nice selective choice from the article.

The VERY NEXT SENTENCE:

emphasis mine. i.e. it's slow now but if temps go up it becomes catastrophic.

the hiatus? that scientists now think is being caused by heat being sent to the deep oceans? where we're now seeing significantly increased methane seeps?

you simply can't stop information on the internet. You can try but you will fail. If the trolls want to do such things, it says more about them than it does about anything else.

I'm all in favor of requiring an active action to view the video. Rather than Twitter taking down links, just modify them to require a click before it plays so people who don't want to see it aren't forced to experience it. But blocking it? simply won't work.

Yes there will. Simply changing the rules without adequate training after decades of an undesirable behavior isn't going to change said behavior overnight.

Trying to change a systemic behavior in a system as vast and (in the US) as untrained as the driving public isn't a small undertaking.

there's this thing called 'software' that can, amazingly enough, use different configuration data based on a physical location. Or did you think Google Search was only in American English everywhere?

That said, this magical thing called 'software' can also be hacked to do things that aren't intended by the developers so it's not a panacea, but it will still be a far bit better than humans at following the rules of the road as conveyed to it - even through the normal posted speed limit signs.

nuke it from orbit. it's the only way to be sure :)

the major threat to Iceland is the flooding. Sure its airspace will be affected but if you're house is being washed away that's a significantly more pressing and dangerous issue.

Europe on the other hand is at no risk from the flooding. So the threat to air travel in Europe, based on the 2010 experience, is significant.

Add to that the factor that European air travel is probably orders of magnitude greater than Iceland's...

Your pension wasn't created the day before you died and then pays out for 10 years afterwards. It was created over 20-30 years with the money you already earned (you get paid a bit less so the pension is funded).

And just like you, the author's works can provide for his family after death, assuming he's been investing his money into retirement/life insurance. But a one hit wonder who kicks the bucket the next day? That 'pension' is going to be might small...

Then the 'author' should have bought life insurance or he was a lousy author and we aren't in the business of rewarding that. Copyright isn't about paying for relatives, it's about incentivizing the creator to create more works by giving a reasonable return. If you're dead you can't produce any more so there's no incentive that can work.

fringe cases like this are the bastion of trolls.

You know what industry thrives on rampant copying and 'intellectual' 'theft'? Fashion. No copyrights, no patents and it's a veritable bonanza of creativity. And of course knock offs that look almost as good as the originals. Knock offs which actually drive more purchases of the originals. People can purchase a knock off today and later when they have the ability, they still want the brand name.

So, no, you don't need copyright to have robust creativity and rewards for that creativity.

sometimes the person who invents something and patents it, simply isn't able to properly take it to the next level. It would seem unfair to prevent them from selling their patent to a company and thus receiving compensation for their 'invention', no?

Obviously, some companies will be your patent trolls, but others do take their purchased patents and market them. There isn't any 'best' solution for this because stopping one too much causes the other to be affected too.

you've already missed the point. If copyright/patents are meant to encourage people to create, granting them rights after they are dead is utterly useless.

40 years is also way way way to long. 10 would be a lot more reasonable. If you can't monetize your work in that amount, maybe you aren't that good at what you're doing. Besides, for music, people are still going to see the original artist play their music, not a cover band given the choice.

small comfort, but people whose biometrics are hacked would be the perfect cyber criminals no? I mean, you can't tie those bio-metrics to just 'them' anymore right?

excuse me, I need to go take a red pill...

I'm not missing the forest through the trees. He is in Russia specifically because the US revoked his passport. The OP called that blatantly false and you agree that it's blatantly true.

Could Russia do something to 'unstick' the situation? Sure, but that's entirely a different. The current situation was created because of the US; that Russia could do something to resolve it isn't Snowden's fault nor does it change the fact that the US started this.

The OP blatantly said that it was false that Snowden was in Russia because of the US. Yet you agree with me that, yes the reason Snowden got stuck in Russia was the US's fault.

COULD Russia issue him a passport? I find that perhaps possible but very unlikely, but that's sort of irrelevant to how and why he got stuck there - which you agree was the US's doing.