Technically, you're correct. However, the coverage the protests received from Big Media are also copyrighted to Big Media, which puts it outside the financial range of individuals who want to use that coverage without paying for very expensive per-item licensing fees.

For example, I'm personally aware that the University of Kentucky archives contacted CBS to get a 6 minute video clip of their basketball team in action from 1998 to include within a larger documentary about UK's sports history. CBS said it would cost about $10,000 for that one clip. The story's the same for other copyrighted history like the 1979 Who tragedy in Cincinnati, Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, and countless other historical events.

The NYU archivists know this, and it's why they can't count on Big Media - they have to do it themselves.

When law enforcement authorities refuse to press charges against a known killer, the only thing left IS the court of public opinion. It's not like George Zimmerman can throw himself into court without personally confessing details that would make him chargeable.

I understand your sentiment, but good luck with that fairy tale you've suggested.

Enough Americans are now obsessed enough about taxes that the tax increase needed to pay for your Increased Jury Pay suggestion would get hammered at the ballot.

However, if you suggested lowering jury pay to help some taxhole save $0.12 on his bill, I'm pretty sure it would pass.

Wow, interesting early comments. I remember the Pentagon Papers release (their release caused Nixon to go into a paranoid overdrive that resulted in Watergate) and the blowback it caused due to the government's lies.

Frankly, the more secrets they release, the more transparent national leaders' lies will be to the public. That's not to say that's good or bad, it just is.

As for being a traitor to America or Russia or the banking system, riiiiiight.

Oh, yeah, totally! WTF is up with blowing taxpayer money by multi-tasking and educating the public about their mission and seeing what the police see!?

/sarcasm

After all, teachers aren't barely-literate manual laborers; they have college degrees - shouldn't they be able to negotiate a salary on their own?

Ah, GOT IT! Flunk out of college, retain the right to collective bargaining. Graduate college, lose the right to collective bargaining. Wow, you're the walking, talking embodiment of someone who received an extraordinarily poor education.

If there were a market in teacher pay, for example, I'm reasonably certain that a high school physics teacher would make a lot more than a kindergarten teacher.

If the high school physics teacher is even a tad competent in their field, they do. It's called consulting. K teachers don't get it, but physics and chemistry teachers can if they want it. Otherwise, I won't bring up the 5-10 issues you're NOT addressing in this zero-sum scenario.

Wow, you're quite the stupid git, eh?

Newsflash Dumbass: Your vote mattered every bit as less as the person whom you responded to. That "woosh" you hear is you not getting it.

Please mod parent up, I was thinking the same thing.

Oh, and speaking of DNFs, when the hell is the next episode of Ninjai coming out? It's been over five years since episode 12 was released.

if they do know more about the topic then answering the skepticism shouldn't be a problem should it?

Answering the skepticism is completely acceptable. Answering the skepticism one skeptic (of millions) at a time, with each skeptic having a different set of skepticism, and frankly not asking in the spirit of education but in cynicism IS A PROBLEM.

Here's an idea: if you believe the GP and the majority of people who believe as he does are irrational, haul out your global climate data sets and indicate why they're irrational. It couldn't be worse and would probably be a lot better than the wretchedly stupid argument you just "formulated."

Not every climate skeptic is a denialist ostrich. Many of us can be converted with patience, lucidity and openness.

Grow up, we're not your parents. Take your patience, lucidity, and openness and bone up on the subject instead of expecting other people to hold your hand and convince you. If you want to remain a Denialist Ostrich, feel free to, but don't be surprised when you consistently catch blowback for such enthusiastic ignorance.

Doubtful he's all that innocent. The news article is nothing but his word and his side of the story.

Translation: He's guilty, guilty, guilty, and the fact that he's verbally defending himself doesn't mean squat. I fact, I won't ever believe he's innocent unless the LEO on this case knocks on my door and personally exhonerates him with backup documentation.

Trust me (having assisted with investigations into computer crime of all sorts) there is no way he could have been charged based on what HE says was the evidence. There's far more to it.

Translation: LEOs never abuse the law or their authority and this person was equitably, justifiably charged. And now that he's stuck with a public defender, he's permanently screwed regardless of his innocence. Aaaaah, I love the smell of American justice in the morning.

Well, I guess the Washington government could try to pass a law that taxes a company for a subsidiary whose primary location is in a tax-free zone. If it stood up to the inevitable legal challenge, I have no idea what the unintended consequences would be for the tax landscape.