So I expect you are against patents too. So if you invest 5 years and 5 million dollars into designing a product that no one else has and everyone needs, you're cool with someone stealing your design and selling it for lower costs?
1. the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
adjective adjective: copyright
1. protected by copyright.
"permission to reproduce photographs and other copyright material"
Sure...just because you write a tune doesn't mean people will pay for it. But if someone wants to hear what you wrote, you have every right to charge them. Same as if you wrote a book. If you charge too much, or what you wrote sucks...no profits for you. If they DO like it, then you have every right to profit from it.
Sure, musicians are being screwed over by the labels and publishers, but that's not a reason to outright steal it and deny the musicians the meager cash they are getting paid.
No government policy should be based on anything that can't be seen or challenged by the public except in emergency situations or national security. Anytime anyone in authority says "Because I say so" when making law, you should be suspicious.
Your reading implies that Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants if it deems it to be for the General Welfare. That pretty much flied in the face of the idea of limited government, which is the central pillar of our Constitution.
Don't be surprised to see some asshole, somewhere in government, declare that it should be illegal to repair your own car without "training", let alone build one.
And they can do it through existing regulations I bet...in order to regulate CO2, all vehicles must have these controls implemented in an approved devices, which are only available for $2000, unless you build at least 100,000 cars a year, then they are $12.87.
The real irony is that his neighbors would probably be the first ones to support a tax and confiscating someone's land for low income housing...as long as it wasn't their land or built close to them.
No, the argument is that people will do what people do, which is increase their expenses as their income increases.
When they have to cut back, they won't, and instead end up on the six o'clock news whining that it's so unfair and that they should get to keep the house they can no longer afford. We've seen this before.
Start your own company and employee a few hundred people.
Let us know how that turns out. Tell us what skills it took or how it was so easy, a caveman could do it.
You casually dismiss the amount of time and effort that goes into creating a thriving and successful enterprise and almost certainly know nothing about it.
Slashdot Mirror
So I expect you are against patents too. So if you invest 5 years and 5 million dollars into designing a product that no one else has and everyone needs, you're cool with someone stealing your design and selling it for lower costs?
If you wrote some software and sold it to someone for $1000, you are cool with them making copies and giving it away?
After all, you still have your copy and the original buyer still has theirs. So it's not stealing, right?
copyright
käprt/
noun
noun: copyright; plural noun: copyrights
1. the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
adjective
adjective: copyright
1. protected by copyright.
"permission to reproduce photographs and other copyright material"
Sure...just because you write a tune doesn't mean people will pay for it. But if someone wants to hear what you wrote, you have every right to charge them. Same as if you wrote a book. If you charge too much, or what you wrote sucks...no profits for you. If they DO like it, then you have every right to profit from it.
You are depriving the artists of revenue. You are taking money out of his pocket.
Why do people think all this music is Free?
Sure, musicians are being screwed over by the labels and publishers, but that's not a reason to outright steal it and deny the musicians the meager cash they are getting paid.
No government policy should be based on anything that can't be seen or challenged by the public except in emergency situations or national security. Anytime anyone in authority says "Because I say so" when making law, you should be suspicious.
Your reading implies that Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants if it deems it to be for the General Welfare. That pretty much flied in the face of the idea of limited government, which is the central pillar of our Constitution.
At first glance, all of these technologies are implemented solely for the purpose for bring in more money to the government.
But I'm sure I'm not being at all cynical enough and probably a bit of Tin Foil Hat theory wouldn't be inappropriate.
Kill it with Fire.
Fracking has been going on for nearly 50 years.
But now...NOW, it's causing earthquakes.
I see.
So a program used by a program used by researchers in some other program which you think is essential is being cut.
With that reasoning you should be all for tripling the defense budget since most technology comes from research that supports it in some way.
It was probably suggest by HR, which we all know is populated by people of undetermined gender and questionable intelligence.
How many years would it take to make someone consider leaving it the fuck alone?
The Democrats will want to grant them suffrage.
The right to fling poo, no doubt.
Don't be surprised to see some asshole, somewhere in government, declare that it should be illegal to repair your own car without "training", let alone build one.
And they can do it through existing regulations I bet...in order to regulate CO2, all vehicles must have these controls implemented in an approved devices, which are only available for $2000, unless you build at least 100,000 cars a year, then they are $12.87.
A simple transport to the moon and back would be a nice start. Loft your payload, transfer it, and off you go.
Ha!
Some kind of crime movie with car chases, explosions and machine guns!
Bad Boyz 7, or whichever.
Now all we need to do is build a real ship, not just some sardine can coasting in circles or a one and done chemical rocket/capsule.
What would it take to build something that you can point in a direction and go, come back, repeat?
The real irony is that his neighbors would probably be the first ones to support a tax and confiscating someone's land for low income housing ...as long as it wasn't their land or built close to them.
This isn't from the Onion?
Everything can be outsourced. Non-sequitur.
No, the argument is that people will do what people do, which is increase their expenses as their income increases.
When they have to cut back, they won't, and instead end up on the six o'clock news whining that it's so unfair and that they should get to keep the house they can no longer afford. We've seen this before.
Start your own company and employee a few hundred people.
Let us know how that turns out. Tell us what skills it took or how it was so easy, a caveman could do it.
You casually dismiss the amount of time and effort that goes into creating a thriving and successful enterprise and almost certainly know nothing about it.
That's the attitude of people who believe they should be rewarded for greater effort, better attitude and greater skills.
Those less skilled have a well known avenue for increasing their income. Lots of people do it everyday.