But the book (freakonomics) is the perfect example of the behavior criticized by Taleb in fooled by randomness.
I find it interesting that you bring that up, as my biggest annoyance with "Outliers: The Story of Success" is that it says "Outliers", then immediately focuses on the successful without including the unsuccessful. Taleb ripping on "success" books for failing to look at all the people who took risks makes me think that he'd likely consider Gladwell an intellectual charlatan.
The real problem is the granularity of many bills is too large. That is NOT Obie's fault.
If it were like most bills, I'd agree with you. In this case, though, the bill was to make it so that the president would have to follow certain criteria when spying that, shortly before the bill passed, a judge said that the government already had to follow.
Before the FISA with telecom immunity came about, the government could spy on the same people as after, but they'd have to get permission from a super-secret rubber-stamp court within three days of beginning to spy. Now, so far as I understand, they just have to ask someone else in the justice department.
This is not an improvement.
The bill as a whole was a stern message to the president of, "Okay, here's another line, and I REALLY mean it that you can't cross this line without DIRE consequences."
So, yes, I really can blame "Obie" -- he flip-flopped on filibustering the immunity provision, so that he could vote for a bill that had no obvious benefit. Unless you like having the executive branch having free reign to do what they want without meaningful oversight.
No, no, I left that out intentionally; the part I disagreed with you on is how you said the CRTC's decision was correct.
...this decision was only interested in whether or not customers are being treated in a fair and egalitarian way.
Admittedly, it may be unreasonable of me(in a legal sense) to think that customers should be able to choose between services in a useful way, regardless of whether or not the CRTC is onboard with network neutrality. I find it unfair to be effectively locked-in to one way of connecting to the internet.
First, is Bell abusing their monopoly by offering inferior service to resellers to favour their own service?
The first question is the only one the CRTC was dealing with in this hearing, and the answer they came to was "no", which is the correct answer.
Okay, so Bell has an unfettered connection to the rest of the internet. Its competitors have a shaped-traffic connection to the internet. The latter is inferior to the former. Bell abusing their customers shouldn't be relevant.
Since it seems necessary, I'll use a Slashdot-standard car analogy: imagine that Ford controlled all the supplies for vehicle parts. Now, imagine that Ford decided that it didn't want to have to pay for multiple types of car parts, or car paints, and decided that any other car manufacturer could only use Model T parts for building cars, and could only use black paint.
Obviously, all cars would be black, and all cars would remain as horrible as the Model T. Customers would be abused in a very fair and egalitarian way.
However, with the incredibly low occurrence rate for this duplication, fingerprints still reign as the current top method for human identity verification (DNA matching takes alot more time and still isn't 100% accurate).
This is flat-out wrong. Well, okay, DNA matching does take a lot more time and still isn't 100% accurate, but the accuracy rate of DNA matching is somewhere in the 99.999%-100% range. Fingerprinting(see page two) is somewhere in the 95%-99% range. It also hasn't been anywhere near as rigorously tested as DNA testing has.
So, sure, fingerprinting is the gold standard of conventional evidence, but it doesn't even hold a candle to DNA evidence.
Still, fingerprinting stands up better to rigorous studies than other methods(e.g., hair or ballistics matching), so I imagine it'll stand up better than smell matching will.
This is a problem with how politicians behave, not issues being unimportant to society (although that could be the case too).
I thought about that when I posted, and I said what I did because I disagree with your point.
What I'd like is for one of the candidates to say, "We have to make sure that all the election equipment, including the electronic voting machines, count every ballot as it was cast.".
They don't have to say that they want to get rid of electronic voting machines, or whether or not they think the law should require voter-verified paper ballots on the machines.
Mind you, I'd like it if they did that, but I'm just asking for a pretend response, so I can move on to complaining about how politicians can't give a straight, useful answer.
Can you think of other issues where the politicians have similarly entirely avoided the issue? (I know that's a bit like proving there's not a purple giraffe in Africa, but it's an honest question.)
I'd have to assume that the first part of question 6, "Electronic voting machines have been shown to be inaccurate, with some not leaving a verifiable paper trail, making a recount impossible." came from Slashdot.
That said, I watched the responses to that question, and neither of the candidates even pretended to address the issue.
