I find it rather ironic, that the same site, which shouts down any attempts to reason that an idea can be owned — and that using it without the owner's permission is illegal and immoral — would be so respectful towards other kinds of information.

If, as the opinion prevailing here holds, "information can not be stolen" because you still have your original copy, what grounds are there to prohibit somebody else to share, what they know about you, with others? On that matter, will you also outlaw gossip?

The problem seems to be that if you *can* give permission then you will be coerced into giving permission.

Except the term coercion implies use of force. As long as you aren't forced to use a web-site despite your disagreement with their EULA, you can not complain of being "coerced".

Well, movies are supposed to manipulate your emotions.

Movies are. But not the news-reports. And yet, Abu Ghraib scandal — in addition to legal prosecution of the culprits — brought down moral condemnation of not only them, but the entire chain of command all the way up to the then-President.

That nobody said a word to likewise condemn the fictitious Marine Captain Steven Hiller — the dashing hero of the "Independence Day" — suggests, our emotions against the real miscreants were deliberately whipped-up.

Given the harm the manipulation did to the American cause, one can be forgiven for suspecting, it was orchestrated — at least in part — by a hostile party... Would not have been the first time...

Li-ion is just too expensive and maintenance-intensive to use grid scale.

"Grid scale" simply can not be more expensive than single-house scale.

It is called "Economy of scale" and although some of such may have limits, beyond which cost of additional units begins to increase, none of the conditions for that would apply in this case.

we know who the bad guys are

Well, we know, the victim really was a drug-dealer too now.

because we know who the bad guys are

We — the readers and viewers — know (sort of). The policeman doing the illegal deed in fiction knows just as much as the real cops in TFA knew.

There should be no difference in our condemnation (or lack of it) of their actions. And yet, the difference is vast, proving most of the society as either hypocrites or tools of the manipulators ready to whip-up public outrage for their own purposes.

Your plan would cost more than what the utilities are already doing. Doing it your way would mean they would have to charge more at night and during the day.

Whoever is doing it, if it makes sense for anybody to store power generated at off-peak times for usage at peak times, it makes more sense for the generating companies to do it: because they can afford bigger storage with dedicated personnel and manage the generation-storage combination finer.

But, of course, this begs the question of whether it makes sense to do it for anyone at all — though TFA seems to suggest, it does...

Few people have the space for so many panels to run their house on them — even if the problem of storing it were solved. From MIT:

Imagine that your house uses 48 kWh of electricity per day (about average). If you live in Arizona, where the average solar insolation per year is around 6 kWh/meters squared/day, you’ll need 53 square meters (574 sq ft) of 15% efficient solar panels. If you spend the extra money for 21% efficient solar panels, then you’ll only need 38 square meters (409 sq ft) of solar panels. But if you try to power the same sized house in Vermont, where the average solar insolation per year is around 4 kWh/meters squared/day, you’ll need 80 square meters (861 sq ft) of 15% efficient solar panels and 57 square meters (615 sq ft) of the 21% efficient ones.

And 48kWh, which is cited above as "about average", means, no home-servers running 24x7 (about 200Watts*24h=4.8kWh — or 10% more than the estimate — per server), no super-duper Christmas lights, and other limitations...

No, electricity companies are better positioned to produce electricity. And, truth be told, they should be using these wonder-batteries to store electricity during the night so they wouldn't have to charge more during the day. If only we had them properly competing with each other...

He did not say "more often".

In the below context, the qualifier "more" is implied and does not need to be explicitly mentioned to convey the implication:

The problem is that in real life, often the people who think they are right and good actually aren't,

Because people make all sorts of mistakes "often" — and that is not worth mentioning. So, if you mention it, you are implying, that a particular mistake happens more often than others.

some cops wanting their boots licked.

Neah, they are all busy chasing you over your truancy.

What would you consider to be an acceptable error rate in this situation?

I did not express any opinion of my own on the "acceptable" rates or actions in this thread. I'm just pointing out the discrepancy between our condemnation of fictitious vs. real police (and military).

A discrepancy, that, strangely enough, does not exist (or is not as big) in our disapproval of other things — like on-screen sexism or racism.

depends if you are in LA..

Depends even on more on whether "fracking" could be blamed for the disaster...

We must burn all the Three Stooges reels!

Three Stooges are not offered as role-models. Viewer is invited to laugh at them, not be inspired by them.

And Tom and Jerry? My god!

Actually, my collection of Looney Tunes came with a video-clip by Woopy Goldberg apologizing on behalf of Warner Brothers for the "racism" and "stereotypes", which, according to her, "were wrong then and are wrong now", but, nevertheless, "are part of Americana"...

Funny, how Django had no such disclaimers and apologies over portraying the two good guys as head-hunters sniping from afar at innocent people for money. (Kinda vindicates our Dear Leader's policies, but I digress...)

The problem is that in real life, often the people who think they are right and good actually aren't, they torture the wrong person, and there are unintended consequences.

But not in the case described in TFA — the threatened man really was a drug-dealer, and they did get the necessary info out of him.

Now, do you have statistics to back up your implication, that in real life police are more often wrong than right?

Note, that I am not saying, it justifies the miscreants in TFA. But you seem to...

They get away with lots of things in movies that are not acceptable in real life.

Sorry, I fail to see, how mere racism or sexism can lead to a boycott, while abuse of a suspect gets a pass. And not just once either!

Likewise, if Captain Steven Hiller — Will Smith's character in Independence Day — can be a hero despite beating and otherwise abusing a prisoner, the morons of Abu Ghraib have their excuse...

The real life vs. fiction may explain the legal responsibility, but the moral condemnation of such actions should not be any different between the real and imaginary worlds.

Drug him and beat him with a $5 wrench until he tells us the password

XKCD did not invent it — the method is known as rubberhose cryptoanalis for ages — unlike wrench, a hose is less likely to leave visible marks.

But beating is for wussies — and drugging is completely gratuitous. The real men of the wonderful entity lovingly referred to as "Russkiy Mir" (Pax Russiana) use the swifter variation known as thermorectal cryptanalysis.

It does not have to involve any beating and requires a $5 soldering iron. I'll leave the details to your imagination...

I remember it being done in a few movies — by the good guys — without anybody in the audience cringing. Nor do I remember any calls to boycott a movie over such things.

So, if popular culture approves of and encourages it, can't blame the cops too much for doing it despite it being merely illegal...

Your copy(the lamp) is yours. The smoke/light is not.

Nonsense. Both are mine.

Your demand for control over it once it is released is immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.

I explained the ethical theory, which makes the theft of intellectual property indistinguishable from that of tangible kind — in short, such copying is equal to theft, because the victim suffers the same kind of loss.

I await your explanation for why my "demand for control" is "immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong".

the copyrighters are the robbers/pirates who steal from society.

And just what is it, that they steal, may I inquire to ask?

We've established you to be a Communist-sympathizer before.

You have?? When was that?

Right here. But, just in case I made a mistake — would you mind stating your opinion on Communism for the record? And on whether it is Ok to steal from "rent-seekers or speculators"?

Judging if one song sounds sufficiently like another is an endless opportunity for debate.

Except you aren't solving this problem by making copyrights last 5 years instead of 50. Not at all — because if it did, there would've been no new musical genres (Jazz, Blues, Rock-n-Roll, Rap) appearing at all.

Which makes the argument of "strealing vs. being inspired" irrelevant to the conversation of copyrights.