What you're advocating is that the government ignore the law and do what is effectively legislating from the bench.
No.
I'm saying the government should not be making so many laws covering so many things, so that similarly-stupid scenarios/occurrences are not so common. That government that governs least, governs best, and government that is closest to those people whose laws they affect, governs most equitably.
This is not because of the government, this is due to a complaint: "The Department opened its investigation of UC Berkeley based on a complaint"
This is not because of a complaint, it's because of the government's response, which should have consisted of a bureaucratically-worded version of "...and?...so what, it's free?" instead of the present myopic, pigeon-holing, thinking-strictly-within-the-box, easily-predictable, and all-too-typical bureaucratic mess of unintended consequences whenever big government gets involved.
True, history shows that private industry is corrupt, will break and bend whatever rules it can, and acts against the interests of society. Lack of an arbiter like the government leads to monopolies, low wages, child labor, unsafe workplaces, and so forth.
The problem is that governments are just as prone to corruption (and democide...more people are killed by their own governments than in wars) and worse, and they have a monopoly on the use of violence. There are the same ratios of 'good' and 'bad' people in both government and the private sector. Government and those in it are not any better than corporations and those in the private sector. In fact, I would argue government is far worse.
Walmart isn't going to send a SWAT team to raid my house and shoot my dog because I embarrassed them on twitter or released politically-damaging information I legally obtained and possessed.
When it comes right down to it, it is the people that must take their responsibility seriously to make certain neither government nor business/industry get too powerful (or become indistinguishable from each other per the direction that the current US trend seems to be headed).
Just shock them if they move while the camera isn't on.
This would be a double-duty taser! Synergies, sustainability, Internet-of-blah.
Fully buzzword compliant. You're brilliant!
But we all know, with government's history of naming acts and such to mean the exact opposite (USA-PATRIOT Act, anyone?), it would end up with government twisting it around 180 degrees to civilians receiving the shocks if they're not under surveillance, not police.
But seriously, the problems with US domestic police forces run far deeper than what these programs address. It's the entire culture and mentality that must be addressed.
It used to be that in the US there were no such things as police sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc. The quasi-military rank structure came into being IIRC in Los Angeles California(?). It seems that since this change to quasi-military ranks and organization it has contributed heavily to a 'war' type 'us vs them' mentality. A military organization is good to occupy, pacify, and destroy. It's not good as everyday local domestic law enforcement in a non-wartime/revolution, peacetime setting.
The 'war on (some) drugs' also greatly exacerbates an already-bad problem.
"Hello? Insurance company? Ya...I hit a deer and I need a new grill, hood, and bumper."
"The pictures? What? No, those aren't earrings lodged in the radiator, they must be wildlife tracking tags of some sort. The red hair? Oh yeah, it was probably one of those 'ginger' deer you always hear about. My wife? She's fine. She's on an extended sabbatical abroad."
Your obsession with what colour (slavery is wrong whatever colour), and baseless insults on education and "worldview" appear irrelevant, and disappointing IMHO.
My original post was a response to this AC.
Why worship a document so clearly penned by hypocrisy - several owned slaves.
...Talking about the Founding Fathers.
"Irrelevant" and "baseless"?
I think not.
Of course you are free to disagree. That's one of the freedoms we enjoy because of those so-called "hypocrites" the AC referred to. And it was not actually an insult, unless you personally consider pointing out factual errors leading to an erroneous and/or skewed worldview an insult. I thought I was actually being informative, and from my original post's score it seems the moderators agree.
But that's not quite the same as recognizing someone as actually a slave, and not an extended contract of indenture. If I remember correctly, John Punch ran away before his limited term of indenture was finished and broke his contract, and that was the punishment meted out by the court. John Casor was not made a slave as punishment, he did not break his contract. Anthony Johnson simply did not want to recognize the end of his contract for commercial/monetary reasons.
I must admit mis-remembering concerning John Casor being white. I confused the Irish indentured servants with John Casor for some reason. I will always admit it when I'm mistaken.
However, Anthony Johnson *was* a black man and *was* the first government-sanctioned US slave owner, and the rest of my original post I still stand by.
