And the loss of every open-source software project in the world, as well, because copyright oddly protects them as well.
Copyright only protects open source because our software freedoms aren't enshrined in law as they should be. Make the four software freedoms the law of the land and copyright will be completely useless.
So, she's a hypocrit. How is that hard to understand? Thomas Jefferson said that "all men are created equal", and yet he held slaves. Gloria Steinem is as much a feminist as Jefferson was egalitarian.
Spreadsheets are bad at just about everything. Use R instead. If you really need a spreadsheet, there are modules that act like a spreadsheet. But you'll be doing yourself a favor if you wean yourself off the spreadsheet teat.
R is better suited to this type of task than general purpose languages like Python. Most variables and functions in R are vectorised. It's very rare to ever have to write a for loop, which makes the language much more readable.
R is so good at this kind of thing that you don't need anything special to do a pivot table. Just use tapply() and sum(). There's also a 'reshape' package that is far more flexible than anything found in Excel.
None of those groups are actually feminists. That they argue for positions that disempower females is proof of that. They may claim to be feminists, but that doesn't change what they actually advocate.
Itâ(TM)s not âoeWhen marginal cost is zero, price is zeroâ â" you have to factor in fixed costs
Fixed costs only matter for that first copy. Charge enough for that first copy to meet your fixed costs.
And when you say the price of something is nothing, you are saying it has no value.
Air is free, and yet it has value. Price is not value. Getting something valueable for free is a good deal.
Then take a look at the supply curve - when price is zero supply is zero.
That's OK. If supply of copies ever dries up, we can choose to pay for a copy. If people want it, they will pay for it. If they don't, then nothing of value was lost.
That would be the 9 people raping the 10th person.
See, the thing is, there is an absolute sovereign here. Each individual is absolute sovereign of their own body. You don't get to democratically decide what I do with my body because you have no legitimate claim to it.
So something forced you to post those words? Fate, karma, predestination?
The laws of physics. There's no free will term in f=ma.
That whole "there is no free will" philosophy was dreamed up by people who refuse to be responsible for their own actions.
What makes you think I'm claiming I'm not responsible for my own actions? Holding people accountable when they hurt others has an observable positive effect on society. Whether we have free will or not is entirely irrelevant.
Banning porn outright doesn't seem likely to work, but regulating it to a safe and dignified state seems pretty reasonable. And banning porn that doesn't live up to those standards isn't unreasonable.
I totally agree, as long as its the participants who decide what is dignified. There's absolutely nothing dignifying about the government taking away your right to make the kind of film you want, and share or sell it to people who want that kind of film. The government has no place forcing its idea of dignity on what should be free people.
Assuming and anti-internet-porn law would be legal and in practical terms enforceable, it's the government's job to weigh the harm being done by the status quo against the harm done by increased regulations, and to take into account the will of the people in the process. Not an easy job.
It's a very easy job. There is no evidence of harm being done by the status quo.
If porn gets banned, we don't lose anything that will improve our society.
We lose the porn. I like porn, and losing porn would make this society worse for me. Just because *you* don't value porn doesn't make it worthless. This is why we have freedom, because people have different values.
In the name of freedom of speech, expression, etc. we have permitted ourselves to become crass and to support outright destructive ideas, and in fact force them on others
Yes, destructive ideas like censorship are being force on Icelanders. This is a serious problem. Far more serious than porn.
I don't think Icelanders are any more or less sexually moral than any one else.
I'd argue that the banning of pornography and stripping makes Iceland significantly less sexually moral than other countries. Prudery is not moral. Freedom, and respecting the rights of people who use that freedom even if you don't like it, That's what real morality looks like.
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.
How is that any different fro men being "forced" to be a coal miner out of "economic difficulty"? By that argument shouldn't Iceland ban any potentially dangerous or unpleasant job?
Sorry, the US electoral system is a system. And systems have mathematical properties. Properties like Duverger's law and the median voter theorem. These unavoidable complications bias our electoral system towards entrenched power though no personal fault of the voters.
The purpose of elections is to gauge the will of the people. Elections are tools we use to measure the will of the people. But any tool can malfunction, and any measurement can be biased if it is not calibrated properly. Our system is malfunctioning and the output of elections can not in any way be regarded as the actual will of the people.
Copyright is a complex topic, it doesn't lend itself to polarizing positions
Copyright is a very simple topic. Any first semester economics student should be able to figure it out. Price is set by the intersection of supply and demand curves. Decreasing marginal costs increases supply which lowers price. When marginal cost is zero, price is zero. Attempting to subvert basic economic principles with brute force is unproductive. The only sensible policy in the digital age is copyright abolition. Observing that this would hurt the entertainment industry does not change the fundamental facts. This is what progress looks like.
I enjoyed seeing the Hobbit, but I'm quite sure I would gain more than I would lose if copyright were abolished. The massive influx of entertainment and educational materials into the public domain would more than offset any loss of blockbuster movies or other unsustainable business models.
I agree that the system is working as designed. I disagree that it resembles anything even slighly related to Democracy. We can't even honestly claim to be a Constitutional Republic anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Where physics is not deterministic, it is random. If free will were implemented through quantum physics, it would violate the laws of probability.
And the loss of every open-source software project in the world, as well, because copyright oddly protects them as well.
Copyright only protects open source because our software freedoms aren't enshrined in law as they should be. Make the four software freedoms the law of the land and copyright will be completely useless.
So, she's a hypocrit. How is that hard to understand? Thomas Jefferson said that "all men are created equal", and yet he held slaves. Gloria Steinem is as much a feminist as Jefferson was egalitarian.
