Unless you're going to give me a good reason why she may have intended to cheat on handling classified information, we have to compare her with people who inadvertently mishandled classified information, none of whom that I could find were jailed.
There's a deal involved. It's been way distorted until most people don't recognize it any more, but it's that we give creative people an amount of time to make money off their work, and then it goes into the public domain. The copyright period is intended to allow people time to make money When that time has expired, everybody gets it. After all, copyright is an infringement on free speech and harms development of culture, so we don't want it to last indefinitely.
It's not going to bother me any if you pirate stuff that's 28 years old, because that was the law the last time it actually served the Constitutional purpose, but bear in mind that the justice system doesn't necessarily conform to my moral stands.
People will keep making and playing music. How do you want to get it? Sheet music for your piano? YouTube videos with mostly decent production values? Going to concerts? If you want well-produced audio files or something like that, there's a lot of work involved that needs to be paid for.
Similarly, if you like writing fiction, it's fun. Rewriting is much less fun. If you want a polished novel, there needs to be an editor to work with the author on revisions, probably until the author is temporarily sick of the story. I'm a regular participant in National Novel Writing Month. If you want stuff that people just wrote without trying to make it as readable as possible, I can send you some of my stuff. (It could be worse, honest. My wife said that she didn't notice amateurish writing in the second half of "Heinrich von Sturm and the Russian Underground of Science", and that the novel was actually readable.)
Basically, good music and good books and good movies (your definition of "good" may be different from mine) are going to require a fair chunk of money to produce. Even in the least technical of these, fiction, there's a lot of non-creative work that goes into it.
You always did. You didn't see anything unless it was published in a newspaper, a magazine, or a book, or transmitted on TV or radio. When I was young, all of those were controlled by corporations. Now, you have much more freedom to look for things on the net.
So, what you're saying is that the Soviets had good reason to worry about Estonia being turned pro-German to the point that it would let German troops in. That's what the Soviets feared. They didn't want Estonian support, but they really didn't want Estonia giving Germany a jump start towards Leningrad. That's what the British and French either didn't understand or didn't care about. We don't know if alternatives would have been acceptable, because none were proposed.
I haven't read the treaty between Britain, Poland, and France, but I've read that it required declaring war on whoever attacked Poland, not whoever joined the invasion later. In any case, a declaration of war on the Soviet Union would have accomplished nothing. There were some pathetic attempts on the British part, primarily, to set up an attack on the Soviets.
The treaty did what it was intended to do. When Germany invaded Poland, France and Germany declared war on Germany and started attacking. The attacks were largely ineffectual, and not pressed hard, but then Poland didn't hold out nearly as long as planned. There was no way France was going to take the Moselle Triangle before the historical Polish defeat.
The only real problem with that treaty was that Hitler didn't believe France and Britain would honor it. I doubt that knowing that would have stopped him, but I've wondered what would have happened if Poland had a regiment of French troops and a squadron of Hurricanes to serve as tripwires (to use the modern term).
Okay. In the first place, you've completely failed to show that the hippies had any actual effect. I mentioned why other people might have been nuke-shy in the period, people with more political pull.
I don't believe in completely safe complicated systems, and a nuclear reactor is a complicated system. Fukushima was a product of bad but in some ways normal business decisions, complicated with a major disaster. Reactors will be used past their intended demise, because it's cheaper than stopping and dismantling, and it can't be that dangerous, can it?
Project Orion would have required nuclear weapons in space, and it's not surprising they were banned. There's no great difference between a Project Orion ship in orbit and a mobile orbital base to bombard Earth. (Well, re-entry vehicles, but those are not going to be easy to keep away from the nukes.) NERVA seems to have died in a budget dispute.
You seem to believe that fusion power would be too cheap to meter, and we saw that wasn't true with nuclear power. If we ever get commercial fusion power, we will know whether it's too cheap to meter. You also seem to believe that unlimited cheap electricity would solve more things than I think it would solve. Africa's problems are social and governmental as well as economic We produce more than enough food to make sure nobody has to be hungry, and lack the global political will to actually carry that through.
Any halfway competent campaign will check to see how the message is getting out, so shadow bans won't work. (If the campaign's incompetent enough to not do that, I don't want that candidate in office.) At that point, there are laws about political campaigns that come into play, and things get more complicated. (I don't know how complicated; I'm not a lawyer.)