I know many people here intensely dislike Glenn Beck, heck I don't agree with him on many topics, but he did a very good historical piece on US slavery. I believe it's worth seeing.
Why worship a document so clearly penned by hypocrisy - several owned slaves.
Let me educate you on a little US history.
1. Slavery was instituted in the US many decades before any of the 'Founding Fathers' were born.
2. The first slave owner, and the person who argued it through the courts to make it legal, was a black man named Anthony Johnson.
3. Anthony Johnson's first slave, John Casor, and most of the others he ended up owning, were white.
4. Thomas Jefferson, the most-oft cited slave-owning Founder, never bought nor sold a single slave. He inherited them from his in-laws and kept them together so as not to break up their families and treated them as well as he could under the existing laws passed long before he was born.
5. Jefferson could not free his slaves as under the laws of the time, he would have been hanged.
6. Nearly all the Founders despised slavery. The only reason it was allowed to continue was the southern Democrat States would not join the US revolution on the American side if it was outlawed. They enacted the 3/5ths Compromise so as to lessen Southern slaveholders' voting power, so that slavery *could* be banned down the road while still achieving the immediate goal of forming all 13 colonies into a single unified nation to defeat the British and achieve independence.
Sorry about your broken worldview. Fortunately, an education in history can get you a new and better worldview if one is willing and able to change their thinking based on facts.
Now it is. They control all three branches of government and could stop warrantless searches tomorrow if they so decided.
But that's simply a deflection and avoiding the subject. Why didn't the Democrats take action when *they* had all 3 branches of government with Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' in play that made the minority (R)'s unable to block/obstruct as with the ACA/Obamacare?
Could it be that the problem is one of a too-powerful government altogether, and not simply a problem with one political party?
Take off the partisan blinders. *Both* sides are corrupt and agree on 90%-plus, especially on abridging civil rights.
Although I doubt the $500m figure on a competitive bid or such pricing basis, at least they are not quoting billions and trillions....
The figures given are meaningless as there's no way to actually know, they're chosen for propaganda value.
They're going after Kim & co. because they have fewer millions to fight back with and fewer US politicians paid off than YouTube/Google who host far more copyright-violating content than Megaupload. As we've seen demonstrated over and over again, if you've got the money and connections you can get away with anything in the US, the Rule of Law means squat.
What they forget is no one cares what phone Trump uses to tweet from. As long as he has a second phone to keep the classified stuff secure, who cares if he also keeps his personal phone?
FWIW there are document preservation laws he needs to comply with, too.
I know I'll get modded down for being honest here, but I don't care.
"FWIW" is no worth at all. The document preservation laws you mention concern official papers, communications, etc. They do not cover non-government-related, non-classified/non-TS public statements and commentary published openly on a public website. Trump could have 100 phones, tablets, etc etc and post all over the 'net and not be breaking any laws or security protocols.
You lot on the left suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome are just being pathetically disingenuous and disgustingly dishonest and hypocritical with your Alinsky-ite 'accuse your enemies of exactly what you, yourself do' tactics. It's no wonder people are abandoning the left/Democrats in droves. They can't stand the smell any longer.
But hey, that's what got Trump elected! Keep it up! You'll gift the conservatives control of all 3 federal branches and the entire federal government along with the public's backing to repeal/abolish every leftist initiative instituted in the last 60 years! Good times!
For those who claim to be anti-gun, you sure love your high-caliber, fully-automatic footguns, LOL!
Nice, but I think Melania would be even better, with 'the Donald' as 'first husband', LOL! There would be blood shooting from eyes on the left!
The left might even vote for her since she has a woman card.
Not a chance...the left only honors the 'woman card' when it's being used against opponents. Conservative women are not really 'women' to the left and it's fine to treat them in ways they'd scream about if it were one of their women instead. They don't even consider any possibility they might be wrong, it's a totally foreign concept for them. They view anyone who has different opinions as stupid and/or evil, and so that just reinforces the notion that opposing ideas aren't even worth listening to, and they reason since they are facing evil and/or the irredeemably stupid, the ends justify the means.
