> they, too, would be greener if they just did not exist at all Only if the people living there also didn't exist.

Lots of people are making the entirely reasonable and correct point that slums are not very nice places to live. Nevertheless, the article is correct in saying that slums engender efficient, low-impact living, when compared to the lifestyles of the rich (anyone reading this is almost certainly rich, in global terms). I've heard various people say things along the lines of "you want to see an environmental disaster area - go and look at a slum". This thinking attempts to sidestep the responsibility of the rich by blaming the poor, who are in fact relatively guiltless. We might not want to live there, but we should jettison the popular idea that slums are bad ecologically, as it is the reverse of the truth.

Imagine how this conflict would go if the Palestinian's weren't so cowardly and instead used non-violent protests. You know, like Gandhi.

You don't actually have to imagine, you can look at the International Solidarity Movement. It turns out this is what happens.

Nah, that kind of stuff never works.

That's not entirely true, it worked for Gandhi in combination with a) a decades-long violent struggle for independence and b) the Nazis nearly bankrupting the British empire.

I presume from the summary that the proposed laws are actually about copyright enforcement rather than piracy, which is covered by maritime law.