alexqgb

62 ms·

481.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Actually, there was widespread recognition of the need for a more robust scientific culture, given the unnerving advances being made in France, and fear for what that might lead to in terms of military advantage. So it's wrong to say i
482.
by alexqgb 13y ago
The fact that you don't see the connection does not mean that the connection doesn't exist. It just means you have no idea how the business of art actually works. Indeed, it seems like you don't know much about art itself. Wh
483.
by alexqgb 13y ago
I am not confusing correlation with causation. I am stating (correctly) that the trajectory of development followed by several of the most popular creative forms is directly related to the emergence an development of modern copyright law. I
484.
by alexqgb 13y ago
The RIAA/MPAA are not companies. They are trade associations that represent a small number of admittedly large companies. It's also flatly incorrect to say that the "overwhelming majority of artists who work with these compan
485.
by alexqgb 13y ago
No, for the obvious reason that such costs remain unknown and therefore can't be accounted for by anyone. It's like trying to put a price on national parks. What I do know is that the material underpinnings of the creative forms w
486.
by alexqgb 13y ago
And yet, some of the most popular forms continue to be ones that rarely—if ever—exist without copyright protection. Why not admit that copyright and culture evolved together, and that suddenly trashing one does irreparable harm to the other
487.
by alexqgb 13y ago
It's just shocking — absolutly SHOCKING — to see how many artists expect to get paid for their work. Why, the NERVE of those people. How DARE they ruin our enjoyment by bringing up petty concerns such as their private business interest
488.
by alexqgb 13y ago
The number of generally appreciated works produced and delivered with $0 in costs is so small as to be not worth mentioning. Money, and therefore exchange (i.e. business) is inseparable from just about anything worth anyone's attention
489.
by alexqgb 13y ago
What I'm refering to is exactly what I said I'm refering to: the full spectrum of issues related to unchecked executive power. In other words, I'm not looking at these as seperate problems which can be stacked from bad to wor
490.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Over one billion people are Islamic. That's about as unspecific as you can get.
491.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Actually, there's no difference at all when one involves the other. (See drone strikes / collateral damage / Hellfire missiles / Yemen). Also, killing people posing no immediate threat to the lives of others and with no
492.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Maybe, maybe not. But murdering people isn't the only awful thing a government can do. If it feels it can get away with this it'll think it can get away with anything.
493.
by alexqgb 13y ago
It's not really a solution of any kind if it creates problems vastly bigger and more terrifying that the ones it purports to solve. It's kind of like killing a fly on a window by throwing a hand grenade at it.
494.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Here's what's happening: intelligent people are having a desperately needed conversation about the full spectrum of related problems having to do with absolutely terrifying assertions of extra-judicial executive power. This is rel
495.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Well said good sir! Your grasp of basic facts about the world is truly impeccable. Why, I myself just got back from Sweden where I had a layover on the flight from Mozambique. Or did I stop in Mozambique on my way back from Sweden? Now that
496.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Wrong. Anonymity is a form of privacy, and it's often one of the things that people who become famous miss the most. The simple fact that it can be stripped from some (who are famous) and retained by others (who are not famous) even wh
497.
by alexqgb 13y ago
"[1] In my opinion, privacy is obsolete in a world where people voluntarily give over to third parties every detail about their lives, but reasonable minds can differ on that point." Speaking of straw men...ha. While your assertio
498.
by alexqgb 13y ago
EDIT: I see the idiocy to which this reply was aimed as been removed. Mmmm, yum. Delicious back-alley "underground" yoghurt. "Please, don't mind the urine smell on the way to the counter and no, of course we don't h
499.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Meaning that the derivation of pleasure from indignation is finely honed social trait. We actually like to police ourselves. So ironically, the "righteous individual against nefarious powers and / or the establishment" turns
500.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Not just HN. Americans in general. And of course, the very paradigm you cite (David & Goliath) is Biblical, meaning it's been popular for at least 2,500 years, give or take. Humans are confident, fighty creatures who like to beat t
501.
by alexqgb 13y ago
That's important when you're dealing with a systemic problem that needs some specific effort to reform or eliminate - which is not the case here. It's a solid and sincere apology, offered without reservation or blame for othe
502.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Given the deep economic codependence of China and the US, to say nothing of the historically limited range of China's territorial ambitions, there is precisely zero need for the threat of mutually assured destruction in order to keep t
503.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Okay, let's think this through carefully: A country, using nuclear weapons, destroys a major American city, taking millions of American lives in the process. America still has at least ten other major cities spread across several time
504.
by alexqgb 13y ago
> It's not whether we are, it's whether they think we might. No, what they're thinking is "If we attack America, or allow America to be attacked with nuclear arms we supply, will we end up dead as a result?" And
505.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Our economy will remain the world's largest and (for its size) the most open, which means pretty much everyone else's economies depend substantially on ours. Our military - even when limited to conventional arms - will remain the
506.
by alexqgb 13y ago
We're not going to nuke Tehran. Full stop. Even if the Iranians detonated a nuke in Times Square (which, come on), we wouldn't respond with a mass atrocity of our own. We'd invade, yes. And we'd absofuckinglutly destroy
507.
by alexqgb 13y ago
"Why bother replicating the Soviets? You flip flop from building multiple soviet naval carriers to the concept of nuclear arms in general, which is hard to read." "For a political statement, a nation could make it very clearl
508.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Uh, no. Also, as noted, the economic gulf between the US and the middle east is so great that it would be impossible for them to secure a decisive nuclear advantage before an even fully-disarmed America could re-arm and recreated the MAD si
509.
by alexqgb 13y ago
Sorry, I was describing the post Cold War world in which we actually live. Pulling "counterfactuals" from a totally different era that is dramatically unlike our own does nothing to disprove the logic that holds today. What next?
510.
by alexqgb 13y ago
"The people with the drive and resolution to press the button that would cause assured destruction of you and your kind are the absolute last people that should ever be in a position of leadership." That was the cornerstone of Col

More ›