I think there's a step missing in your logic.

If someone asks me why $RANDOM_SPORTS_STAR dedicates so much time and energy to playing some particular sport, and I say that in my opinion I think they do it because it's fun, does that mean I think playing that sport is fun? If so, how do you explain the fact that I don't play that sport? Why would I willingly deny myself fun? Maybe, just maybe, I'm actually trying to put myself in the shoes of someone else who thinks differently to me, and enjoys things that I don't enjoy. It's entirely possible I think someone plays sports because it's fun, even though I personally don't find it to be fun. In the same way, I tend to assume people listen to operas because they enjoy them. Personally, I find them unpleasant to listen to, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding that other people do in fact actually like them.

The rest of your post is kind of hard to follow, but I think the general gist is that people see videos of soldiers acting like soldiers, and infer that they actually enjoy killing other people. You say it's very common for people to have that naive view because they don't really understand what the soldiers are going through and what they have to do in order to cope, and that the people who better understand the realities take steps to avoid "the masses" from seeing such things because they know it'll be misinterpreted.

Yet you seem to have dismissed the possibility that Julian has a similarly naive view and thinks that soldiers do it simply because they think killing people is fun, and instead decide to infer that his statement that he thinks soldiers do it because they think killing is fun actually means he himself thinks killing is fun. But if that's the case, why didn't he enlist, or at least become a serial killer?

The exploit is clever, but very poorly hidden. Maybe the idea was to hide in full view: people will look at it and decide it could never evaluate as true, and so leave it in place so their hacker will stop trying to add more exploits. They're trying to trick the attacker into thinking they already have an exploit in the code, while chuckling to themselves that it could never work. Haha, jokes on you, Mr Black Hat!

But, all you need to do is overflow a buffer in order to drop the memory location of that particular string into the Password pointer. The backdoor works!

But how would throttling the repetitive requests help? The whole point of DDoS attacks is that the attack requests aren't trivially distinguishable from legitimate traffic the site wants to serve. (For naive attacks they probably are; but in an arms race, the requests will just be modified to be harder/impossible to distinguish from real sessions). If the routers start throttling all traffic to the site under attack then it can no longer serve legitimate requests. Mission accomplished: service denied!

An additional problem is that this requires companies to invest resources to protect other people's networks.

I suspect we'll never come to an agreement, as my point of view is based solely on my own expectations of human behaviour. I think you have different (somewhat more positive) expectations.

The short version is that it's already quite possible to participate in decision making processes for even minor things. Local governments, community groups, school councils, etc: everywhere you look, there's people practically begging for members of the community to get involved. Most people don't, partly because it's perceived as too difficult or time consuming, and partly due to apathy or disinterest.

I'd really need to see many examples of such before believing it's true often enough to be significant. Most fantastic solutions are fantastic for a particular person or group of people, but have a negative impact on others. Usually not due to malice, but simply ignorance. Most people simply don't have the time to understand everyone's perspective on an issue. Once you start to factor in the views of everyone that will be affected, the fantastic solution stops seeming so fantastic.

Further, representatives have a vested, personal self-interest in latching onto and introducing fantastic ideas. If someone is able to come up with a fantastic idea but is somehow unable to convince someone who has every reason in the world to take it on board, then it seems unlikely they'd have much more success in an open forum filled with many other proposed solutions. However they also have an interest in not offending groups, which is why they reject solutions that are one-sided. (To a degree: obviously they have no interest in promoting solutions that will improve things for people that would never vote for them.)

Consider any scenario you like, and the more people that are involved in it, and the more diverse the backgrounds of those people are, the harder is for them to come to an agreement. So making it easier to participate is a double-edged sword: it's easier for you to have your say, but there's many more people also having their own say.

Another thing I've noticed is that if you ask people to make a decision on something, they'll be reluctant to even have an opinion on the subject. If you say "I'll make the decision, does anyone have any suggestions?" then everyone will suddenly have an opinion because they won't be responsible if it turns out to be a bad solution. What incentive does someone who has a bee in their bonnet have to come to a reasonable compromise, rather than sticking to their guns and trying to get their exact vision implemented? If they win and it all goes pear-shaped, hey, it's not their fault - everyone else agreed with them! If they get overruled it just proves to them that the system "isn't working" because their brilliant idea wasn't listened to.

So for all those reasons, I don't think the implementation of such a system would really change much. Most people would continue to be apathetic; most of those that do take an 'interest' in an issue will do so because whatever media personality they listen to told them to, and will continue to be poorly-informed on the issues; and those who actively participate and actually care will be just as disenfranchised as they currently are, because the decisions are still going with the majority who are just parroting whatever the talking heads said.

Without a corresponding cultural shift, I don't really see that improving the technology will make a significant difference. Of course, actually implementing such a technological solution would probably require that the society already be undergoing such a shift.

