What theory? that corporations fund election campaigns? That there are lobbiers sponsored by companies, whose entire job is to convince politicians. That senators get high paying executive jobs after they leave.
Companies don't do it out of the kindness of there heart they do it because it gets them political influence, which makes them money.
These aren't even secret. There are conspiracy theories that are probably nonsense, like the moon landing but this is not one of them.
The theory people with money will use it to seek power, in not a conspiracy theory it is human nature.
but then goes on to explain how God will punish them
I actually like this logic, it means its God responsibility punish them, not yours. It makes sense what kind of impotent God needs you to go around doing their dirty work.
Ok lets see, some guy walks into a crowed bar, caring an assault rife, all good since everybody does that. Lets say he kills 3 people before anybody has time to react. 100 drunk people panicked pull out there guns, most of them didn't see who shot they just heard the shot. How do they tell who did or do they just start shooting people pointing guns? Which is everyone. You could probably kill just as many buy shooting up in the air and letting everyone kill each other.
Yeah no problems there. That doesn't include the increased number of accidental deaths caused by everyone having a deadly weapon handy all the time.
Armies wear uniforms for a reason, and it isn't so the enemy can recognize them.
No you are comparing the interpretation of one extreme individual, to the more moderate views of the American society. There are plenty of Muslim organization in the US that have condemned his actions.
from wikipedia:
In November 2015, Robert Lewis Dear killed three and injured nine at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[119] Dear voiced on several occasions his support for radical Christian views and interpretations of the Bible, and praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing "God's work." He also described members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion Christian extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings, as heroes.[120] In May 1991, Dear was arrested and convicted in Charleston, for the unlawful carrying of a "long blade knife" and illegal possession of a loaded gun.[121] A woman who was married to Dear from 1985 to 1993 told NBC News that Dear had targeted a Planned Parenthood clinic before, by putting glue on its locks, and had a history of violent behavior. In the court document for their 1993 divorce, his ex-wife said, "He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions. He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end."
Does that mean that is the view of Christians in the US? No of course not it is the view of some nut job.
If you continue to persecute Muslims you will not create, less but more nut jobs, they will see you as the enemy just like you see them.
What the USA needs is a better mental health system, and perhaps gun laws that prevent selling guns people with known psychiatric disorders. Oops, I am now waiting for the response if everyone had a gun this would never have happened. I can just see the carnage that would happen if every moron started shooting a gun at the first sign of trouble. The US gun ownership is more than 1.126 gun per person that helped didn't it.
Sorry I meant social media in which people tell me what, they have done today, and post pictures of cats, or themselves. Like the ones referred to in the article e.g. Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook. Although slashdot is social media, to me it is different in the fact it is a "news" on which you comment, as opposed to "news" coming from individuals.
Wikipedia is also technically social media, and I use that too, but it is worlds apart from Facebook.
Your view wasn't suppressed, people can still read it no matter how bigoted it is. You have absolutely every right to state your opinions, and people have absolutely every right to call you a moron for having them. The rating is what the majority of people think of your opinion.
Maybe if your had any evidence to support it apart from people are using social media less implies people are tired of not being racist because you say so, you may have been rated higher.
Your argument makes no sense what so ever, in the first post you say you want to ban other races from social media, then you say censorship is bad, but you want stop other races from making posts. Oh right you probably think other races aren't people. So you should have no problem with them thinking you aren't a person either, and it is OK to kill you. I guess logic isn't your strong suit is it.
In fact since you where modded down implies that most people on slashdot disagree with you, since slashdot moderation is a form voting.
I for one do not use social media, because it is a huge waste of time. If it actually exposed me to more foreign people and their opinions I might use it more.
It kind of makes sense to me: I am not an accountant but here goes:
You sell a the punch card for $100, you now owe the customer $100 worth of services (lets assume you close down tomorrow you would have to pay them back $100). So you have not made any money what so ever just like if you borrow $100 from a bank you did not make $100.
Every time they use the punch card you now owe them $10 less so you made $10, your profit is $10 minus whatever it cost you to provide the goods and services.
The fact that they never expire goes in the favor it not being income. If they did expire the moment they do then that would probably count as income at that point too.
I understand that they may have the cash vouchers, but technically they also have the liability to honor them for ever.
I think the sane solution is to actually limit spending on both sides, In a fair legal system the person who wins should be the one with the better legal case, not the one with the most money.
