Again, not my problem, and not Mediawiki's problem. If they want to support openly developed, IETF standards, great. But that doesn't preclude publishing other media formats.

File formats aren't copyrightable, and therefore the "FLOSS" label does not apply. Only specific software is copyrightable, and last I checked, there's a plethora of Free Software encoders and decoders, including ffmpeg, x264, etc.

What the maintainer of the codec wishes to do isn't my problem, and it's not Wikimedia's problem.

If I dumped a bunch of lead in your back yard, wouldn't that be a crime?

If I dumped a bunch of lead in your air, wouldn't that be pretty much the same thing?

The IOC gets all sorts of favorable tax breaks, tax revenue, laws written just for them, corporate welfare, and more. Where do you suppose all that tax money come from, if not under the threat of violence from the IRS, etc?

No one is against equality, they're against the FCC dictating that. The government doesn't have the power to force private parties to do anything. How do you expect the FCC to enforce their regulations? The FBI.

But don't take my word for it: EFF: "We are not confident that Internet users can trust the FCC, or any government agency, with open-ended regulatory authority of the Internet."

I don't think "by definition" means what you think it means.

The Constitution says it doesn't.

A court can issue a ruling, but that doesn't make them right.

Intrinsic value means there's value placed on it other than it's secondary/exchange value. For instance, people buy gold because it's useful for electronics or jewelry. The dollar has no such uses, so it is said to have no intrinsic value.

The preamble does not grant powers to Congress, those are exclusively found in Article 1 section 8, and any amendments that also say "Congress shall..."

The article I link to points out efficiency has many different usages even within economics. If you mean market-clearing or liquidity, I'd say that instead.

I'm not sure how you provide "liquidity without a profit motive", or how it is relevant to the discussion, but the idea is absurd. A person selling a product does so because it necessarily benefits them in some way. Markets are discrete, not continuous, even if our math is.

I appreciate Black's contributions to our understanding of modern pricing, but here I have no clue what he's talking about. The basis of all modern economics since Carl Menger is the law of marginal utility, which implies the subjective theory of value. I can't tell what is meant by "value" here but it's certainly not in the meaning of virtually all economics for the past century.

That's not the definition of efficiency, since efficiency too is subjective... Black is describing one possible method of evaluating efficiency, which like any, is completely arbitrary.

If someone is using your VIN to make keys after, then the key isn't an arbitrary secret.

If someone has a picture of your key, then they know your secret outright, even if it is arbitrary.

What you describe is no better than me copying your passwords off a Post-It note you left on your monitor.

A proper key is not "obscurity" -- it is secret! No, those are not the same things, a key has no logic to obscure. This discussion is no longer at the point were we can employ layman's definitions and continue to talk sense.

You're blurring the definition of security and obscurity, which is already well defined. Obscurity refers to the logic of the system. Your system must be secure even if an attacker knows everything about how it works, because there is a separate part, the secret key, that is completely arbitrary and assumed to be kept secure. A key is only secret, arbitrary data; a cipher is only well-known logic; security though obscurity by definition means mixing your secret data with your public logic, a bad idea.

The biggest purpose of cryptography is to take big secrets (plaintext) and make them small secrets (private or secret keys). How it goes about doing that shouldn't be obscure.

A home invader shouldn't be able to break into my house even if they know everything about my lock and door, what matters is that they don't have the key (which has no mechanical components - it's not part of the system until I want to unlock the door).

Except for the fact that the output of a software program isn't copyrightable. Licenses only permit/restrict distribution, not "conveyance", so that provision is unenforceable.

It seemed more likely that you mean "private corporations are incapable of providing these services".

Literally, yes, this is probably correct. But that's because the government, as I demonstrated, has completely monopolized the industries you refer to, not due to any lack of interest from businesses.

If the government took over the letter shipping industry, we'd make the same remark "I don't see private corporations sending letters to people's doorsteps anytime soon." Oh, wait. That's what we have now: Sending letters is illegal.

Different example: If the government took over the airline industry, we'd make the same remark, "I don't see private corporations flying passengers any time soon." Wait, isn't that exactly what British Airways is?

No, I mean actual paved roads going from major city to city. Commercially, they're known as turnpikes.

It's just a comment, not a conclusion, so there's nothing to non sequitur' (your remark that government not paving roads would mean private dirt roads for a commute is an example of a non sequitur). I'm just backing up my point that historically, government has not funded transportation, and there's plenty of examples of long-distance private transit.

Rule of law is very well and good. I never disagreed.

I didn't mean to imply I want corporations busting down my door in a SWAT raid. At that point, there is no distinction between the two. Government is the entity that has monopoly on use of force, or authority to assert a monopoly at its choosing; corporations are voluntary. I explicitly referred to use of force.