That interpretation of rights is not universal and in my experience seems to be a philosophy mainly coming from the US (presumably reinforced by the language in the American bill of rights). I view rights as describing the actual (implicit or explicit) contract between a people and their government, not as an absolute metaphysical or moral concept. In my view, a person in a developed nation has a stronger right to clean water than a person in an impoverished nation as statement of fact observable from the effort their government goes to to ensure they have clean water. I prefer this view of rights divorced from morals because it lets a population pressure their government for rights based on what they want rather than getting bogged down on whether it is morally right to e.g. have access to guns or silence in criminal proceedings.
"A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use." [1]
We have a long way to go before humanity's heat output is anywhere rivalling the heat the Sun dumps on us. Most of our power generation (except nuclear) is just repurposing the Sun's energy anyways, delaying its conversion into heat so that we can extract work from the process. The same heat is generated with or without our power plants. (Fossil fuels delay for so long that the energy release occurs at a much faster rate than it was gathered, but still insignificant compared to the regular solar energy incident on the Earth).
I have a hard time believing this, are you suggesting that it is perfectly legal to run pirated software so long as you never entered a license agreement with the creator? Or that the existence of a license you've never interacted with and potentially have no knowledge of has an impact on the legality of you running pirated software? What if a company's internal software is leaked, surely they have the right to prevent other companies from using it?
I am not. Of course it's not legal to use pirated software. By definition pirated software is illegally obtained. But a legally obtained copy can be run without a license, if none was required to obtain the software.
As for "leaked" software: again, if copies are illegally obtained then of course it's illegal to use them.
As a Canadian, discussions like this threat make me slightly wishful of better options for national forums or censorship of foreign speech. Of all the comments decrying how horrible this is, how many of you are Canadian or at least familiar with the practice of limits to expression in Canada? At present I don't feel too strongly either way about this bill but I think by and large the judicial system has shown itself to be capable of reasonable enforcement of necessarily vaguely defined terms so I don't anticipate many/any outrageous enforcement actions. We are much less politically polarized than the US, especially the judicial system, so there is a smaller risk of the law being interpreted in extreme ways. That's not to say this is necessarily a good law, just that I don't find it as horrible as many of the comments are making out.
I feel like our culture and values are at risk of being overwhelmed by the US's since the media and online spaces are so dominated by American voices. Apart from a few Canadian themed subreddits (and who knows how many of the comments are actually from Canadians) and maybe friend groups on Facebook, there aren't many online spaces for Canadians to talk. I don't know how to deal with this problem. I love forums like Hacker News and and any nation-specific space would be unlikely to be as good. I don't want the great firewall of China either (I wonder how the Canadian Shield will turn out [0]). So I don't know what the solution should be but threads like this do feel like a small part of the problem.
YouTube is very convenient for hosting and sharing recordings of talks. You can't put a video recording in a mailing list or a paper journal, and journal/conference websites are generally not in the business of hosting video recordings.
Often it's much easier to understand another's research in the form of a presentation than a paper (papers give you the details but not necessarily the high level story), so, like it or not, YouTube is a significant scientific repository.
It's interesting how the US has such a different cultural view of rights than other English speaking commonwealth countries that you'd expect to be culturally similar. I can't speak for other countries but as a Canadian I view the idea of "inalienable" or "god-given" rights as preposterous. A right is a promise a government makes to a people. I have a much more expansive right to free speech than someone in North Korea does, that's just an objective reality since the North Korean government does not make the promise of free speech to their people. I have no right to be granted employment if I cannot find it myself, but that right has existed for others in various places and times. You can say that people should have certain rights, but to me it's wrong as a statement of fact to say that they already have them.
This view of rights also makes it easy to say that we should have the right to healthcare, or food and water, or housing. You don't have to debate about whether those are "inalienable human rights" to decide that it would be better for our government to make those promises to our citizens.
More of an aside, it is weird to me that you would include the right to not self-incriminate among the set of inalienable rights. That one seems like a much more arbitrary detail of your justice system than some more obvious right like access to food and clean water.
Only the US sanctioned Cuba and while it was pretty harmful, they were still able to trade with most other countries. North Korea has China right next door as a big trade partner, and can trade with many non-US countries as well. As for Iran, from what I can tell UN sanctions really only started to ramp up in the 2010s and those did have an effect in getting Iran to suspend its nuclear program.
Edit: But to be clear, I think the US sanctions on Cuba are gratuitous and cruel. Cuba is not some rogue state and there are many worse dictatorships that aren't sanctioned. However, I think it reinforces the point that "sanctions can be devastatingly effective applied by a significant majority of the world" because in the Cuba case the rest of the world didn't agree.
> Only the US sanctioned Cuba and while it was pretty harmful, they were still able to trade with most other countries.
There were considerable limits (particularly on foreign investment in Cuba) because parts of the US sanctions regime include retaliatory sanctions on entities making use of certain property in Cuba (some of these were suspended for a while, but restored under Trump in 2017.)
I'm not sure that it would. The Earth isn't perfectly spherical so the gravitational field will be different at different times in the orbit. Then because it is orbiting you'll also have to deal with tidal forces (bits slightly closer to the Earth will want to move slightly faster), not to mention possible acceleration from solar radiation or small amounts of atmospheric drag.
And during the time that takes you're suffering the consequences of a viral infection. Majormajor was replying to a comment suggesting that it might somehow have been possible to evolve the equivalent of a COVID-19 vaccine, which allows your immune system to adapt without experiencing a viral infection. What couldn't possibly work is for your body to already naturally be immune before experiencing the virus.
