Impetus is not quite the word you were looking for, I feel. I didn't mention Google specifically, nor do I think that it's entirely fair to single them out. However, Google spends quite a bit of resources on policing copyright, and most tech companies don't really benefit from the idea that some bits are illegal to copy. However, while there may or may not be any direct incentive for the tech companies to oppose a copyright extension, I don't think that their leaders would be very fond of the idea, and they have a lot of options for getting the word out.
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
tl;dr Ideas are not property, and the idea that you own something you don't have immediate physical control over is also a social agreement. Copyright exists as a social convenience, and humanity got along fine without it for thousands of years. The Internet being effectively copyright-free has revived older means of supporting artists, namely patronage and serially released works.
The tax plan was not Trump's, it was the Republican Congress's.
I think that there would be far more public awareness of a new copyright extension, and a lot of determined resistance. People weren't using the Internet to organize in 1998, at least not to the degree that we've seen with e.g. the Net Neutrality campaigns. The 1998 extension was unpopular, but I don't recall it ever being front-page news. I suspect that public pressure, probably as coordinated by our benevolent billion-dollar tech overl^Wcompanies, would be sufficient to convince Democrats to see the issue as an opportunity to slam Republicans rather than an opportunity to appease their big-media donors.
You apparently know little about PHP. That may or may not be a terrible thing, but holding up WordPress as a piece of the PHP ecosystem is unrepresentative, even disingenuous. It was obsolete when written and it can never be meaningfully improved. It's its own self-sustaining ecosystem that has nothing to do with anything written in PHP in the 15 years since then.
Modern PHP looks a bit like JavaScript, actually, and the frameworks are all very boring MVC. It's also (somehow) one of the faster scripting languages out there. You should update your prejudices.
What I'm hearing is that you're an idiot who can't handle more than a basic level of abstraction. I suppose those who prefer Java deserve what they get.
You didn't understand what was said. No one was suggesting that the PDP-11 instruction set is similar to i386, and it's irrelevant. There are a number of features of C which map directly to PDP-11 instructions, and to some degree it was also informed by how the PDP's registers work.
I've forgotten more about this subject than you will ever know, and insults are not a rebuttal. I'm sorry you don't like easily-verifiable facts. Reality's well-known liberal bias is so inconvenient.
Scared? Dear, that you're a lying nuisance is not scary. You simply happen to be a worthless waste of oxygen, and your political ideas are incompatible with this country's government. I don't know who let you in the door, but it's clearly undeserved, and I am sure you would be happier in some other country which more closely matches your beliefs. Or, I suppose given the hopelessness of your goals, suicide would also be an appropriate response.
It's not a legitimate question, it's a worn-out lie. Which you are spreading because, "Fuck you, that's why. Lieberul idjit."
Theories of climate change were needed to explain ice ages long before anyone thought that humans could cause warming. The two theories evolved separately until about 1950 or so, when clear evidence started to emerge that supported both ideas. The terms are only synonymous when describing the modern era. The only one who has ever proposed using one term in favor of the other was Republican advisor Frank Luntz.
That you're a disgusting liar is no one else's fault. You don't like being called out for it? Then stop being a lying fuck.
You don't know dick about the science, deliberately. You've never read any of the major papers, and certainly can't describe the evolution of AGW from discredited nonsense to the overwhelmingly accepted theory. You have literally no idea what you're talking about, and you are merely trying to raise the specter of doubt. That your team has made ignorance a party plank does not actually affect reality.
The narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change".
No, it has not. They are distinct terms. Republican political advisor Frank Luntz did suggest that the Bush administration prefer the latter term to the former, but this has had zero impact on the scientific field. Also, you disgusting jackass, remind me what 'IPCC' stands for and when that organization was founded. Then go fuck yourself.
You don't know shit about fuck, as the man said. AGW is a 100-year-old theory, and AGW and CC are distinct terms, both of which have been in use for decades. You are a lying sack of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
If you work in an organization that used obsolete frameworks like Drupal, then you deserve what you get.
Impetus is not quite the word you were looking for, I feel. I didn't mention Google specifically, nor do I think that it's entirely fair to single them out. However, Google spends quite a bit of resources on policing copyright, and most tech companies don't really benefit from the idea that some bits are illegal to copy. However, while there may or may not be any direct incentive for the tech companies to oppose a copyright extension, I don't think that their leaders would be very fond of the idea, and they have a lot of options for getting the word out.