I sort of see the theory, but I don't see how it'd really work any different in practice to the current system. Most people won't consider a "whole array" of potential solutions. I don't fully believe that the reason we end up with yes/no debates is due to politicians deliberately causing dissent; but rather that the natural way to go from "a whole array of potential solutions" to "one that we all agree on" is to incrementally combine similar proposals and/or discard fringe proposals until you get to a manageable number of potential solutions.

That process inevitably means that a lot of people end up disenchanted with the process, because their specific concerns are ignored by the majority.

It's not as if current proposals are floated by some politician and then rammed through without any changes. Every significant piece of legislation is the result of a lot of compromises to get something that is acceptable to the majority. That doesn't mean everyone likes it; actually, it pretty much guarantees that nobody really likes it, not even the original proponent, because everybody has had to give something up in order to get it passed.

Also, our hot button issues are already free to be different. There are already many decisions going on at all levels of government which citizens are entitled to (and encouraged to) participate in. Most people don't, because we're lazy (essentially). Instead we choose to get fired up over the same issues because that's what gets reported on. Even if the conflict is purely the result of politically maneuvering, given that collaborative governance allows people to participate as they see fit, there's still motive and opportunity for people to raise awareness of particular issues.

The document says: In all cases, citizens find that they have no voice in almost any social decision. However, the system requires support of citizens, and all politicians are open to receiving the views of their constituents. They have to be in order to survive. The trouble is, most people choose not to participate.

I don't think that Allowing everyone to participate in every decision is likely to fundamentally change the attitudes of members of a community, for the reasons explained above: most people will feel that their specific view is being ignored, and therefore they will feel that participating is not really a valuable use of their time. Just like they feel now. It may make it more transparent as to why their views are not, and cannot, be specifically catered for; but I don't see why that would make them more keen to continue participating.

Damn, meant to hit preview. Anyway, just wanted to add that, sure it doesn't happen all the time or even most of the time, but cars do in fact catch fire after being crashed.

Explosions are probably taking the artistic license a bit far, but even that can happen in some circumstances.

Ah, here's the article I was actually looking for when I found the ones in my previous post:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8172130/man-dies-in-burning-car

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/03/3084071.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/14/2655533.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/28/3023588.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/12/3036194.htm

But they don't. They only receive income if people continue to buy their works. What you're saying is that the only people who receive a perpetual income are people who manage to produce something that is perpetually considered valuable by the rest of society. That's a very difficult thing to do, and I don't see why that would be considered a bad thing.

I would be in favour of making copyright something you have to pay to maintain, however. A scheme where you get a few years' protection for free, but then have to pay an increasing fee to maintain copyright protection would ensure that works which are no longer profitable will enter the public domain. There's a lot of overhead in tracking sales of older, unpopular works, and I don't think periodically sending the creator a cheque for a few dollars benefits society sufficiently to warrant all the overhead. But that's more a complaint about its efficiency, rather than about the general concept of paying people for their creations for as long as people are willing to pay for those creations.

But it's certainly a lot easier to produce high quality material if you can focus your efforts on it, rather than just doing it in your spare time. It's not just the actual writing; a good author will also be doing research to ensure their story is plausible. Musicians will be playing live shows to see what kind of reaction their songs get, practice their skills, etc.

If all you can spare is a few hours a night, it's going to take a very, very long time to develop your skills to a high level, no matter what it is you're doing.

Where do you get the torrents from? So far as I can tell, most people use one (or several) "torrent sites" to download the torrents. These sites tend to be community-driven, but not peer-to-peer. There tends to be a centralised voting or reputation system that results in fake or malicious torrents being removed fairly quickly. That's harder to do in a pure P2P system.

Exactly. Why would anyone go into business for themselves rather than just work for someone else and let them take the risks? There are a few incentives, but the financial one is the topic of this discussion: if they're successful, they can potentially make a lot more money than they'd make working for someone else. That can make the proposition look worthwhile to someone who believes they have the ability to make a success out of their own business. Without that incentive, far fewer people would be willing to take that risk.

And neither does anyone else. What's your point?

Physical risks are another matter, and I think they mostly affect income through decreasing the number of people willing to do the job (i.e. reducing the supply side of the equation). But rates of pay for physically dangerous occupations aren't generally all that high in comparison to safer occupations, so I guess a lot of people are willing to take those risks for whatever reason.

But the "risk" I was referring to was along the lines of financial security. Many people would prefer to receive a lower but guaranteed income than a variable income, even if the variable income has the potential to be higher. It's much easier to plan for the future and meet current obligations if you have a steady income.

Sure you've written a book, but how comfortable would you be trying to earn a living from writing books? As you say, anyone can do it, so there's a huge risk that if you quit your job so you can work full time at honing your skills and writing the best material you can... that the book will flop and you'll never recoup your expenses. Much safer to work a normal job where your income is more predictable. But if you're really convinced of your talent, you might decide to take that risk, since it could pay off big time.

