jterce

I wonder about all this talk and arguing back and forth over whether "it's a fake".

What this man is expressing is real. I can confirm it is real, because as a human I can feel many of the same things, as I read it. Whether he will die in 30 days or not, we don't know. And you can, of course, argue about that all day long. You might even be quite put out if he does not. But whether he is having these thoughts and feelings because he is about to die, or whether he is simply exploring these thoughts and feelings because he is a human (and facing death like us all), they are no less real. You may call one fiction because the man does not die on cue, but after reading it, I say it is not fake.

I believe the retransmitted quantum packet would be necessarily different from the original. So the receiving node notices that the packet has been modified, but because it expects the (secure) hub to modify the original, all is well.

> The problems occur when they're trying to do stuff on their local machines.

By all means, try to explain that to users if you like, and if you think they'd care. The issue is that it breaks the user experience, whatever technical reason you'd like to attribute that to.

Everything you just mentioned is more or less public by its very nature. Encryption wouldn't make any sense even were it feasible.

Yes, of course both are. But still, you're only ever going to be conscious from the perspective contained within the original you. The copy may be mathematically identical, but it does not make sense that there would be any kind of a magical transition of consciousness from one to the other. The other "you" would have its own consciousness entirely separate from yours. I.e., if you copy yourself and kill the original, you will lose consciousness. You will not wake up.

It makes many Americans increasingly angry as well.

Frankly, anyone who has paid attention to what Paul has actually said or done in the last 20 years knows this in no way represents his views. In fact, quite the opposite, Paul is by far the most open and tolerant in the GOP field. The fact that some people are willing to focus on these says more about them than about Paul.

Agreed. It's the same as the "occupy" movement saying that corporations shouldn't influence government. It's true, but it's the politicians who are the problem. Everyone, the content providers included, should be representing their best interests to politicians. The burden is on the politicians to remain uncorrupted and to represent the best interests of their constituents to the fullest degree possible under law.

> not allowing those who have been born in fortuitous (and work ethic and abilities enhancing) circumstances to get so far ahead the less fortunate no longer have a chance to catch up.

I find this very troubling. Why should we prevent people from succeeding? I think rather than not allowing people to advance society would be better served by finding ways to help those behind advance. Also, why is it so important to catch up? Why cannot some do well and rise to the top while others do well (for their skill level) and not make it all the way to the top? What is so bad about that?

I think this would be much more appropriate.

15 years in technology is a lifetime. Enforcing a monopoly for so long ensures that there will be no real innovation/progress in that area. How can we, as a society, afford to be held back like this?

In so many areas progress would happen much faster if not hindered by legal threat.

> it's freaking 2011, we are not supposed to be dependent on other' people's irresponsibility.

I cannot think of any implementation of society where this could possibly be true. If you really feel this way you need to find yourself a deserted island and become completely self-sufficient.

It's really depressing that business today is less about innovation and competition and more about dirty legal practices to destroy other members of an industry.

This is some incredibly short-sighted zero sum game consideration. I hope we wake up and fix this before the state of innovation has been set back too many years.