What on earth are you talking about? Fascism is pretty much the ultimate representation of corporatist ideals.

If you think otherwise, you need a lesson in history and political ideologies.

Well, you've got it backwards. Under fascism the government appropriates businesses for political purposes. In America businesses have appropriated the government for financial purposes. I'm not sure what you call it but it's not fascism.

It's called corporatocracy.

And they deserve to lose their jobs if they put ideology ahead of making products people will spend money to have.

Sorry to deflate your rant against developers, but if you look at the marketshare for Windows 7 mobile devices, it seems clear that platform is something consumers won't spend money to have.

Secession is an adolescent fantasy, not a realistic option in the United States of America post-Civil War. Sure, your legislature can vote unanimously in favor of it. But the Federal Government will, in the end, take your state back by force and make you pay reparations for the next few decades.

"Stay relevant"?

Dark Side of the Moon, released in 1973, spent over 14 consecutive years on the Billboard 200 chart -- longer than any other album. The Wall, released in 1979, still ranks among the top 5 highest-selling albums of all time in the U.S. See here and here.

So no matter what trends come and go in how popular music is produced and consumed, the idea that Pink Floyd could become irrelevant seems pretty far-fetched.

DDoP (Distributed Denial of Parking) attacks -- the ultimate in dick driving!

I don't get it. All the time these slashdotters moan and moan about how the law and how judges don't understand the Internet. And here we have a law that comes from understanding the Internet, and that that the Internet has opened new ways that didn't exist before to harm others, and people complain again. Is it because it threatens some slash=dotters favorite phantasies about getting others into trouble by doing illegal things while pretending to be them?

For the umpteenth time, Slashdot is not a single person with a single opinion. If you're referring to individual Slashdotters being hypocritical or otherwise self-contradictory, respond to them directly or call them out by name.

(Yes, I'm aware of http://xkcd.com/386/)

Someone get the thorazine.

So, there's no immediacy to global warming, we have time to get it right - rather than wrecking our economy for most likely no reason.

Yes, let's jump to grand conclusions based on a single unproven assumption. Betting all life as we know it against maximizing profits is a perfectly rational course of action.

You're swatting at clouds just as much as those you accuse of doing so. Perhaps your own bias causes you to see the Slashdot that you want to see -- or don't want to see, whichever reinforces that bias. You see in Slashdot a faceless liberal mob. Another poster sees a faceless libertarian or conservative mob. None of these viewpoints are objective, as Slashdot discussions continue to exhibit a wide range of values and opinion. Don't let confirmation bias sway you from debating people and their arguments on an individual basis.

Slashdot seems to be slowly adopting a a new strategy to steer away from pointless partisan flaming. Please support it.

Amen. The media can help curb the idiotic partisan bickering aspect of the national dialog by simply omitting a politician's party affiliation in each story unless the issue at hand is expressly party-related.

Actually actually, Harrison doesn't own the copyright. He's quite dead.

Leahy is a Senator for Vermont, not Delaware. That said, this fact seems incongruous with his rather extreme position on this issue -- I thought Vermont had a history of fair-mindedness.

These will make excellent hors d'oeuvres.

Tell me, do you think I should only get to vote with 1/100th the weight of someone who pays 100 times as many taxes as I do?

Of course not. The equality of each person's vote -- political power -- serves as one reasonable balance against highly disproportionate economic power, the latter of which naturally tips our private-property-based society in the direction of feudalism. Higher taxes on higher incomes is another balance against that economic power, and is further justified by the reasoning that the have-mores have more to lose, and therefore have a higher interest in the social order maintained by our fair-minded system of government, without which society can easily tip too far toward highly disproportionate political power exercised by the have-littles robbing the have-mores into poverty.

Now, while people who have no property, don't pay taxes and can't vote also have an interest in this system of balances, they aren't sharing any of the liability, instead serving as unchecked disturbances in the system, making them inherently unfair.