I've got no mod points, but I think you're exactly right. We risk our lives for things we want to do every day. We should be willing to take on a bit of risk to keep our privacy as well. I mean, you could prevent or solve many crimes if you institute a national DNA sample registry, but (so far) that hasn't happened. The intelligence community will always want more data, it's what they do. They cannot be trusted to oversee themselves. It is ridiculous that they've set themselves as exempt from whistleblower protections - Snowden should be protected.

All of that may be true, but the media companies (in the U.S. at least) lose a LOT of the high ground when they use creative accounting to be sure they make maximum profits (see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml). Also, they purchase helpful copyright extensions from our politicians so that nothing can ever fall into the public domain (see http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html).

So, yes, a studio does deserve to profit from its creative work, and the people who participate should also get paid. But the studios should beware of wallowing in hypocrisy as they shout about having things "stolen" from them.

This case was in Sweden, but at least in the U.S. as long as media companies can buy extensions of copyright terms from politicians and prevent anything from ever becoming public domain, I don't feel too bad about their work being stolen. They have, in effect, stolen untold millions in works that should have been free for all to distribute, extend and enjoy. Copyright was not meant to extend until Disney gets tired of buying updates to the law.

I'm surprised at this coming from a Scandinavian country. It sounds much more like something you'd hear from a U.S. court. Common sense tells me they'd have tacked on the extra fine either way though: low quality = damage to reputation, high quality = damage to profits. There was no winning move in that sense.

Because honesty, even when it's painful, is better than platitudes. The facts aren't dependent on how you feel about them. If you are determined to choose to believe what "feels good" rather than what's real, and worse if you vote according to such beliefs, then you are a danger to the rest of us and have no right to be coddled.

That's the line that ensures we're talking about it.

He drew attention to an issue that most people don't think about until they have to. But if we don't talk about it, think about it and finally act on it in legislature, it'll always remain this way. He said what he felt and what needed to be said to create some public discussion. Politely wishing things were different doesn't get anything done. You should applaud his decision to share such personal anguish with the world in order to maybe, just maybe get something useful done.

If he had dialed it back it would never have made a ripple in the media. In today's overstimulated world, only this sort of talk gets noticed at all. For all we know, he'd said several times how sad it was that our laws were causing his father unnecessary pain and no one cared. Rant about wanting everyone who supported this situation to suffer from it as well actually got people talking. If we don't talk about it and admit there's a problem it'll never get better.

Didn't someone point out that if you're getting something for free, you probably are the product? In the same way that Facebook happily sells your personal information to advertisers, these professors use your information for their own benefit. If you get something for (nothing | less than full price) it's probably in exchange for something else.

99% of driving may require 10% of your concentration, but if you're not paying attention, when you hit that last %, it'll be too late. It's about being ready for the emergency, not cruising along in traffic.

Remind your boss how you'll be sure to have the plaintiff include the company in any lawsuit that results from being required to browse while driving. It really is no excuse at all. If you are so indispensable to your company that every moment of your time must be available to them then you've got the wrong job. Also, they aren't paying you enough, because you aught to be able to afford a driver if you're that important.

If your job requires you to be so connected that you can't take time to safely drive to and from the office then you need to arrange other transportation. No job should require you to break the law or risk your life and that of others so callously. If my boss were to ever complain that I were out of touch for the time it took me to get to the office, I'd kindly offer to let him hire me a limo.

Can you tell us where and when you normally drive so we can avoid the area? 99.9% of the time driving will not require every drop of your conscious attention, but at the moment that it does, someone's life (maybe yours?) could be at stake and it'll be too late. If you cannot manage to get from one place to another without needing constant distraction, then perhaps try public transportation or carpooling.

I suppose by the most basic definition that is true. However, a manager's ability to actually determine where any given employee ranks is always suspect. Some people are very good at doing nothing while looking invaluable and others are very good at getting things done without boasting. Some people are good at boosting a whole team thus harming their own ability to stand out (to the oblivious manager) but are tremendous value to the company nonetheless. If managements get too ham-fisted about trying to rank everyone by some arbitrary standard, they will always lose some truly good people along with the bad.

Surely you realize the parties have actually reversed names since then? The party labeled Democrats used to be the conservatives.