Copyright infringement is theft because it denies a copyright owner the ability to sell the product for which they have the copyright and thus they lose money. If I sell a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag that looks like a real one to Madame A, I am depriving Louis Vuitton the right to sell a real bag to Madame A.

And since setting up a competing brand does the exact same thing, it follows that competition is theft. Why do you hate freedom so much, comrade?

Words mean things, and I wish people would use them correctly.

Maybe you should become the change you want to see?

Sharing: Willingly giving a portion of your possessions to another, denying you use or benefit thereof.

"Sharing is the joint use of a resource or space."

Copyright infringement is not sharing. If I share my cake with you, I have given up a portion of my delicious cake I can no longer eat. If I share a ride with you, I've given up my personal space and privacy. But if you copy my file, I haven't given up anything. We both have full use of the file.

"In a broader sense, it can also include free granting of use rights to goods that can be treated as nonrival goods, such as information."

This begs the question: do you simply not have a good grasp on the English language, or do you have some bizarre political motivation?

As I asked another poster: is a company's retail store a profit center? Are the locks on the front door part of that profit center?

Can you make the share price go up for long enough to cash your bonuses by separating those locks from the merchandise they're protecting on the balance sheet and cutting costs?

Like one book on artificial intelligence once said: if you measure the effectiveness of a robotic vacuum by how much dirt it vacuums per time, the AI will do it in the most efficient way possible: dump its internal garbage storage, suck it up, and dump it again, ad infinitum.

Of course, there's always keep your personal shit off the company servers!!!

So now blaming the victims of state-sponsored terrorists gets +5 Insightful. Really?

Bad things happen to people who don't deserve them. That can be scary, because it implies bad things can happen to anyone, including you. But blaming the victims only makes the situation worse, both by causing further suffering for them and also by helping the offenders excuse their actions.

And keep what you do write in company documents at a professional tone.

We have a name for the kind of organization that tries to remove the human element from the equation as thoroughly as possible: bureaucracy.

The price of impersonal professionalism is always performing according to lowest common denominator. If you want efficiency, you have to let members of the organization keep each other updated on relevant facts, which in practice means gossip. Also, human need for social interaction is just as real as the need for food. If you disallow such things at workplace, you'll end up with hungry workers who're just counting seconds before they can leave.

That would sure have mitigated a whole lot of personal pain by these supposedly blameless Sony employees.

Yes, and participants of Boston marathon and employees working at WTC could had stayed home. Mass gatherings are obvious terrorist targets and WTC had been bombed once already. Do you really want to go that way?

The simplest explanation of why it's wrong is that it's Deterministic. i.e. it's part of the "Clockwork universe" and if that's true, then you do not have free will and we should all just throw in the towel now...

While we're at it, the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be wrong because I'd like a perpetual motion machine and conservation of momentum must get temporarily suspended when someone's about to be run over by a truck.

Also, determinism doesn't conflict with free will. Determinism is a concept in physics and free will is a concept in law and philosophy. If you try to contrast them, you'll end up equating free will with randomness: you didn't write your message based on your beliefs which you've formed based on your character and experience (since that would be deterministic), but rather it's the equivalent of "cat /dev/random | strings".

Determinism = fail

No, but even if it was, it in no way would disprove it.

There is one HUGE difference between these factories and a labor camp: In a labor camp, you can't say "I quit" and walk out.

Sure you can. You'll be shot if you do, but that doesn't make you any deader than starving to death after walking out of these factories would.

Rule people through direct violence, and you'll look like a villain. Rule people through only letting them eat if they do what you want, and you'll look like a good capitalist.

Cause the terrorists have won.

We thought their game was through, but they knew the Konami Code.

The constitution exists to limit the government's power to interfere with your liberty.

Specifically, it can only do so if it thinks it's for the best ("general welfare") or might have any effect whatsoever ("interstate trade").

Only leftist idiots think that it's the government that grants you your rights.

