You are actually incorrect here as far as the US goes.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US constitution states:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
The whole constitutional purpose of IP law is to spur creative activity. The interests of the creator are only a means to this end. This has, unfortunately, been perverted by regulatory capture.
String theory is moreso considered a framework that may lead to physics than a physical theory. Physicists are interested in it because of its potential to lead to physics. Of course, both of these statements are contained in the original comment. That's why, as the original comment suggests, the absolute most important question about string theory is, "which string theory leads to our universe at low energies?"
Did you actually read the article before reposting it? It's been illegal there since 1981. The article simply says it's been extended to include new groups.
Yes, I absolutely think hate speech should be restricted, and the laws of most countries agree with that, with the USA being a notable exception:
> A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom
Do I think hate speech in private should be restricted? I think _probably_ not, but I think this is for the elected legislature to decide, not an idea that is edict from several hundred years ago.
> Do I think hate speech in private should be restricted? I think _probably_ not, but I think this is for the elected legislature to decide, not an idea that is edict from several hundred years ago.
So you _probably_ agree with me? This is the exact point. Many people that might agree that some public speech should be outlawed would recoil at the idea of private speech being similarly restricted. Yet this has been the case in Norway for 40 years. Now you might reply that it has caused no harm yet. And I admit I don't know the number of convictions for this type of private speech, but this is the very definition of chilling effect. Criminalization of private speech has been normalized. When the ratchet is tightened there will be no room to complain.
I’m not sure what you think we’re arguing here. Yes, as I clearly stated, my instincts are against the criminalisation of non-public hate speech.
Freedom of speech is complicated and subtle, and that’s why a several hundred year law that binds the hands of the legislature to refine and update laws around it is a bad idea.
I hear you, and even in the US it is a problem in Hawaii and Alaska. I live in the former and just yesterday was look at a part that was 8oz total and the site added a $100 HI, AK surcharge on shipping!!! This is mostly a UPS problem as for many suppliers they give great 48 state rates but anything else is horrible.
Now I wouldn't mind this nearly as much if I could get the shipping rate upfront but it seems 80%+ of sites won't give you a real rate until you have almost completed check out which takes a lot of time. The funny thing is if they have a phone number you sometimes can get them to ship it more reasonably if their system has the flexibility to do that.
This is where ebay is a godsend as a lot of sellers will have the odd part around and work at having cheap shipping. But it is caveat emptor.
Somewhat unrelated, but how do you like living in Hawaii? I visited once and it was beautiful, but I'm not sure what it would be like living there long term.
I was a kid in Oregon in the early 70's when they implemented a bottle deposit. It was $.05 then which would be $.30 today. To bad they haven't increased the deposit amount.
You also could return older, non-deposit containers at the beginning. This spurred me and my friends to clean every roadside and field within reach of our bikes. For a month we made more money than we had known in our entire lives. Then it was over and a valuable lesson was learned.
this is a seriuous problem with all digital products and comes down to fixed vs. variable costs:
- development costs are fixed costs- they are independet of the number of products sold.
- production costs are variable costs- they have to be paid for every unit sold.
as digital copies in most cases have no or negligible variable costs (support may be regarded as variable) the earnings for certain products can be way out of any sensible relation- but who should say: enough is enough? als long as there is no sensible answer to this question there can only be one: let the market decide...
This is a great question. What would the world look like if no individual could earn more than a million dollars a year, or if companies were taxed at exceedingly high rates once they reached a valuation of 100 millions dollars?
I realize it would be tricky to implement, but considering the societal benefit of more even wealth distribution the idea itself is worth exploring.
Well clearly if the rewards included all the money on the planet, that would be egregious. It seems fairly likely that there would be limits that are lower than that (all the money in a country) and possibly below that....
I live on the big island and pay over $.40/KWH so a $700 bill would be more like $200 on the mainland.
That is one reason why my new house is off grid solar - cheap (compared to $.40/KWH), clean electricity.
The other is that the grid here is unreliable. I had 87 outage events last year for a total of 37 hours and that is not including the nine days with out power post hurricane.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US constitution states:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
The whole constitutional purpose of IP law is to spur creative activity. The interests of the creator are only a means to this end. This has, unfortunately, been perverted by regulatory capture.