How would that imply lack of security? Wouldn't it be perfect if every single homicide by a stranger was by a cop? It would mean that a cop was there every time to stop the criminal before they hurt someone.
Innocent in the eyes of the law, meaning what? No prior convictions? Not convicted of the crime for which the police officer is looking for the perpetrator? Of course they're not; they haven't even been arrested yet. And once they're dead, nobody's going to bother to prosecute and convict them.
For example, we recently had an armed robbery outside a bar here. Police came looking for the perpetrator. They found a man who they suspected might be the robber. He ran from them. They chased him. He turned around with a gun in his hand. They shot and killed him.
Now: Was he innocent in the eyes of the law? He wasn't convicted of that robbery. He wasn't even arrested for it. They would have arrested him (or at least detained him), but he fled, and then turned around with a gun.
So I'm not sure that "innocent in the eyes of the law" says very much. Other than escaped prisoners, everyone the police encounter is innocent in the eyes of the law, at least on the issue for which the police are confronting them.
> I'm not sure that "innocent in the eyes of the law" says very much.
It says that we still believe in the rule of law, not in just allowing cops to be judge, jury, and executioner on our streets. To be sure, shootings due to self defense happen, but we have entire protests and riots in the United States right now over how often cops kill innocent civilians without justification, and are protected by the system from any consequences.
Well, yes, though a nuke would not detonate at ground level which would make it more destructive for most purposes (apart from bunker destruction). Plus 1kt is very very small for a nuke.
Is there any reason a nuke could not detonate at ground level? Or are you saying to inflict the most damage, you "would not/should not" detonate a nuke at ground level.
They would not detonate at ground level to maximize destructive potential. To contrast, the US actually has different bombs that penetrate into the ground before detonating in order to effectively destroy buried bunkers.
For example, I believe the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonated at about 500m above the ground.
> It was also intended that the munition could be used against targets in coastal and near-coastal locations. One person carrying the weapon package would parachute from an aircraft and place the device in a harbor or other strategic location that was accessible from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed. The two-man team would place the weapon package in the target location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean, where they would be retrieved by a submarine or a high-speed surface water craft.
Would they really? I bet most people wouldn't want to go into space. A lot of people can now bungee-jump, fly their own planes, fly in a balloon, paraglide, deep dive, yet how many do any of these things.
I've done a handful of these things, and they seem categorically different from being in space: even low Earth orbit _feels_ noticeably different from skydiving etc (I'm also making the assumption that it's safer than eg paragliding). I suppose we're just starting from different assumptions about what captures the imagination of the average person. At the very least, I'd be surprised if the average current spaceflight customer was more driven by status than by excitement about space per se.
If you asked any given person on the street whether they'd like to see the Earth from space, I'd be willing to wager serious money they'd be more likely to say yes than no, given that it were easily accessible and the money would be taken care of. Those activities you listed have quite a bit of money and time needed to do. But the desires are all absolutely there.
Well the USSR used over 30 million people as slave labor in their gulags, which were mostly involved in construction works and natural resources extraction.
That's not at all what the article says. Naturally, it is good that the stock market goes up, i.e., the values of the companies goes up, if it's because of improved performance. The author argues the stock market is increasing more than it should based on increased inequality between the economy participants (stock holders, customers and employees), where one class of participant seem to be taking the biggest share of the pie. The author argues this creates a bubble situation that can lead to depressions.
Wouldn't cyber squatting laws just hand over the domain to their party if asked? They are even being asked for money, even if only in jest, which strengthens their case.
You’re saying that if I make my own movie with my own funding and time/effort, if enough people like it and the culturally relevant switch gets flipped on they get to take it from me while I’m still alive and I don’t have any say on whether my work is duplicated or screened?
What if I run a SaaS product, people have been using it for 30 years, and they’ve determined it to be culturally relevant. Do they get to copy my source code and run it for themselves?
These are 70s and 80s movies. Many of those who contributed to them are still alive. It’s entirely reasonable for those people to determine how/whether to distribute their own art.
If you believe in that level of public ownership I can respect that you hold that opinion, but I don’t agree with it. At the same time, I do believe that copyrights expiring a lifetime after the creator dies are unreasonable.
To me, the right balance of copyright law is somewhere in between the extremes of Mickey Mouse ownership in perpetuity and complete public ownership.
I am pretty sure if you asked the creators of these films, they’d want them still shown. We’re talking about the actions of Disney, which wasn’t even the studio for the Fox films.
The “creators” wouldn’t have been able to create anything without the financial backing of the studios. You have a few like Lucas and Spielberg who owned their own production companies.
You're right, those uppity "creators" should be thankful.
Joking aside- This will become less true as technology makes film-making and distribution more accessible. Studios know this, so they've switched focus to tightly controlling distribution. Hurray for cultural gate-keepers.
How are they controlling the “distribution”? There are so many streaming services and cable channels hungry for exclusive content that if you make something halfway decent someone will buy it from you. On top of that, you can sell directly to consumers on iTunes, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Redbox VOD, etc.
What do you mean? The very article we've been discussing is about Disney's attempt to control distribution.
I agree that for now there's a healthy ecosystem of distribution channels for newer, lower budget content - I said as much. What's happening is that the studios are countering that by tightly controlling valuable legacy content. The kind of stuff we see as part of the cultural zeitgeist of the last several decades (again, see the article for examples).
Disney is controlling access to their content not content you create yourself. Disney isn’t stopping any of the content distributors I named from distributing anyone else’s content.
