They dont last longer. There is the same amount if friction and temperature changes causing wear. They just apend more time in each wallet before moving to the next.
Living in a high crime country - we avoid cash like the plague. You never carry more than R50 if you can help it (about 3 Dollars). You use cards for everything - because having cash makes you a target for robbery. Since everybody stopped carrying cash - muggings have gone way down and now, if you do get mugged, they will almost certainly take your phone rather than your wallet because you almost certainly have only cards in the wallet and those are much harder to abuse (at least if you don't know the pin and don't have access to the technology to crack them) and can be easily cancelled with a single phone call.
Second hand phones have signficant resale value on the other hand.
Cash *does* make it easier for criminals because it's harder to trace and, more importantly, readily accepted everywhere without any checks to verify the legality of your obtaining it. Cards are harder. By no means impossible but it makes the fruit just that little less low-hanging which makes other (less violent) crimes more attractive in terms of risk and reward and so has cut down hugely on our biggest crime problem.
These days the vast majority of muggings that *do* occur target tourist hotspots and specifically seek out American tourists - because unlike everybody else, they are the last group of people in the country likely to carry large amounts of cash.
Hey, at least there is still *two* other countries that hasn't adopted the metric system. Granted the other two are Burma and Liberia (not exactly symbols of success) but hey, you're not entirely alone yet.
Hell even South Africa got rid of 1 and 2 cent coins over a decade ago... this is the second time it took America more than 10 years to do something sane than it took South Africa. We beat them by 10 years on Gay Marriage as well !
Eliot's character in "Leverage" summed up those idiots better than anybody else, ever:
"The difference between you and a real soldier is that you are willing to kill for 'your rights'. A soldier is somebody who is willing to die to protect somebody else's rights".
If only wingnuts took the other amendments as seriously as they take the first one... oh and the pre-ammendmented constitution itself...
I've yet to meet one who could name more than one other amendment or had the slightest idea what the actual US constitution says. Like most foreigners, I know it better than you do... but then, since the Iranian prime minister last year proved he knew it better than the republicans in congress this is not surprising.
Without googling - which amendment bans slavery ? Which is the equality amendment ? Or even just - "are these the same amendment" ?
You see - the second does not supersede the others, it is limited by their very existence - like all rights are limited by the very existence of other rights since all rights end where other people's rights begin.
What I find most odd though is that everybody seems to read over the most important part of the second amendment. It states that a well organized militia is essential and this is the justification for a right to bear arms... but everybody flat out ignores the "well organized" bit.
You won't get "well organized" in anything done by a government (and the constitution is - by definition - a matter of government) without lots and lots of regulation. The second amedment not only *allows* for gun regulation - it outright demands it but nobody every mentions that part or recognizes the significance of that qualifier. It's like you imagine the founding fathers you adore so much never meant to put that in there, like it was a typo before the invention of the typewriter.
Throughout history have significantly exceeded their face value to produce.
This is not actually a loss though - since the value of a coin is not the value on it's face - that's merely it's value to one individual. It's value to the economy = it's face value * however many trades it will be used for. That gives a much higher margin for coins to still be made without a loss.
This sounds like typical republican/libertarian/austrian oversimplification of the issue leading to utterly false conclusions.
A more likely scenario is simply that, as small denomination coins have been used less and less the second part of the equation has shrunk enough that now production costs exceed the actual economic value of the coin.
Right... you care about rights and liberties... considering that within your first sentence you echoed the utterly irrational xenophobic fear of refugees and called them "bomb makers" (like you don't have plenty of white bomb makers in America already) I doubt the sincerity of that very much. After that though, your post devolved into a wholly incoherent rant of blithering paranoia. It isn't a problem of following along - the problem is you just basically made a word salad with no sentence structure. The fact that you replace practically every word with some slang variant spelling doesn't help either.
Oh and *most* countries on earth have more rights than Americans - whenever Americans try to get those rights republicans convince them that letting people have those rights is taking away your "freedom".
You sound like Donald Trump on acid and are about as fit to govern.
Oh, and I have no fear of guns, I was actually championship shot in my younger years.
But I've never been, nor will I ever be, a gun owner. On those occasions where I wish to shoot a gun for fun - it is so much safer to hire one. Having one in my house is insane, but not nearly as insane as not being concerned if my neighbour has one.
Unfortunately the NRA has one fact exactly backwards: the vast majority of gun owners are irresponsible idiots with penis-size issues.
