Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that makes readers here despise Apple?

Take away the government enforced patent law and other protections, and Monsanto goes away tomorrow. Or at the very least, changes drastically so customers won't make them go away tomorrow.

I want universal health care because it's a universal human right.

I'd like to explore this issue more. Is it really a universal human right? It sure would be nice if everyone got health care. However, people provide health care, and I don't think any one has a right to demand anything out of those people. Rights (I think) ought to be things that you have a right to do, not a right to have someone else do for you.

For example, free speech means you can say whatever you want, but you do NOT have a right to an audience. The 2nd amendment acknowledges the right to bear arms, but it does NOT mean that someone has to make, assemble, sell, or provide you with said arms. You do have the right to peacefully assemble, but that does NOT mean you have the right to peacefully assemble on someone's private property.

Health care, on the other hand, universal or not, is vastly different. By saying everyone should have a right to health care, you are saying that everyone has the right to demand someone else to provide them with something. I think that's a dangerous path to go down.

However, things can get a little muddled with, for example, the right to a fair trial. The 6th amendment states you have "...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...", and that means you have the right to force others to be speedy, public, and impartial. However, in that case, if your trial can't be speedy, public, or have an impartial jury then you should be let off without a trial. Which means that a right to a fair trial is still different than health care as a right.

Again, I think it would be nice if people got the health care they needed. However, I don't think we ought to go down a path where we say that someone has the right to another person's time and resources.

For movies there is Nina Paley and her movie Sita Sings the Blues , but there are plenty of others, including Michael Moore.

For books, lots of authors and even publishers are making more money by having their books freely available using smart economics.

The music industry has even more examples of unknown indie artists as well as well known artists and everything in between making money by using smart economics. Movies and books are going to go through the same transition. They can choose to do so kicking and screaming and make it painful for everyone, or they can try to actually give their customers what they want and be successful. It's very simple, you give people a reason to give you money, and they will do it. The happier you can make them, the more they'll give you.

It amazes me that people can freak out about free music, movies, books, etc., yet these same people don't see anything wrong with Krispy Kreme handing out free doughnuts to customers standing in line, or any of the other freebies people get. No one in their right mind thinks a basketball team is going to go bankrupt because they give out free t-shirts during the half-time show, yet many of the same people think that 50 cent is crazy to be happy that his music is freely available, yet he's making money and thinks it's just part of the marketing.

If you can create something that a lot of people want and yet can't figure out a way to get people to pay you money then hire someone who can come up with a decent business model for you. If you can't do it, and no one else can do it, then whatever you created wasn't going to net you any money whether piracy is rampant or not. Lots of people are finding ways to make money with music, movies, books, and other copyrightable things despite their works being freely available. In fact, many of them are also making money while encouraging the copying of their stuff. It can be done. It is being done. And those who can't do it will not last long.

I was in Bellville, TX once and stopped off at their historic prison. While there I picked up a postcard that had a double hanging on it. Looked like the whole town was watching. You can see it here, but I can't remember right now if my postcard had the before picture (at the top) or the after picture (near the bottom of that page).

(side rant - just because, I want a wall clock with a mechanical movement. Can't find one anywhere.)

Are you referring to clocks like Howard Miller?

Awesome. I have a 1GB Winrar file. Can you help me get it on a CD?

I don't see any reason to be mad at anyone here. If EA started forcing people to buy their games then I can see a reason, but I don't get mad at either the sub or the dominatrix so long as both roles are played willingly. It looks to me like that is the case here.

No that's stupid. Kids being in the same room as their mom and dad while their mom and dad get it on with mom and dad is nothing like kids being the focal point of sex. Mom and dad were having sex with mom and dad, not mom having sex with son and dad having sex with daughter. Or did you think child pornography is defined as children seeing pornography?

It makes absolutely no sense to say that children seeing their parents have sex is the same as an adult having sex with a child.

both of which were much more common in the past than today

I'm not so sure child pornography or sex with children was as common in the past as you are trying to make it appear. Sure it happened, but I wonder if a lot of what we think happened was really just a moving of the goal posts as it were. My great grandmother was married at 14, which was not uncommon for her time. Fast forward 100 years and people think it's ridiculous for someone younger than 20 to get married. There has been a real problem for the last century or so in delaying adulthood. Parents are encouraging their children to remain children far longer than is usual. I don't doubt that most 18 year olds are not mentally and socially capable of handling what most 30 year olds can, not because it's not possible for them, but because we as a society don't let them grow up. Mostly I blame the "education" system, but others can be blamed as well. Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent.

I'm the same way. More often than not, when websites do that, I stop reading and try never to come back to their site again. Other times I'll add what ever bit of javascript or whatever it is from the site. It's one reason why I hate snopes.com. You can't highlight their text. Who goes to the trouble of making text unhighlightable? I'll often highlight words or phrases right click and select 'Search Google for "$highlighted_words"'. Snopes makes that difficult. But the other day I was on a site (I can't remember which one right now) and tried highlighting some text to search more about it in Google and they actually had a pop up dialog box that said their content was copyrighted and they didn't allow copying. Out of spite I hit Ctrl-U, got the source for the page and the copied what I wanted while yelling out "Stop me from copying now!" My wife looked at me weird.

If you live in the Seattle area: Amazon Fresh

Ridiculous. With that kind of weak fortitude, you'd never get any where. I built my house on a swamp. It eventually sank. So I built it again. Even though it sank again, I built it a third time. Somehow, the third one burned down, fell over, and then sank, but I built it again. And that one stayed; it is the one my kids will inherit. They called me daft, but I showed them.

As to where people live, there are natural hazards EVERYWHERE. You are going to force people out of earthquake country, or tornado country, etc, or how about wildfires, icestorms, etc?

Did you read what the GP said? No, he's not advocating forcing anyone to move. He just wants them to take responsibility for choosing to live where there are dangers. I completely agree. I live where there are earthquakes and a potential for volcanic action, but I fully understood that before I moved to the area, and fully realize that it could be a problem. I buy my insurance, I have an emergency plan, and fully understand that someday an Mt Rainier might blow and I'll be dead. I could choose to live in a safer place, or pick a different danger. But that's my choice, and the GP rightfully observes that since it is my choice, I take full responsibility for it and shouldn't expect others to be held responsible.

I need some more clarification because I don't understand. You said you deal with the whole of the USA so you and Amazon are in exactly the same position, then go on to say ~100 countries matter to Amazon. Which is it? I know Amazon deals with more than the US. So are you saying that you deal with about 100 countries? If so, is that $2 million making a dent in your profits. If you're going to make Amazon pay it, then you need to make every one do so, not just the big guys. That's why I pointed out coolstuffinc.com earlier. I've shopped there a couple of times, but I doubt they could afford to pay $20,000 just for tax software and stay in business. And they are not unique in that position.

I kind of figured there would be someone out there that would start up a business like this. However, $20,000 per year seems a bit high for for these people. Probably a bit on the high side for any small business. The cost of talking to a local tax accountant or lawyer is comparatively pocket change.