I know how trademark works. My statements still stand. Dead trademarks aren't the "good trademarks" they are the discard pile.
Corporations have benefits individuals do not, they live in perpetuity, they enjoy tax benefits actual people will never see, etc, etc. Since corporations are now dipping into the rights of people as well there is no justification for those advantages. Actual people don't get perpetual ownership of their name or any exclusivity to the use of their name for that matter only protection in the form a penalty for using an assumed name for fraud. We certainly should not let a corporation enjoy any benefit for a longer term than a human would.
"Many things were said by Trump and the Russian aids that were trivially proven untrue, usually with a 30 second Google search."
Yes but not the biggest and most important ones. A major domestic political party did rig their primaries contrary to the interests of the actual voters in the party and all this bullshit about russia has been news primarily for the purpose of distracting you from that.
Even on a trademark there should be limits. Letting persist as long as they can be paid for creates an early adopter system where we will reach a critical mass of old companies having all the good trademarks locked down and new companies struggling to come up with something worthwhile.
"your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together."
A slippery slope is a type of fallacy. I have no idea if that is the belief of the parent but as it happens, getting rid of inheritances makes perfect sense. Even if you disagree there is a very big difference between the Disney corporation and the creators.
"Also, if the person who made it is alive, are you saying that it should not be allowed to enter the public domain?"
If that person holds the copyright it is their lifetime + x years.
"If new works are still being created around those characters, why shouldn't someone still be able to retain the characters under copyright?"
Because copyright isn't a right, it is a trade. The public has a right to their side of the contract and who knows what would be produced at this point if those characters were made available. There are plenty of other companies with logos based on things in the public domain.
"In exchange for that your works eventually become public domain."
Well... your works become public domain either way since everything is public domain without copyright. But this way more of them will see the light of day and more will be produced.
The idea isn't to let Disney profit as long as possible, the idea is let the creator profit the minimum amount of time required to keep new works getting created and shared.
"How does the world benefit from Mickey Mouse going into public domain? In no way."
False. Children love the mickey mouse character and all sorts of new art, animation, etc can then be made and exist. The public domain is the default that exists if we hadn't created a copyright law to give (now long dead) creators like Disney a limited government granted control over an idea on a temporary basis as a reward for publicizing it.
"What's more, the research that does come from defense spending doesn't automatically translate into future growth or prosperity. Sure, a lot o fit does get repurposed in the future, but there's a whole world of research that should be funded for peaceful purposes and that research has a harder time of getting funded."
Sorry I doubt you know too many researchers getting money from grants. DARPA is a massive source throughout academia and much of it is technology that just might one day tangentially benefit the military alongside everyone else.
Everyone thinks weapons. The military needs communications, computing, to feed troops, clothe troops, provide healthcare to troops, power systems, agriculture research, genetic engineering, weather technologies, aerospace technologies, the list goes on and on. They don't just fund things with some immediate military application, unlike the private sector the military funds research that has the potential to one day pan out and benefit one of those areas. Since those areas overlap civilian needs almost across the board. The military also puts money into infrastructure advancement because a robust and resilient infrastructure is of key strategic importance in a number of ways. If you are doing real science (not social science) you know people with defense department grants and/or have them yourself.
"Gone will be the manufacturing jobs, the service industry jobs, and eventually the farming jobs"
Actually the big push is toward technology with technology being the primary target of automation. You don't expend your resources eliminating $12/hr jobs when you can eliminate thousands of $65-200k+ jobs.
Not if you think about it. They are anti-tax because they don't want the government to take their money, the only valid duty they see the government as having is keeping other people from taking their money. Hence, the military and police are to keep people from stealing from them and every other thing the government does IS stealing from them.
The wealthy only view the meritocracy concept as a way to seem fair. They don't actually want it to be fair, they want to retain everything they have and if anything get more. In an actual meritocracy they'd have to compete on a level playing field and lose. So in their minds they equate wealth to merit and thus automatically identify those who already have the wealth (which happily includes themselves) as those with merit. Isn't it glorious? Why on earth would you pay for healthcare and education for the children of others... that only raises the chance of them outperforming relative to you and your own children. To them such a thing is paying to do something counter to your own interest.