I also don't see what you mean by "rules for thee, not for me", since I've been consistent on this subject and haven't mentioned particular groups or political movements. You are assuming something false about me, possibly through projection.
I'm not pessimistic enough to think this is the best of all possible worlds. Spinoza was a brilliant philosopher, but I don't actually agree with him on a lot of things.
I'm also not quite cynical enough (give it time) to accuse companies of things without reasonable evidence, and my experience is that a lot of claims just don't hold up under scrutiny. To switch sides of the political spectrum, I've seen no good evidence that Monsanto will sue over wind drift of seeds.
Like all free market solutions, it's imperfect. The question is whether specific government regulation is worse than letting the free market solve things. I tend to think government regulation is better more often than some on this site, but in this case some sort of "fairness doctrine" seems untenable. The "fairness doctrine" was imposed as a condition of using the EM spectrum, which was and is considered public property administered by the government.
If the city has a responsibility to plow roads, then the city has the responsibility to make sure the roads get plowed. As Truman said, "The buck stops here." If the city has contracted the plowing to someone that can't deliver, that's a failure on the city's part. Either the city needs to find reliable contractors, or the city needs to find a way to plow that doesn't involve contractors.
Switching contractors can be painful on a small job, like repairing a roof. When you're talking about providing city services, there's likely to be nobody else available - and, if there is, the cost of hiring the new contractor is going to be pretty high. "Nice two-foot drifts you've got blocking all the streets. I'm sure we can arrive at an acceptable price without having to haggle a long time. Here's what I want to be paid."
The picture of her in the article is meant to be attractive, and shows a lot of her right boob. Most women in higher management want to avoid being viewed as sex objects.
I once dodged a booth babe to ask a man a question. Got referred back to the booth babe for an answer, because she knew her stuff. That was an enlightening experience.
If you're saying that capitalism is a good basis for an economic system, yes. However, unregulated capitalism will dump toxic waste and work people to death. This is why every advanced country nowadays has capitalism at the base of its economy and has regulations on what companies can do.
If some men want to be sexist and only hire pretty ladies, so be it.
There are a few jobs that do require pretty ladies. Aside from that, if the man doing the hiring is not the owner, that person is harming the company by hiring people for reasons other than being good at their jobs and working well together.
You get away with it one by one. Document bad behavior for each problem individual. GP said they were fired for bad performance and insubordination, and if you nail that down by recording specifics you're fine.
With Communism in practice, you get things like the Soviet nomenklaturi instead of actually wealthy people. Of course, the way to get on that list is normally not to push social justice.
So how would having a housewife benefit you there? Are you saying she should enjoy your kayaks and video games? Given equality, you've got at best a 50% chance of being the househusband and having some of that free time. It's usually financially advisable for one person to go forth and earn the money, since switching off replaces a salary for an experienced person with a salary for a newbie.
What you want is the ability to spend less time at work and more at home, and that's not related to having one or both members of a household working.
Some cultures are pretty firmly based on things like strict gender roles, or continuing warfare, or other things we disapprove of. We can't always encounter a culture, remove some of its basic principles, and expect to have what we saw left for cherishing.
Moreover, that form of cultural relativism is philosophically shaky. Is someone trying to tell me what my culture is? Isn't that intolerant? If not, then I just say that my culture believes in meddling with other cultures, so cherish that, sucker!
I'm not saying we should run roughshod over other people's cultures as a matter of course. I'm saying that some cultures are invalid. Still worthy of study, but invalid.
YouTube became the town square. It doesn't have to remain the town square. Land near the dump doesn't have to stay there.
If YouTube becomes objectionable, people will establish other forums. If there isn't a GunTube or something whose site is being circulated among NRA members, there will be soon. That's a few million people at least partly disengaging from YouTube. If YouTube drives enough people to other venues, it will lose dominant position, and it's possible to crash real fast at that point.
Slashdot Mirror
In capitalist countries, the government doesn't limit the amount artists can make. J.K. Rowling became a billionaire.
Unless you're going to give me a good reason why she may have intended to cheat on handling classified information, we have to compare her with people who inadvertently mishandled classified information, none of whom that I could find were jailed.
