sls
Indeed, the entire history of humanity is that of creation and sharing and teaching - of ideas, stories, songs, poems. Copyright is a mere three centuries old. And somehow people have come to believe that without it, creation will cease. Even while simultaneously correctly understanding that virtually every person who writes, sings, raps, dances, etc will never be able earn anything but trival sums from doing so even under the current legal regime.
It's worth going to read Macaulay's speeches from the early nineteenth century to see how little what copyright supporters claim as the intent of copyright was seen as such at the time these ideas were being rendered into law.
https://ia601406.us.archive.org/34/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.2... beginning at p 156/pdf page 180
I'm hesitating to post this, but really, if that's not what you're saying, it feels like trying to make a zinger has overwhelmed your actual point.
The concept of "religion" as it is meant in the modern context is only a few centuries old, as is the idea of "Buddhism", but to the extent that we can think of the teachings of the Buddha as a religion, it's probably most helpful to think of Mahāyāna and Theravāda as different "religions." I frankly think that the Vajrayāna subset of Mahāyāna probably is best thought of as a different "religion" as well, but it's not my area and I wouldn't suggest anyone take my thoughts on that topic with any great heft.
It's much more plausible that the uncomfortable human-centric thing we need to let go is the idea that our perceptions about macroscopic reality should be indicative of how things actually are.
> open source software is only free if your time and expertise are free
but since you seem to actually be trying to discuss this in a thoughtful way, please note that we're not given a choice between free software that takes time and expertise to use and maintain vs closed software that takes no time or expertise to maintain. To mimic your original phrase, Windows 10 Pro is only $199 if your time and expertise is free. Going further, in my experience it's often been the case that the free software takes less time and less expertise to use and maintain.
Also, it's worth mentioning that you are conflating two different things, open source software and free software, a distinction that often doesn't matter but is central when the point at hand is the ethics of free-as-in-freedom software vs non-free software, a distinction the term open source was deliberately created to elide. You are also conflating free-as-in-freedom with free-as-in-beer by opposing the "software is only freedom-free" with "your time and expertise are free-as-in-beer free".
Finally it's not clear to me why you went on to address the pragmatics of non-free hardware or the fact that human effort is necessary to build computers, maintain distros, write kernels etc. Is there a claim that it's unethical to try to run free software on the hardware that you have, or that free(dom) software must always be provide without cost on hardware that is both free(dom) and without cost? If not, then computer users can still spend a small amount of money, relative to utility, to buy a computer that runs free(dom) software.
I'm not disputing your claims that accessibility software on Windows or iOS is better than that on Linux, because I don't know the space. It's an unrelated argument, afaict. To illustrate this, simply imagine that some government or corporation had decided to make high-quality accessibility software available under a free license. (I am reminded of Intel's work supporting Dr. Hawking.) You wouldn't conclude from this that all your previous thoughts about free and open source software vs closed/commerical software were wrong, I assume.
You have: 1500 mA * hours * 3.7 V
You want: watt * hours
* 5.55
/ 0.18018018They can't assign the bare right to sue. To have standing the plaintiff will need to hold at least one of the exclusive rights in 17 U.S. Code § 106 aiui. Cf Righthaven cases, Silvers v Sony Pictures
which has been discussed on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19161028
> Charles Babbage recognized the performance penalty imposed by ripple-carry and developed mechanisms for anticipating carriage in his computing engines.
The English word Viking became Japanese バイキング (baikingu), meaning "buffet", because the first restaurant in Japan to offer buffet-style meals, inspired by the Nordic smörgåsbord, was opened in 1958 by the Imperial Hotel under the name "Viking".
being (countable and uncountable, plural beings)
A living creature.
>
> The short answer is “No,” a trademark owner does not have to sue every single infringer, and the failure to do so in an isolated case of infringement will likely not result in abandonment.
https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-lose-trademark-rights-dont-su...
C-h a - apropos
C-h k <key sequence> - detailed docs on the command run by key sequence
C-h m - docs on current minor modes and major mode
C-h w <command> - what keystrokes will run command
There's a lot more as well.
For example, if someone asks you to explain Euclid's proof of the infinitude of the primes, and you say that Euclid did not provide any such proof and nothing more, I think it's quite disingenuous. It would be more proper to say, from a constructivist view, the argument Euclid made isn't a valid proof, and then either explain the proof in the logical context in which it was made or decline to.
In this case, the point of discussion was separating the definition of multiplication from an algorithm implementing it. It's quite unfair to silently take a position that a mathematical definition without an algorithm isn't valid or meaningful and then on that basis argue that only numerical approximations to transcendentals have meaning.
So many common mathematical concepts such as "the integers" have no meaning in a constructivist approach that it's not sensible to engage in mathematical discussion without establishing that one's fundamental basis of approach varies so widely from the common one.