Well God never said cussing was a sin. You just can't use his name in vain.
Funny; I tend to think of the word "god" as being a title rather than a name. It's like "lord", "captain", "sir", "lieutenant", etc. By contrast, *names* of gods include "Aphrodite", "Loki", "Yahweh", "Kal-El", "Amaterasu", etc.
I was going to put "Papa Smurf" in the second list when I realized that's not a proper name either.
That's right: Papa Smurf. Bow down and praise him, bitches!
excellent. i'm sick of these richard dawkins-types who condescendingly think they have all the answers.
Those types never said they have all answers. (But if you have a counterexample, I would be willing to stand corrected.) And the answers that they do have tend to be pretty well substantiated. Take for example the establishment of common ancestry by comparisons of genomes. But do not mistake the kind of confidence that results from a firm grip on a specific subject for a delusion of omniscience. Also note that these people tend to promote a willingness to change their own opinions when new evidence challenges said opinions.
i'm native myself, and a bit of an animist by choice, as well as a firm believer in science...but who are you to tell me i'm wrong?
What harm do you think is done by calling bullshit? Do you think it's worse than the harm that may result from failing to face up to the nature of reality implied by observable evidence, and if so, why?
It's not defective, RMS et al: it's a CHOICE. You purport to like choice, but no one believes you anymore. Many consumers don't care, and even LIKE, the idea of being locked in to the App Store, because it introduces a significant amount of safety.
So, apparently you think the choice is between (1) being able to download software from Apple's app store and (2) having software distributed directly by 3rd parties to users (as with desktop PCs). Why not give each user the power to decide whether they will choose only (1) or only (2) or both (1) and (2)? Part of the FSF's point is that Apple has taken away some of the user's power of choice.
If we leave 1 intact, intellectual works have a far greater benefit to everyone. The challenge is to come up with a way to satisfy 3, without harming 1 and 2. The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions. Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit, so there is incentive.
To me it seems you assume it's possible, under your proposed scenario, for a viable solution to exist for most copyright holders. To many of us it is not obvious that this is the case and it feels natural to assume differently.
IMO, the current system is *close* to being workable for all (or most) parties; the main problem, as I see it, is that the duration of exclusive rights has effectively become infinite when, in the age of instant global distribution, it should probably be no more than something like ten years. (And there are probably a lot of special cases that could reasonably trigger either instant release into Public Domain or a small extension of copyright.)
Also, I think you're missing an item in your list:
4. The probability of creation of a valuable intellectual work is multiplied by the extent to which the would-be creator(s) have a fair opportunity to be compensated for the act of creation.
Note that this sort of feeds into item 2: no one can benefit from a work if it's never created in the first place. So whatever we do, we really, really need something better than your personal faith in the market's ability to heal all that ails. Obviously, the market provides a lot of nice solutions to a lot of problems. I like the market for that reason. But the market does not---cannot---solve every problem. To assume that it can seems akin to assuming that natural selection *necessarily* leads to the "higher functions" of humanity (e.g. language, music, etc.) when in fact it's entirely possible for natural selection to lead many species into extinction. (And reflect on the fact that the vast majority of branches on the tree of life do not reach the present day.) So please do not underestimate the potential of the market to screw people over.
Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?
Because the set of all irrationally terrified people includes voters and some (if not most) of the policy-makers that said voters elect. It is therefore in everyone's interest for better-informed people to demonstrate and make clear the cases where an imagined threat is either (a) not real or (b) not severe enough to warrant action. And those demonstrations must be delivered to the general public, and they must come as earl early and often as possible and grab as much attention as possible.
This is part of the reason why Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World.
My idea of roughing it turning the air conditioner too low.