and GM, for example, is not doing that. They are not picking parts suppliers with renegade copies of excel on their PCs specifically to avoid anything. It is simply not an issue and not their concern, and it shouldn't be. Only microsoft should be concerned with companies who pirate from microsoft. Mandating that the rest of us ensure that people aren't stealing from microsoft is wrong.

do not make this preference known too widely -- US banks are required by law not to do business with individuals, businesses or countries with known boycotts of israel

I love that you provide a theoretical scenario for what is a practical problem. If people were going to set up these 'pure proxy companies' to get around buying microsoft products, they would already be doing so. This is not a hypothetical.
It would not be a significant savings, and if software savings were the sole motivating factor clearly these companies would turn to open source. instead, it is clear that they are quite willing to pay for their properly licensed software products.

Finally, you missed the crux of the issue, which is that one company is being blamed for what another one has done, totally regardless of whether the buying company has any idea that the piracy is taking place. How should GM prevent this, demand software audits of all their parts manufacturer partners prior to purchase?

Microsoft cannot enforce its 'intellectual property' rights on countries that don't believe in them (or don't enforce them well). So they seek to punish US companies instead. And you say this is good for our economy!

i don't own my credit card number. i know it, and i have a reason to jealously prevent others from knowing it, but none of this constitutes 'ownership', which can't apply to information.
once it becomes known to you (legally or otherwise) i can't say you've stolen it. or that if you posted it on the web, that every viewer also stole it. since information is not a physical quantity, it cannot be possessed, only 'known'.

"I want to sell a better codec, but it's impossible because Google gives away mediocre ones."

this is outrageous. if there's no market, you don't have a viable business. that is no-one's fault. you seem to imply we shouldn't give things away because they'll hurt the market for expensive alternatives, which is so fundamentally bullshit it makes my brain hurt.

how do you cite personal experience? I have been an IRC sharer for well over a decade now and I have not been paid a dime. I also seed all my torrents (Even going so far as to pay for a seedbox to do so)

I thought for sure this was a WKUK reference, but then none of the replies seem to acknowledge that... maybe I was wrong?

no, it's not. the government can tell every ISP to shut down. or to stop routing. hell, even to stop providing DNS service would kill the internet for most.

the internet can only route around black holes that aren't widespread, and only when it can still route. routing is an action that can be stopped, as proved in egypt.

the crux of that issue is that we don't want ISPs to be treated as 'private networks'. We want them treated somewhat akin to common carriers, with regulation. It is important to note that the constitution guarantees rights for citizens, not corporations. I don't want any corporations to have rights.

your defense of your oversimplification: "yeah, but it's simple!"

This was a jerk comment, in which you revel in being a small-worlder. Most people would be a little ashamed their egocentric view had caused them to overlook the rest of the whole planet.

Clever assholes are not really worth any more than your average variety.

I feel this is a good time to mention the American bias that operating with the intent to profit is naturally seen as a positive.
There are other intents, and things more important than profit.

This is the crux of the recent healthcare debacle, that the more socialist minded believe healthcare for everyone is more important than profit for companies.

I agree. I couldn't care less about the joke, and his only Cairo reference being joke just makes him an ass. Nothing special about that.
But tagging it so that he can have advertising to anyone reading about the situation in Egypt is just low, even for a profiteer.

OK, I know this is late, but I'll reply anyway:
The problem with Sarah Palin is that she is dumb. No, really. Politically, she's about on par with any redneck republican, with about as much thought put into her beliefs. That's not the problem. The problem is she's dumb -- she's worse at public speaking than GW Bush was, and she's lauded for attempting. 40% of people thought she was ready for the presidency in 2008. By sheer virtue of being a public figure, that number will rise by 2012. When people who don't value intelligence can be praised for that as a virtue, we have a serious problem. People who have the kind of backwards beliefs Palin does should not be taken seriously as public officials or contenders for our highest office. Our backwater members should not be allowed to represent our country to the world or make the sort of decisions that a president must make.
So Palin's beliefs aren't as extreme as some I've seen -- she wants to shoot terrorists and deer, she thinks she's an international diplomat because she made it through charm school and lives in Alaska (which as she reminded us, is quite near Russia). She thinks liberals are evil and Obama set up death panels as if this were Logan's Run. But people take her seriously, and that's why we're so alarmed.