Posts by Catkin 698 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Feb 2023
Perhaps you could save posts by posting under a username and just identifying both of the individuals you aren't accusing of being Nazis? Then, we can take it as read that anyone else posting (and lacking your seal of approval) is regarded by you as a Nazi.
I would say that, in the case of libertarian socialism, the revolutionaries are usurping and then setting themselves up as a new state because they are taking control of physical property. At the same time, I can see that right wing libertarians could also slip into that mould if they occupy the extreme end of anarchocapitalism, where property rights are dictated through private violence.
I think software and other exchanges of raw information occupy a distinct space because of the ability to duplicate with negligible resource and labour consumption.
I made no comment on the rights and wrongs of copyright itself. The purpose of the quoted comment was to distinguish it from a physical resource or product, where sharing with another would require removal from the possession of the original holder or additional labour to duplicate.
It is all about personal liberty, about giving people the right to take someone else's creations, change them however they see fit, and do whatever they want with them, including re-sharing them.
That doesn't sound very left wing to me because, in software, copying does not remove the original, meaning limited intervention by government is needed to protect those rights. All the state need do is refuse to participate in legal action undertaken by those trying to trample on others modifying the code. At most, I would argue that state intervention might be needed to compell the release of source code, if mandatory source code release forms part of the mechanism.
That said, that doesn't mean it's inherently bad (as a consequence of being 'left' or 'right'). I think trying to put everything you agree with on the same side of the spectrum that you self-identfy with (and, conversely, putting everything you disagree with on the other side) is harmful to the people because it hinders bipartisanship on universally good ideas and enables malfeasance by leaders in an aligned party.
If the AI can reproduce the image, and the metadata was present in the original, then the artist is entitled to $$$.
Without copyright* where does the entitlement to $$$ come from?
*we're still awaiting, as far as I'm aware, a test case that purely deals with training without consent, not muddied by the means of acquisition for the data. I'm presuming you refer to images made readily available to the public for viewing.
I'm not entirely disagreeing but part of the reason why businesses pay less for power is because no one dies if the power is cut during periods of extreme demand-supply imbalance*. It's also worth considering that the bit barons, far more than manufacturing industry, are able to choose where they operate out of (within reason, if latency is an issue) so a lack of coordination on additional power tariffs would risk an exodus and even less revenue to prop up domestic supplies.
*this is part of the reason the Texas 2021 power crisis was so severe: homes were able to buy power on domestic contracts, saving them money in the short term but leaving them freezing to death when demand spiked
If the warming effect only lasts as long as an impact winter (ignoring the significantly thinner Martian atmosphere) then it's a bust anyway. The concept is that the boost to carbon dioxide raises the temperature steadily over decades to centuries, rather than the decade or so that an impact winter would last.
I can see how it's a convenient rebuttal but, if you're starting from a point of total uninhabitability, an impact winter hardly matters unless things get so cold that all the carbon dioxide solidifies again before the greenhouse effect can take over. Not to rule it out completely and there are definitely other issues but it's not as much of a certain show stopper as it might appear.
I recall reading an article about teraforming Mars where the proposed energy came from using the nukes to deorbit chunks of Phobos. This was in the 90s,where the distribution of trapped carbon dioxide was less well understood so I can understand it not being workable on that front but, from sheer kinetic energy, it is possible to warm the Martian atmosphere appreciably for a time.
One could probably also extend that to "the majority of Brexit voters weren't racist but the majority of racists were Brexit voters". If you dig into the numbers, the UK is actually remarkably tolerant by global and European standards.
I would ask what the intended point is of the statement? I think it's reasonable to say that plenty of racists voted against the Conservatives in the last election on the basis of the race of their leaders and even more will probably do so at the next election if Badenoch stays in charge. That doesn't affect the legitimacy of Labour's recent victory or a future one or say anything nasty about the average Labour voter.
I didn't give you the thumbs down but I can see the difference between the need to update a multiplayer game like Fortnite which, I understand, regularly changes up the gameplay and updates used as a way to cover for releasing a terribly coded single player game.
Do you feel comfortable with that legislation being in the hands of MAGA or Reform or are you hoping they will never gain power ever again?
Even seemingly innocuous overreach can be dangerous in their hands: DOGE was made possible by a lazy legislative fix passed under Obama to speed the roll out of ACA. Yes, that doesn't preclude MAGA/others passing their own bad legislation but DOGE would be much more toothless or have been held up if those systems hadn't been in place.