The legal system is supposed to be fair, money should not buy you power over the legal system. I understand that this goes against the American philosophy of money should buy you power. The American dream of being rich and screwing the little guy. This also goes for the political system as well. Spending money is free speech and so forth.
I actually don't see why you couldn't have a system where both parties present their cases with non-lawyers and a judge decides the legal implications or informs a jury of the legal issues. I understand this is the case for small claims, but why not for larger cases too?
Or maybe allow entities to spend millions of dollars in their claims/defense if they truly believe the case is so complicated that it needs that money to be spent, but for every dollar they spend give their opponent the same value for their legal fees so they can mount an equally complicated defense.
I assume you are willing to bet everything you own on that statement being true otherwise you wouldn't of said it, right? We can pick a random judge to decide.
Not being able to sue over someone outside of small claims court for a $40 printer is not a Utopian society it is plain common sense.
Deporting what I assume are citizens, over a what is essentially a minor dispute, no one was killed, or hurt in the matter. Is essentially the same type insane overreaction that causes a $40 dispute to escalate to a $30K court case. If someone just keeps suing give them a warning or two that if they continue to do so they will be band from filing any further legal action.
This is not the fault of Zavodnik, it is the fault of the legal system that allowed it in the first place. Any sane judge should have just awarded one of them $40, any sane court of appeal should just have told the person who filed the appeal, stop wasting our time, and charged them a couple of hundred dollars in admin fees.
If you had a market place where all sales and purchases where registered you could guarantee that a seller didn't sell a copy more than once. That way you could be assured that seller making multiple copies. The copy could be digitally signed with a serial number. It isn't perfect but you couldn't commit fraud (i.e. lying that you are selling your copy) on a massive scale.
I would go to such a place, and I think most people would, because I think most people are honest most of the time. Sure you would get people pirating copies (as you do now) but what proportion of those are people who would have never bought a copy anyway, is up for debate. A certain level of dishonesty happens in the world anyway, and we can try to reduce it, but it a balancing act between the cost society of enforcing it and the benefit that returns. So we have to live with a certain level of dishonesty.
I think you are wrong about them never degrading, in a practical sense say an e-book cost say $10 to buy and say you could sell it for $5 maximum $9 (after selling fees) , because people would be more willing to buy from the original seller. Most people would not be bothered selling their copy they would probably just keep it around just in case they wanted to read it again, just like they do with real books. Those books would be lost.
The introduction of libraries didn't halt the sales of books, and neither would this people would just go to the original seller, as long as they are reasonably priced because it would just be easier.
Of course digital files deteriorate, get lost, not as fast as DVDs, (it only takes 5 seconds for a child to pick it up and ruin it) possibly blue-ray (no personal experience), but hard drives fail, the data gets lost, files get corrupted, ransom-ware encrypts your hard drive. Floppy drives where terrible I didn't trust them long enough to copy them from computer to another.
Image quality improves, file formats change,.... how may of my old C64 games do I still have? the answer is none. Do your dos games still run under windows 10?
Unless you take special care to look after your data it does get lost, that is also the case with books, if you look after them they can last centuries.
When you sell a DVD how do you know you no longer have a copy of the DVD? If you sell the same book 1000 times on a public forum then you could prove you where making copies unless you could show you bought it 1000 times. If you where selling it on secret forum, well you can do that now, it is illegal but the buyer doesn't care.
The issue here is not can people break the law, because clearly they can. The issue is if I buy something electronic, then sell my only copy (or destroy all copies I have) once should it be legal.
On things like steam (or anything that authenticates every time the item is used) this would seem simple, all that I would need to do is transfer my rights to another account holder.
Anything that doesn't phone home, a byte for byte copy can be made anyway.
Not allowing resale is just a way of killing the secondhand market.
Nonsense if I can make a copy I can just sell or give away that copy anyway. Making a copy and keeping it would still be just as illegal making a copy and selling the copy.
What we are talking about is the right to sell you the copy you own, just like physical property you own.
Or people just writing them down and putting a sticky note on the computer, or a note on their cellphone.
They did this sort of thing with my phone pin, guess what? When I needed it I never remembered it.
Also I don't see why I need my password to log onto my computer be the same as my Microsoft account, or logon for most home users to even be accessible from anywhere accept the keyboard attached computer.
Any data I keep on the cloud, without further encryption I consider not secret.
