Millitons? As in 75 kilograms?

I don't. I believe they should be protected.

Copyright works in principle. What doesn't work is its long period which has been extended to a ridiculous degree over the 20th century by lobbying corporations who paid off lawmakers. Copyright has become something now that benefits only corporations, and for practical purposes never ends for any product, so that it could come to benefit the public domain.

You're the one who goose-steps to the law no matter what it says and thinks that standing up to unjust laws is wrong. You'd have been right at home in the Third Reich.

And wrong again. I feel sorry for how judgmental you are. I hope you get better.

I already have that, thus I have nothing to gain, ergo it is not greed.

Wrong, I care about the betterment of mankind. I guess you're the kind of guy who thinks laws are never wrong and never should be amended.

No they don't. You're just imagining it.

Wrong again. I'm sorry you have to be wrong so often, maybe you should just shut your mouth to avoid embarrassing yourself so much.

Those are not my only credentials.

That's funny. You don't seem to know the first thing about me, and are just making (wildly incorrect) assumptions.

Greedy? I don't get *anything*, not a damn thing, out of repealing the law, that I don't already have. So if there's no gain, how can the motivation be greed?

Selfish? It's far from selfish if you are fighting for the benefit of mankind. Freeing artworks older than 30+ years *will* benefit mankind, just as freeing patents older than 30+ years will benefit mankind. I'm taking abuse from people like you, because I fight for the good of others. That's pretty much the *opposite* of selfishness.

Entitled because I'm spoiled? My father never bought me a damn thing, not a comic book, not a movie, not a computer, not a damn thing ever. From age 16 onwards I lived alone and had to work for every single thing I've ever bought since. Spoiled? I think you're insane or stupid.

What makes you think I'm not doing that also?

Oh right, your wildly incorrect assumptions again.

Oh and by the way, I am a published writer. Wouldn't selfishness in that case be about wanting infinite copyrights?

It matters a lot. The same way tea taxes mattered in late 18th century Boston.

A law is not necessarily just. And an unjust law will not be repealed if people do not fight back.

Remember, the US government cancelled the Constellation program and post-Shuttle manned spaceflight capabilities, with the hopes that they'd *buy seats* on Russian spacecraft.

And now they can't even agree on buying some plutonium from Russians?

How many people really think that buying those seats on Russian shuttles will happen without any problems?

Face it, America gave away its manned spaceflight. Making deals with Russia can't be relied on -- even small things like plutonium can't be reliably obtained, let alone manned spaceflight through Russians.

We gave it away. And now our manned spaceflight is screwed.

That makes one of you.

Me, I'd prefer my penis *not* blown up, but to each their own.

"Early termination" fee?

Lol.

Isn't that how it should be? Why would the haves complain? It's always the have-nots who have to complain about any inequality, not the people who are sitting in their Porsches and expensive mansions.

The topic is people aren't finding enough science jobs. OMG, there are some people out there *with* science jobs who aren't complaining! I never would have thought! :D

That's a "let them eat cake" reply if I ever saw one. :D

I'm a little skeptical of this claim.

Can you elaborate on how the heat generated by the large asteroid (at ground level on impact) somehow ends up radiating off into space, yet the same heat generated higher up in the sky when the bits burn up in re-entry (closer to space) somehow doesn't end up radiating off into space?

As I see it, breaking up an asteroid allows us to convert the kinetic energy to heat higher up in the sky (and closer to space) than a ground level impact would be.

Do you have some links I could read up on?

Speak for yourself. My parent's murderer got away with 12 years and that's a woefully insufficient penalty for ruining the life of two children forever.

It's not about laziness. If it was about laziness, I'd jump on the new tech because it saves me the "arduous" step of *plugging in* (gasp). Instead I'm planning on staying with the far more demanding step of actually plugging in.

It's about forgetfulness. As I grow older and more senile, I plain and simple don't *remember* to put my devices at their designated charging locations every single night. If there was a tech that charged my devices no matter where I left them inside the confines of my house, that would something that would produce a useful value add for me.

Eliminating the plugging in phase does not produce a useful value add because I'm not so lazy that plugging in is some huge obstacle.