It's a dangerous and contagious ideological psychosis that spreads among those ignorant of history and/or indoctrinated by the authority figures in their upbringing and education which has killed uncountable millions around the world.
Conservatives don't have to say a thing, just point at the left. Their own actions, behaviors, racism, bigotry, and violence speak all that anybody needs to dismiss them as a serious political force. All Cruz's 2024 campaign ads have to be are simply replays of all the hysterical leftists ranting, lying, and rioting. They won't even need narration! He'll win in a historically 'yuuuge' landslide!
To answer a simple question with another, would you be okay with alcoholics who have lost their license half a dozen times offering taxi rides on Craigslist, when they're driving a car with no license and no insurance? Would you expect minimum professional standards from a taxi service, or expect Joe Blow Consumer to do a full background check on Billy Bob for DUI's before getting into his car for a ride to the airport, least it be Joe's own damn fault for the ensuing car accident?
So what stops anybody from doing that now? I've seen ads on the local CL by individuals for ride-sharing in the local area before Uber/Lyft came along. With a driver-rating system that passengers can use to see what others thought of prospective drivers integrated into the OSS free app this can be mitigated greatly. Besides, Uber/Lyft are/were setting standards for drivers, but abolish them and you'll have just what you describe.
As others have pointed out, the current taxi system (at least everywhere in the US I've been, and I'm fairly well-traveled) is fundamentally broken and horribad in many ways and on many levels. Are you saying we're simply doomed, DOOOOMED! to suffer the existing broken, too-expensive, and corrupt system?
The current taxi system in many, many places, including where I live currently, is a 'private contractor' system as well. Drivers are not employees of the taxi companies, they simply temporarily lease a cab. The taxi companies don't do any screening other than checking for a valid license and maybe a basic check for outstanding warrants. Why is it that taxi drivers being 'contractors' is fine, but Uber/Lyft drivers are 'employees', other than being interpreted as such as a weapon to be used against ride-sharing?
AFAICT, Uber/Lyft actually screen drivers more stringently than the taxi companies do. Uber/Lyft vehicles are far and away better quality than typical taxis. Not everything needs to be controlled by the government, as often that control actually ends up degrading safety, utility, and efficiency.
Uber's business model is to pretend ride-sharing and car-for-hire are the same thing until some government or private entity challenges that obvious falsehood in court.
What about an open-source free app that simply connects drivers with riders in a distributed, non-centralized way, where any fees are negotiated exclusively and privately between each driver and rider, where no money goes back to the app writers and where they exercise zero control/restrictions over drivers? When it's simply individuals with no business like an Uber or Lyft involved at all? Would that be OK in your opinion?
...exclusivity of control was the property of the copyright holder.
You seem to be conflating two different definitions of "property". In the first definition, "property" is a physical thing, as in land or a car. The second, and the definition which applies to "exclusivity of control", is that of a characteristic, as in occupying space is a "property" of mass.
"Exclusivity of control" is a "property" of copyright law, as in an attribute, it is not physical property as in a car or land is "property".
These are important distinctions to grasp in order to have a meaningful discussion about copyright.
Actually you have it backward, modern civilization is modern because Christianity went through reformations.
Interesting.
I personally tend to think they went hand-in-hand in a sort of 'chicken -or-egg' sense, in that neither one was really possible without the other. I also believe that if Islam experienced a similar reformation the ME would experience a 'Renaissance' period somewhat similar to Europe's and become a far more peaceful, advanced, and wealthy region.
"they spend billions in spreading their religious zeal to mosques around the world" - not unlike all the missionaries the catholics sent around the world to indoctrinate
False equivalency.
How many terrorist attacks/car-bombings/mass shootings/suicide bombings have Christians performed in the last 50 years against non-Christians simply because they were not Christian?
The major and most relevant difference between Islam and Christianity in this context is that Christianity went through reformations to be compatible with modern civilization, whereas Islam has not. Christians do not kill apostates nor tax/enslave non-Christians, nor throw homosexuals off rooftops or stone women to death who were raped.