Warn people that their password is insecure by all means, but disallowing it is just Microsoft saying we know better than you, we will force you to do what we want. Just like when you turn of your computer, installing a software upgrade, you couldn't have somewhere to be that is more important than installing a service pack right now. Or automatically installing Windows 10.
That's not why I think Trump is popular, I think it is because people are worried about there lively hoods, they are suffering, they see few future job prospects for them and their children, and they are looking for someone to blame. Immigrants, Muslims, China are a good scapegoats that Trump is offering. He is not the first person to do that.
Instead of looking at the real problem of endless, needless consumption of crap, massive income inequality due to rent seeking. Basically decades of consuming more than they produce, they want to blame people who are on a fraction of there income, who are just trying to make their lives better, just like them.
What needs to be addressed are the source problems, but in order to do that you need to fix the political system that lets the companies run the country, there is no way hell that they will allow any law that even slightly reduces there ability to make a profit. What you want to encourage people not to buy the latest gadget or car every couple of years, that's just UN-American.
Lately they've run stories in favor of illegal immigration with their arguments basically being an appeal to emotion.
Although I haven't heard their arguments, what evidence the right put up in defense, statistics, studies etc. The only arguments I have heard are I THINK they will take our jobs, or they are terrorist, with absolutely no supporting evidence, theses are just appeals to the emotion of fear.
They've been all over the North Carolina "bathroom bill" and how awful and discriminatory it is despite it applying to everyone equally.
Personally I never got why women and men just can't share bathrooms (apart from urinals). Even if you take into consideration the societal convention that we shouldn't see the other sex naked. I have never seen anyone that has gone into a stall in any elevated level of undress. If someone wants to be let in because the feel that they really are a man or women then why not. If think that there is some uncontrollable sexual desire you get when you enter toilet on a sex you are attracted to then should we also have gay men's toilets, gay women's toilets. bisexual toilets, transgender toilets. Or perhaps we should just grow up.
They've attacked Trump as not fit for office whenever possible and suggested he's trying to incite violence while dismissing any violence caused by the anti-Trump protesters.
It is one thing for the presidential candidate to incite violence and another for some moron random protester too. Both are bad, but do you really want someone who condones violence to be the president. That there are violent morons out there is hardly even news.
But really people if a particular show, station is left or right leaning really depends on your own political views, and if they are more left or right than you. I am probably more left than most Americans, but America is probably more right than the rest of the world. I actually don't like the left and right classification anyway, I think my and most peoples views can't be classified on a one dimensional scale.
Dump the breaking laws part and replace harm with significant harm and you got it.
Laws can be made up to be anything the rulers want it doesn't make them just.
Most actions a person makes affects someone else and may cause harm to someone else. if I go out in public showing my face some people may be offended, that can be construed as harm. However I don't consider being offended as significant harm. One of the things I see more and more people thinking they have the right not to be offended. I believe this should never be a right.
Copyright law is pretty absurd, and anything you derive from absurd basis is bound to be absurd too.
Absurd parts of copyright: Period it last for, Due process (take down notices), god forbid you would have to have proof before demanding someone take down a potentially infringing copy. Most parts of law you have to actually prove a harm beyond balance of probability (reasonable doubt for criminal charges) occurred. Fair use, first sale doctrine, seem to be thrown out the window.
If fair use was, or harm part of copyright was there, then parents posting their children's photos would not be an issue. Anyway you can agree to do a lot of things on your children's behalf since they can't do it themselves. But copyright seems to override any other sane basis in the legal system, since it is such a heinous crime, there is nothing worse than potentially taking away corporate profits.
This applies to most things, not just earthquakes, Medicine, (why do we need so much testing? because we are taking a stab in the dark and seeing if it works) Weather, how many are forecasts inaccurate.
In fact any system that is even mildly complex we blunder our way through, even an area like programming, where we know exactly how the system works, and all inputs, we still need to test rigorously in to ensure that we haven't made to may mistakes.
Also earth quakes are probably a chaotic system so we probably cannot get close to even knowing enough inputs to predict them, no matter how much we explore. (It doesn't mean we shouldn't try)
Slashdot Mirror
What theory? that corporations fund election campaigns? That there are lobbiers sponsored by companies, whose entire job is to convince politicians. That senators get high paying executive jobs after they leave.
