It adds price because Intel forced an artificial market segmentation down everyone's throats.

I got a bogus red light ticket once, and that was what convinced me to get a dashcam. That judge just took the cops' word for everything, so even a dashcam might not have helped, but it couldn't have hurt.

No, inflation is an expansion of the money supply. When the government prints more money than the population growth requires, banks lend more money at lower rates, people and businesses borrow more, and the surplus money chasing the same goods and services increases the demand and prices rise. That is economic inflation, my term, which is different from what laymen call inflation: some prices going up, as from tariffs or other taxes.

I have read of people given tickets for passing stopped school buses with their red STOP signs swung out, who got the ticket dismissed by pointing out that normal STOP signs mean PAUSE then continue. I have no idea if the original stories were true or if that still works. STOP signs really mean wait until the intersection clears, and arguably the temporary intersection created by the school bus doesn't clear until the kiddies are across the street.

And plenty of oh-hell-naw features.

You don't go far enough. Fighting and control to what end? Much of the fighting is sheer competition to grab more. More land and resources, to support more children. As for fighting, no, most people have the sense not to willingly risk their lives in deadly combat. Most would rather move into empty lands, or failing that, clear out the current occupants through genocide. If easy genocide is not possible either because the occupants can and will fight back, some will choose war, but only if it looks easy.

Religion is rather orthogonal to this. Been used as much or more to justify fighting as to discourage fighting.

Reselling is definitely shady. But there would be no scope for such schemes if the price was fair. It's not.

The legendary Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Was he wrong? Was his cause not worthy? He was fighting greed-- excessive, damaging taxation and hoarding of wealth. Today, greed has again arisen to become one of our biggest problems, with these super rich using their immense wealth to corrupt our systems to unfairly direct even more wealth to them.

Your use of the term "thief" prejudices your argument. Copying is not theft. Copying is copying. Pirating a TV signal, maybe that should be a crime, but it shouldn't be lumped in with theft. For years, the entertainment industry has been trying to convince the world that sharing is theft. Don't do their dirty work for them.

Yes, I am aware TorrentFreak ran the story. They are one of the few exceptions to the near universal censoring and propagandizing the media does on this issue.

When Commerce Secretary Hoover got Congress to create the FCC's predecessor in 1927, it explicitly required spectrum allocation to be based on "the public interest", overturning the private property rights common law had been developing. This was done at the behest of the new radio network cronies. This led to all sorts of censorship, eventually enshrined as the fairness doctrine. The FCC also flexed its muscles to delay FM radio, cable TV, cell phones, color TV, WiFi, and I forget what else, by 10-20 or more years.

There's a great book on this, "Political Spectrum", by Thomas Hazlett. A good review: https://www.hoover.org/researc...

Free rein. As in the thing used to control a horse.

Society must acknowledge that sharing of info should be encouraged, and be thankful that technology has made sharing incredibly easy. Need to work harder on systems that can fairly compensate producers while encouraging sharing, not continue to base compensation on the restriction of sharing. Especially not to the point of outlawing sharing and wasting resources enforcing that and causing still more waste of lives that have to spend ruinously to fight to defend themselves from the legal mess.

One thing that makes this issue most intractable is that the organs who report on it are thoroughly convinced that sharing is contrary to their own interests. How is the public to hear unbiased reporting on this matter when no one with a metaphorical megaphone will give one?

Huh. I coulda sworn mine had the crank. On the other hand, maybe they only promised it for later delivery and I barely used it after a few days experimenting, since it was so limited, and eventually tossed it along with a lot of other eWaste.

Many many years ago, I bought an OLPC, actually a pair, one for me, the other they sent to Africa or some other place. I do not remember the year even vaguely. I do remember it had a crank to windup and charge the battery. I bought the two because (from memory) the purpose of the laptop was strictly limited:

* Carry all textbooks on one laptop, instead of having to walk miles to school and back with a heavy backpack.

* Have modern eBook textbooks, not fifth generation hand-me-downs which had been written in a different language for a different country. This was certainly important for indoctrination in local history and culture, but it even applied to math textbooks, whose examples could well use cultural aspects which were literally foreign.

* Be rechargeable with that windup crank for kids whose homes had no electricity.

* Use a screen to read those books instead of having to stop using them after dark or by candles or oil lamps.

In particular, I had never heard that they were meant to teach computer science. It might have been a nice side effect, but I did not think it was any kind of a primary goal. The primary goal was to help young children learn.

Contrary to the scaremongering we hear, the world is not full of terrorists. They exist, don't get me wrong, but the reason we're so afraid of them is that our fear of them is incredibly useful for people who want to control us.

And also, the ones who do exist aren't engineers. So a shooting, or a stabbing, that's pretty easy to figure out how to do. Derailing a train? That's physics. Physics is much harder than pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.

Unfortunately Acela sucks. I took Acela from New York to Boston once. Once. It was terrifying—the tracks aren't really suited for running at (haha!) 100mph. The idea that this is high-speed rail and that anybody takes that name seriously just illustrates what a backwater the U.S. is nowadays.

There is already a rail corridor through western Indiana into the Chicago metropolitan area. And there are already passenger trains running on it. The problem isn't getting a train into the city center—it's that we don't have electrified high-speed rail lines between the cities. Which, given that we do have low-speed (only 75mph max) highways, which are insanely expensive to build and maintain, seems like an eminently solvable problem.

The real problem is that there are huge fortunes dependent on keeping those roads full of cars. But really that's not even the problem. You can see the problem right here in this discussion: if you haven't lived in a place where high speed rail is ubiquitous, it seems really really hard. If you haven't lived in a place where cars are not completely and utterly dominant, it seems inconceivable that things could be any different. Even people who are anti-car tend to think with car brain because of this.