Patrons paid to have works created for themselves, not for everyone. Your solution would make most, if not all, works out of the reach of common people.

So, what you are saying is that computer programmers is child's play which anyone can do and the pay for programmers should be accordingly small, say minimum wage, yes?

As anyone can edit Wikipedia, including jooceman, unless you checked every single citation, the Wikipedia article proves nothing.

Yo, jackass, Try reading what the fuckhead I replied to posted, then spout your shit, ok? And, when quoting me, how about including all relevant information, such as the words "as written", m'kay, shithead?

First, I am stating that the Guardian's reporters and editors don't even use their own language properly as evidenced in the VERY FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE.

Second, dipshit LordLucless stated

Funny, I thought his fellow service members were busy betraying their principles by colluding in the organised rape of children that Manning helped expose.

which is a factual LIE. You do know what the word lie means right? Manning is a member of the U.S. Army. By stating that "his fellow service members", he is stating that members of the U.S. Army were "colluding in the organised rape of children", which is a LIE. Those that were allegedly "colluding in the organised rape of children" were employees of a private corporations which was hired by the Afghan government to train police. They were NOT members of any U.S. armed service. They may not even have been Americans, but rather employees of an international company based in the U.S.

As the contractors are not employed by the American government but rather for the Afghan government and are operating outside the United States, and did not travel to Afghanistan for the purpose of having sex with children but for business, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence the contractors had sex with the boys, is there any applicable U.S. law these people can be prosecuted under? As this occurred in Afghanistan, shouldn't the contractors be prosecuted under any applicable Afghan law?

FLOSS software prevents this for the average user. Understanding of the source code requires training in programming in whatever language it is written.

When one share's a book with another person, one does not have access to the book until it is returned. Please explain how "sharing" software will work. Explain how only one copy of the work will exist if you "share" it with, say, Stallman.

As for such complaints as "unable to adapt them to your needs" and "never sure what they are doing", tell you what you do: Either write it yourself or go pay someone to write it for you.

. A computer is a general purpose device, shouldn't a user/owner be able (within their technical bounds) to make it do what they want?

This is about the most foolish comment you could have made. If the user/owner technical bounds allow him to adapt programs to his needs, then the user/owner has the technical abilities to create his own software thus alleviating his need to use proprietary software. Put simply in deference to you and RMS, if one can actually make use of the freedoms of free software, one does not need to use proprietary software.

If you and stall man are going to rubbish proprietary software, at least make a rational argument on how it is better for Joe Average User with no programming and development skills or interests rather than bleating on about how much freedom it provides everyone when most everyone could not exercise said freedom. The point is very simple: FLOSS really doesn't provide anymore freedom to 90% of computer users than proprietary software and proprietary software provides a much more usable product. If you don't like proprietary software, don't use it, shut the fuck up and and stop whining that proprietary software still exists.

To be blunt, the only reason I can see for RMS and his acolytes to keep whining about the existence of proprietary software is that they KNOW that the proprietary software is more popular and useful than the FLOSS offerings and want to be able to use the proprietary software but can't because doing so goes against their principles. RMS and companies complaints are nothing more than sour grapes.

How about getting rid of redundant forms and regulations?

You speak of occupational safety, but have you ever worked in a real job? Many safety regulations are ignored by WORKERS because they just get in the way. OSHA regs strive for 100% safety, but that is an unobtainable goal. I have worked in positions where it was required to wear glove by OSHA, but wearing gloves made the job just about impossible. Construction workers are required to wear hard hats at all times, including when they are working in a position or space that prevents one from wearing a hard hat. Often OSHA regs run up against the Pareto principle where 90% of the cost is for the last 10% of the effect. That is where the problem lies. I say we make safety rules REASONABLE using input from WORKERS, not government bureaucrats.

You speak of environmental standards, but which ones? Federal, state, local? The most restrictive? And, environmental standards run up against the Pareto principle. Then, there are the environmental laws that are counter-productive.

This is really the problem with many of the occupational, business, and environmental laws in the U.S. They aim for 100% safety and end up spending 80% to 90% of their funds trying to get that last 10% with no flexibility in implementation.

I see you can't fucking read or are a complete and incompetent liar. The question is which one are you? From your own link [emphasis added]:

A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in northern Afghanistan...The episode helped to fuel Afghan demands that contractors and private security companies be brought under much tighter government control...Atmar himself warned about public anger towards contractors...In a meeting between Atmar and the assistant ambassador Joseph Mussomeli, the US diplomat said he was deeply upset by the incident and that the embassy was considering Afghan demands that the US military should beginning overseeing the DynCrop operations

Looks like you are a fucking liar. This incident DIDN'T INVOLVE ANY U.S. SERVICE MEMBERS, you worthless, lying piece of shit. What about this part of the article you linked to:

There is a long tradition of young boys dressing up as girls and dancing for men in Afghanistan, an activity that sometimes crosses the line into child abuse with Afghans keeping boys as possessions.