That is a perfectly reasonable philosophy for the wealthy to have. It just baffles the shit out me why everyone out who outnumbers them a million to one puts up with it. We could exercise emminent domain on the property of the top 0.01% and put a third of the wealth in this country back into the hands of the people without impacting any significant portion of our population and we could do it leaving them enough to never have to work for the rest of their lives. But that is evil, in the meantime we'll steal the property of a poor person and pay them pennies on the dollar to build a road and a stop light to accommodate building a new franchise. A franchise that will pay its staff below the poverty level.
Almost certainly true but then, it is still stronger than any two opponents combined and has an arsenal that can literally wipe any nation from the globe in a span of minutes if we got pissed off enough. How much stronger does it need to be?
You realize we have nuclear subs positioned strategically around the globe that can hit any country on earth at any time. Every other plane, soldier, tank, etc outside the US is unnecessary (except maybe embassy and special assignments).
Not that we won't keep a strong military and continue to be the arms dealer of the world. Just having that honor means half the world would fight to protect our interests meaning we'd need even fewer actual troops of our own.
"The USA was trying to navigate a isolationist policy, not get into the war, yet our weakened stance is what tempted Japan into risking a war."
That is not accurate. We'd already been sticking our noses in Japanese interests and pissed them off.
"Further, "provide for the common defense" is one of the primary purposes of the Federal Government established by the US Constitution."
Common meaning common to these united states not every other state on the globe.
It is a bad thing. There is no reason the US should innately hinder China, Russia, or anyone else. If they aren't a threat to the US it isn't a problem and if we aren't trying to hinder them I think you'd find they'd stop giving many fucks about us.
U.S. military spending is huge because the military budget is where most government science funding comes from. That and everything added from Iraq 2 on can be cut.
Somehow I doubt the US is going to cut its military budget at the suggestion of our biggest threat though.
"A "good" grill cook manager should be able to manage the cooks and know the job well enough to know if his cooks are, in fact, good cooks"
Okay, but your inserting a definition of "good" that is more how things should be than how they are. I'm using this example because my parents were a restaurant management team that traveled the country to failing franchises, they'd manage for a few years to bring them back up to par and then get transferred to a new location to do it again. Obviously they were a skilled management team and it says something that their dynamic violates company policy pretty much everywhere now but that is another topic. Yes, they could step into any position in the restaurant and frequently did. Managers like that are an extremely rare exception and usually at the bottom of the management food chain.
You won't find many district manager and certainly not higher ranked management who can step in and run the grill during a rush or for that matter the dish room. The grill vs the dish room is another example outside of management, being GOOD at running the dish room is no easier or less important than the grill. The grill is closer to the customer and customer feedback so it gets compensated more highly and managers often see it as the most important role. The dishroom is seen as the least important and lowest compensated.
Management and sales are important but they are generally overcompensated relative to skilled workers and the problem grows as you go up the ladder. Yes, the point regarding negotiation is valid and there is a good argument for it since it provides the opportunity to compensate for individual circumstances that mass policy tends to miss, letting those managers close the staff have a say. But in most organizations of any size those managers don't really have any appreciable wiggle room anymore and managers you are negotiating with tend to automatically feel points that parallel the skills required for their own position are stronger arguments at the table.
There is a thing called balance. He didn't propose a homogenous population, he opposed pushing for intentional segregation and diversity. There is a very large spectrum of middle ground between those crazy extremes you know.
"Where does this horseshit keep coming from? You guys keep repeating it to each other so much that you think it is true. It has absolutely no basis in fact."
Yes it does. Her numbers were terrible relative to Sanders who she colluded with the party to sandbag. You haven't forgotten this entire probe is because the Democrats are pissed the Russians revealed the party leadership were playing the actual voters in the party for fools and rigging the nomination, have you? Supposedly unbiased major media outlets were openly colluding, telling Sanders campaign manager on air they'd be announcing for Hillary Clinton as the victor ahead of the actual election to help press Sanders supporters to give up.
