djexjms

This is obviously incorrect. Latency is not the same as bandwidth. EME hobbyists will bounce voice signals off the moon.

20 to 30 years would ensure that abandoned media that was formative to a person growing up will enter the public domain within their lifetimes which would be a nice thing to have in my opinion. It would also ensure that any work done by an artist during the early phase of their career (the phase where artists are most likely to agree to lopsided contract terms) would stand a chance of reverting back to the public domain before the end of that artist's career. Very very few works are making any significant revenue after 30 years. I think a system where initial copyright is free for 20 years, with the option of renewing for an additional 10 years for some fee, and then the option to renew annually after that would be fair. For the very small number of works that are still commercially viable after 30 years, the publishers can figure out how long it makes sense to keep renewing the copyright. Otherwise it really is in the public's best interest to have a robust public domain. Many fewer works would go missing that way.

The way the copyright is structured right now is the result of regulatory capture. The cost of these long terms of copyright is the loss of books, movies, music, games, etc. Millions upon millions of hours of creative labor have been lost. These costs are born by everybody that will never have to chance to have access to that media. The benefits of these long copyright terms are only the publishers. Having an annual renewal fee for copyrighted works published 30 or more years ago would be something that would be a visible cost in the books of large publishers. As it is it is too easy for them to ignore the downsides of long terms of copyright. I am not claiming that no media would be lost if we had no copyright, but the efforts of archivists are difficult enough as it is. Media that is no longer being copied is destroyed eventually. Obviously making it a felony to copy something will reduce the number of people making copies of it. That's the whole point after all.

Wait a minute, that doesn't sound right.

That's a nice ideal. I honestly kind of agree with you in the sense that I wish that was how things were. But in my view, it's easier to think about the police as a force whose primary purpose is to enforce the property rights of the capital holding class. In the United States there have been court rulings clarifying that police officers are never obligated to risk their lives.

If you look at the actual numbers, at least in the US, policing can really only be viewed as a risky profession from a white-collar point of view. According to OSHA, construction workers, truck drivers, farmers, and even pilots all have a greater likelihood of dying on the job.

What about ignoring due process while doing so? Is that, in your view, in line with the constitution? If it is, what recourse does a US citizen detained by ICE (either accidentally or not) have? Also, how do you view Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship via Executive Order? Birthright citizenship is in the 14th Amendment. If the president is allowed to arbitrarily redefine who is and is not a citizen, are constitutional protections anything more than ink on paper?

Reading this comment thread was a fun way to start my day. Always funny to see people react to satire about them.

Things started getting tricky at level 7. I can see that level 8 is solvable, but I'm not going to have time to solve it before leaving for work. Neat little puzzle.

Even if it turns out not to be the perfect solution, it might turn out that this kind of measurement might be useful for things like estimating the effectiveness of medication and other medical interventions, or even lifestyle changes. Imagine if this kind of thing could be turned into a medical device. Many people who end up committing suicide have had previous suicidal episodes. Being able to have a technology that people with known suicidal tendencies can use to help keep tabs on their own mental health could potentially be as useful to them as blood sugar monitoring is to diabetics.

That one take on it. The other is that it could potentially save literally tens of thousands of lives. Immediately classifying a potentially life-saving medical technology is a threat to the second amendment might not be the best look for 2A advocates.

I think more caution is warranted here. That argument seems to rely on our experience of reality being an accurate representation of objective reality. There are some ideas that are surprisingly difficult to dismiss that essentially state that our perceptions of reality do not have this property, and that in fact that any organism that is the result of an evolutionary process is really only ever incentivized to evolve a perception system that presents them with what is essentially a user interface. Spacetime itself may just be a data structure generated in the mind as a simplification of some much more complex and informationally overwhelming reality.

But that is actually a fairly accurate description of the paper you asked it to summarize for you. It's not the models fault that you don't like the argument of the paper.

Another way to look at it is that the fact that the rocket moved at all was due to the rockets. The fact that those rockets propelled the spacecraft into lunar orbit and then back to the landing zone on earth was due to the math.

Maybe the strategy here is to just not make any blunders.