It's not personal risk that is the problem. If that was it, then it would, indeed, be a matter of liberty. Nobody has the right to stop you taking risks.
What we most certainly *do* have the right to do is to stop you from subjecting *other* people to risks without their consent.
That sentence was sarcasm - only you think the other posts were related to it. Every sane person reaches the opposite conclusion: the *reason* he made that sarcastic post was to tell you how stupid you are for conflating your gun-nuttery with freedom - and especially with software freedom.
There's another factor with homes: outside of extreme events like in 2008 - banks actively avoid selling them at lower prices (even at auction) than what they were bought for - because that has an incredible risk that comes from the long duration of bonds.
I own a house, it's still under bond and will be for another 19 years. I paid R950K (about 75K USD in todays' exchange rate) for it. The bond price means I'll actually pay about three times that over it's lifetime.
Now imagine this scenario: my neighbor falls behind on his payments and the bank forecloses on his home. They sell it to recover some of the loss and by setting the reserve to low or something end up selling it for say R500K. This devalues all the homes in the neighborhood - and suddenly I find that my home is valued at say R600K - that's significantly less than what I am indebted to... if that happens I stop paying and tell the bank to come take the damn house ! And so does every one of my neighbors.
The only reason to accept paying that interest is the general pattern that in 20 years the house will have appreciated more than the interest. But it's perfectly within my legal house to give up on the loan and choose to give up the house it is secured with instead of paying it. That's what "secured with" means.
So the only way not to lose millions of customers voluntarily abandoning their homes and buying cheaper ones or renting is to do all in their power to keep the homes appreciating. A large chunk of 2008's problem was exactly that - the moment house prices fell far enough most home owners owed more than the house was worth and instantly did the math and stopped paying - creating a downward cycle, that race to the bottom led to a global recession. It's a good idea to try and avoid scenarios like that.
There was another major problem. Speech recognition at home or in a private office had it's users, but in an open-plan office there was just too much background noise - and everybody now had to listen to you dictate what would previously have been typed.
On a computer, speech-recognition just never really worked in any environment where you were not by yourself. It made you feel exposed without privacy, and the computer's had a major challenge picking out commands from all the other conversations happening.
The phone solves a lot of those problems by it's very nature. It's a device you are used to speaking into, small enough that going to a corner when you want to discuss something private is feasible.
And still it has problems. So mine is almost always disabled because I use my phone via bluetooth to play music in the car. The moment your music is on speakers rather than headphones - guess what, the phone microphone picks it up and interpret it as commands to the music player so you get random skips forwards and backwards. Speech recognition will only really reach it's peak if it can be adequately combined with *voice* recognition to reach the point where it can reliably pick out the operator's voice from other words being spoken (or sung) and tell when those words are commands to the phone and when they are directed at somebody else.
Well minor correction -even the conversion from private to public property is not a requirement - it's merely a common factor in many (but not all) forms of socialism. Socialism exists whenever the workers own the means of production. Every worker-owned co-op in the world is an example of working socialism in action - those include the biggest robotics company in the USA (geeks and worker-owned/democratically worker-managed industry is a perfect fit it turns out). But so is most New York cab drivers socialists (if they own the cabs they drive) no matter how fervently most would deny that (seeing as very few people have any idea what the word means).
One could argue that kickstarter is in many ways a form of anarcho-socialism - taking capital-owners out of the process of creating new products by letting consumers directly fund the creation of products they want. There is nothing about socialism, as defined, which requires a government or state, nor does a particular type of government or state need to be in place - you don't even need a particular set of laws or economic system.
Such things could be argued would be ideal for making socialism widepsread, some may argue it is required to achieve that - but they are nevertheless auxiliary to what makes socialism socialist - which has nothing to do with any of those things. That's a debate, at best, about marketing the idea - not about the idea itself. From a look at history - I am actually of the opinion that socialism works best when it happens organically without state interference. When the workers simply save up over time and buy the business from the shareholders so they can own and run it themselves. It's the slowest, most painful, most legally fraught and riskiest way to do it, but it also doesn't leave any dead bodies behind and worker-owned coops that start in this manner are remarkably successful with a success rate far higher than normal capitalist-style investor businesses. In Argentina after the economic collapse thousands of abandoned factories were taken over and ran by their former workers in this manner and became successful - there are still over 20-thousand of them today (by far the largest sector of the country's economy). All of these businesses were successfully run and made profitable as worker-owned enterprises in the same economic conditions where they previously as top-down-hierarchical investor-owned businesses had failed. Wisdom of crowds seems to work very well for managing a business in tough economic conditions.