Of course, they also didn't answer the second part of the question, "Many Americans object to the continued existence of The Electoral College in The Information Age, and to the exclusion of third-party candidates in the Presidential Debates sponsored by the CPD.".
And, to finish off the question, "What will you do to ensure that the Election process is democratic and that my vote will be counted in this election, or the next?", did seem to be somewhat answered, but not with anything I haven't already heard from twenty other articles.
I suppose it's nice to know that the issues that matter to the Slashdot crowd are so unimportant to the rest of society that they're not worth bothering to answer. Sure, that's cynical, but at least we know what the mountain we're climbing looks like.
Seriously, if the game has an ending at each stage, depending on how you play, the game has more depth. You'd play it more to see what other ways you can "win" the game.
'sides, wouldn't you like to play a slime that kills off the planet through fast reproduction? Or create a tribble species that buries the planet in a foot of fuzzy goodness?
Your post made me think about how Spore should have had multiple endings -- if it's about evolution, it should be about successfully having your creature survive, right? So why not have a creature that's really, really good at surviving at one level, but because it never developed brains/a spine/whatever, it doesn't go to the next level of the game, but still wins because it survives really well.
But, eh, it's not as if many people in the Slashdot crowd were likely to buy the game in the first place, due to its being "defective by design".
Having actually read the researcher's book(Snoop, and that is not an affiliate link, so click away.), I'd like to point out a thing or two that make me think this area of study is worthwhile:
Say you're interviewing someone. You'd like to know if the person would make a good employee or not, or at the very least try to figure out what sort of employee you could expect. So, these researchers studied interviews by having interviewers rate people based on what they saw. Interviewees who spent more time talking, who gestured a lot, and who dressed more formally were judged to be higher on both social skills and work motivation.
However, when they looked at what these people were actually like, talking, gesturing, and dress were indeed valid cues for social skills, but only the formality of dress predicted the applicant's work motivation.
Most of that was from pages 169 and 170 in the book.
Now, if you're interviewing for a position, wouldn't it be nice to have some sort of guide as to where our senses tend to be accurate, and where they tend to lead us astray? As an interviewee, wouldn't it be nice to know how people are likely to respond to you if you act in a certain way? Is it really better to assume that, since we'll never be 100% certain about what one thing or another means, we shouldn't study it at all?
Seeing sports posters up on the wall, or an American flag in a certain area can lead you to ask certain questions that you might not think to ask otherwise. It's not an open invitation to pigeon-hole and dismiss a person.
Having read Snoop, Sam Gosling's book, I would guess that he has also seen people from both sides fitting these profiles. Which is why he'd attempt to base a guess on more information than what we're given.
In the book, Gosling points out a time when a researcher found some stiletto heels on the floor of a room, and concluded that the occupant was female. The researcher then managed to ignore all sorts of other signs that pointed to the occupant being male, and that the stilettos were left by an, um, temporary occupant.
I would still hazard a guess that, if you were to find a pair of stiletto heels in a random bedroom, most of the time the occupant would be female.
This is similar; sports paraphernalia and an American flag displayed in a room means the person is more likely conservative, but it might be a red herring for one reason or another.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
I point this out because some might say that moderation in the pursuit of Aristotle's ideas is a good thing.
I see your point, but how are we supposed to know that a website is annoying if friends/neighbors/massive international websites don't inform us of how they're annoying?
Having these sorts of stories come out is a wonderful thing, as Facebook wants to make money, and the users want to have the best service. Facebook has to continue providing some level of service, or else they'll stop making money. Getting on Slashdot because they did something stupid and pointless is probably not the sort of thing they'd like to continue doing.
Same for me. Honestly, this sounds like a feature; if a friend would be so annoying as to use my computer and put a background on it, the WGA would helpfully get rid of it.
Thanks, Microsoft, for finally making a default the way I like it.
'course, now I have to go and start using a pirated copy of WinXP. Bother.
What if the real estate agent were arrested for murder--but was innocent?
Umm... I read newspapers, and I live in a city of around 250k people. If there's someone accused of murder in the area, I've read about it. The same for most of the "less socially acceptable crimes". The involved names appear pretty much immediately in a Google search.
In other words, while your point is still valid, the crime examples you use are the sort of things that would already be wildly public anyway, and thus entirely untouched by this sort of legislation.