There is plenty to criticize about Christianity, but currently it is far and away more benign than Islam and the two are in no way equivalent in terms of violence against non-believers. Islam needs it's own reformation, but sadly, it looks like the only way that will happen is when enough Muslims bent on violence are eliminated by force.
...the only real reason that people object to calling copyright infringement "theft" is because they don't want to feel guilty about doing it,...
Or maybe, I dunno, because it's clearly defined as two separate things under the law.
I understand copyright infringement is against the law, but "the law is an ass" in this case as the law is the product of corruption and criminality. I did not feel this way before the endless extensions and honored copyright law. Now, not so much. If copyright was reset back to the original terms I would once again take it seriously.
The world has changed and copyright must change with it, or die. As it stands, copyright law is locking away our own culture by preventing works from entering the public domain, which is the reason why copyright law was originally written, not to assure someone and their relatives money in near-perpetuity for a single creative work. That was simply a carrot to encourage creators to share their works. You have no inherent right otherwise to profit from or control any creative work once it's been published.
No, it's copyright infringement as spelled out in the law.
I view modern copyright infringement as a form of political protest against absurdly-long copyright terms bought and paid for by greedy and amoral media distributors from criminally-corrupt politicians. They jumped the shark in most people's eyes so now many, many people view all copyright as something to be ignored and the copyright owners/distributors have only themselves to blame for any losses they suffer.
It may be 'law' but it is a law enacted through corruption. It is a morally bankrupt law, and should be ignored by all people of conscience until corrected. Racial segregation was also once a law until people like Rosa Parks similarly decided to ignore it.
But there is one drawback of relying on these old books: You'll build up knowledge of non-politically-correct historical facts that weren't memory-holed prior to 1923.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're advocating is that the government ignore the law and do what is effectively legislating from the bench.
No.
I'm saying the government should not be making so many laws covering so many things, so that similarly-stupid scenarios/occurrences are not so common. That government that governs least, governs best, and government that is closest to those people whose laws they affect, governs most equitably.
Strat
This is not because of the government, this is due to a complaint:
"The Department opened its investigation of UC Berkeley based on a complaint"
This is not because of a complaint, it's because of the government's response, which should have consisted of a bureaucratically-worded version of "...and?...so what, it's free?" instead of the present myopic, pigeon-holing, thinking-strictly-within-the-box, easily-predictable, and all-too-typical bureaucratic mess of unintended consequences whenever big government gets involved.
Strat
True, history shows that private industry is corrupt, will break and bend whatever rules it can, and acts against the interests of society. Lack of an arbiter like the government leads to monopolies, low wages, child labor, unsafe workplaces, and so forth.
The problem is that governments are just as prone to corruption (and democide...more people are killed by their own governments than in wars) and worse, and they have a monopoly on the use of violence. There are the same ratios of 'good' and 'bad' people in both government and the private sector. Government and those in it are not any better than corporations and those in the private sector. In fact, I would argue government is far worse.
Walmart isn't going to send a SWAT team to raid my house and shoot my dog because I embarrassed them on twitter or released politically-damaging information I legally obtained and possessed.
When it comes right down to it, it is the people that must take their responsibility seriously to make certain neither government nor business/industry get too powerful (or become indistinguishable from each other per the direction that the current US trend seems to be headed).
Strat
But we all know, with government's history of naming acts and such to mean the exact opposite (USA-PATRIOT Act, anyone?), it would end up with government twisting it around 180 degrees to civilians receiving the shocks if they're not under surveillance, not police.
But seriously, the problems with US domestic police forces run far deeper than what these programs address. It's the entire culture and mentality that must be addressed.
It used to be that in the US there were no such things as police sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc. The quasi-military rank structure came into being IIRC in Los Angeles California(?). It seems that since this change to quasi-military ranks and organization it has contributed heavily to a 'war' type 'us vs them' mentality. A military organization is good to occupy, pacify, and destroy. It's not good as everyday local domestic law enforcement in a non-wartime/revolution, peacetime setting.
The 'war on (some) drugs' also greatly exacerbates an already-bad problem.