Dude... what language is that even ? If your goal was to prove that something (I'm guessing anti-government idiots like Vanilla ISIS up in Oregon) are not crazy... you achieved exactly the opposite with that incoherent rant.
You have a remarkable capacity to miss the point - then you pounce on explanatory statements and try to disprove those as if that would somehow impact the validity of the argument they were meant to explain.
Let me try this again: engineering does not follow the scientific method, if it did it would *be* science. That is literally the difference between science and non-science.
Philosophers demarcate systems of thought into three broad categories: 1) Science - which can be identified by the fact that it follows the scientific method 2) Pseudo-science - which pretends to be science but does not follow the scientific method and is thus not trustworthy 3) Non-science - which does not follow the scientific method but also does not claim to and instead follow other methods more appropriate to their goals.
Engineering falls under non-science. Now a lot of things fall under non-science and the lines can be debated - so for example most religious philosophers would categorize theology as a non-science while strict rationalists would categorize it as pseudo-science. Art is a much more definitive non-science. Nobody pretends Van Gogh is science, but it's clearly valuable nonetheless - while pseudo-science is worthless. But there is no significant debate about engineering - engineering is a non-science. It's goals and methodologies are vastly different from science despite occasional minor overlaps. These differences are important because what you categorize something as sets the expectations of the field. If you pretend that homeopathy is science - you are trying to get people to trust it's claims like it was real medicine - creating an expectation of the field which isn't supported by how the field operates.
Now these are not absolute lines of separation - some specific activities cross the lines, many fields have elements from more than one category (engineering depends on scientific advance and in turn builds the tools which is needed to produce advances in science). But they are still recognizably different activities. The same job may entail doing engineering and science at different times of the day - and the job would be categorized by what it consists mostly off, but those activities are each still within one or the other category.
My and the GP's argument was that the profit motive fundamentally conflicts with the scientific method, and I stand by the belief that "pure research" is a term which should only be applicable to science. The "pure" in "pure research" specifically refers to the LACK of any other goal but knowledge - the distinct lack of a profit motive or a desire to produce a working design or invent something or build something or sell something or even to give something away. It's "pure" research when the only identifiable goal is "to find out what happens" - that absence of any ulterior motive is what makes the research "pure".
Privately funded research almost always has an ulterior motive, at best it's philanthropy - more commonly it's profit, but in either case this prevents one from sanely categorizing the results as "pure" research. When genuine science comes out of impure research it is, more often than not, accidental discoveries made while trying to achieve something else. The Manhattan project employed a lot of physicists, physics is undoubtedly a science - but the Manhatten project's goal was not learning knowledge for it's own sake - it's goal was to produce a weapon, a practical application of knowledge. The Manhatten Project was an engineering project - it only employed scientists because the science this engineering depended on was so cutting edge. One could even argue that while Feynman was working on the Manhatten project he was *not* a scientist but an engineer, he was a scientist before and after the project but not during it.
The scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with a profit motive since it requires you to follow the evidence even if the evidence would lead to greater costs or even the complete destruction of
Lyrics and melody can be independently copyrighted. They usually have different authors anyway. There are many ways to write a song. Most start with melody and add some bad poetry but many start with poetry and add music. Often the poetry has no direct connection to the songwriter. Live's hit "Lighting crashes" is music added to a nobel prize winning poem for example.
Covers form a separate thing altogether and whether a cover will need permission as a derivative work is largely determined by tge success of the performer. An actual lawyer could clarify that better.
America was a case study in doing protectionism right. For about 150 years under the Hamilton plan the US was the most protectionist country on earth. It worked well too - America became the world's leading industrial nation thanks to that, supplanting Britain who had invented the industrial revolution. Post world war two those massive industries wanted to expand globally and America abandoned the Hamilton plan to get other countries to do the same so American companies could export cheaply. That worked well for a while. Clearly it no longer does.
Slashdot Mirror
They dont last longer. There is the same amount if friction and temperature changes causing wear. They just apend more time in each wallet before moving to the next.
Living in a high crime country - we avoid cash like the plague. You never carry more than R50 if you can help it (about 3 Dollars). You use cards for everything - because having cash makes you a target for robbery. Since everybody stopped carrying cash - muggings have gone way down and now, if you do get mugged, they will almost certainly take your phone rather than your wallet because you almost certainly have only cards in the wallet and those are much harder to abuse (at least if you don't know the pin and don't have access to the technology to crack them) and can be easily cancelled with a single phone call.
