There is a lot of AC astroturfing going on in this thread.

> If we ignore the biased framing in the summary and article

What bias? Are they trying to charge libraries or not?

So they are making a loud case for changing copyright law? Because that is the only thing that is going to happen if they enforce this.

What loss of sales? Are you only allowed to read books once in Europe? You can't pass them to someone else?

Ignorance may be annoying, but it doesn't mean someone "deserves" any misfortune.

Does that mean that no one deserves fortune either? Or if people deserve things because of actions they take, if someone deserves fortune because they worked hard, doesn't that suggest that the lazy and ignorant deserve misfortune?

> And you know what? IE aside, a HTML renderer of some sort *is* required by Windows-- just as it's required by OS X, most Linux distributions, and Chrome OS

What?? Since when does linux require a HTML renderer? Have you told my netgear router that?

They didn't pass false data. They passed valid data which is why it returned valid results.

No one has argued that it won't be detrimental to the business of the paper. Just like if the paper had spent money on selling water for $100 a gallon and other people started selling water for much cheaper would be detrimental to their business. The laws shouldn't not exist to simply ensure someone's failing business model.

There is a very good reason you cannot copyright facts. Just get in line over there with the cooper, blacksmith and candlestick maker and accept your fate.

Good luck legislating people to not be assholes. So when the doctor says "Please go fuck yourself" you'll be fine with it? Assholes are assholes, and making them write please isn't going to solve the problem.

Why should i help you? The whole point of civil liberties is that they protect you from the boogie-monster du jour.

Anytime i see an argument start with "we need X or we won't be able to catch bad guys", I know right away that X is something that violates civil liberties. It's a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance/lack of imagination, and you can use it to justify ANYTHING.

Do the unions know this?

How exactly is a company going to get a court order despite there being no crime and no probably cause? In the US (ie: outside of the UK), there is no law about providing encryption keys.

Even if would get a court order, that doesn't mean they'd get the password to the real data partition and not the dummy partition.

And if you are saying 20% that means 1 in every 5 people are unemployed. So if you are talking about couples, you need 2 people unemployed for every 5 couples.

Unless you only know x * 2.5 couples where x is your claimed number of people unemployed, then your personal experience still doesn't back up your assertion.

Full Disk Encryption protects against THEFT, not loss/security breaches.

I agree with everything and you probably already know this, but i'll add to the discussion by saying, even with full disk encryption there are ways to make it safer like logging off so keys are cleaned from memory. the cold boot attack needs the keys in memory to recover them later, but smart software will wipe them from memory before shutting down.

That's the worst idea ever. I don't want a pay cut because i can only get paid based on how many years i've served. When all of the ITT grads get paid the same as i do because they have X years of experience, i'll know i'm in hell.

Really dumb old guy has 20 years experience (in crappy jobs) so he should obviously get paid more than a superstar with 10 years of experience. That's why a union is an awful idea.