"self-absorbed, vain and entitled" is not narcissism, thats a fairy tale version
219 karma · joined July 4, 2010
The point however is not that of protecting copyright, but that copyright protection was invented to usurp technology which was not truly invented. This is how controlling history controls the present, for if all roads lead back to "we invented this and own it" then all roads forwards must pay that toll. If the narrative were not true, then the premise could not hold.
The cause behind this narrative hustle is the industrial historical arrogation which teaches that knitting was not invented until 1000 years after "The Romans". They had textiles, weaving, but no knitting.
This is early mere patent protection during the capitol rush of industrialism, claiming devices which were not actually invented as pretended, and therefor should have no claim to copyrights. The cotton gin was not invented in 1793.
Moreover it is a supremely ignorant and abstract notion, showing how detached academia is from reality. Anybody with time on their hands and some vines may invent weaving, knotting, knitting, and with metal slivers many ways to make pins. There has never been a people without this technology.
How is it explained that some ships when buried were farther out from what we are to presume was the old shoreline? Would not the tide or some authority have moved them one way or another long before then?
The ships buried more inland are in places apparently not accessible to ships at the time, the shore did not go inland that far according to other depictions.
It appears the mint governors are paying attention to the internet scholarship, or why would they suddenly make this page with redundant yet skimpy details? As if to tell the platforms "this is the doctrine about the buried ships of San Francisco, update your community notes and fact checking."
Sure enough, google AI gave this very link immediately for several useless references when pushed for records.
This of course cannot be allowed to happen, so the the legal system is just a limbo, a bar which regular individuals must strain to pass under but that corporations regularly overstep.
Many of the roofs in the background appear to be masonry, compared to the modern tile roofing seen in the foreground, and the masonry roofs are very weathered. All of the masonry looks like it has a 200 year old patina impervious to power washing. Behind it all and only slightly taller than all of the structures, a hill that looks distinctly dug out, and which exposed dirt is the same coloras the patina on the old roofs.
But I doubt the politicians "don't bat an eye" at 200M, for they know that money is going straight out of the economy and into private coffers.
The government budgeters are not naive to the economics of military spending. The cope about pennies on the tax dollar is naive about both economics and what the government is really doing.
This idea that government is incapable, dumb, and prone to mismanagement is a harmful rationalization, and simply not true. If anything, this thinking excuses the government to act that way, and then there is no way of knowing if they are purposefully mismanaging or doing so because incapable.
Very few people would willingly pay for military spending if for example when they buy food they are prompted with the option "do you want to give 30 cents to the military industrial complex?" And that "very few people" would not in sum render 1 Trillion.
Chump together all the 100s of millions in waste year over year; the change to your chumping is not good change, its inflation and general impoverishment. Every penny of that 200 is a note in the bank of inflation and degradation.
Business wise turn their deploy system into a resource for the browser base, for instance app store, for instance flash compute/rendering, for instance agent hosting services.
Legal proceedings focused on "social networks" and "browser market shares" and app stores. These are ridiculous, superficial, and meaningless.
If there was really such a thing as a monopoly on social networking, you would have to kick people off the networks, not just stop the companies operating them. What would change if instagram had to become its own company again? The same people would own it. And that is why antitrust is a joke, it does not prevent the true monopoly of who controls what.
Bronze Age Battle Razors is a complicated explanation for such unwieldy items. The sharper blade of Occam indicates this narrative to be dull.
If U.S. Americans did not have an irrational verve for education as the supposed panacea of democracy, there would be no public education system. If they did not believe the intense pseudoscience of the medical industry, they would not care about health insurance.
But as they are under the sway of such false conscience, the system of gradual decline called inflation pays for unqualified people to keep a livelihood at the expense of a misled and deluded public. That expense is not only the costs of running these systems but their detriments to the health and education they pretend to treat.
The increased spending on healthcare is no different than spending more on education or the "homeless problem", it is simply a politics of shifting more funds into systems that are legally obligated to pay high sums for a lot of nothing. It only appears different than education because we pretend its not completely wrapped up in public spending and politics like education is. Obama made sure that healthcare would hold such a place as education in the system with the reforms to healthcare, and the people applauded this.
High incomes paying more for healthcare is simply those who can afford it using the system that ultimately pays for the health and education of the rich at the expense of the health and education of the poor. After all we know that nobody who is rich is paying any of their healthcare bills, they have excellent health insurance for that.