Before the monarchies started falling they had been in control for a long while too…
Just takes one coordination signal loud enough and a population displeased enough…
And, ideally, a good idea for a replacement system, so we don’t just end up with power held by the most ruthless…
Pretty sure it’s Dinosaurs, Nucleaics & Acid.
If everyone were doing it, it wouldn’t be piracy. It would be free, legal copying.
I just presented you with several models of how big budget movies could make money, even if everyone were freely, legally copying. You haven’t responded to that argument, you’ve merely ignored it and insisted on your original point.
While your claim is true—big budget movies, etc., need someone to pay for them—the unspoken corollary you’re implying isn’t true—that without the current economic model, no-one would pay for big budget productions, or that undermining the current model via piracy will reduce the rate at which they are funded.
The current model is: massive corporate copyright-holders can purchase the right the profit from an artistic production. They pay for its production up front. Even though we have a technology that can costlessly copy these products and very cheaply distribute them to almost everyone who wants them, the copyright holders maximise their profits by a) crippling this capacity by spend considerable money, labor and human expertise on technologies that artificially limit copying, and b) use state-supported coercion (e.g., fines, lawsuits, police, etc), to punish individuals who would circumvent these crippling technologies. To be clear, these copyright holders still make massive profits, vastly beyond what any individual they are persecuting for copyright infringement could ever dream of. Their policing of piracy is to make even greater profits.
Even though this is how big artistic productions are funded today, it is not true that in the absence of this economic model, big artistic productions would not be funded. The demand for these products would still exist, and if there’s one thing our society excels at, it’s directing capital to meet demand.
Alternative models that could fund big artistic productions:
These are just some examples of the many possible alternative models for funding large art projects and deciding who should profit from them and how much. However the details aren’t nearly as important (many different models could work), as the ultimate driver: whether our actions/systems/laws enhance or undermine demand for the art.
Piracy does undermine the current (corrupt, exploitative, reprehensible) economic model but it also increases demand for the media it distributes more widely and equitably. It doesn’t, as you imply, reduce the likelihood of big budget media existing in the future, it increases the likelihood of it existing in a more fair and equitable way, that harness our ability to freely copy rather than crippling it for the benefit of the ultra-wealthy copyright-buyers.
Knowing the distribution of what entire households watch is very useful. It’s not about spying on you personally.
I mean, from the abstract it looks like what the study did was localise the specific network of right hemisphere neuronal clusters that, when damaged, predict religious fundamentalism. Since they only studied patients with TBIs, they weren’t testing the claim that brain damage increases the likelihood of fundamentalism. The rate of fundamentalism in the general population could, hypothetically, be higher than among TBI patients (i.e., if brain injuries actually reduce fundamentalism) and this study’s insights would still hold.
That sounds awful, I’m sorry you have to go through that. They have those extra leg room exit row seats, but they seem to allocate them at random instead of to tall people.
You say you stand up right away because you’ve been jammed into your seat for hours, so I’m wondering why you didn’t stand up during the flight. Then you wouldn’t be jammed in for hours…
Why not stand up during the flight?
Why didn’t you just stand up during the flight?
Lol, ironic in thread about tolerance
Pretty sure both groups are doing that to each other…
If it were easy, there wouldn’t be this much disagreement.
Phew, lucky that there’s no disagreement in this society about what right and wrong is and what should and shouldn’t be tolerated. Otherwise we might devolve into two antagonistic political factions mutually condemning each other.
Okay, how do you assess that harm has occurred?
I claim that your post just harmed me. You should be excluded from the social contact.
You violated the rules my god laid down. Harmful to me and all my fellow believers. You’re out.
Your flagrant homosexuality is harming my children. Excluded.
Your campaign to take away my guns is harming me and all my descendants. I was just minding my own business until you came along with your intolerant gun removal policies. Excluded! Burn him.
This only solves the dilemma in a trivial way, if harm is transparent and uncontentious. It doesn’t address the real dilemma, which is widespread disagreement about what should and shouldn’t be tolerated.
The perfect colinearity of most of the lines is very suspicious too.
Allow me to introduce: Firefox vim keybindings extensions. So many more shortcuts if you don’t need to worry about typing characters in normal mode.
A friend of mine just used it to write a script for an Amazing Race application video. It was quite good.
How the heck did it access enough source material to be able to imitate something that specific and do it well? Are we humans that predictable?
They have a pretty detailed discussion section. The main hypothesis they support, based on plenty of other evidence, is that these drugs increase appetite. They motivate you to eat more calories, even though they contain fewer calories themselves.
Be careful, “people who disagree with me are non-humans” is a dangerous path to start down…