Companies don't do it out of the kindness of there heart they do it because it gets them political influence, which makes them money.
These aren't even secret. There are conspiracy theories that are probably nonsense, like the moon landing but this is not one of them.
The theory people with money will use it to seek power, in not a conspiracy theory it is human nature.
Since my bank refused to disable it on my card, I used the high tech solution of hole punch through the antenna
but then goes on to explain how God will punish them
I actually like this logic, it means its God responsibility punish them, not yours. It makes sense what kind of impotent God needs you to go around doing their dirty work.
It also works out if you are wrong.
Ok lets see, some guy walks into a crowed bar, caring an assault rife, all good since everybody does that. Lets say he kills 3 people before anybody has time to react. 100 drunk people panicked pull out there guns, most of them didn't see who shot they just heard the shot. How do they tell who did or do they just start shooting people pointing guns? Which is everyone. You could probably kill just as many buy shooting up in the air and letting everyone kill each other.
Yeah no problems there. That doesn't include the increased number of accidental deaths caused by everyone having a deadly weapon handy all the time.
Armies wear uniforms for a reason, and it isn't so the enemy can recognize them.
No you are comparing the interpretation of one extreme individual, to the more moderate views of the American society. There are plenty of Muslim organization in the US that have condemned his actions.
from wikipedia:
In November 2015, Robert Lewis Dear killed three and injured nine at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[119] Dear voiced on several occasions his support for radical Christian views and interpretations of the Bible, and praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing "God's work." He also described members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion Christian extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings, as heroes.[120] In May 1991, Dear was arrested and convicted in Charleston, for the unlawful carrying of a "long blade knife" and illegal possession of a loaded gun.[121] A woman who was married to Dear from 1985 to 1993 told NBC News that Dear had targeted a Planned Parenthood clinic before, by putting glue on its locks, and had a history of violent behavior. In the court document for their 1993 divorce, his ex-wife said, "He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions. He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end."
Does that mean that is the view of Christians in the US? No of course not it is the view of some nut job.
If you continue to persecute Muslims you will not create, less but more nut jobs, they will see you as the enemy just like you see them.
What the USA needs is a better mental health system, and perhaps gun laws that prevent selling guns people with known psychiatric disorders. Oops, I am now waiting for the response if everyone had a gun this would never have happened. I can just see the carnage that would happen if every moron started shooting a gun at the first sign of trouble. The US gun ownership is more than 1.126 gun per person that helped didn't it.
Sorry I meant social media in which people tell me what, they have done today, and post pictures of cats, or themselves.
Like the ones referred to in the article e.g. Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook. Although slashdot is social media, to me it is different in the fact it is a "news" on which you comment, as opposed to "news" coming from individuals.
Wikipedia is also technically social media, and I use that too, but it is worlds apart from Facebook.
Your view wasn't suppressed, people can still read it no matter how bigoted it is. You have absolutely every right to state your opinions, and people have absolutely every right to call you a moron for having them. The rating is what the majority of people think of your opinion.
Maybe if your had any evidence to support it apart from people are using social media less implies people are tired of not being racist because you say so, you may have been rated higher.
Your argument makes no sense what so ever, in the first post you say you want to ban other races from social media, then you say censorship is bad, but you want stop other races from making posts. Oh right you probably think other races aren't people. So you should have no problem with them thinking you aren't a person either, and it is OK to kill you. I guess logic isn't your strong suit is it.
In fact since you where modded down implies that most people on slashdot disagree with you, since slashdot moderation is a form voting.
I for one do not use social media, because it is a huge waste of time. If it actually exposed me to more foreign people and their opinions I might use it more.
It kind of makes sense to me: I am not an accountant but here goes:
You sell a the punch card for $100, you now owe the customer $100 worth of services (lets assume you close down tomorrow you would have to pay them back $100). So you have not made any money what so ever just like if you borrow $100 from a bank you did not make $100.
Every time they use the punch card you now owe them $10 less so you made $10, your profit is $10 minus whatever it cost you to provide the goods and services.
The fact that they never expire goes in the favor it not being income. If they did expire the moment they do then that would probably count as income at that point too.
I understand that they may have the cash vouchers, but technically they also have the liability to honor them for ever.
I think the sane solution is to actually limit spending on both sides, In a fair legal system the person who wins should be the one with the better legal case, not the one with the most money.