The government doesn't grant people rights, but it oversees and manages the web of institutions which enforce them. The property rights right wing so adores don't mean a thing in a jungle.

That's 100% Nanny State backwards.

"Nanny State" exists because of Gilded Age. Every time economic controls are loosened, it leads to wealth concentration and eventual collapse. It's what's happening right now, and will only end with re-instatement of a Nanny State strong enough to enforce sufficient redistribution of income.

The competition among virtual currencies and their continuing evolution demonstrate their uselessness as stores of value.

Economic value is like potential energy: it only makes sense in the context of some system. A dollar, a bar of gold or unspent transactions in the Bitcoin ledger have no inherent value, but someone might accept any or all of them in exchange for something else. But economy is ever-evolving, and in fact currently going through a major crisis, so economic value cannot be reliably stored for any length of time. The best you can do is watch which way the changes are going and transferring value away from failing forms.

As long as there are cowards, there will be people selling insurance.

As long as some entities have a higher capacity to absorb temporary setbacks than others, they can trade on this ability like any other good. But I suppose that doesn't make as good a soundbite.

Unless they get employed doing something else.

Suppose you have 10 people and 10 jobs. One job is eliminated by technology. Now you have 10 people and 9 jobs. That 1 newly unemployed dude tries to get another job, but to do so he'll have to oucompete 1 of the remaining 9 employed people out of their job. So how will he compete? Why, he'll do the job for less money. So now we have 9 people with lower average wage, and 1 unemployed dude. This merry-go-round will then continue. Also, as wages fall so will the total buying power of the workforce, which creates further downward pressure.

Capitalism cannot handle a situation where labour is not the resource that limits production. It predates Industrial Revolution, almost collapsed as a result of it, and is heading back towards the cliffs now that true believers have managed to convince themselves that the fall of Soviet Russia means revolution is no longer possible and dismantled the compensating systems.

The only real question at this point is whether it'll collapse into a dystopia where the poor are kept down by brute force, or incorporate sufficient income redistribution to guarantee a middle-class minimum income. US is trapped to the former fate by the aftereffects of Cold War rhetoric, but Europe and Japan have hope. And China, of course, is a dystopia as is.

"Remaining jobs" need not decline and it's worth noting that they actually aren't declining at present.

According to the article they do. Also, when was the last time job market was good for the employees?

Second thing, most examples given are low wages jobs, then the argument does not hold water if you pretend it is responsible for stagnation of the average wages, the average wages should go up if there is less people with minimum wages.

If you destroy a low-wage job, the workers who previously did it become unemployed, and their wage goes to zero. Also, there's more competition for the remaining jobs, thus even non-zero wages tend to fall.

They wear glasses without any lenses, for crying out loud. No sane person would do something that fucking dumb.

No sane person would care if someone did.

I'm trying to think of a better word than "hypocrisy.

"Psychosis". That seems to be pretty much perfect description for condemning someone based on actions you imagined them taking.

Airbus, not the most efficient of global corporations, can remain a profitable concern only by making rational commercial decisions. If that means negotiating with a non-European supplier then the good French senator Alain Gournac ought to find out why Ariane 5 (or 6) were deficient and figure out how to make them competitive.

Airbus, a corporation, can only remain profitable by making rational commercial decisions. And France, a nation, can only remain prosperous by making rational political decisions. And since Airbus and France are not the same entity, their interests can and in this case do conflict. In this situation, the good French senator Alain Gournac is doing exactly what he ought: using the resources at his disposal to affect the outcome so it becomes more favorable to his nation. Whether the methods are ethical can be debated, as well as what, exactly speaking, constitutes the short, medium and long-term interests of France. However, simply asserting that Airbus's profitability should be an important concern for either Mr. Gournac, us, or anyone but Airbus stakeholders rises the question:

Why in blazes should a French senator put the interests of Airbus over France?

But that would require the Monsieur Gournac to pull his thumb outta his ass and do some real work.

He did. The very title says he "attacked" Airbus. That you don't agree about his methods doesn't mean they're not "real" work.