Rivalarrival

Technically unlimited, but with an exponentially increasing annual registration fee.

Exactly. I don't have a problem with artists profiting from their work. I don't have a problem with their temporary exclusivity. The problem I have is when they never intend for that work to belong to the people; when they think they can maintain control over an idea long after it has become "culture".

For the problem you mention, I would suggest that any studio who has been offered the work during the five year period owes royalties for a 5-year period after the studio publishes the work, even if it has since entered the public domain. Something along those lines would likely become a standard clause between the screenwriter's guild and the studios, and doesn't necessarily need to be enacted in law.

I wouldn't be opposed to a longer period for some major works. Start with a standard, 5-year period from the time of original publication, then allow an extended copyright registration with an exponentially increasing annual fee. A few additional years would likely be affordable. The fifth, possibly. The sixth, only for the most profitable franchises, and the seventh being a large fraction of the national GDP. If James Cameron wants to pay for the entire military establishment through the proceeds of Avatar III, he can get one more year of protection.

I don't really care to fight about what the original intent of copyright is,

Then you can get bent.

Art and invention benefit the whole of humanity. A work whose sole beneficiary is its creator does not qualify as art or invention, and deserves no protection.

The purpose of copyright is to promote science and the useful arts. The purpose is to get art and inventions into the public domain. The purpose is not "to get artists paid". Getting them paid for their works and discoveries is the method by which copyright achieves its purpose. It is not the purpose itself.

If they are only interested in keeping their works proprietary; if they are uninterested in pushing them into the public domain, they are not achieving the purpose for which copyright exists. They do not qualify for copyright protection. They can get bent.

My first thought (which probably isn't the best method, but I've done similar before) is an Arduino between the mouse and the system. The Arduino normally just passes the mouse commands to the system, but it listens for the button and blocks movement if it sees the button press.

Because it's all done in hardware, this method would be system-agnostic. You could plug it into anything.

I used a Teensy 3.6 for a similar project.

It's not me choosing to put you in this guillotine. It's the whole of society.

If I wanted your clothes, I wouldn't have left them at goodwill.

"Disrespectful" would be telling you that you in particular should continue to use windows or mac, and avoid Linux like the plague.

Do you actually want to run an application that doesn't exist on Linux?

I use a virtual machines for the 2 or 3 times a year I need to use a couple garbage windows-only programs. Usually for configuring some arcane piece of proprietary hardware that people were getting rid of because it is incompatible with everything.

Well, yeah. I mean, help desk deals with users at their moment of peak incompetence. If 1 in 20 users can't figure out that "Office" is now "Libre office", help desk is going to be swamped.

The solution is to merge help desk and HR, so that something productive can be done about PEBCAK issues.

Also pressure regulators (like the one on the side of your house) have to vent to bring down the pressure when the network is too high.

No. They have to vent if your household pressure is too high. If, for example, cold gas was admitted into your lines, and that gas heated up, the pressure in your lines would increase. The regulator can't push that gas back into the high pressure main, so the regulator would have to bleed off the excess pressure.

It's not the IT folks who need to be pushed. It's the users.