Second hand phones have signficant resale value on the other hand.
Cash *does* make it easier for criminals because it's harder to trace and, more importantly, readily accepted everywhere without any checks to verify the legality of your obtaining it.
Cards are harder. By no means impossible but it makes the fruit just that little less low-hanging which makes other (less violent) crimes more attractive in terms of risk and reward and so has cut down hugely on our biggest crime problem.
These days the vast majority of muggings that *do* occur target tourist hotspots and specifically seek out American tourists - because unlike everybody else, they are the last group of people in the country likely to carry large amounts of cash.
Hey, at least there is still *two* other countries that hasn't adopted the metric system. Granted the other two are Burma and Liberia (not exactly symbols of success) but hey, you're not entirely alone yet.
Hell even South Africa got rid of 1 and 2 cent coins over a decade ago... this is the second time it took America more than 10 years to do something sane than it took South Africa.
We beat them by 10 years on Gay Marriage as well !
Eliot's character in "Leverage" summed up those idiots better than anybody else, ever:
"The difference between you and a real soldier is that you are willing to kill for 'your rights'. A soldier is somebody who is willing to die to protect somebody else's rights".
If only wingnuts took the other amendments as seriously as they take the first one... oh and the pre-ammendmented constitution itself...
I've yet to meet one who could name more than one other amendment or had the slightest idea what the actual US constitution says. Like most foreigners, I know it better than you do... but then, since the Iranian prime minister last year proved he knew it better than the republicans in congress this is not surprising.
Without googling - which amendment bans slavery ? Which is the equality amendment ? Or even just - "are these the same amendment" ?
You see - the second does not supersede the others, it is limited by their very existence - like all rights are limited by the very existence of other rights since all rights end where other people's rights begin.
What I find most odd though is that everybody seems to read over the most important part of the second amendment. It states that a well organized militia is essential and this is the justification for a right to bear arms... but everybody flat out ignores the "well organized" bit.
You won't get "well organized" in anything done by a government (and the constitution is - by definition - a matter of government) without lots and lots of regulation.
The second amedment not only *allows* for gun regulation - it outright demands it but nobody every mentions that part or recognizes the significance of that qualifier. It's like you imagine the founding fathers you adore so much never meant to put that in there, like it was a typo before the invention of the typewriter.
Well organized equals regulated and controlled.
Throughout history have significantly exceeded their face value to produce.
This is not actually a loss though - since the value of a coin is not the value on it's face - that's merely it's value to one individual. It's value to the economy = it's face value * however many trades it will be used for.
That gives a much higher margin for coins to still be made without a loss.
This sounds like typical republican/libertarian/austrian oversimplification of the issue leading to utterly false conclusions.
A more likely scenario is simply that, as small denomination coins have been used less and less the second part of the equation has shrunk enough that now production costs exceed the actual economic value of the coin.
Right... you care about rights and liberties... considering that within your first sentence you echoed the utterly irrational xenophobic fear of refugees and called them "bomb makers" (like you don't have plenty of white bomb makers in America already) I doubt the sincerity of that very much. After that though, your post devolved into a wholly incoherent rant of blithering paranoia. It isn't a problem of following along - the problem is you just basically made a word salad with no sentence structure. The fact that you replace practically every word with some slang variant spelling doesn't help either.
Oh and *most* countries on earth have more rights than Americans - whenever Americans try to get those rights republicans convince them that letting people have those rights is taking away your "freedom".
You sound like Donald Trump on acid and are about as fit to govern.
Oh, and I have no fear of guns, I was actually championship shot in my younger years.
But I've never been, nor will I ever be, a gun owner. On those occasions where I wish to shoot a gun for fun - it is so much safer to hire one. Having one in my house is insane, but not nearly as insane as not being concerned if my neighbour has one.
Unfortunately the NRA has one fact exactly backwards: the vast majority of gun owners are irresponsible idiots with penis-size issues.
It's not personal risk that is the problem. If that was it, then it would, indeed, be a matter of liberty. Nobody has the right to stop you taking risks.
What we most certainly *do* have the right to do is to stop you from subjecting *other* people to risks without their consent.
That is the *opposite* of liberty.
