GP points out that Colbert is being rewarded with a place at the trough, rather than given fee for service.
China (and a bunch of the Left) work by "Elite Capture"; which is they capture the top individuals in a field. A captured individual supports the party machine, and is rewarded for their loyalty.
Colbert is being cut off by circumstance, but he has already given the best years of his career to advancing the right views. All of CBS is captured; Colbert is a visible public face who is receiving a particularly large reward for his loyalty.
This is very different for the "market forces" "fee for service" arrangement that conservatives would consider. They look at these mediocre talents receiving unbelievable amounts of money and they are just confused.
Generational wealth is something like $40 million in the bank.
That is enough to last you for your entire life, take care of your kids with a trust fund, and give a nice chunk to your grandkids too.
I point this out to give perspective on what $15 million a year actually means to a person and their future.
You have that backwards.
A little girl went through precocious puberty.
The treating doctor noticed she was being molested because she became pregnant.
The molestation did not cause the precocious puberty, AFAIK. If I had to guess, the girl probably had a group of abnormal cells that produced a lot of sex hormone, in this case estrogen. It happens sometimes and it is one of the causes of high Testosterone levels in very successful female athletes; which is why they test T-Levels.
The treating doctor adopted the girl. The baby was delivered by C-section. The baby was raised as the girl's little brother. The little girl and her son were okay.
Why do I know this? I was studying misuse of sex hormone drugs at university and the aforementioned case is a textbook case study.
Gizortnik, you originally wrote:
What would not be fine is for books to be protected by copyright and paywall, not purchased, and still be data mined for their material without compensation to the owner. This is especially true with something as vast as a for-profit business as an AI algorithm.
And then called it "theft of the material." So let me walk you through this with some questions: If I buy a book and read it, then write a novel inspired by what I learned, did I steal from the original author? No? Then why is it different when a computer does the reading?
How about making a statistical model of word frequency with a pencil and paper? That is, counting the frequency of words and their position in a sentence. Laborious, but anyone with a working knowledge of statistics could do it. Is it different when a computer performs the calculations? Has anything been stolen in either case? What if I apply that model to a new work to see if they have matching statistical fingerprints? Is anything stolen yet?
When you "steal" something, can the original owner still use it? When you copy a digital file, can the original owner still use theirs?
You keep saying "digital assets can be stolen" but you haven't explained how copying something constitutes theft when nobody loses access to anything. That's because you're conflating unauthorized access (hacking into a system) with copyright infringement (making copies). By the way, neither one of those is theft as defined under the law.
Here's what you can look up if you're genuinely interested: Dowling v. United States, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Notice how they're all different laws covering different things? That's because copying, stealing, and hacking are different acts with different legal frameworks. The reason this matters isn't semantic pedantry - it's that damages, defenses, and remedies are completely different. Copyright has fair use exceptions. Theft doesn't. For everyone else reading: this is why words have specific meanings in law. "Theft" isn't just "taking something you shouldn't."
Bloke, I gave a definition and a case study in my original post. I've stuck to it consistently.
If you return a car, then you borrowed it, rather than stole it. Even if the judge rules that you did steal it (it was unusable by the owner while you had it) then the damages are significantly different. The car was stolen, but the damage has been lessened (remedied) by the return of the property. This will be reflected in sentencing. This is why there is a huge range of sentences available to a judge. All damages are not equal.
Here is the major difference between digital products and physical products; and why it is much more difficult to steal a digital product.
There is no scarcity of digital products. Everyone on earth can have a copy, and it doesn't deprive anyone else of anything.
COPYING something isn't the same as STEALING something. I'm sorry you are having trouble with this.
Seriously, guy. Perhaps my explanation was imperfect, but this is literally the first year Law on torts.
To determine what offence was committed, an assessment of the damages must be made. In what way or ways was the offended party damaged or harmed? Specifically.
Depriving you of your work truck so you can't get transport to work and you can't do your job is different from making photocopies of your novel.
I don't know how to make it any more clear. I apologize that I don't have the ability to reach you with reason and convey basic, industry standard definitions that have been in use for more than a century.
Look, guy, it is a matter of definition. Different words mean different things.
If the thief took every copy and the lawful owner could not use the digital product, then that would be theft. If the bad guy just made unauthorized copies or used the digital data (or whatever) without a license, then it isn't theft.
The reason that the distinction matters is because harm must be assessed when rendering legal judgement by the courts. If I download a copy of Magnum PI, I have not depraved anyone of the use or enjoyment of the episode. If I stole an episode with ninjas then no network in the world could use it until it was recovered, probably by men with guns.
These are not the same. The damages are not the same.
Gizortnik, this is well understood law. It isn't even debated in legal circles. It was debated to exhaustion at around the time of printed sheet music, more than 200 years ago.