Strat
Drones are the equivalent of deer.
"Hello? Insurance company? Ya...I hit a deer and I need a new grill, hood, and bumper."
"The pictures? What? No, those aren't earrings lodged in the radiator, they must be wildlife tracking tags of some sort. The red hair? Oh yeah, it was probably one of those 'ginger' deer you always hear about. My wife? She's fine. She's on an extended sabbatical abroad."
Strat
Your obsession with what colour (slavery is wrong whatever colour), and baseless insults on education and "worldview" appear irrelevant, and disappointing IMHO.
My original post was a response to this AC.
Why worship a document so clearly penned by hypocrisy - several owned slaves.
...Talking about the Founding Fathers.
"Irrelevant" and "baseless"?
I think not.
Of course you are free to disagree. That's one of the freedoms we enjoy because of those so-called "hypocrites" the AC referred to. And it was not actually an insult, unless you personally consider pointing out factual errors leading to an erroneous and/or skewed worldview an insult. I thought I was actually being informative, and from my original post's score it seems the moderators agree.
Strat
Lifetime indenture = slavery.
But that's not quite the same as recognizing someone as actually a slave, and not an extended contract of indenture. If I remember correctly, John Punch ran away before his limited term of indenture was finished and broke his contract, and that was the punishment meted out by the court. John Casor was not made a slave as punishment, he did not break his contract. Anthony Johnson simply did not want to recognize the end of his contract for commercial/monetary reasons.
Strat
I must admit mis-remembering concerning John Casor being white. I confused the Irish indentured servants with John Casor for some reason. I will always admit it when I'm mistaken.
However, Anthony Johnson *was* a black man and *was* the first government-sanctioned US slave owner, and the rest of my original post I still stand by.
I know many people here intensely dislike Glenn Beck, heck I don't agree with him on many topics, but he did a very good historical piece on US slavery. I believe it's worth seeing.
https://youtu.be/KnsjiIHGkbc
Strat
Here you go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And calling me a liar? You can go fuck yourself.
Strat
Why worship a document so clearly penned by hypocrisy - several owned slaves.
Let me educate you on a little US history.
1. Slavery was instituted in the US many decades before any of the 'Founding Fathers' were born.
2. The first slave owner, and the person who argued it through the courts to make it legal, was a black man named Anthony Johnson.
3. Anthony Johnson's first slave, John Casor, and most of the others he ended up owning, were white.
4. Thomas Jefferson, the most-oft cited slave-owning Founder, never bought nor sold a single slave. He inherited them from his in-laws and kept them together so as not to break up their families and treated them as well as he could under the existing laws passed long before he was born.
5. Jefferson could not free his slaves as under the laws of the time, he would have been hanged.
6. Nearly all the Founders despised slavery. The only reason it was allowed to continue was the southern Democrat States would not join the US revolution on the American side if it was outlawed. They enacted the 3/5ths Compromise so as to lessen Southern slaveholders' voting power, so that slavery *could* be banned down the road while still achieving the immediate goal of forming all 13 colonies into a single unified nation to defeat the British and achieve independence.
Sorry about your broken worldview. Fortunately, an education in history can get you a new and better worldview if one is willing and able to change their thinking based on facts.
Strat
But that's simply a deflection and avoiding the subject. Why didn't the Democrats take action when *they* had all 3 branches of government with Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' in play that made the minority (R)'s unable to block/obstruct as with the ACA/Obamacare?
Could it be that the problem is one of a too-powerful government altogether, and not simply a problem with one political party?
Take off the partisan blinders. *Both* sides are corrupt and agree on 90%-plus, especially on abridging civil rights.
Strat
Although I doubt the $500m figure on a competitive bid or such pricing basis, at least they are not quoting billions and trillions....
The figures given are meaningless as there's no way to actually know, they're chosen for propaganda value.
They're going after Kim & co. because they have fewer millions to fight back with and fewer US politicians paid off than YouTube/Google who host far more copyright-violating content than Megaupload. As we've seen demonstrated over and over again, if you've got the money and connections you can get away with anything in the US, the Rule of Law means squat.