There are so many governments influencing our elections the russians are just noise. All they have to do is incorporate a US based company, kick off a PAC, and then they can legally influence all day long. The entire Russia thing is and always has been about distracting you from that. After playing with a rigged deck, getting caught, and taking the pot anyway instead of stepping down in favor of Sanders Hillary's numbers should have been far far worse. It is actually a sad statement about the integrity and expectation of integrity from their candidates held by Hillary supporters.
I'm not denying the bias or saying one way or another regarding the funding source. But you are aware that site and it's sister sites are somewhat on par with the weekly world news? They are propaganda sites.
Oh sure, that stuff can be fun to read and play along with, like fake moon landing and spending a day toying with the idea of bucking the man and maybe just maybe there is a face on Mars. Those are great things to bullshit over with a beer on a fishing or camping trip, especially any good alien stuff. But you do know it isn't actually real right? Just like most anything on history or discovery.
Nobody was ever supposed to actually take people like Rush, Colbert, Oliver, Stewart, Mahr, Hannity, etc seriously. They are entertainers. You can't actually get your news from comedy and fringe sites. I know it is getting really hard to tell the difference with CNN not having much more credibility than Weekly World News these days.
So is being a good grill cook. The fact is that neither talent is especially rare in the greater scheme of things though. In any given group of 100 people about 10 will do the job well. It isn't like a talented STEM resource where only 1% of the population even have a chance of being in the group in the first place and a fraction of a percent of those are actually exceptional.
Slashdot Mirror
I know how trademark works. My statements still stand. Dead trademarks aren't the "good trademarks" they are the discard pile.
Corporations have benefits individuals do not, they live in perpetuity, they enjoy tax benefits actual people will never see, etc, etc. Since corporations are now dipping into the rights of people as well there is no justification for those advantages. Actual people don't get perpetual ownership of their name or any exclusivity to the use of their name for that matter only protection in the form a penalty for using an assumed name for fraud. We certainly should not let a corporation enjoy any benefit for a longer term than a human would.
Nah, they can do porn parodies without copyright expiring.
"Many things were said by Trump and the Russian aids that were trivially proven untrue, usually with a 30 second Google search."
Yes but not the biggest and most important ones. A major domestic political party did rig their primaries contrary to the interests of the actual voters in the party and all this bullshit about russia has been news primarily for the purpose of distracting you from that.
Not the big bailout, the secret ones by the Fed are NOT repaid and come directly out of our pockets.
Again, that either gives them money or reduces the amount "stolen" from them. Completely consistent with their philosophy.
Even on a trademark there should be limits. Letting persist as long as they can be paid for creates an early adopter system where we will reach a critical mass of old companies having all the good trademarks locked down and new companies struggling to come up with something worthwhile.
"your justification for why it's wrong is flawed and a slippery slope unless you think we should get rid of inheritances all together."
A slippery slope is a type of fallacy. I have no idea if that is the belief of the parent but as it happens, getting rid of inheritances makes perfect sense. Even if you disagree there is a very big difference between the Disney corporation and the creators.
"Also, if the person who made it is alive, are you saying that it should not be allowed to enter the public domain?"
If that person holds the copyright it is their lifetime + x years.
"If new works are still being created around those characters, why shouldn't someone still be able to retain the characters under copyright?"
Because copyright isn't a right, it is a trade. The public has a right to their side of the contract and who knows what would be produced at this point if those characters were made available. There are plenty of other companies with logos based on things in the public domain.
"In exchange for that your works eventually become public domain."
Well... your works become public domain either way since everything is public domain without copyright. But this way more of them will see the light of day and more will be produced.
The idea isn't to let Disney profit as long as possible, the idea is let the creator profit the minimum amount of time required to keep new works getting created and shared.