That sentence was sarcasm - only you think the other posts were related to it. Every sane person reaches the opposite conclusion: the *reason* he made that sarcastic post was to tell you how stupid you are for conflating your gun-nuttery with freedom - and especially with software freedom.
There's another factor with homes: outside of extreme events like in 2008 - banks actively avoid selling them at lower prices (even at auction) than what they were bought for - because that has an incredible risk that comes from the long duration of bonds.
I own a house, it's still under bond and will be for another 19 years.
I paid R950K (about 75K USD in todays' exchange rate) for it. The bond price means I'll actually pay about three times that over it's lifetime.
Now imagine this scenario: my neighbor falls behind on his payments and the bank forecloses on his home. They sell it to recover some of the loss and by setting the reserve to low or something end up selling it for say R500K. This devalues all the homes in the neighborhood - and suddenly I find that my home is valued at say R600K - that's significantly less than what I am indebted to... if that happens I stop paying and tell the bank to come take the damn house ! And so does every one of my neighbors.
The only reason to accept paying that interest is the general pattern that in 20 years the house will have appreciated more than the interest. But it's perfectly within my legal house to give up on the loan and choose to give up the house it is secured with instead of paying it. That's what "secured with" means.
So the only way not to lose millions of customers voluntarily abandoning their homes and buying cheaper ones or renting is to do all in their power to keep the homes appreciating.
A large chunk of 2008's problem was exactly that - the moment house prices fell far enough most home owners owed more than the house was worth and instantly did the math and stopped paying - creating a downward cycle, that race to the bottom led to a global recession.
It's a good idea to try and avoid scenarios like that.
There was another major problem. Speech recognition at home or in a private office had it's users, but in an open-plan office there was just too much background noise - and everybody now had to listen to you dictate what would previously have been typed.
On a computer, speech-recognition just never really worked in any environment where you were not by yourself. It made you feel exposed without privacy, and the computer's had a major challenge picking out commands from all the other conversations happening.
The phone solves a lot of those problems by it's very nature. It's a device you are used to speaking into, small enough that going to a corner when you want to discuss something private is feasible.
And still it has problems. So mine is almost always disabled because I use my phone via bluetooth to play music in the car. The moment your music is on speakers rather than headphones - guess what, the phone microphone picks it up and interpret it as commands to the music player so you get random skips forwards and backwards.
Speech recognition will only really reach it's peak if it can be adequately combined with *voice* recognition to reach the point where it can reliably pick out the operator's voice from other words being spoken (or sung) and tell when those words are commands to the phone and when they are directed at somebody else.
You could consider debian KFreeBSD instead, it's debian with the FreeBSD kernel - and it's not got systemd and probably never will.
Well minor correction -even the conversion from private to public property is not a requirement - it's merely a common factor in many (but not all) forms of socialism.
Socialism exists whenever the workers own the means of production. Every worker-owned co-op in the world is an example of working socialism in action - those include the biggest robotics company in the USA (geeks and worker-owned/democratically worker-managed industry is a perfect fit it turns out). But so is most New York cab drivers socialists (if they own the cabs they drive) no matter how fervently most would deny that (seeing as very few people have any idea what the word means).
One could argue that kickstarter is in many ways a form of anarcho-socialism - taking capital-owners out of the process of creating new products by letting consumers directly fund the creation of products they want.
There is nothing about socialism, as defined, which requires a government or state, nor does a particular type of government or state need to be in place - you don't even need a particular set of laws or economic system.
Such things could be argued would be ideal for making socialism widepsread, some may argue it is required to achieve that - but they are nevertheless auxiliary to what makes socialism socialist - which has nothing to do with any of those things. That's a debate, at best, about marketing the idea - not about the idea itself.
From a look at history - I am actually of the opinion that socialism works best when it happens organically without state interference. When the workers simply save up over time and buy the business from the shareholders so they can own and run it themselves. It's the slowest, most painful, most legally fraught and riskiest way to do it, but it also doesn't leave any dead bodies behind and worker-owned coops that start in this manner are remarkably successful with a success rate far higher than normal capitalist-style investor businesses. In Argentina after the economic collapse thousands of abandoned factories were taken over and ran by their former workers in this manner and became successful - there are still over 20-thousand of them today (by far the largest sector of the country's economy).
All of these businesses were successfully run and made profitable as worker-owned enterprises in the same economic conditions where they previously as top-down-hierarchical investor-owned businesses had failed. Wisdom of crowds seems to work very well for managing a business in tough economic conditions.