On a completely unrelated note, I've read through this discussion and not seen anyone mention adding more data as a defense; why isn't the best response to public, but incomplete/incorrect information more information that corrects things -- like a message from the real estate agent where they describe their version of the events, or why they're more responsible now?
Mind you, I think that's most easily applicable after the court has reached a verdict, but if I were wrongly accused(or even wrongly convicted), I'd sure like to have a chance to share my version of the events on the same site where people find out about my alleged misdeeds.
Not Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness as the United States has in their Constitution.
Umm... That's in the Declaration of Independence. The American constitution begins:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
And, so far as I understand, there's a right to privacy in the US that was established with Roe v. Wade. I imagine it applies to more than abortion.
I don't know enough about Canadian laws and observance of those laws, but I'd wager that any differences in approaches to privacy have more to do with what the leaders of our countries have done over the past 30 years.
Also, I know plenty of people who are aware that OJ(Would that be OJS for the Canadians?) got a "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" verdict, but still think he murdered his wife, so even knowing how a jury decided things isn't enough to change how something is seen in the eyes of the public, at least in one well-reported case.
In reality, there is a large overlap between the two
That said, I understand there's a philosophical difference, but my point is comparing polygamy to people having non-monogamous relationships without marriage. So, no, I don't mean to equate the two, I just mean to say that they're both in the category of simultaneous-multi-partner relationships that don't involve marriage.
polygamy is actually not that widely practised in proportion to just having one spouse. Now, compare this to the de facto polygamy that is practised in the Western world and see who is mysogynistic.
I just did. I found a reference to a studythat said that, "approximately 50 percent married women and 60 percent of married men will have an extramarital affair at some time in their marriage.". So very slightly fewer men have affairs than women. Given that you mentioned polygamy, but did not even touch on the possibility of a woman with multiple husbands, I'm going to have to assume that the ratio of polygyny to polyandry is significantly greater than 6:5. Even if the cheaters in non-polygamous areas had a 3:1 male:female ratio, that's likely still greater than the polygyny:polyandry ratio. Not to mention that there are women who are having sex with as many men as they want.
And with this argument I'm going to go out on a ledge and claim that a society where some women have the choice of alternate sex partners is less misogynistic than a culture where no women have that choice, and virtually all wealthy men do.
Men who never got married in a polygamist society are probably less likely to have reached 60 in the first place. Either because of the whole risk-taking theory, or because the men who can't find wives are likely genetically less fit.
This study really seems to contradict the belief (that has no formal supporting evidence) that polygamy contributes to violence
So studies that merely look at areas with skewed sex ratios aren't enough? Nor the evident fact that young, unmarried men are statistically more likely to commit crime that young, married men?
Also, while I'm willing to believe that polygyny helps the men with many wives to live longer, I wonder if polyamory/swinging would confer the same benefits without the ratio problems of polygyny. (Obviously, polyamory/swinging has problems of its own, but if we're measuring lifespan, things like possibly increased rates of STDs and relationship destruction would be already be factored into the outcome.)
For what it's worth, I appreciate your points, but:
But, you miss the point
My first point was that, while the constitution says "limited", evidently the Supreme Court has a different idea of "limited" than I do -- Lessig argued something along the lines of, if congress continually extends copyright, it's effectively unlimited. The Supreme Court of the United States effectively said that, as long as congress is limiting it, it's "limited", no matter how meaningless and temporary the limit.
My second point was that "limited" could be moved in the other direction by a crazy congress from some alternate universe where they like to stick it to the Disneys and Sony Bonos of the world.
I agree with your points; I just wanted to point out that the constitution only provides as much protection as the courts are willing to provide, and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled out 180 year copyright/patent terms, nor have they ruled out 25 minute copyright/patent terms. One case is effectively unlimited, and the other is effectively abolishing copyrights and patents.
If "limited" can be stretched to the point where it's pretty much guaranteed that no one who was personally affected by a release will be alive to make something derivative, I don't see why "limited" can't be stretched in the other direction to mean, oh, 25 minutes.
I don't think it'll happen, and I don't want that to happen, but the Supreme Court has a long history of seeing the constitution in a light that's convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
In my fantasy world, the penalty for taking digital copies would be less than the penalty for taking digital copies AND a physical item.
But the book (freakonomics) is the perfect example of the behavior criticized by Taleb in fooled by randomness.