You really are showing your profound ignorance in this specific issue.
I agree with all of your points.
OCP Grey did a really good video that summarize a book called something like the Seven Keys to Power or whatever. It is a comprehensive look at how there is a very stable state of society as a third world dictatorship. Peasants work hard and starve, well armed warlords take anything they want. This can continue indefinitely. This isn't in dispute.
However if any of their neighbors manage to get their shit together, they can, after a couple generations, earn more per year than the rest of entire region put together. At that point external influence can upset local, stable apple carts. Just like external forces dod with Cambodia, etc.
So I do take your point that it is entirely possible to use force to dismantle a highly productive, rich culture and replace it with a very stable, third world shithole and keep it that way forever.
I also agree with you about women's freedom. My counter would be that it is unethical to give women the freedom that they crave. They should be and should remain a protected class, just like children. Some of women can handle responsibility, but so can some twelve year old kids.
Unfortunately there is a tremendous biological drive in men to make women happy. Giving them what they want isn't the same thing as giving women what they need. It isn't ethical to let a four year old eat candy for every meal, and it isn't ethical to give a single woman the vote. When she is married she doesn't need the vote. One vote per family (they can discuss it) is enough.
Look, you are not wrong, but...
The quickest way to change culture is by the use of Force. China did it twice with two Maoist revolutions. Everyone who didn't immediately change their culture was literally killed. It worked really well and it was really fast; practically overnight. Twice!
That said, it isn't sustainable. Look at Cambodia, the USSR or China. Reality had nothing to do with their politics and responses to real situations, and their entire countries imploded after just a few generations.
At some point being able to know the world as it is and empowering people to act accordingly is beneficial to the entire of society. It helps society as a whole to have sophisticated, meaningful, ethical culture at the individual, family and town level. The long term differences to productivity and national wealth are something on the order of 40% year on year. Superior culture and a willingness to embrace the truth of the world was why the British Empire, then the USA were able to dominate. They simply had more wealth to spend on force, and a code of ethics (baked into the culture) that let them use it relatively well, comparatively.
The UK and the USA turning their back on that culture has lead almost immediately to their downfall.
I don't know how you build things back. It is a lot easier to destroy a culture than it is to build a positive, ethical, effective culture; but it is the single biggest difference in the long economic outlook of a population.
Naw. They look up the retail price of a AAA game and then multiply it by all the downloads on the site
It is like when they bust you for growing pot the cops weigh the entire tree with the dirt on the roots for the weight of the drugs. Every part of the tree is equally illegal, even though stems and sticks are worthless and good manicure is worth more than shitty, seedy buds. Nope. Weigh the whole tree and multiply it by some bullshit street price they made up and high five each other for keeping a million dollars of drugs off the streets.
Guy, you came here explicitly to shit on theists, specifically Christians.
My position doesn't rely on divine revelation, nor a supreme being. You don't give a toss. Anything handed to us from our ancestors is wrong.
You haven't even engaged with any of the points I raised. You have just patted yourself on the back for confirming your biases and you are done.
Here is one for you. When KiA first started it was almost entirely Atheist. Since that time, many, including myself have seen the value in the traditions.of our grandfather's, including Christianity.
Perhaps there is no God. It doesn't matter to me. There isn't a nation built that is better, wealthier or more free than those built on the foundation of Christianity, specifically Protestant Christianity.
Perhaps Bhuddist nations? But of those only Japan is really first world, and they are at least as.much Shinto as Bhuddist.
So go too, guy. Take your real, free thinking truth and your moral Relativism and fuck off to the perfect Atheist Utopia with all your intolerant Atheist buddies. Oh wait, there is no such place. Sweden might have been close, but after they gave up Christian practice they instantly fucked their country forever.
Fuck, you haven't even read your Nietzsche.
Here goes a good faith reply.
With morality you really only have three broad choices.
The first: There is no morality. All systems of ethics in an uncaring universe are absurd. Depending on your take on that you get either Nihilism or Absurdism.
The second: Morality is relative to the situation and only occurs within a context. This is moral relativism.
The third: Morality is absolute, but complex, because the world is complex.
Let's look at the practically of these approaches.
The first fails because you can't build a society without a system of morality. Even if the universe is infinite and uncaring, we must still live.with other men. There must be some system that judges and governs interactions between men, or groups can not function. Even if it is: "Do as I say or I will be at you with a club." That is still a (basic, broken) morality.
The second: Moral Relativism can be used to justify absolutely any behavior, no matter how base or depraved. The simplest level of moral sophistication is to act morally out of fear of the consequences. See the aforementioned guy with a club.
At this level of moral sophistication (which exists all over the world) it is moral to do anything at all, as long as you don't get caught. Raping babies..Eating babies. Worse. It all happens, and to the moral relativist in the right context it isn't wrong.