"How does the world benefit from Mickey Mouse going into public domain? In no way."
False. Children love the mickey mouse character and all sorts of new art, animation, etc can then be made and exist. The public domain is the default that exists if we hadn't created a copyright law to give (now long dead) creators like Disney a limited government granted control over an idea on a temporary basis as a reward for publicizing it.
"What's more, the research that does come from defense spending doesn't automatically translate into future growth or prosperity. Sure, a lot o fit does get repurposed in the future, but there's a whole world of research that should be funded for peaceful purposes and that research has a harder time of getting funded."
Sorry I doubt you know too many researchers getting money from grants. DARPA is a massive source throughout academia and much of it is technology that just might one day tangentially benefit the military alongside everyone else.
Everyone thinks weapons. The military needs communications, computing, to feed troops, clothe troops, provide healthcare to troops, power systems, agriculture research, genetic engineering, weather technologies, aerospace technologies, the list goes on and on. They don't just fund things with some immediate military application, unlike the private sector the military funds research that has the potential to one day pan out and benefit one of those areas. Since those areas overlap civilian needs almost across the board. The military also puts money into infrastructure advancement because a robust and resilient infrastructure is of key strategic importance in a number of ways. If you are doing real science (not social science) you know people with defense department grants and/or have them yourself.
You left Tibet out of your dialog wholesale.
"Gone will be the manufacturing jobs, the service industry jobs, and eventually the farming jobs"
Actually the big push is toward technology with technology being the primary target of automation. You don't expend your resources eliminating $12/hr jobs when you can eliminate thousands of $65-200k+ jobs.
"It's not that simple. The Afghans would be far better off with the US in there protecting them against various other powers in the region"
Sure, but the US wouldn't be, which is the end of the required consideration.
Not if you think about it. They are anti-tax because they don't want the government to take their money, the only valid duty they see the government as having is keeping other people from taking their money. Hence, the military and police are to keep people from stealing from them and every other thing the government does IS stealing from them.
The wealthy only view the meritocracy concept as a way to seem fair. They don't actually want it to be fair, they want to retain everything they have and if anything get more. In an actual meritocracy they'd have to compete on a level playing field and lose. So in their minds they equate wealth to merit and thus automatically identify those who already have the wealth (which happily includes themselves) as those with merit. Isn't it glorious? Why on earth would you pay for healthcare and education for the children of others... that only raises the chance of them outperforming relative to you and your own children. To them such a thing is paying to do something counter to your own interest.
That is a perfectly reasonable philosophy for the wealthy to have. It just baffles the shit out me why everyone out who outnumbers them a million to one puts up with it. We could exercise emminent domain on the property of the top 0.01% and put a third of the wealth in this country back into the hands of the people without impacting any significant portion of our population and we could do it leaving them enough to never have to work for the rest of their lives. But that is evil, in the meantime we'll steal the property of a poor person and pay them pennies on the dollar to build a road and a stop light to accommodate building a new franchise. A franchise that will pay its staff below the poverty level.
Almost certainly true but then, it is still stronger than any two opponents combined and has an arsenal that can literally wipe any nation from the globe in a span of minutes if we got pissed off enough. How much stronger does it need to be?
You realize we have nuclear subs positioned strategically around the globe that can hit any country on earth at any time. Every other plane, soldier, tank, etc outside the US is unnecessary (except maybe embassy and special assignments).
Not that we won't keep a strong military and continue to be the arms dealer of the world. Just having that honor means half the world would fight to protect our interests meaning we'd need even fewer actual troops of our own.
"The USA was trying to navigate a isolationist policy, not get into the war, yet our weakened stance is what tempted Japan into risking a war."
That is not accurate. We'd already been sticking our noses in Japanese interests and pissed them off.
"Further, "provide for the common defense" is one of the primary purposes of the Federal Government established by the US Constitution."
Common meaning common to these united states not every other state on the globe.
It is a bad thing. There is no reason the US should innately hinder China, Russia, or anyone else. If they aren't a threat to the US it isn't a problem and if we aren't trying to hinder them I think you'd find they'd stop giving many fucks about us.