I find it interesting that you bring that up, as my biggest annoyance with "Outliers: The Story of Success" is that it says "Outliers", then immediately focuses on the successful without including the unsuccessful. Taleb ripping on "success" books for failing to look at all the people who took risks makes me think that he'd likely consider Gladwell an intellectual charlatan.
The real problem is the granularity of many bills is too large. That is NOT Obie's fault.
If it were like most bills, I'd agree with you. In this case, though, the bill was to make it so that the president would have to follow certain criteria when spying that, shortly before the bill passed, a judge said that the government already had to follow.
Before the FISA with telecom immunity came about, the government could spy on the same people as after, but they'd have to get permission from a super-secret rubber-stamp court within three days of beginning to spy. Now, so far as I understand, they just have to ask someone else in the justice department.
This is not an improvement.
The bill as a whole was a stern message to the president of, "Okay, here's another line, and I REALLY mean it that you can't cross this line without DIRE consequences."
So, yes, I really can blame "Obie" -- he flip-flopped on filibustering the immunity provision, so that he could vote for a bill that had no obvious benefit. Unless you like having the executive branch having free reign to do what they want without meaningful oversight.
What you're missing is that this isn't over yet.
No, no, I left that out intentionally; the part I disagreed with you on is how you said the CRTC's decision was correct.
...this decision was only interested in whether or not customers are being treated in a fair and egalitarian way.
Admittedly, it may be unreasonable of me(in a legal sense) to think that customers should be able to choose between services in a useful way, regardless of whether or not the CRTC is onboard with network neutrality. I find it unfair to be effectively locked-in to one way of connecting to the internet.
First, is Bell abusing their monopoly by offering inferior service to resellers to favour their own service?
The first question is the only one the CRTC was dealing with in this hearing, and the answer they came to was "no", which is the correct answer.
Okay, so Bell has an unfettered connection to the rest of the internet. Its competitors have a shaped-traffic connection to the internet. The latter is inferior to the former. Bell abusing their customers shouldn't be relevant.
Since it seems necessary, I'll use a Slashdot-standard car analogy: imagine that Ford controlled all the supplies for vehicle parts. Now, imagine that Ford decided that it didn't want to have to pay for multiple types of car parts, or car paints, and decided that any other car manufacturer could only use Model T parts for building cars, and could only use black paint.
Obviously, all cars would be black, and all cars would remain as horrible as the Model T. Customers would be abused in a very fair and egalitarian way.
However, with the incredibly low occurrence rate for this duplication, fingerprints still reign as the current top method for human identity verification (DNA matching takes alot more time and still isn't 100% accurate).
This is flat-out wrong. Well, okay, DNA matching does take a lot more time and still isn't 100% accurate, but the accuracy rate of DNA matching is somewhere in the 99.999%-100% range. Fingerprinting(see page two) is somewhere in the 95%-99% range. It also hasn't been anywhere near as rigorously tested as DNA testing has.
So, sure, fingerprinting is the gold standard of conventional evidence, but it doesn't even hold a candle to DNA evidence.
Still, fingerprinting stands up better to rigorous studies than other methods(e.g., hair or ballistics matching), so I imagine it'll stand up better than smell matching will.
This is a problem with how politicians behave, not issues being unimportant to society (although that could be the case too).
I thought about that when I posted, and I said what I did because I disagree with your point.
What I'd like is for one of the candidates to say, "We have to make sure that all the election equipment, including the electronic voting machines, count every ballot as it was cast.".
They don't have to say that they want to get rid of electronic voting machines, or whether or not they think the law should require voter-verified paper ballots on the machines.
Mind you, I'd like it if they did that, but I'm just asking for a pretend response, so I can move on to complaining about how politicians can't give a straight, useful answer.
Can you think of other issues where the politicians have similarly entirely avoided the issue? (I know that's a bit like proving there's not a purple giraffe in Africa, but it's an honest question.)
I'd have to assume that the first part of question 6, "Electronic voting machines have been shown to be inaccurate, with some not leaving a verifiable paper trail, making a recount impossible." came from Slashdot.
That said, I watched the responses to that question, and neither of the candidates even pretended to address the issue.