Maybe you'll say "we don't need no professional writers, all books should just be written in your spare time outside of a regular job". I won't try to argue the point, but I will again say that an author or musician or what have you doesn't have a guaranteed, perpetual income. They only get paid if people actually like what they produced. If people can spend their spare time writing books as good as someone who works full time on it, then the full time author is very unlikely to make enough from their efforts to be able to continue at it full time. If the full-time writer is able to produce significantly better material than 'hobbyists' can, then the market will reward them and they'll be able to continue doing that instead of getting a "real job".

Increased risk.

I think authors work like musicians, in that either they accept a loan from the publisher to get them by (book deal) while they write the material with the expectation that sales of the work will pay back the loan, and provide some actual profit to the author (if it doesn't sell enough, the author is on the hook to repay the loan); or, they self-fund the creation of the work (through working another, more normal job) and then sell the book afterwards.

That second option is more like standard entrepreneurship: invest some of your own capital into making something, with the potential of receiving a big payoff if you do it well (but also the risk of losing that investment if you do it poorly). However for that payoff to be feasible, you need to be the only one selling the product. Laws of physics protect entrepreneurs who are producing physical goods, but if you're investing time in creating something that can be represented digitally, only copyright provides that protection to your investment of time.

The first option is probably more common, especially for well-known authors. The difference between me and an author is that my employer doesn't pay me a year's salary upfront, and then expect me to pay it back through earnings from working for them. If they did, then I'd be quite hesitant to work for that employer: what happens if I get sick or injured and can't keep working, therefore can't repay the money? That's basically the situation an artist who gets a publishing deal is in - so they're taking on more risk than people with normal salaried jobs.

So with the current system, royalties makes sense. It provides the opportunity to make much more money than a regular job, thereby giving an incentive to take the increased risk.

Maybe the solution is for publishers to pay their creatives a salary like everyone else; an author would then just work 9-5 writing stuff, and be paid a regular salary for as long as they're working for that company. I would think the publishers would have the power to do this and it'd be fairly attractive for at least some writers, so I guess they (the publishers) feel the current system suits them better. Possibly just that most people can only produce good material for a limited time or in limited circumstances, and you don't want to be stuck paying a salary to someone who's producing rubbish. Safer for the publisher to offload the risk to the authors.

Wow, is this the mother of all whooshes or what???

Violating social contracts does, generally. The simple test is this: what would happen if everyone did it?

If everyone just downloaded the media they wanted without paying for it, then ... there'd be very few people creating media, and certainly not of the quality we enjoy today. Your claim that it's doing no harm can only withstand scrutiny if it's a minority of people doing it. But what gives you, or me, or anyone else, the right to be part of that minority that gets to enjoy the media without contributing to its creation?

That makes about as much sense as saying that since it only costs a dealership a few hundred (thousand?) dollars to ship a car to their yard, you should be able to get it for about that price. The end product, be it digital media or an object in a shopfront, is a miniscule part of the production and supply chain. Pretending that should have any significant effect on the objects price or value is silly.

No, as that is an expected part of the "contract" between consumers and producers. Enjoying a product without paying for it is not part of that contract, and it's that erosion of trust that is harmful. Also note that spreading incorrect information about a competitor's products, or someone you dislike, etc. is actually illegal, so there are limits as to how much you can go around telling people not to buy a product, for example.

Copyright laws and such provide a "promise" to people that, if they spend their time producing creative works (or really, producing anything), that they alone get to dictate the sale price. The success or failure of their endeavour is therefore largely in their own hands. By reneging on that promise, the framework that provides the very incentive to be creative is eroded. Or to put another way: you think that if someone labours to create something, and then sees it being pirated all over the place with comparatively few sales, the creator doesn't feel like they've wasted their time? I mean, they could've been doing many other things that couldn't be trivially copied and made more money; but just because the thing they've created happens to be able to be able to be represented by a binary stream, they should settle for whatever people deign to offer them?

Of course it does. When a serial rapist starts stalking women who use the train system, then it's not just the women who are raped that are harmed. Everyone who uses the trains, or knows someone who does, is harmed, because they no longer feel safe doing something which society has put enormous amounts of effort into allowing them to do while feeling safe.

If looters start routinely looting shops down main street, those shops will sooner or later close, and everyone who benefited from those shops will no longer have access to them, and the economy as a whole suffers.

If consumers start ignoring the right of producers to set their own price, and decide that instead of just deciding whether or not to buy at that price they're going to exercise a third, un-agreed upon option of obtaining the item at zero price, then much of the incentive to produce in the first place is removed.

Let's say an item retails for $15. You know for a fact that the store selling it pays $1 wholesale cost to receive it, so they have a pretty big markup of pure profit on it. You want it but think it's only worth $5 to you. If the item is commonplace, you can probably get it elsewhere cheaper. If it's unique, you might tell the storekeeper that you'd buy it $5, but $15 is too much. They might say plenty of other people are willing to pay $15, so they're not going to reduce the price for you. Do you expect to be able to just take the item and leave them the $5 you think it's worth? After all, it's not harming them - they'd still profit from it.

I don't think it's stealing either; I just don't think it's justifiable.