Strat
I know I'll get modded down for being honest here, but I don't care.
"FWIW" is no worth at all. The document preservation laws you mention concern official papers, communications, etc. They do not cover non-government-related, non-classified/non-TS public statements and commentary published openly on a public website. Trump could have 100 phones, tablets, etc etc and post all over the 'net and not be breaking any laws or security protocols.
You lot on the left suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome are just being pathetically disingenuous and disgustingly dishonest and hypocritical with your Alinsky-ite 'accuse your enemies of exactly what you, yourself do' tactics. It's no wonder people are abandoning the left/Democrats in droves. They can't stand the smell any longer.
But hey, that's what got Trump elected! Keep it up! You'll gift the conservatives control of all 3 federal branches and the entire federal government along with the public's backing to repeal/abolish every leftist initiative instituted in the last 60 years! Good times!
For those who claim to be anti-gun, you sure love your high-caliber, fully-automatic footguns, LOL!
Strat
the most un-private[1] person who knows you.
[1] Is there a word for that (in that sense)?
Stupid?
Inconsiderate?
Naive?
Clueless?
Your relatives?
HTH :)
HAND
Strat
I think we should get Ivanka for 2024
Nice, but I think Melania would be even better, with 'the Donald' as 'first husband', LOL! There would be blood shooting from eyes on the left!
The left might even vote for her since she has a woman card.
Not a chance...the left only honors the 'woman card' when it's being used against opponents. Conservative women are not really 'women' to the left and it's fine to treat them in ways they'd scream about if it were one of their women instead. They don't even consider any possibility they might be wrong, it's a totally foreign concept for them. They view anyone who has different opinions as stupid and/or evil, and so that just reinforces the notion that opposing ideas aren't even worth listening to, and they reason since they are facing evil and/or the irredeemably stupid, the ends justify the means.
It's a dangerous and contagious ideological psychosis that spreads among those ignorant of history and/or indoctrinated by the authority figures in their upbringing and education which has killed uncountable millions around the world.
Strat
Do this. Do this more often. Exactly this.
Followed by 8 years of Cruz, LOL!
The way the left is melting down is hilarious!
Conservatives don't have to say a thing, just point at the left. Their own actions, behaviors, racism, bigotry, and violence speak all that anybody needs to dismiss them as a serious political force. All Cruz's 2024 campaign ads have to be are simply replays of all the hysterical leftists ranting, lying, and rioting. They won't even need narration! He'll win in a historically 'yuuuge' landslide!
Strat
To answer a simple question with another, would you be okay with alcoholics who have lost their license half a dozen times offering taxi rides on Craigslist, when they're driving a car with no license and no insurance? Would you expect minimum professional standards from a taxi service, or expect Joe Blow Consumer to do a full background check on Billy Bob for DUI's before getting into his car for a ride to the airport, least it be Joe's own damn fault for the ensuing car accident?
So what stops anybody from doing that now? I've seen ads on the local CL by individuals for ride-sharing in the local area before Uber/Lyft came along. With a driver-rating system that passengers can use to see what others thought of prospective drivers integrated into the OSS free app this can be mitigated greatly. Besides, Uber/Lyft are/were setting standards for drivers, but abolish them and you'll have just what you describe.
As others have pointed out, the current taxi system (at least everywhere in the US I've been, and I'm fairly well-traveled) is fundamentally broken and horribad in many ways and on many levels. Are you saying we're simply doomed, DOOOOMED! to suffer the existing broken, too-expensive, and corrupt system?
The current taxi system in many, many places, including where I live currently, is a 'private contractor' system as well. Drivers are not employees of the taxi companies, they simply temporarily lease a cab. The taxi companies don't do any screening other than checking for a valid license and maybe a basic check for outstanding warrants. Why is it that taxi drivers being 'contractors' is fine, but Uber/Lyft drivers are 'employees', other than being interpreted as such as a weapon to be used against ride-sharing?