The personal data is the least of my concerns - expiring and/or restricted-use (e.g. you can only spend this Digital Pound on food and it expires at the end of the month) along with precise financial habit tracking and the ability to un-person someone (e.g. being politically inconvenient and silently switching off any spending that might be used to travel to a protest for an identified group) is much more insidious.
I don't think the Act requires any quality for posts but, if it did, it would be even worse. The sort of person who believes laws can be used to prevent "shit" posts fills me with the same type of dread as someone who, seeing a mouse scurrying around, enthusiastically loads a machine pistol.
I'm pretty sure the installing equipment relates to someone putting in a spy camera. While there would be issues for CCTV installers, I expect the purpose is to nab people who set up cameras in locations like changing rooms but are caught before anything personal is recorded.
At the same time, overly broad laws are often abused to the benefit of the rich and powerful.
So, where are these so-called adults getting the idea that being sexually attracted to children is not an evil act. This doesn't make sense; it's just not in the natural order of things.
The evil act is the abuse. The attraction is almost immaterial as far as the evil, in the sense that it makes little difference to the victim what desire drove the abuser. As deeply unpleasant as I find it, I would prefer if people with those attractions felt at ease seeking help before they act on them because the alternative is sacrificing at least one child to 'detect' them.
I suggest you re-read Karl Popper (it's barely more than 200 words). "Intolerance" doesn't mean ideas that we, in the modern day, describe as 'intolerant', it means an intolerance for peaceful discussion. By jumping the gun you, ironically, are starting to meet Popper's definition. It's perfectly fine to have your own ideas about how you should respond to people engaging in speech you find objectionable but please own your ideals, rather than hiding behind a distorted version of Popper.
I have no love for the far right but it's hard to claim that the tactic of chasing them off platforms has led to anything but huge electoral upsets. Pointing out a lie is infinitely more effective than gagging the liar.
Yes but these chemicals are man-made [spooky noises].
In all seriousness, it's a valid point but the concern is that these might do different things to the atmosphere. As far as I'm aware, it's currently unknown what they might do and to what extent but there have been a range of proposals based on small scale experiments and simulations.
It might be harmless, it might not and it might be an easy fix or it might mean weighing the environmental cost of every ton we send up.
All safety regulations are written in blood and, while I do not discount their overall validity, hastily written regulations often have unintended consequences. In the case of the Titanic, the regulations imposed in consequence led directly to the SS Eastland disaster.
By this I mean to say that equal evaluation should be given for any proposed replacements for materials of concern as well as balancing the wider impact of issues that curtail space activity.
If you covet totalitarianism, remember that for every Stalin, there's a lot of Trotskys and, by definition, you're much more likely to end up as the latter.
Not that Trotsky wasn't a brutal totalitarian too, his main complaint was that Stalin wasn't brutalising the 'right' people and he only changed his tune after losing out on the opportunity to do so to an entire nation.
Chinese cartographic paranoia is extreme, to the point that their geodetic datum (GCJ-02) is intentionally distorted in a pseudo-random fashion to frustrate map making exercises.
It's unlikely the charges are a sign they specifically captured anything sensitive, since any private map making in China is illegal without the consent and involvement of the government. They've even arrested and fined geology students. It's also a nice little money spinner for the government, since even using their wonky coordinate system (the only system that is legal to use in the country) requires a licensing fee.
I think that limits you to hydroelectric built with 19th Century techniques. Wind turbines produce huge amounts of composite waste (unless you want to run a literal wind mill) and solar creates heavy metal wastes. Both of these are harmful to humans and, unlike radioactive isotopes, heavy metals will never decay into something less harmful.
End-to-end, modern nuclear has a lower carbon footprint than anything but hydroelectric built under very specific conditions; namely, reservoirs built on rocky terrain in cold climates. That doesn't mean we should abandon these technologies but we should be realistic about their impact rather than going 'oooh radiation scary'.
The translation could be making it a little murky but it could be entrance skin dose, which is basically all the radiation the individual was exposed to, rather than the radiation that was absorbed. This is handy to know because the absorbed dose calculations might not take back scatter into account when calculating the absorbed dose. However, it's still a surprisingly large difference.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