There is a sad lack of utilitarianism these days
Utilitarianism is what I'm asking for. Provide evidence of the utility of banning porn.
Spreadsheets are bad at just about everything. Use R instead. If you really need a spreadsheet, there are modules that act like a spreadsheet. But you'll be doing yourself a favor if you wean yourself off the spreadsheet teat.
R is better suited to this type of task than general purpose languages like Python. Most variables and functions in R are vectorised. It's very rare to ever have to write a for loop, which makes the language much more readable.
R is so good at this kind of thing that you don't need anything special to do a pivot table. Just use tapply() and sum(). There's also a 'reshape' package that is far more flexible than anything found in Excel.
None of those groups are actually feminists. That they argue for positions that disempower females is proof of that. They may claim to be feminists, but that doesn't change what they actually advocate.
Itâ(TM)s not âoeWhen marginal cost is zero, price is zeroâ â" you have to factor in fixed costs
Fixed costs only matter for that first copy. Charge enough for that first copy to meet your fixed costs.
And when you say the price of something is nothing, you are saying it has no value.
Air is free, and yet it has value. Price is not value. Getting something valueable for free is a good deal.
Then take a look at the supply curve - when price is zero supply is zero.
That's OK. If supply of copies ever dries up, we can choose to pay for a copy. If people want it, they will pay for it. If they don't, then nothing of value was lost.
That would be the 9 people raping the 10th person.
See, the thing is, there is an absolute sovereign here. Each individual is absolute sovereign of their own body. You don't get to democratically decide what I do with my body because you have no legitimate claim to it.
You believe there are conditions where the minority should rule over the majority? Then you don't believe in democracy. End of story.
I guess you're right. After all, 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.
So something forced you to post those words? Fate, karma, predestination?
The laws of physics. There's no free will term in f=ma.
That whole "there is no free will" philosophy was dreamed up by people who refuse to be responsible for their own actions.
What makes you think I'm claiming I'm not responsible for my own actions? Holding people accountable when they hurt others has an observable positive effect on society. Whether we have free will or not is entirely irrelevant.
Banning porn outright doesn't seem likely to work, but regulating it to a safe and dignified state seems pretty reasonable. And banning porn that doesn't live up to those standards isn't unreasonable.
I totally agree, as long as its the participants who decide what is dignified. There's absolutely nothing dignifying about the government taking away your right to make the kind of film you want, and share or sell it to people who want that kind of film. The government has no place forcing its idea of dignity on what should be free people.
Assuming and anti-internet-porn law would be legal and in practical terms enforceable, it's the government's job to weigh the harm being done by the status quo against the harm done by increased regulations, and to take into account the will of the people in the process. Not an easy job.
It's a very easy job. There is no evidence of harm being done by the status quo.
If porn gets banned, we don't lose anything that will improve our society.
We lose the porn. I like porn, and losing porn would make this society worse for me. Just because *you* don't value porn doesn't make it worthless. This is why we have freedom, because people have different values.
In the name of freedom of speech, expression, etc. we have permitted ourselves to become crass and to support outright destructive ideas, and in fact force them on others
Yes, destructive ideas like censorship are being force on Icelanders. This is a serious problem. Far more serious than porn.
they're banning it in the name of feminism
There's nothing feminist about banning porn. Real feminists respect the right of women to make their own decisions.
Yes it's a movie, but we all know how movies effect people.
How exactly do movies affect people?
I don't think Icelanders are any more or less sexually moral than any one else.
I'd argue that the banning of pornography and stripping makes Iceland significantly less sexually moral than other countries. Prudery is not moral. Freedom, and respecting the rights of people who use that freedom even if you don't like it, That's what real morality looks like.
But there is no God, and there is no free will.
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.
How is that any different fro men being "forced" to be a coal miner out of "economic difficulty"? By that argument shouldn't Iceland ban any potentially dangerous or unpleasant job?
Sorry, the US electoral system is a system. And systems have mathematical properties. Properties like Duverger's law and the median voter theorem. These unavoidable complications bias our electoral system towards entrenched power though no personal fault of the voters.
The purpose of elections is to gauge the will of the people. Elections are tools we use to measure the will of the people. But any tool can malfunction, and any measurement can be biased if it is not calibrated properly. Our system is malfunctioning and the output of elections can not in any way be regarded as the actual will of the people.
That's what we call Tyranny of the Majority. It might be legal, but it's never acceptable. It's nothing more than sheer thuggery.
Just another idiotic moral panic. Where's the actual evidence of harm to either porn consumers or producers?
Copyright is a complex topic, it doesn't lend itself to polarizing positions
Copyright is a very simple topic. Any first semester economics student should be able to figure it out. Price is set by the intersection of supply and demand curves. Decreasing marginal costs increases supply which lowers price. When marginal cost is zero, price is zero. Attempting to subvert basic economic principles with brute force is unproductive. The only sensible policy in the digital age is copyright abolition. Observing that this would hurt the entertainment industry does not change the fundamental facts. This is what progress looks like.
What complexities have I missed?
I enjoyed seeing the Hobbit, but I'm quite sure I would gain more than I would lose if copyright were abolished. The massive influx of entertainment and educational materials into the public domain would more than offset any loss of blockbuster movies or other unsustainable business models.
There's only one side that actually matters. Monied interests. Democrats and Republicans are both just wings of the Profit Party.
I agree that the system is working as designed. I disagree that it resembles anything even slighly related to Democracy. We can't even honestly claim to be a Constitutional Republic anymore.