U.S. military spending is huge because the military budget is where most government science funding comes from. That and everything added from Iraq 2 on can be cut.
Somehow I doubt the US is going to cut its military budget at the suggestion of our biggest threat though.
"A "good" grill cook manager should be able to manage the cooks and know the job well enough to know if his cooks are, in fact, good cooks"
Okay, but your inserting a definition of "good" that is more how things should be than how they are. I'm using this example because my parents were a restaurant management team that traveled the country to failing franchises, they'd manage for a few years to bring them back up to par and then get transferred to a new location to do it again. Obviously they were a skilled management team and it says something that their dynamic violates company policy pretty much everywhere now but that is another topic. Yes, they could step into any position in the restaurant and frequently did. Managers like that are an extremely rare exception and usually at the bottom of the management food chain.
You won't find many district manager and certainly not higher ranked management who can step in and run the grill during a rush or for that matter the dish room. The grill vs the dish room is another example outside of management, being GOOD at running the dish room is no easier or less important than the grill. The grill is closer to the customer and customer feedback so it gets compensated more highly and managers often see it as the most important role. The dishroom is seen as the least important and lowest compensated.
Management and sales are important but they are generally overcompensated relative to skilled workers and the problem grows as you go up the ladder. Yes, the point regarding negotiation is valid and there is a good argument for it since it provides the opportunity to compensate for individual circumstances that mass policy tends to miss, letting those managers close the staff have a say. But in most organizations of any size those managers don't really have any appreciable wiggle room anymore and managers you are negotiating with tend to automatically feel points that parallel the skills required for their own position are stronger arguments at the table.
There is a thing called balance. He didn't propose a homogenous population, he opposed pushing for intentional segregation and diversity. There is a very large spectrum of middle ground between those crazy extremes you know.
"Where does this horseshit keep coming from? You guys keep repeating it to each other so much that you think it is true. It has absolutely no basis in fact."
Yes it does. Her numbers were terrible relative to Sanders who she colluded with the party to sandbag. You haven't forgotten this entire probe is because the Democrats are pissed the Russians revealed the party leadership were playing the actual voters in the party for fools and rigging the nomination, have you? Supposedly unbiased major media outlets were openly colluding, telling Sanders campaign manager on air they'd be announcing for Hillary Clinton as the victor ahead of the actual election to help press Sanders supporters to give up.
There are so many governments influencing our elections the russians are just noise. All they have to do is incorporate a US based company, kick off a PAC, and then they can legally influence all day long. The entire Russia thing is and always has been about distracting you from that. After playing with a rigged deck, getting caught, and taking the pot anyway instead of stepping down in favor of Sanders Hillary's numbers should have been far far worse. It is actually a sad statement about the integrity and expectation of integrity from their candidates held by Hillary supporters.
I'm not denying the bias or saying one way or another regarding the funding source. But you are aware that site and it's sister sites are somewhat on par with the weekly world news? They are propaganda sites.
Oh sure, that stuff can be fun to read and play along with, like fake moon landing and spending a day toying with the idea of bucking the man and maybe just maybe there is a face on Mars. Those are great things to bullshit over with a beer on a fishing or camping trip, especially any good alien stuff. But you do know it isn't actually real right? Just like most anything on history or discovery.
Nobody was ever supposed to actually take people like Rush, Colbert, Oliver, Stewart, Mahr, Hannity, etc seriously. They are entertainers. You can't actually get your news from comedy and fringe sites. I know it is getting really hard to tell the difference with CNN not having much more credibility than Weekly World News these days.
AmiMoJo is a known troll and the summary doesn't even include a link.
So is being a good grill cook. The fact is that neither talent is especially rare in the greater scheme of things though. In any given group of 100 people about 10 will do the job well. It isn't like a talented STEM resource where only 1% of the population even have a chance of being in the group in the first place and a fraction of a percent of those are actually exceptional.