Mentioning Drupal can be taken as an indication that you know nothing about PHP frameworks. You are simply displaying your prejudices.
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
tl;dr Ideas are not property, and the idea that you own something you don't have immediate physical control over is also a social agreement. Copyright exists as a social convenience, and humanity got along fine without it for thousands of years. The Internet being effectively copyright-free has revived older means of supporting artists, namely patronage and serially released works.
The tax plan was not Trump's, it was the Republican Congress's.
I think that there would be far more public awareness of a new copyright extension, and a lot of determined resistance. People weren't using the Internet to organize in 1998, at least not to the degree that we've seen with e.g. the Net Neutrality campaigns. The 1998 extension was unpopular, but I don't recall it ever being front-page news. I suspect that public pressure, probably as coordinated by our benevolent billion-dollar tech overl^Wcompanies, would be sufficient to convince Democrats to see the issue as an opportunity to slam Republicans rather than an opportunity to appease their big-media donors.
You apparently know little about PHP. That may or may not be a terrible thing, but holding up WordPress as a piece of the PHP ecosystem is unrepresentative, even disingenuous. It was obsolete when written and it can never be meaningfully improved. It's its own self-sustaining ecosystem that has nothing to do with anything written in PHP in the 15 years since then.
Modern PHP looks a bit like JavaScript, actually, and the frameworks are all very boring MVC. It's also (somehow) one of the faster scripting languages out there. You should update your prejudices.
What I'm hearing is that you're an idiot who can't handle more than a basic level of abstraction. I suppose those who prefer Java deserve what they get.
You didn't understand what was said. No one was suggesting that the PDP-11 instruction set is similar to i386, and it's irrelevant. There are a number of features of C which map directly to PDP-11 instructions, and to some degree it was also informed by how the PDP's registers work.
Ad hominem. Do better.
You anti-creimer trolls need to fuck off.
I've forgotten more about this subject than you will ever know, and insults are not a rebuttal. I'm sorry you don't like easily-verifiable facts. Reality's well-known liberal bias is so inconvenient.
Yes, all facts you don't like are the work of Russian agents; it's not like this information can be trivially confirmed.
Americans have no appreciation for having a functional postal system.
Sorry, did you have lies of your own to add, or were you just fucking off?
It's like you're a markov chain text generator set to extra stupid.
Scared? Dear, that you're a lying nuisance is not scary. You simply happen to be a worthless waste of oxygen, and your political ideas are incompatible with this country's government. I don't know who let you in the door, but it's clearly undeserved, and I am sure you would be happier in some other country which more closely matches your beliefs. Or, I suppose given the hopelessness of your goals, suicide would also be an appropriate response.
It's not a legitimate question, it's a worn-out lie. Which you are spreading because, "Fuck you, that's why. Lieberul idjit."
Theories of climate change were needed to explain ice ages long before anyone thought that humans could cause warming. The two theories evolved separately until about 1950 or so, when clear evidence started to emerge that supported both ideas. The terms are only synonymous when describing the modern era. The only one who has ever proposed using one term in favor of the other was Republican advisor Frank Luntz.
That you're a disgusting liar is no one else's fault. You don't like being called out for it? Then stop being a lying fuck.
Why don't you take your anarcho-capitalism and fuck off to some country where this is appreciated. Somalia maybe?
You don't know dick about the science, deliberately. You've never read any of the major papers, and certainly can't describe the evolution of AGW from discredited nonsense to the overwhelmingly accepted theory. You have literally no idea what you're talking about, and you are merely trying to raise the specter of doubt. That your team has made ignorance a party plank does not actually affect reality.
The narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change".
No, it has not. They are distinct terms. Republican political advisor Frank Luntz did suggest that the Bush administration prefer the latter term to the former, but this has had zero impact on the scientific field. Also, you disgusting jackass, remind me what 'IPCC' stands for and when that organization was founded. Then go fuck yourself.
You don't know shit about fuck, as the man said. AGW is a 100-year-old theory, and AGW and CC are distinct terms, both of which have been in use for decades. You are a lying sack of shit.
When was the last time you typed out an HTTP request by hand? What are you doing wrong with your life, that this is a necessary feature?
You're retarded, there is no God, and Trump is one of the least capable leaders to which history has been witness.
Antifa mostly only exists in right wing scare propaganda, but nice try. Maybe if you don't like anti-fascists, you shouldn't be a fascist.
The blatant trolls don't work as well here.