There's a deal involved. It's been way distorted until most people don't recognize it any more, but it's that we give creative people an amount of time to make money off their work, and then it goes into the public domain. The copyright period is intended to allow people time to make money When that time has expired, everybody gets it. After all, copyright is an infringement on free speech and harms development of culture, so we don't want it to last indefinitely.
It's not going to bother me any if you pirate stuff that's 28 years old, because that was the law the last time it actually served the Constitutional purpose, but bear in mind that the justice system doesn't necessarily conform to my moral stands.
Just how do you like your art?
People will keep making and playing music. How do you want to get it? Sheet music for your piano? YouTube videos with mostly decent production values? Going to concerts? If you want well-produced audio files or something like that, there's a lot of work involved that needs to be paid for.
Similarly, if you like writing fiction, it's fun. Rewriting is much less fun. If you want a polished novel, there needs to be an editor to work with the author on revisions, probably until the author is temporarily sick of the story. I'm a regular participant in National Novel Writing Month. If you want stuff that people just wrote without trying to make it as readable as possible, I can send you some of my stuff. (It could be worse, honest. My wife said that she didn't notice amateurish writing in the second half of "Heinrich von Sturm and the Russian Underground of Science", and that the novel was actually readable.)
Basically, good music and good books and good movies (your definition of "good" may be different from mine) are going to require a fair chunk of money to produce. Even in the least technical of these, fiction, there's a lot of non-creative work that goes into it.
You always did. You didn't see anything unless it was published in a newspaper, a magazine, or a book, or transmitted on TV or radio. When I was young, all of those were controlled by corporations. Now, you have much more freedom to look for things on the net.
So, what you're saying is that the Soviets had good reason to worry about Estonia being turned pro-German to the point that it would let German troops in. That's what the Soviets feared. They didn't want Estonian support, but they really didn't want Estonia giving Germany a jump start towards Leningrad. That's what the British and French either didn't understand or didn't care about. We don't know if alternatives would have been acceptable, because none were proposed.
I haven't read the treaty between Britain, Poland, and France, but I've read that it required declaring war on whoever attacked Poland, not whoever joined the invasion later. In any case, a declaration of war on the Soviet Union would have accomplished nothing. There were some pathetic attempts on the British part, primarily, to set up an attack on the Soviets.
The treaty did what it was intended to do. When Germany invaded Poland, France and Germany declared war on Germany and started attacking. The attacks were largely ineffectual, and not pressed hard, but then Poland didn't hold out nearly as long as planned. There was no way France was going to take the Moselle Triangle before the historical Polish defeat.
The only real problem with that treaty was that Hitler didn't believe France and Britain would honor it. I doubt that knowing that would have stopped him, but I've wondered what would have happened if Poland had a regiment of French troops and a squadron of Hurricanes to serve as tripwires (to use the modern term).
Okay. In the first place, you've completely failed to show that the hippies had any actual effect. I mentioned why other people might have been nuke-shy in the period, people with more political pull.
I don't believe in completely safe complicated systems, and a nuclear reactor is a complicated system. Fukushima was a product of bad but in some ways normal business decisions, complicated with a major disaster. Reactors will be used past their intended demise, because it's cheaper than stopping and dismantling, and it can't be that dangerous, can it?
Project Orion would have required nuclear weapons in space, and it's not surprising they were banned. There's no great difference between a Project Orion ship in orbit and a mobile orbital base to bombard Earth. (Well, re-entry vehicles, but those are not going to be easy to keep away from the nukes.) NERVA seems to have died in a budget dispute.
You seem to believe that fusion power would be too cheap to meter, and we saw that wasn't true with nuclear power. If we ever get commercial fusion power, we will know whether it's too cheap to meter. You also seem to believe that unlimited cheap electricity would solve more things than I think it would solve. Africa's problems are social and governmental as well as economic We produce more than enough food to make sure nobody has to be hungry, and lack the global political will to actually carry that through.
Any halfway competent campaign will check to see how the message is getting out, so shadow bans won't work. (If the campaign's incompetent enough to not do that, I don't want that candidate in office.) At that point, there are laws about political campaigns that come into play, and things get more complicated. (I don't know how complicated; I'm not a lawyer.)
