But, does it bend? After all, that's the point behind fiberoptics, to be able to snake a light beam around corners and through tight spaces so that we don't have to maintain perfect optical alignment over a distance. So, what's the point of this setup? Does it keep moths away by burning them on the outer beams?

It's a bear. What comes around, goes around.

Because AC is a consumer standard? There are no consumer standard for DC power, other than AA, AAA, C, D, and 9V.

... Okay, and car cigarette lighters and microUSB.

I like, "We're on an express elevator to hell; going down!", better.

Aside from "Punch it", I wouldn't call these go phrases. They are one off comments that just happened to coincide with a launch attempt.

That doesn't sound like a "Go!" phrase to me. What was being launched, a hearse?

Probably the same way he gets away with trespassing, assault and battery, illegal wiretapping, stalking, unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, and a host of other illegal activities.

Heh, once, in a pinch, I have made due with a "special" extension cord - with two 3 prong 110 heads spliced onto a 220 socket... All I had to do was find two outlets on different phases and I was in business ;-)

Don't worry, I cut it up when I was done.

I didn't say that at all, and you know it. It's the "digital creations" themselves which are not scarce. Producing new ones requires labor and other scarce resources. However, artificial copyright monopolies are hardly the only way to fund the production of new media. In the absence of copyright you still have options like patronage and crowd-funding, not to mention volunteer efforts (which already make up a significant fraction of copyrighted works).

No, punishing those who distribute copies of digital media without their authorization isn't a right. It's just a privilege invented as part of a scheme to incentivize the creation of new works. And like any legal privilege, it can only exist by infringing on the natural rights of others. There are other, better options.

That's easy. If someone else is using my property or person, I can't use it myself. Use of scare resources is inherently competitive and zero-sum. The same is not true for non-scarce resources like digital media.

I think it's a very reasonable bar to set. TPB proves that there is no technical reason why we can't provide everyone with near-instant, free access to basically every last bit of media on Earth. It's up to the pro-copyright faction to justify withholding that access to suit their own material interests.

Well, there was that episode where someone drugged some wine, and everyone who drank it passed out immediately from one sip. The Doctor (Tom Baker) took two full gulps of wine, watched as everyone passed out, and stuttered out the phrase "p-p-potent stuff" before passing out himself. As far as a catch phrase, he was always offering people a jelly baby.

Still, it's not what I would call a "go!" phrase.

If it's opt-in, or you can very easily opt out without giving up anything else, then it's a subscription. Otherwise, it's a tax.

Businesses hire people when they have a job that needs doing, provided that it's worth the cost. Not every potential job is worth its cost, and minimum wage artificially raises that cost, with the obvious result that some jobs simply go undone.

There is also the matter of competition which is not subject to the minimum wage—not just under-the-table employment and offshoring, but also automation. With the increased minimum wage, businesses may find that it's now cheaper to employ a machine, where before they would have given the job to a human. Or perhaps they simply increase their existing employees' workloads rather than hiring someone else to handle the "unskilled" jobs.

Even if every business did act like it was insensitive to wages, as you seem to think, that would just mean that the marginal ones are no longer profitable and thus go out of business, further reducing both the supply of goods and the demand for labor.

Emphasis very much on the "figuratively"—and it's not the employer holding the gun. If the worker does not consent then he is merely left in his original state, and is no worse off than he would be in the absence of the employer. Regardless of any external pressures, whether from nature or the government or other sources, the employer-employee relationship itself is completely consensual. A free market is one where people's natural rights are respected, not one where everyone is guaranteed an equal bargaining position. The fact that the job means more to the worker than it does to the employer does not prevent this from being a free market.