Let's say, for example, you're walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY".

You decide to carry this briefcase with you into some remote wilderness, far from civilization, the law, and witnesses. You travel alone, or with people you don't know.

When you do this, most people will not steal from you. Most people are decent.
However, there are bad people in the world. They will want to steal this money from you.

This should not happen, and it is horrible if it does. They are criminals, and all decent people believe they should be punished severely. But even if they are put to death, that doesn't change the fact that they took your money.

The world doesn't conform to our wishes. Sometimes we just have to recognize that certain things are true and either avoid them or accept that sometimes bad things happen. The obviously sad bit is that women - in this analogy - can't really set the briefcase down.

"aspiring politicians appealing to plutocrats."

Please. When WASN'T it that way?

Oh yeah, when the politicians WERE the plutocrats. Would that be better?

(Assuming we're not sprinting to that endpoint already.)

And this counts on slashdot as "insightful" not a "rant" by the way.

Total number of substantive results from the petition site? Zero.

Considering that 25 years ago, someone talking about "the internet" would have been largely met with baffled stares, it's pretty sure that most of the jobs that are going to exist in the first world in 40 years may not have even been imagined yet.

Then again, considering politicians inability to let ANY special interest group go unsatisfied, just about any job is "safe" - if the buggy-whip manufacturers had had better lobbyists, they'd still be employed too.

The reason Hollywood doesn't like piracy is because they don't want you seeing (for free) how crappy 90% of the product is.
The bulk of their business is built on trailers and a massive marketing engine convincing you that the movie "might be" good enough to watch and spend your money on. Usually they're wrong.

Honestly, I don't know many cinephiles that actually go to theaters anymore.

Want to know how most of us feel about Hollywood? I'll invite you to watch The Onion's film reviewer Peter K Rosenthal telling you (NSFW language) how he really feels: http://www.theonion.com/video/...

Except that 'in orbit' is a state, not a place.
It's like doing the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs.

Technically, a non-lifting body could be "in orbit" 1" off the ground (assuming the earth were a sphere).

"But, guess what, the people can decide."

Guess what, the people have already decided: it's called capitalism. It's the French government that's standing in the way, by decreeing (essentially) that books are only for the wealthy.

1) First, the silliness with bill names really needs to stop; one imagines a giglling kindergartner sitting "playing" Congressman typing out stupid acronyms while lobbyists sit in the background actually crafting the legislative language.

2) Then again, there are so many vagaries in the language of this bill, it's almost comical that it would be presented as legislation.
First, the bill keeps referring to "asteroids in outer space" - WTF is "outer space" precisely? Anything ex-atmospheric? Above the Karman Line? Anything in orbit? Anything outside lunar orbit?
Second, I believe even astronomers are having Platonic debates over the precise meanings of such terms as 'asteroid', 'planetoid', and 'moon'. Heck, in wiki's intro to "asteroid", the bulk of the opening paragraph sort of dissolves asymptotically trying to grab specifics. This document constantly references asteroids without bothering even to define what they're talking about. It might include Ceres or Vesta, but could it include the Moon? How about Phobos? Pluto?

Of course, most people have comfortable working definitions of the above, insofar as they care. But when the first rover starts drilling into the Moon, or Mars, or heck, taps into an agglomeration of someone else's space junk asserting it's "space debris that's formed an asteroid" these sorts of vagaries cause massive legal issues.

More evidence - as if the US public needed it - that our congressvermin are just idiots.

Frankly, I have to say that this is even more Orwellian and pernicious than government-backed spying.

The idea that an ostensibly-objective source in the private sector - simply by the good fortune of it's overwhelming market power - can ensure that we all have happythink by subtly 'managing' the news feeds... is terrifying.

...seems to be doing everything in their power to push Germany to be a regional power that DOESN'T NEED OR WANT the US.

Is that the greatest idea?

a) most peoples' computers are making so much noise (fans, etc) that the only way you're going to have a chance to hear the difference will be with $1000 totally-closed cup headphones - do a lot of people have them on their computer?
b) otherwise, even if their PC is silent, their speakers are usually craptastic 3" logitechs, *maybe* with a cheapo sub buried in the shag carpet (ie a somewhat sub-optimal listening environment)
c) finally, last time I checked *most* people are listening to relatively crappy lossy mp3s ripped from youtube videos. It really, truly, doesn't matter how lovely a board you're sending crap sound data through: GIGO.

So I guess these boards are still relevant to the microniche of audiophile enthusiasts that have a nearly-silent PC and hardware, floor-scale speakers connected to their system (or 4-digit $ headphones), and who listen to audiophile-caliber audio....meaning nearly nobody.

That might explain why Creative Labs stock ($36.63 in March 2000) is $1.78 today.

You mean aside from the steady decrease in violent crime rates that we've witnessed over the last 30 years or so in the US?

Wait, what was your point again?

Not sure how this materially affects the main point.
Sure, it won't be $15/hour until 2017.
Do you think the cost of electronics/processing power/etc will go up or down over that time?

If anything, that $15/hour job (=$30k/year) will buy a far more capable robot in 2017 than today, so replacing that person will be even more attractive. For $30k/year you can have:
- a high-efficiency robot that is able to work 24/7 (ok call it pessimistically 20 hours a day assuming significant maintenance downtime), can be instantly programmed fleet-wide to conform to new standards/processes perfectly, or
- a low-intelligence, low-motivation, nearly-skill-less slacker who not only can work very limited hours in a day, but also wants vacation, smoke breaks, toilet breaks, will forget to wash their hands (e coli for everyone!), and will eventually whinge that they need more money, more benefits, and nicer uniforms before quitting the moment they ever develop any actual positive work habits, motivation, or determination?

Compelling choices, indeed.

At least then we'll have solved the worldwide starvation issues.

"Soylent green"