I did read the thread and expanded it and it is *very* obvious that the post you quoted was flagrant sarcasm.
No. Sometimes we are fucking nuts, othertimes we are fucking pussies, or assholes or, most often, our palms.
Dude... what language is that even ? If your goal was to prove that something (I'm guessing anti-government idiots like Vanilla ISIS up in Oregon) are not crazy... you achieved exactly the opposite with that incoherent rant.
You have a remarkable capacity to miss the point - then you pounce on explanatory statements and try to disprove those as if that would somehow impact the validity of the argument they were meant to explain.
Let me try this again: engineering does not follow the scientific method, if it did it would *be* science. That is literally the difference between science and non-science.
Philosophers demarcate systems of thought into three broad categories:
1) Science - which can be identified by the fact that it follows the scientific method
2) Pseudo-science - which pretends to be science but does not follow the scientific method and is thus not trustworthy
3) Non-science - which does not follow the scientific method but also does not claim to and instead follow other methods more appropriate to their goals.
Engineering falls under non-science. Now a lot of things fall under non-science and the lines can be debated - so for example most religious philosophers would categorize theology as a non-science while strict rationalists would categorize it as pseudo-science. Art is a much more definitive non-science. Nobody pretends Van Gogh is science, but it's clearly valuable nonetheless - while pseudo-science is worthless.
But there is no significant debate about engineering - engineering is a non-science. It's goals and methodologies are vastly different from science despite occasional minor overlaps.
These differences are important because what you categorize something as sets the expectations of the field. If you pretend that homeopathy is science - you are trying to get people to trust it's claims like it was real medicine - creating an expectation of the field which isn't supported by how the field operates.
Now these are not absolute lines of separation - some specific activities cross the lines, many fields have elements from more than one category (engineering depends on scientific advance and in turn builds the tools which is needed to produce advances in science). But they are still recognizably different activities. The same job may entail doing engineering and science at different times of the day - and the job would be categorized by what it consists mostly off, but those activities are each still within one or the other category.
My and the GP's argument was that the profit motive fundamentally conflicts with the scientific method, and I stand by the belief that "pure research" is a term which should only be applicable to science. The "pure" in "pure research" specifically refers to the LACK of any other goal but knowledge - the distinct lack of a profit motive or a desire to produce a working design or invent something or build something or sell something or even to give something away. It's "pure" research when the only identifiable goal is "to find out what happens" - that absence of any ulterior motive is what makes the research "pure".
Privately funded research almost always has an ulterior motive, at best it's philanthropy - more commonly it's profit, but in either case this prevents one from sanely categorizing the results as "pure" research. When genuine science comes out of impure research it is, more often than not, accidental discoveries made while trying to achieve something else.
The Manhattan project employed a lot of physicists, physics is undoubtedly a science - but the Manhatten project's goal was not learning knowledge for it's own sake - it's goal was to produce a weapon, a practical application of knowledge. The Manhatten Project was an engineering project - it only employed scientists because the science this engineering depended on was so cutting edge.
One could even argue that while Feynman was working on the Manhatten project he was *not* a scientist but an engineer, he was a scientist before and after the project but not during it.
The scientific method is fundamentally incompatible with a profit motive since it requires you to follow the evidence even if the evidence would lead to greater costs or even the complete destruction of
http://dictionary.reference.co...
Numbers matter less than the meaning they are intended to convey. Mathematics is a language first and foremost.
I dont hear you dissagreeing with the conclusion though. Just feeling helpless about achieving it.
Lyrics and melody can be independently copyrighted. They usually have different authors anyway. There are many ways to write a song. Most start with melody and add some bad poetry but many start with poetry and add music. Often the poetry has no direct connection to the songwriter. Live's hit "Lighting crashes" is music added to a nobel prize winning poem for example.
Covers form a separate thing altogether and whether a cover will need permission as a derivative work is largely determined by tge success of the performer. An actual lawyer could clarify that better.
Actually it would be legally mandated. Plagiarism is a crime even on public domain works.
America was a case study in doing protectionism right. For about 150 years under the Hamilton plan the US was the most protectionist country on earth. It worked well too - America became the world's leading industrial nation thanks to that, supplanting Britain who had invented the industrial revolution.
Post world war two those massive industries wanted to expand globally and America abandoned the Hamilton plan to get other countries to do the same so American companies could export cheaply. That worked well for a while. Clearly it no longer does.
Why do they need to fire a round ? An armed occupation is an act of war in and off itself.