Of course, they also didn't answer the second part of the question, "Many Americans object to the continued existence of The Electoral College in The Information Age, and to the exclusion of third-party candidates in the Presidential Debates sponsored by the CPD.".
And, to finish off the question, "What will you do to ensure that the Election process is democratic and that my vote will be counted in this election, or the next?", did seem to be somewhat answered, but not with anything I haven't already heard from twenty other articles.
I suppose it's nice to know that the issues that matter to the Slashdot crowd are so unimportant to the rest of society that they're not worth bothering to answer. Sure, that's cynical, but at least we know what the mountain we're climbing looks like.
You make it sound like a problem.
Seriously, if the game has an ending at each stage, depending on how you play, the game has more depth. You'd play it more to see what other ways you can "win" the game.
'sides, wouldn't you like to play a slime that kills off the planet through fast reproduction? Or create a tribble species that buries the planet in a foot of fuzzy goodness?
Your post made me think about how Spore should have had multiple endings -- if it's about evolution, it should be about successfully having your creature survive, right? So why not have a creature that's really, really good at surviving at one level, but because it never developed brains/a spine/whatever, it doesn't go to the next level of the game, but still wins because it survives really well.
But, eh, it's not as if many people in the Slashdot crowd were likely to buy the game in the first place, due to its being "defective by design".
Having actually read the researcher's book(Snoop, and that is not an affiliate link, so click away.), I'd like to point out a thing or two that make me think this area of study is worthwhile:
Say you're interviewing someone. You'd like to know if the person would make a good employee or not, or at the very least try to figure out what sort of employee you could expect. So, these researchers studied interviews by having interviewers rate people based on what they saw. Interviewees who spent more time talking, who gestured a lot, and who dressed more formally were judged to be higher on both social skills and work motivation.
However, when they looked at what these people were actually like, talking, gesturing, and dress were indeed valid cues for social skills, but only the formality of dress predicted the applicant's work motivation.
Most of that was from pages 169 and 170 in the book.
Now, if you're interviewing for a position, wouldn't it be nice to have some sort of guide as to where our senses tend to be accurate, and where they tend to lead us astray? As an interviewee, wouldn't it be nice to know how people are likely to respond to you if you act in a certain way? Is it really better to assume that, since we'll never be 100% certain about what one thing or another means, we shouldn't study it at all?
Seeing sports posters up on the wall, or an American flag in a certain area can lead you to ask certain questions that you might not think to ask otherwise. It's not an open invitation to pigeon-hole and dismiss a person.
Having read Snoop, Sam Gosling's book, I would guess that he has also seen people from both sides fitting these profiles. Which is why he'd attempt to base a guess on more information than what we're given.
In the book, Gosling points out a time when a researcher found some stiletto heels on the floor of a room, and concluded that the occupant was female. The researcher then managed to ignore all sorts of other signs that pointed to the occupant being male, and that the stilettos were left by an, um, temporary occupant.
I would still hazard a guess that, if you were to find a pair of stiletto heels in a random bedroom, most of the time the occupant would be female.
This is similar; sports paraphernalia and an American flag displayed in a room means the person is more likely conservative, but it might be a red herring for one reason or another.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
I point this out because some might say that moderation in the pursuit of Aristotle's ideas is a good thing.
I see your point, but how are we supposed to know that a website is annoying if friends/neighbors/massive international websites don't inform us of how they're annoying?
Having these sorts of stories come out is a wonderful thing, as Facebook wants to make money, and the users want to have the best service. Facebook has to continue providing some level of service, or else they'll stop making money. Getting on Slashdot because they did something stupid and pointless is probably not the sort of thing they'd like to continue doing.
Same for me. Honestly, this sounds like a feature; if a friend would be so annoying as to use my computer and put a background on it, the WGA would helpfully get rid of it.
Thanks, Microsoft, for finally making a default the way I like it.
'course, now I have to go and start using a pirated copy of WinXP. Bother.
What if the real estate agent were arrested for murder--but was innocent?
Umm... I read newspapers, and I live in a city of around 250k people. If there's someone accused of murder in the area, I've read about it. The same for most of the "less socially acceptable crimes". The involved names appear pretty much immediately in a Google search.
In other words, while your point is still valid, the crime examples you use are the sort of things that would already be wildly public anyway, and thus entirely untouched by this sort of legislation.
