That is a self-consistent position. But then no copyright infringement is theft. And while self-consistent, the position is unfortunately very inconsistent with how basically all large copyright holders and industry groups use language. So for me, your claim is borderline dishonest unless you make it clear that your interpretation applies broadly.

Also, of course. the OP wrote "effectively a thief", not "literally a thief". The first is arguably true, in that the company profited from illegally appropriating someone else's (intellectual) property.

Reality seems to disagree....

In fact, the Texas grid is only weakly connected to the larger electricity network (i.e. there are some connection points, but no systematic power exchange). This act of desperate stupidity speaks volumes about the quality of the physics education in the state...

Not fit to weigh in on this one, only to comment that a lot of people might envy having those same engineering problems that first engaged you in school, still your reason to tear-hair decades on in the career.

Linus is actually farther along in his career arc than the pond scum that had to go apologize to Congress for their products this week; an apology cheerfully given, as it was not just cheap, but free. Congress has no intention of actually legislating or regulating away their oligopoly and their freedom to continue.

But Linus gets to argue about inodes this week, and sleep well, and as I understand it, still worth millions anyway, sleeping in a fine bed, eating the best of foods. He picked medium chill.
https://grist.org/living/2011-...

Actually, it was also illegal in the UK to obtain the data from foreign sources by bribery. And as I understand it, the company in question was not working on behalf of the crown, but on behalf of the Greater London Council. Moreover, immunity is not transitive - think about what that would imply.

I have a hard time even parsing this convoluted ideas. You are aware that most international travel and trade depends on friendly cooperation between nations. One-sided sanctions are, maybe, a last remedy, but not something any sane nation would imposed to defend the capabilities of a private company to illegally obtain data about foreign nationals to enforce what amounts, in the great scheme of things, to a trivial amount of fines.

There actually still is a data sharing agreement. But this now only applies to criminal cases. The one that would allow data sharing for civil violations went out the window with Brexit.

Not at all. The fines actually seem to be quite fine (pun obvius). What is not acceptable is that the license plate to holder information was obtained illegally. It's fully within the UKs remit to fine drivers for violations of their rules. It's not ok to illegally obtain information on car registration. That's what the UK gets for Brexit - less access to EU institutions and markets.

If you can put on panels, save money on electricity, pay off the panels, then the "solar industry" is fine. Just as "build a house, sell for more than it cost to build" remained a solid industry before and after 2008. It was the FINANCIALIZATION scheme built upon those sold, real-life, industries that fell over - just like 2008, most likely. I'm sure a lot of lying was involved, again.

You seem to misunderstand something. Some shareholders want the proposal on the ballot. The company management does not. If it's on the ballot, then all shareholders get to decide wether to support it or not. Only if accepted does it set the direction of the company.

Oh, my mistake was believing large newspapers that had headlines and first lines like:

Bush drops plan to break up Microsoft

The US government *unexpectedly* announced yesterday...Although most legal experts considered a break-up unlikely, few expected the government to remove the option from the negotiating table.,,"surprised and perplexed that they have done this as it seems to be contrary to the way the proceedings had unfolded. They have cut their own legs out from under them."

etc etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

You write as if the DOJ had "just decided" their case was weak and they should settle. They were clearly ordered to.

If you'd like details on the much-older case of IBM and Reagan, the book "Big Blue" by Richard Thomas Delamarter told it in great detail, and how crushed a large DOJ team was by Reagan's fiat. The Microsoft case was similarly stark, to those on the inside.

Oh, right, you meant "valuable" to the investors, not to the world.

Successfully creating a monopoly, illegally defending it but getting away with that after found guilty in antitrust court when Bush ordered the case dropped, the way Reagan did for the IBM case, does create "value" for investors.

But it is rent-collection, and Keynes joked (we think) about the "euthanasia of the rentiers" needed for progress towards that 3-day week he dreamed of.

They did not excuse anything. They were asked about how their institutions then-current (i.e. most likely predating the current situation by months or more likely years) regulations would apply, not about their personal view or politics. We do live in a society where the divine right of kings and/or university presidents rarely is accepted to change free speech regulations at whim.

Neither of the events you mention took place at MIT (or at Harvard). Also, neither of the cases have any relevancy at all on the question asked. You can complain about inconsistent treatments of different groups on campuses, but that was not the question here.

Also, I see a couple of other difference. First of, Jews and Israelis are not the same group - not by a long shot. Israelis are not a disadvantaged minority in the US, they are, at most, tourists. Jews are a minority, and they are the subject of occasional hate attacks (mostly from the conspiratorial right), but I'd say it's a stretch to claim that they are a disadvantaged minority today. Jews are basically completely integrated with the dominant white population, and they are significantly above average in economic and educational achievements. African-Americans, on the other hand, have been consistently disadvantaged ever since most of their ancestors were brought to the US involuntarily. I find it quite normal and to be expected for a modern society to concentrate on the ongoing effects of their historical crimes than on much less pronounced problems.

And I do wonder how honest the current level of offence is, when 2017 many of the same commentators found little to complain about when a crowd of Nazis shouted antisemitic slogans - indeed, one found "good people on both sides".

Not quite. The question was not where the line should be drawn (which would be a question about her own opinion), but wether particular speech acts were automatically "harassment" under existing regulation. She answered that, as far as I can tell, correctly and to the best of her ability - basically, that a generic speech act would not be considered harassment, but that any such acts specifically directed towards individuals would.

I just looked at Kornbluth's scientific output over at Google Scholar, and she has significantly more than 100 published papers (her i10 is already 109), nearly 150000 citations, and an h-index of 66. In my experience, people like that, who actually get the PhD because they want to do real scientific work, not just as a career stepping stone, are very rarely plagiarising.