It also seems important to note that much of the corruption in many of those agencies is exactly that: corruption caused by private sector interests steering regulators away from the public good. But to react by eliminating all regulation would simply hand more direct control to the private interests - the very people guilty of nurturing the corruption you complain about.
The difference is I don't take the presence of corruption in many regulatory bodies to mean that regulation itself is bad in principle. I think that there are many things that will always require regulation, and though I'd certainly like to see that regulation function better than it does in many ways currently, it seems clear to me that some sort of regulatory mechanism will always be necessary - as in, some form of democratic process whereby a populace can create and enforce rules about things that effect everyone.
The FCC may be corrupt, but I still can't envision an efficient modern society that doesn't have a means of, for example, allocating radio spectrum — nor can I envision a way that could happen equitably and with maximum benefit if it was controlled entirely by private entities. The FDA may be corrupt, but I still can't envision a modern industrial food chain that effectively feeds hundreds of million people without some sort of public health control, or a modern health care system that doesn't involve some sort of public monitoring of pharmaceuticals. I can't envision a modern city that doesn't require public regulation of things like traffic, sewage, and zoning — and more broadly I can't envision modern humanity's long-term survival on the planet without some form of environmental and resource regulation.
I have no problem with you saying you think the majority of regulation is bad — though "majority" doesn't mean a whole lot here, as regulation is not just directly quantifiable on some simple scale, considering that tiny pieces of regulation can often have widespread effects and hundred-page-long regulations can often prove impotent and ineffective.
What I fail to follow, though, is the logic of the leap from there to assuming that "regulation" is a concept is thus inherently problematic. Speaking realistically, we have no examples of a wholly regulated or wholly unregulated society - every society everywhere has existed with both, and each has numerous examples of both good and bad things caused by both regulation and a lack of regulation, plus even more examples where the exact causation is debatable and involves a wide variety of unique or specific factors.
The only sensible conclusion I can see is to focus on creating smart, effective, efficient regulation applied where necessary, and minimizing the negative consequences of both bad regulation and lack-of-necessary-regulation where those exist.
Blindly opposing "regulation" - and even discussing "regulation" as one giant, general, homogenous topic - is equally foolish, and far far more common. I've never seen anyone claim "all regulation is good, regulate everything in every way" - but I've seen plenty of people rail indiscriminately against any and all forms of regulation as you do here.
As you note, the real original weapon/tool is a sharp stick - or a stick with a spearhead mounted on it. It's actually quite hard for me to envision many situations where a neolithic hunter would find an axe more useful for either hunting or combat. Hunting is all about range. Axes in war are all about close combat and are especially useful against armoured opponents (and such axes tend to have very small heads, for puncturing power).
It is not entirely intuitively clear to me either, but it is true that almost all prehistoric axes uncovered by archaeologists appear to have been agricultural tools (found on farms alongside ploughs, etc.), and there are few if any examples - specifically of axe-heads for mounting on handles - that predate agriculture. And so this one raised some eyebrows. Archaeologists generally try not to just guess what a tool was used for (or at least not assert that guess as the definite truth).
Aha - thanks, this actually clarifies a lot. I knew there was a distinction between how Java and languages like C++ are compiled, and that Java had a runtime aspect which is what enables it to move so easily between platforms. But I have always been pretty unclear on what exactly that meant and what the real distinction was :)
Definitely. And I should clarify here that I'm a light coder not an experienced software architect - personally I much prefer working with dynamically typed languages (and most of the coding tasks I do are more suited to that anyway). But I'm also well aware of the strength and necessity of stricter languages for many purposes. I like your example here though, as I've definitely enjoyed that kind of thing - for example Wordpress (which I work with a fair bit) provides some great dynamic functions for time/date stuff that accept all sorts of formats from full UTC timecodes to plain language statements like "last 7 days".
Sidenote, I did not know what you brought up above about modern IDEs maintaining a database model of the code and doing such rigorous compile-checking as you type. That makes me want to go back and try to learn C++ again :)
If you change something in Java, which makes it the wrong type to be passed to a function -- then that is a COMPILE TIME error, not a RUN TIME error.
Furthermore on that front - there are times when the lack of strictly typed declarations won't even produce a runtime error, but just bizarre and potentially hard-to-track bugs. For example, if you were to use the example python "max" function here with the numbers 2 and 10, but accidentally passed them as strings instead of integers, it would return 2 as the higher "number" and not generate any error at all.
despite the theoretical requirement for the one filing a DMCA claim to swear under penalty of perjury that they attest to the accuracy of the claims made
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the deviously worded DMCA does not in fact require that, theoretically or otherwise. The "penalty of perjury" portion only applies to the statement that the notice-sender is (or represents) the copyright holder of the work that is allegedly infringed upon. The remainder of a DMCA notice requires only a "good faith belief". This is not only true of the template notice text, but true of the requirements as set out in 512(c)(3):
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Frankly, I have to tip my hat to the people who devised that wording. Nearly everybody, when discussing DMCA notices, assumes that a penalty of perjury technically applies to the entire thing - but that's simply not the case, thanks to the subtle positioning of those words mid-sentence in point (vi) -- after the requirement of a statement that the information is accurate.
Let's all calm down, and find out if you're actually seeking "a conversation with an intelligent person capable of rational thought" or if you're just a troll.
I'm sorry, but you do seem to have fundamentally misunderstood some aspects of this story, and/or some aspects of copyright law. Please consider these points:
- Owning the copyright on a work, like a show or a book or a song or anything else, does not mean you can stop other people from discussing it or referring to it by name. That is not even close to any of the enumerated legal rights that constitute copyright. To discuss Game of Thrones, to review Game of Thrones, even to spoil Game of Thrones, is in no way copyright infringement all by itself. That's not debatable, that's a fact.
- The question of whether something makes money is largely irrelevant here. The definition of copyright infringement is not dependent on whether the potentially infringing work makes money or not. The question of making money can be a factor in a Fair Use determination, but that is also irrelevant in this case: the video did not use any material from Game of Thrones, and as such is not even potentially infringing, so there's no fair use question here. There is no "use" that has to be determined to be "fair" or not, because there's no "use" at all.
So, please, instead of continuing your "i'm a genius and everyone here is an idiot" rant, dig into this situation a bit and explain your position. No footage was used, no copyrighted material of any kind was used, there was absolutely nothing in the video that constitutes even potential copyright infringement - not from a legal perspective, not from a philosophical perspective, not from any perspective. What rights are you alleging were violated? Can you please explain?
Yeah there's certainly a tradeoff between accuracy and more striking visuals. That said, I don't think it's as dire as you're assuming - the high-res photos give a pretty clear look, and while the texture is shallow, it's very visible: https://www.flickr.com/photos/139914168@N03/26204331356/