Why do you assume the responses are emotional? Why do you think I haven't thought it through? Because if I had, I'd see it your way? What nerve has OWS hit? Let's say I AM part of the 99% and still disagree with them. What does that say? For those that got a CS degree, are in debt, aren't living the american dream, and still don't see OWS's point of view, you explain it by them being emotional. But it could be that OWS doesn't represent the people on this site. It's possible that many of the people went to cheaper schools. They might not have the debt. They might have lived at home for a number of years after graduating college to establish a nest egg, maybe to buy a house. To get personal, I work hard, I get a decent salary, decent healthcare, I manage my budget, and I live a decent life. I don't need a fancy and expensive products, a big house, etc. I don't expect to live the american dream working eight hours a day. But I do expect someone working 10 to 12 hours a day to live a decent life, even if they don't own a house. I expect universal health care. But I don't expect smokers' to be covered by that. I don't know what the stats for slashdot are. But judging by the results, I'd guess that most are living decently. I wouldn't think that they just didn't think it through.

It is peaceable assembly for the most part. But there are still limits on rights like that (eg, can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater). The right to assemble doesn't mean the right to camp out on private land over night. You can't impinge on other people's rights. Would you agree that IF the reports of sexual abuse, etc, are true, then the city was right to shut them down?

I don't get it. What's wrong with the original quote? What's the grammatical error?

OK, fine. Take pharma as the example. So you agree: patents are needed in some situations.

As for space flight, I'm not saying it's easy, but it's easier to answer a question once you've seen the answer. Either way, considering how you feel about pharma patents, wouldn't you agree that if a space company developed a new fuel or insulating material, then they should be able to have some sort of patent on it?

But then what incentive is there for a company to get into the business in the first place? I'm thinking of private space flights. That kind of research takes an enormous amount of money and risk to life. I don't think it's fair to say that another company can just come in and duplicate the mechanism afterward.

Of course, if there are no patents, then other people wouldn't know the details of how you did what you did. We are way past the age of simple machines, where you could take apart a typewriter and duplicate it. So if there are no patents and the innovator doesn't have to share details, then sure, first mover advantage should be OK. In this case, no one else would have known why Google's energy bills were so much lower.

But then you are limiting the amount of money that anyone could potentially make; it's limited to the amount of grant money available. And you are also restricting the ideas that get developed to the ones that the person holding the purse strings thinks are worthy.
There's no reason both models can't co-exist, but neither is a replacement for the other

i disagree. it's never too soon. at least this comment wasn't intended to offend.

no, i'm not saying we have to do this. i'm saying it might be worth it for the community at large. i'm saying a dollar a month shouldn't be the reason we abandon newspapers.
the reason im saying im not willing to give up newspapers is to say that newspapers provide a service that hasnt been replaced by bloggers or anyone else.

dude, relax, it's a dollar. do u rail against all the bullshit charges from the telcos and cable companies? i (and many others im sure) have pissed away alot more for a lot less.
not all journalists and newspapers suck, and tho there are some good bloggers out there, im not willing to give up my newspaper just yet. and if we need regulation to keep them alive, then that might be worth it. u cant always "depend on the people" because sometimes u end up with a tragedy of the commons type situation

Do you have a reason for saying it's bunk? This is not my field so maybe you're right, but nothing sticks out from the articles.
And by "bunk", you mean that these fossils are NOT dwarfed humans, right? Because the other alternative that is being floated is that it's a distinct species.