Calling for a complete end to copyright is not more forceful than calling for reasonable limits to copyright. If anything, it's less powerful, because complete abolition of copyright is a complete non-starter, and is going to go nowhere.

You can find nuts who will take just about any position on any debate that you can come up with. Taking up an equally nutty position in response is not productive.

Well, we could throw them all in prison. Maybe we should hire a few people to babysit them and maybe help them with a rudimentary education. And let them go home to their families at night.

Oh, wait, I guess we already have that.

Shoot the users that submit bad bug reports. Within a few generations, only users that submit good bug reports will remain.

In my experience, they're ensuring that U.S. developers have poorly-designed software to fix.

The reason why software developers will tackle the biggest performance bottlenecks first is because a developer can only work on one thing at a time, and so should attempt to get the largest return on their investment in time.

The government, however, is not a single person, and employs millions of people. The people that are able to address the waste in area A are probably not the same people that can address the waste in area B.

It would be foolish for a large software development team to assign every developer to work on the same performance problem. Similarly, it would be stupid to tell those who aren't working on the top problem to sit on their thumbs until the top problem is resolved. If a source of government waste is identified, then the appropriate thing to do is address it, not come up with excuses why it's not important.

There's no reason why you can't reduce waste in both categories. Which is what most of us who oppose government waste want to do.

All that is is evidence that previous presidents haven't enforced immigration laws either.

So after skimming that presentation, I wondered: would it also be accurate (by the same logic) to say that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun; it orbits the galactic center (and is perturbed by the Sun)? Serious question; I'm curious as to whether there's a qualitative difference between the two that astrophysicists would identify, or if it's just a matter of scale.

Saying that something is "good, but not for the masses," is elitism; even if you take the rather odd tack that you consider yourself in the group of the masses when you make that pronouncement.

Well, although I don't believe in the whole "24/7 connectivity is required" mindset (somehow society survived for thousands of years before it became an option), if you insist on being connected at all times, a theatre that implements this wouldn't be an option for you. Your options would be to patronize a different theatre, or choose a different form of entertainment.

The FCC gets no say in what building materials you use. They can (and do) prohibit jammers, but they don't have anything to say about building a faraday cage.

I've always liked the notion of enclosing the theatres in a faraday cage. In any new construction, it should be relatively cheap to include a mesh around the theatre itself -- and then you don't have to worry about people's manners. At least not as far as cell phones are concerned.

Well, that's about as elitist as you can get.

I do the same thing and they keep calling. I figure it's worthwhile, though. If everyone just wasted 5 minutes of the real person's time, the scam would be so unprofitable that they'd have to stop.

Wait .. so you think that he ought to wait a full year before insisting that a company (that he gave his money to) make good on their promises? That's taking patience to a rather unwarranted level.