The legal system is supposed to be fair, money should not buy you power over the legal system. I understand that this goes against the American philosophy of money should buy you power. The American dream of being rich and screwing the little guy. This also goes for the political system as well. Spending money is free speech and so forth.
I actually don't see why you couldn't have a system where both parties present their cases with non-lawyers and a judge decides the legal implications or informs a jury of the legal issues. I understand this is the case for small claims, but why not for larger cases too?
Or maybe allow entities to spend millions of dollars in their claims/defense if they truly believe the case is so complicated that it needs that money to be spent, but for every dollar they spend give their opponent the same value for their legal fees so they can mount an equally complicated defense.
I assume you are willing to bet everything you own on that statement being true otherwise you wouldn't of said it, right? We can pick a random judge to decide.
Not being able to sue over someone outside of small claims court for a $40 printer is not a Utopian society it is plain common sense.
Deporting what I assume are citizens, over a what is essentially a minor dispute, no one was killed, or hurt in the matter. Is essentially the same type insane overreaction that causes a $40 dispute to escalate to a $30K court case. If someone just keeps suing give them a warning or two that if they continue to do so they will be band from filing any further legal action.
This is not the fault of Zavodnik, it is the fault of the legal system that allowed it in the first place. Any sane judge should have just awarded one of them $40, any sane court of appeal should just have told the person who filed the appeal, stop wasting our time, and charged them a couple of hundred dollars in admin fees.
There no need for utopia here.
If you had a market place where all sales and purchases where registered you could guarantee that a seller didn't sell a copy more than once. That way you could be assured that seller making multiple copies. The copy could be digitally signed with a serial number. It isn't perfect but you couldn't commit fraud (i.e. lying that you are selling your copy) on a massive scale.
I would go to such a place, and I think most people would, because I think most people are honest most of the time. Sure you would get people pirating copies (as you do now) but what proportion of those are people who would have never bought a copy anyway, is up for debate. A certain level of dishonesty happens in the world anyway, and we can try to reduce it, but it a balancing act between the cost society of enforcing it and the benefit that returns. So we have to live with a certain level of dishonesty.
I think you are wrong about them never degrading, in a practical sense say an e-book cost say $10 to buy and say you could sell it for $5 maximum $9 (after selling fees) , because people would be more willing to buy from the original seller. Most people would not be bothered selling their copy they would probably just keep it around just in case they wanted to read it again, just like they do with real books. Those books would be lost.
The introduction of libraries didn't halt the sales of books, and neither would this people would just go to the original seller, as long as they are reasonably priced because it would just be easier.
Of course digital files deteriorate, get lost, not as fast as DVDs, (it only takes 5 seconds for a child to pick it up and ruin it) possibly blue-ray (no personal experience), but hard drives fail, the data gets lost, files get corrupted, ransom-ware encrypts your hard drive. Floppy drives where terrible I didn't trust them long enough to copy them from computer to another.
Image quality improves, file formats change, .... how may of my old C64 games do I still have? the answer is none. Do your dos games still run under windows 10?
Unless you take special care to look after your data it does get lost, that is also the case with books, if you look after them they can last centuries.
When you sell a DVD how do you know you no longer have a copy of the DVD? If you sell the same book 1000 times on a public forum then you could prove you where making copies unless you could show you bought it 1000 times. If you where selling it on secret forum, well you can do that now, it is illegal but the buyer doesn't care.
The issue here is not can people break the law, because clearly they can. The issue is if I buy something electronic, then sell my only copy (or destroy all copies I have) once should it be legal.
On things like steam (or anything that authenticates every time the item is used) this would seem simple, all that I would need to do is transfer my rights to another account holder.
Anything that doesn't phone home, a byte for byte copy can be made anyway.
Not allowing resale is just a way of killing the secondhand market.
Nonsense if I can make a copy I can just sell or give away that copy anyway. Making a copy and keeping it would still be just as illegal making a copy and selling the copy.
What we are talking about is the right to sell you the copy you own, just like physical property you own.
Or people just writing them down and putting a sticky note on the computer, or a note on their cellphone.
They did this sort of thing with my phone pin, guess what? When I needed it I never remembered it.
Also I don't see why I need my password to log onto my computer be the same as my Microsoft account, or logon for most home users to even be accessible from anywhere accept the keyboard attached computer.
Any data I keep on the cloud, without further encryption I consider not secret.
