered plants. Collectively, existing studies emphasize that these can vary spatially, temporally, and according to the trait and cultivar modified.

Much of the research that has been done is encouraging, but there are still many unknowns. Conservatism is warranted when it comes to tampering with complex systems.

Food safety is not the issue, that's tested easily enough.

It's a bit more difficult to predict the environmental impact of introducing modified crops on a large scale.

I've heard a bit about that, very nasty. Makes the RIAA look like honest businessmen.