... I just didn't expect it to happen so soon. A mesh network is a natural step to take on the path to fully automating roads and all but eliminating the dangers of the road. Naturally the next step would be to mandate cars to participate in the network, to get the best data. I just wasn't predicting it would be in this decade. Mind you, the recent advances in automatic driving without mesh networking has also been surprising, so maybe I should have seen this coming.

I don't know what the submitter is so worried about. This is simply one of the final nails in the coffin of road fatalities.

You lose many babies, even when trying (even successfully) to conceive. That's not a problem; potential babies are a dime a dozen. We can always just manufacture more, with pleasure!

I can't say the same for potential sales. Once a sale is lost, it's very hard to get back, and impossible to fabricate.

What's your problem with a rape analogy? If you don't think copyright infringement and rape have common elements, why not argue like a man, instead of down-modding like a coward?

Something is *created* when copying something.

Indeed. Nothing new. Nothing helpful. Nothing that contributes to our culture or understanding of the world. Nothing that is any good to anyone, except the person who obtains it.

Nothing is *taken*

Ah, this is where you're wrong. The fact that there is a component of creation does not imply there is not a component of taking, or destruction.

I run a bittorrent client that downloads torrents at random

That's a helluvan algorithm when you want something specific!

I think their greed might be clouding their moral judgement.

Is there much of a moral distinction between copyright infringement and theft? Both involve acquiring something to which you have no right, at the quantifiable detriment to the owner. Is there some other moral dimension to theft of which I'm not aware?

Not just government-backed, but government-guaranteed. The entire time they were pouring their own money into making this stuff, they were doing so under the assumption that the law saying they would get a monopoly on their particular product would be upheld.

Of course they feel entitled to their monopolies. And, moreover, they are entitled to reparations to those of us who break the monopoly.

Coding and music (particularly composition) are excellent for the mind, but not every student has the aptitude. It's not a case of some kids being too dumb, but just that not every mind works that way.

I do think that students should be given the option though.

If you actually have a talent for writing software, you'll find out automatically.

Bullshit. Kids have no way of recognising that aptitude in themselves. How could they? I find that people who haven't been introduced to computer programming previously have no idea what it entails.

Also, I'd like to point out that programming in school is mostly about structuring your thoughts logically and a feel for how computers work, not professional coding etiquette.

When did "keeping us safe" become the primary function of government?

I'm not sure. When did we invent the military?

Is that not enough to convince you?

Ahhh, if it's all the same to you, I'm not quite done with my critical reasoning skills yet. But, I promise, the moment I'm done with them, I'll come chase shadows with you on your imaginary demon hunt.

Obvious bias is indeed obvious, but, to be fair, it only points out that the reason is stupid, and does not comment on the law itself. It doesn't really need to either, since the /. groupthink will tell 95% of us what to think about it anyway.

but just check out TV forums and see how many posters refer to actors by their characters' names. For a lot of people, TV is real-life

That might be a bit of a leap there.

When I read a novel, I say/think $CHARACTER did something, even though I know that they don't exist, and I find I do the same in all sorts of entertainment, television included. Also, the names of the characters are a great way to refer to the person without having to memorise their names, or expect others to do so as well.

In fact, come to think about it, I don't know a single person who is even close to thinking that TV is real. I don't even know anyone who thinks it's plausible. Do you?

Sometimes I wonder if "Remember the dumb people" is /.'s "Think of the children".

No, the worst possible thing already happened, thats the content of the letter.

A slight exaggeration perhaps, but it's beside the point. It's not a competition of who can be more wrong; the fact of the matter is that it's possible for two parties to be in the wrong. And in principle, how wrong one party is should not affect how wrong the other party is.

Think about all those legal penalties for spying, warrantless searches, torture, and all those other illegal methods for obtaining potentially valuable information. Not only do we punish people who use them, we refuse to acknowledge, in court, the information obtained using them. Why? Because if we did, then people would continue to do them, regardless of the penalties. It's not enough to say, "Whoops, my bad, but at least you caught the serial kiddie-fiddler due to my illegal search!", and walk out scot-free. Regardless of how useful the information exposed, we know that the methods to obtain said information are evil, and we do our best to ensure they don't happen, even if it means ignoring valuable information. Basically, as far as the courts' are concerned, the ends never justify the means.

(Now, I don't mean to suggest we should ignore what Snowden turned up, just that we shouldn't allow the magnitude of NSA's crimes to blind us to the issue of whether Snowden himself has done wrong or not.)