Warn people that their password is insecure by all means, but disallowing it is just Microsoft saying we know better than you, we will force you to do what we want. Just like when you turn of your computer, installing a software upgrade, you couldn't have somewhere to be that is more important than installing a service pack right now. Or automatically installing Windows 10.
Why not simply have replaceable batteries that you swap?
Vast majority of people aren't, well most of the time. It is that the people who seek power are generally the ones who get it.
That's not why I think Trump is popular, I think it is because people are worried about there lively hoods, they are suffering, they see few future job prospects for them and their children, and they are looking for someone to blame. Immigrants, Muslims, China are a good scapegoats that Trump is offering. He is not the first person to do that.
Instead of looking at the real problem of endless, needless consumption of crap, massive income inequality due to rent seeking. Basically decades of consuming more than they produce, they want to blame people who are on a fraction of there income, who are just trying to make their lives better, just like them.
What needs to be addressed are the source problems, but in order to do that you need to fix the political system that lets the companies run the country, there is no way hell that they will allow any law that even slightly reduces there ability to make a profit. What you want to encourage people not to buy the latest gadget or car every couple of years, that's just UN-American.
You want to remove useful content from Facebook, well job done, no need for you devious plan.
Lately they've run stories in favor of illegal immigration with their arguments basically being an appeal to emotion.
Although I haven't heard their arguments, what evidence the right put up in defense, statistics, studies etc. The only arguments I have heard are I THINK they will take our jobs, or they are terrorist, with absolutely no supporting evidence, theses are just appeals to the emotion of fear.
They've been all over the North Carolina "bathroom bill" and how awful and discriminatory it is despite it applying to everyone equally.
Personally I never got why women and men just can't share bathrooms (apart from urinals). Even if you take into consideration the societal convention that we shouldn't see the other sex naked. I have never seen anyone that has gone into a stall in any elevated level of undress. If someone wants to be let in because the feel that they really are a man or women then why not. If think that there is some uncontrollable sexual desire you get when you enter toilet on a sex you are attracted to then should we also have gay men's toilets, gay women's toilets. bisexual toilets, transgender toilets. Or perhaps we should just grow up.
They've attacked Trump as not fit for office whenever possible and suggested he's trying to incite violence while dismissing any violence caused by the anti-Trump protesters.
It is one thing for the presidential candidate to incite violence and another for some moron random protester too. Both are bad, but do you really want someone who condones violence to be the president. That there are violent morons out there is hardly even news.
But really people if a particular show, station is left or right leaning really depends on your own political views, and if they are more left or right than you. I am probably more left than most Americans, but America is probably more right than the rest of the world. I actually don't like the left and right classification anyway, I think my and most peoples views can't be classified on a one dimensional scale.
Dump the breaking laws part and replace harm with significant harm and you got it.
Laws can be made up to be anything the rulers want it doesn't make them just.
Most actions a person makes affects someone else and may cause harm to someone else. if I go out in public showing my face some people may be offended, that can be construed as harm. However I don't consider being offended as significant harm. One of the things I see more and more people thinking they have the right not to be offended. I believe this should never be a right.
Copyright law is pretty absurd, and anything you derive from absurd basis is bound to be absurd too.
Absurd parts of copyright:
Period it last for,
Due process (take down notices), god forbid you would have to have proof before demanding someone take down a potentially infringing copy.
Most parts of law you have to actually prove a harm beyond balance of probability (reasonable doubt for criminal charges) occurred.
Fair use, first sale doctrine, seem to be thrown out the window.
If fair use was, or harm part of copyright was there, then parents posting their children's photos would not be an issue. Anyway you can agree to do a lot of things on your children's behalf since they can't do it themselves. But copyright seems to override any other sane basis in the legal system, since it is such a heinous crime, there is nothing worse than potentially taking away corporate profits.
Simpler answer,
We don't know very much.
This applies to most things, not just earthquakes,
Medicine, (why do we need so much testing? because we are taking a stab in the dark and seeing if it works)
Weather, how many are forecasts inaccurate.
In fact any system that is even mildly complex we blunder our way through, even an area like programming, where we know exactly how the system works, and all inputs, we still need to test rigorously in to ensure that we haven't made to may mistakes.
Also earth quakes are probably a chaotic system so we probably cannot get close to even knowing enough inputs to predict them, no matter how much we explore. (It doesn't mean we shouldn't try)