AFAICT, Uber/Lyft actually screen drivers more stringently than the taxi companies do. Uber/Lyft vehicles are far and away better quality than typical taxis. Not everything needs to be controlled by the government, as often that control actually ends up degrading safety, utility, and efficiency.
Strat
Uber's business model is to pretend ride-sharing and car-for-hire are the same thing until some government or private entity challenges that obvious falsehood in court.
What about an open-source free app that simply connects drivers with riders in a distributed, non-centralized way, where any fees are negotiated exclusively and privately between each driver and rider, where no money goes back to the app writers and where they exercise zero control/restrictions over drivers? When it's simply individuals with no business like an Uber or Lyft involved at all? Would that be OK in your opinion?
Strat
...exclusivity of control was the property of the copyright holder.
You seem to be conflating two different definitions of "property". In the first definition, "property" is a physical thing, as in land or a car. The second, and the definition which applies to "exclusivity of control", is that of a characteristic, as in occupying space is a "property" of mass.
"Exclusivity of control" is a "property" of copyright law, as in an attribute, it is not physical property as in a car or land is "property".
These are important distinctions to grasp in order to have a meaningful discussion about copyright.
Strat
Actually you have it backward, modern civilization is modern because Christianity went through reformations.
Interesting.
I personally tend to think they went hand-in-hand in a sort of 'chicken -or-egg' sense, in that neither one was really possible without the other. I also believe that if Islam experienced a similar reformation the ME would experience a 'Renaissance' period somewhat similar to Europe's and become a far more peaceful, advanced, and wealthy region.
Strat
"they spend billions in spreading their religious zeal to mosques around the world" - not unlike all the missionaries the catholics sent around the world to indoctrinate
False equivalency.
How many terrorist attacks/car-bombings/mass shootings/suicide bombings have Christians performed in the last 50 years against non-Christians simply because they were not Christian?
The major and most relevant difference between Islam and Christianity in this context is that Christianity went through reformations to be compatible with modern civilization, whereas Islam has not. Christians do not kill apostates nor tax/enslave non-Christians, nor throw homosexuals off rooftops or stone women to death who were raped.
There is plenty to criticize about Christianity, but currently it is far and away more benign than Islam and the two are in no way equivalent in terms of violence against non-believers. Islam needs it's own reformation, but sadly, it looks like the only way that will happen is when enough Muslims bent on violence are eliminated by force.
Strat
...exclusivity of control
Does NOT equal:
lawfully recognized property.
You use contradicting definitions describing two entirely different things in your own post and then try to conflate them as the same thing.
Maybe you should rethink your position and/or critical-thinking skills.
Just saying.
Strat
...the only real reason that people object to calling copyright infringement "theft" is because they don't want to feel guilty about doing it,...
Or maybe, I dunno, because it's clearly defined as two separate things under the law.
I understand copyright infringement is against the law, but "the law is an ass" in this case as the law is the product of corruption and criminality. I did not feel this way before the endless extensions and honored copyright law. Now, not so much. If copyright was reset back to the original terms I would once again take it seriously.
The world has changed and copyright must change with it, or die. As it stands, copyright law is locking away our own culture by preventing works from entering the public domain, which is the reason why copyright law was originally written, not to assure someone and their relatives money in near-perpetuity for a single creative work. That was simply a carrot to encourage creators to share their works. You have no inherent right otherwise to profit from or control any creative work once it's been published.
Strat
Infringing on copyright is theft.
No, it's copyright infringement as spelled out in the law.
I view modern copyright infringement as a form of political protest against absurdly-long copyright terms bought and paid for by greedy and amoral media distributors from criminally-corrupt politicians. They jumped the shark in most people's eyes so now many, many people view all copyright as something to be ignored and the copyright owners/distributors have only themselves to blame for any losses they suffer.
It may be 'law' but it is a law enacted through corruption. It is a morally bankrupt law, and should be ignored by all people of conscience until corrected. Racial segregation was also once a law until people like Rosa Parks similarly decided to ignore it.
Strat
But there is one drawback of relying on these old books: You'll build up knowledge of non-politically-correct historical facts that weren't memory-holed prior to 1923.
FTFY
Strat