It seems your "organised rape of children" is being done by the Afghans and it has a long history of such. But wait, there is more!

Two Afghan policemen and nine other Afghans were arrested as part of investigations into a crime described by Atmar as "purchasing a service from a child", which the cable said was against both sharia law and the civil code.

So, it looks like no contractors have been arrested for anything, but Afghans have been. That seems to argue that the contractors didn't commit any child rape or any other crime.

The evidence indicates you are a lying waste of skin asshole the better part of whom ran down his mother's leg. The world would be a better place if your mother would have just swallowed that night.

And, just to show the quality of the Guardian's reporting and editing, the very first sentence of the article you linked:

A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in northern Afghanistan caused such panic that the interior minister begged the US embassy to try and "quash" the story, according to one of the US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks.

as written, indicates it was the Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for the young dancing boys, not the contractors. In fact, as written, it was the contractors who trained the police to take drugs and hire dancing boys. If it were differently punctuated, it would read as you, pig spittle, have read it.

So, puss for brains, are you lying, dog-fucking asshole or are you an ignorant, monkey cum eating, piece of shit? Which is it?

Does one have a right to "be forgotten" off-line?
Can one go to a newspaper and demand that a letter to the editor one wrote be removed from all copies it was printed in?
Can one demand that every book one has written be destroyed?
Can one go to every person one knows and every institution one has done business with and demand every letter one has written to same be destroyed?

No, one can not. And, that is the answer to the question: No, one should not have a "right to be forgotten" online.

What photo of me with my Gadget?

I am not being oppressed, therefore your argument is invalid.

People do not "voluntarily file taxes". Such a statement shows a lack of knowledge about the tax laws and how income taxes (which is what you appear to be talking about) work, at least in the U.S. One is required by law to pay taxes AND to file an income tax return form to reconciling the amount one paid in taxes and the amount of taxes owed. Failure to do so is punishable by law. Saying one "voluntarily file taxes" is like saying one "voluntarily does not steal".

As for generating "a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree", part of it is due to using tax law to modify people's behavior, part is a chance to correct any errors, and part is because they know they don't have all the numbers and that the numbers they have may be incorrect. Some of this is offset by the use of withholding at the payroll level. The IRS knows about what your taxes should be for a set of generic circumstances and allows people to automatically pay the tax directly from their employer. Legally, you do not have to pay any taxes until your file your tax return, but if you earn a taxable income of US$50,000.00, you will have to write a check for US$12,500.00 when you file your taxes.

One can often earn money without the government knowing. Imagine someone who has, say, a lawn mowing service. He has a truck, a trailer, a lawn mower, edger, trimmer, gas, and maintenance. He is going to charge his clients less than $100 a week, and will often get cash. His deposits will most-likely be less than $5,000.00 a week and often less than $1,000.00 per deposit. His clients will not be filing any forms to record the transaction. The bank will not be filing any forms to record the transactions. The biggest concern will be if the bank ends up filing a 1099INT. If he forgoes bank account all together and works strictly on a cash basis, there does not have to be a record of any transactions. This is why prostitutes don't pay taxes on their earnings. Prostitution is almost always paid for with cash and even if the prostitute opens a bank account, the deposits are often so small that there is no worry about bank notification laws.

You do understand that if you live with integrity then what you have outlined in your post will not be an issue, right?

The United States of American is federal constitutional republic, which uses democratically elected representatives and whose power is defined and limited by the laws embodied in the Constitution of the United States.

We are not a Democracy, which is a form of direct government by the people. It is essentially majority rule.

We are, however a democracy. The people of the United States elect representatives under a free electoral system.

You may not like it, but the Utah legislature is essentially correct.

Oh shut the fuck up. Here are his words directly from the link in the post :

““I would definitely draw parallels at the moment between the wave of political unrest which is sweeping through the Middle East in a very exciting and rather extraordinary fashion and also the WikiLeaks phenomenon, Really, what ties these two events together, and of course a number of other events, is the diffusion of power, away from the states and the empowerment of individuals, and small groups of individuals, by technology.”

He is drawing parallels. He is comparing the revolutions in the Middle East and Wikileaks, He is NOT saying Wikileaks caused the revolutions. Go take a fucking reading comprehension course, you fucking asshole.