I also don't see what you mean by "rules for thee, not for me", since I've been consistent on this subject and haven't mentioned particular groups or political movements. You are assuming something false about me, possibly through projection.
I'm not pessimistic enough to think this is the best of all possible worlds. Spinoza was a brilliant philosopher, but I don't actually agree with him on a lot of things.
I'm also not quite cynical enough (give it time) to accuse companies of things without reasonable evidence, and my experience is that a lot of claims just don't hold up under scrutiny. To switch sides of the political spectrum, I've seen no good evidence that Monsanto will sue over wind drift of seeds.
Like all free market solutions, it's imperfect. The question is whether specific government regulation is worse than letting the free market solve things. I tend to think government regulation is better more often than some on this site, but in this case some sort of "fairness doctrine" seems untenable. The "fairness doctrine" was imposed as a condition of using the EM spectrum, which was and is considered public property administered by the government.
"Once you have paid the Danegeld/You will never be rid of the Dane" - Kipling.
If the city has a responsibility to plow roads, then the city has the responsibility to make sure the roads get plowed. As Truman said, "The buck stops here." If the city has contracted the plowing to someone that can't deliver, that's a failure on the city's part. Either the city needs to find reliable contractors, or the city needs to find a way to plow that doesn't involve contractors.
Switching contractors can be painful on a small job, like repairing a roof. When you're talking about providing city services, there's likely to be nobody else available - and, if there is, the cost of hiring the new contractor is going to be pretty high. "Nice two-foot drifts you've got blocking all the streets. I'm sure we can arrive at an acceptable price without having to haggle a long time. Here's what I want to be paid."
Why do you SJW-hater types speak like all SJWs are identical clones?
The picture of her in the article is meant to be attractive, and shows a lot of her right boob. Most women in higher management want to avoid being viewed as sex objects.
I once dodged a booth babe to ask a man a question. Got referred back to the booth babe for an answer, because she knew her stuff. That was an enlightening experience.
If you're saying that capitalism is a good basis for an economic system, yes. However, unregulated capitalism will dump toxic waste and work people to death. This is why every advanced country nowadays has capitalism at the base of its economy and has regulations on what companies can do.
There are a few jobs that do require pretty ladies. Aside from that, if the man doing the hiring is not the owner, that person is harming the company by hiring people for reasons other than being good at their jobs and working well together.
You get away with it one by one. Document bad behavior for each problem individual. GP said they were fired for bad performance and insubordination, and if you nail that down by recording specifics you're fine.
With Communism in practice, you get things like the Soviet nomenklaturi instead of actually wealthy people. Of course, the way to get on that list is normally not to push social justice.
So how would having a housewife benefit you there? Are you saying she should enjoy your kayaks and video games? Given equality, you've got at best a 50% chance of being the househusband and having some of that free time. It's usually financially advisable for one person to go forth and earn the money, since switching off replaces a salary for an experienced person with a salary for a newbie.
What you want is the ability to spend less time at work and more at home, and that's not related to having one or both members of a household working.
Some cultures are pretty firmly based on things like strict gender roles, or continuing warfare, or other things we disapprove of. We can't always encounter a culture, remove some of its basic principles, and expect to have what we saw left for cherishing.
Moreover, that form of cultural relativism is philosophically shaky. Is someone trying to tell me what my culture is? Isn't that intolerant? If not, then I just say that my culture believes in meddling with other cultures, so cherish that, sucker!
I'm not saying we should run roughshod over other people's cultures as a matter of course. I'm saying that some cultures are invalid. Still worthy of study, but invalid.
Cultures compete. The winners set the rules. That's how it's always been.
Now, I strongly prefer when values change to what I consider more moral, but I don't have a whole heck of a lot of influence here.
One difference from earlier times is habitat destruction. That kills lots of species, and we're doing it pretty fast nowadays.
So your saying they're actually homonyms?
YouTube became the town square. It doesn't have to remain the town square. Land near the dump doesn't have to stay there.
If YouTube becomes objectionable, people will establish other forums. If there isn't a GunTube or something whose site is being circulated among NRA members, there will be soon. That's a few million people at least partly disengaging from YouTube. If YouTube drives enough people to other venues, it will lose dominant position, and it's possible to crash real fast at that point.