So that leaves is worth the third: Absolute Morality. A morality that exists independently of context and situation. An absolute morality can be as complex as required, as long as (once defined) it doesn't change because circumstances change.
In your own obtuse way you are claiming that there can be no absolute morality without a supreme being to define one.
This is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. It was the subject of one of Plato's Dialogues.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
The short answer is that you can have an absolute morality without God, but it undermines God's position in the universe because the morality is separate to God.
With these assumptions, if God tells you to eat a baby, then it is still wrong.
Morality is complicated, because morality exists on several levels at once. By this I mean that the morality of the indoor, the morality of the family and the morality of the community all exist at the same time. They can even conflict, and these conflicts must be resolved separately so a solution is acceptable to all levels.
It just so happens that particular flavors of Christianity have been the most successful (historically) at building strong individuals and successful,. prosperous communities. I don't deny that other.compex moral system might work just as well; they just haven't.
So there you go. A good faith response and a place to start your journey into philosophical inquiry.
FYI, I have no interest in arguing with you. If you feel the urge, go argue with a chatbot.
That isn't an ad hominem, it is just an insult.
He is t telling people to disregard your argument because you are a faggot. He is just insulting you.
There are too many PoV characters. It makes the story almost impossible to write. Pacing becomes a nightmare.
On top of that, GoT was unapologetically filled with brutal sex and violence.
George has lead the charge of feminists in the publishing industry. Writing a story like the early GoT is politically suicidal. No matter what he does more than half his audience will be pissed off. It is a no win situation.
And five seconds later he will be banned for breathing too loudly.
You could be onto something. If all of us dress like the Hamburgler!
More seriously. There are entire demographic that have taken up anti security camera dress as a defacto uniform.
Chavs in the UK wear grey tracksuit pants, a grey hoodie and a baseball cap. With the cap and hood up their face can't be seen from above by the common placement of security cameras. They are all wearing the same clothes, so even the individuals who are totally law abiding are providing cover for the ones who are criminals.
Pee Wee Herman deliberately got caught in a theater to leverage the morality clause in his contract to end a (more or less) exploitive business relationship.
His incident was completely victimless.
Everyone knows that if people rush a food distribution depot, then the most effective response is to offer hugs and kisses.
There is no way that organized gangs would ever try to seize food. It is even less likely that there would be riots.
/s
Iran has WMDs. Got it.
It makes things more complicated, but it isn't inherently weaker.
It was certainly built this way because it was easier to make it strong than a curved bridge.
The reason that it is shit is because there is going to be a pile of vehicles at the bottom where they came off the bridge trying to speed around the turn.
I recall Candice being slapped in the face by the reality of the situation, then climbing the learning curve in a hurry
It was kind of impressive how fast she worked out that the media narrative was full of shit and that Old KiA actually knew what was going on.
I think ZQ was especially cunty and KiA was actually heeded. Both are true.
Lots of "SIDS" cases are, historically and currently, mother's smothering their babies.
A woman turns an unwanted baby into an outpouring of support from her family and community. She is blameless.
The medical examination shows that the baby just stopped breathing, which is exactly consistent with being gently smothered with a pillow or plastic bag, etc.
There will never be any way to tell how much of SIDS is infanticide, but is much, much higher than none.
SIDS has always been the medical community carrying water for mothers murdering their babies.
No worries. Just point to a post where I have called for violence against any particular group.
Otherwise admit that you are being fucking indiscriminate with your belittling and accusations.
It is only recently that this board has taken on an anti-Jew and anti-Zionist tone, and certainly not everyone here holds that, or any other, view.
I suspect that you are impervious to reason; but hope spring eternal that learning can occur.
You first.
Take some direct action and post some videos about it.
Lead by example, or continue to be a cock sucking faggot, by your own terms.
Oh, Gizortnik. Here we go.
It isn't theft. Theft, by definition ,requires that the criminal deprive someone of something. You can't steal a digital product.
For example, if you steal my car, I can't drive my car. That is theft. Downloading episodes of Magnum PI isn't theft.
It isn't copyright infringement, because that (by definition) covers the uncompensated reproduction and sale of an intellectual property. Training a LLM with an e-book doesn't copy or sell the book.
I think that you need to go and read some definitions, because you are groping in the dark for reasons to object and using words you don't actually understand.
If you want to advocate for new laws that govern how people can create and run computer programs on hardware they own, then advocate for that. You will certainly have a lot of company.
There are dozens of videos of Catholics parading with idols of Christ or Mary. The local Catholic Church has a festival every year, where a Filipino congregation does exactly that.
I don't mean representations of Christ, I mean specific statures or figures thought to have holy power.