You're claiming that being technically savvy is equivalent to chasing the latest fashion.

Not many are as guilty of "chasing the latest fashion" as software developers.

About Hollywood? How do you want that report sorted?

I can get the same effect from 40mg of dimethyltryptamine and a half-pint of jagermeister.

Plus, the stars in Starry Night will turn into tiny aliens that talk to me.

I'm sorry, but kids using an iPad to play a game or their PC for twitter and WoW are not the same thing as kids knowing how a computer works, how to setup a router, debugging networking issues, writing code, and so on.

Be careful. You may be overestimating the importance of knowing how to "setup a router, debugging network issues, writing code, and so on", when it comes to being technically savvy. If you want to write code, then writing code is important, but I know plenty of people who can write efficient Cobol but don't know the basic language of Twitter, or even how to use all the apps on their smartphone.

There was a time when being able to write C++ code made you "technically savvy". Now it makes you probably a relatively low-wage worker. There are those of us who spend more time setting up the latest version of Linux and compiling kernels than they do actually doing something with that technology. For these kids, that's all drudge work, and just care about "what I can I do with this?"

For example, think of all the discussions here with hundreds and hundreds of comments about why someone uses a certain OS and not another. For these kids, it really doesn't matter. You sit them down with an iPhone or Android, Mac or PC and they'll be communicating with their friends while we're still setting the menus the way we like them and playing with settings in the OS to get things just so. There is a difference, and I think the edge goes to the kids who have had this technology from the crib.

Correlation implies 25% likelihood of causation.

50% chance before discovering temporal data. 25% chance a causes b, 25% chance b causes a. But if you have correlation, causation is unknown without further data.

Most of my bosses have been statisticians holding PhDs in the field (I manage the databases, NOMAD is my favorite language but the bastards make me use Access now, I'm glad I'm retiring) and I learned a lot from them.

BTW, both journals were excellent.

Second paragraph should read "Do you know how many published works entered the public domain last year? None."

The original purpose was to offer monopoly rights for a set term to allow the "creator" to profit from their work.

Very good. So what's changed? Well, we're no longer talking about the 'creator' of the work, because we've already established that most intellectual property is NOT owned by the person who did the work.

Second, the "set term" is a thing of the past. Do you know how many public works entered the public domain last year? None.

The United States has effectively made copyright eternal.

Cool != popular.

You'll have to let me bet you a cup of coffee that this isn't going to happen.
Proof: the blue states are like that psychotic ex. The states that could go it alone, i.e. the productive "red" states, are also the ones that retain any loyalty to the 1787 Constitution in its un-sodomized-by-Woodrow condition.

Copyright is much older than the secondary market for it.

And people purchasing your "intellectual property" inflate the value, they do not create a true market. They can only create artificial shortage.