On a completely unrelated note, I've read through this discussion and not seen anyone mention adding more data as a defense; why isn't the best response to public, but incomplete/incorrect information more information that corrects things -- like a message from the real estate agent where they describe their version of the events, or why they're more responsible now?
Mind you, I think that's most easily applicable after the court has reached a verdict, but if I were wrongly accused(or even wrongly convicted), I'd sure like to have a chance to share my version of the events on the same site where people find out about my alleged misdeeds.
Not Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness as the United States has in their Constitution.
Umm... That's in the Declaration of Independence. The American constitution begins:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
And, so far as I understand, there's a right to privacy in the US that was established with Roe v. Wade. I imagine it applies to more than abortion.
I don't know enough about Canadian laws and observance of those laws, but I'd wager that any differences in approaches to privacy have more to do with what the leaders of our countries have done over the past 30 years.
Which courts have an "innocent" verdict?
Also, I know plenty of people who are aware that OJ(Would that be OJS for the Canadians?) got a "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" verdict, but still think he murdered his wife, so even knowing how a jury decided things isn't enough to change how something is seen in the eyes of the public, at least in one well-reported case.
In reality, there is a large overlap between the two
That said, I understand there's a philosophical difference, but my point is comparing polygamy to people having non-monogamous relationships without marriage. So, no, I don't mean to equate the two, I just mean to say that they're both in the category of simultaneous-multi-partner relationships that don't involve marriage.
polygamy is actually not that widely practised in proportion to just having one spouse. Now, compare this to the de facto polygamy that is practised in the Western world and see who is mysogynistic.
I just did. I found a reference to a studythat said that, "approximately 50 percent married women and 60 percent of married men will have an extramarital affair at some time in their marriage.". So very slightly fewer men have affairs than women. Given that you mentioned polygamy, but did not even touch on the possibility of a woman with multiple husbands, I'm going to have to assume that the ratio of polygyny to polyandry is significantly greater than 6:5. Even if the cheaters in non-polygamous areas had a 3:1 male:female ratio, that's likely still greater than the polygyny:polyandry ratio. Not to mention that there are women who are having sex with as many men as they want.
And with this argument I'm going to go out on a ledge and claim that a society where some women have the choice of alternate sex partners is less misogynistic than a culture where no women have that choice, and virtually all wealthy men do.
This study really seems to contradict the belief (that has no formal supporting evidence) that polygamy contributes to violence
So studies that merely look at areas with skewed sex ratios aren't enough? Nor the evident fact that young, unmarried men are statistically more likely to commit crime that young, married men?
Also, while I'm willing to believe that polygyny helps the men with many wives to live longer, I wonder if polyamory/swinging would confer the same benefits without the ratio problems of polygyny. (Obviously, polyamory/swinging has problems of its own, but if we're measuring lifespan, things like possibly increased rates of STDs and relationship destruction would be already be factored into the outcome.)
But, you miss the point
My first point was that, while the constitution says "limited", evidently the Supreme Court has a different idea of "limited" than I do -- Lessig argued something along the lines of, if congress continually extends copyright, it's effectively unlimited. The Supreme Court of the United States effectively said that, as long as congress is limiting it, it's "limited", no matter how meaningless and temporary the limit.
My second point was that "limited" could be moved in the other direction by a crazy congress from some alternate universe where they like to stick it to the Disneys and Sony Bonos of the world.
I agree with your points; I just wanted to point out that the constitution only provides as much protection as the courts are willing to provide, and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled out 180 year copyright/patent terms, nor have they ruled out 25 minute copyright/patent terms. One case is effectively unlimited, and the other is effectively abolishing copyrights and patents.
by securing for limited Times
If "limited" can be stretched to the point where it's pretty much guaranteed that no one who was personally affected by a release will be alive to make something derivative, I don't see why "limited" can't be stretched in the other direction to mean, oh, 25 minutes.
I don't think it'll happen, and I don't want that to happen, but the Supreme Court has a long history of seeing the constitution in a light that's convenient.
Is it also safe to assume that, if a company introduces policies relating to harassment, there must be endemic harassment in the company?
Just because a company is afraid of lawsuits doesn't mean they're guilty.
Does this includes those women living inside wombs?
I would assume so, though I've honestly never heard of an adult female living in a womb. I'd think it'd feel crowded.