Copyright is a restriction of freedom of speech. The livelihood of the artist is not the only consideration.

We don't need to guarantee that any particular kind of author or musician can profit from their work. Look at the amount of books and tracks produced at this time. This is the golden age of making it as an artist. I really don't think society would be hurt too much if our output was slashed by 50%.

Copyrights aren't property. Also, they restrict other people's freedom of speech. The government doesn't need to pay you when they move to protect everyone's free speech.

Refactoring a good algorithm that's written in spaghetti code on the other hand...

It's important, and it's always been the main reason to re-factor. It's also strange to say that Maintainability is improved, but changing the code is not, since code maintenance isn't really maintenance, it's just changing the code. It's not like code wears out over time through too much use.

It's not an investment platform, it's a begging platform with door prizes. Investors get ownership for their money and can demand accountability *during* the life of the project.

"It's like they just spent the money without having a clue what they were doing."

Why would they? There's nothing in how Kickstaters work to make responsible action likely, even for projects run with good intention. Kickstarter is just another means to separate fools from their money.

The fundamental problem with Kickstarter is that there's no accountability for handling the money. There's simply no assurance that the people running the show have estimated costs correctly, or know how to manage a project with budge constraints. Since the "investors" have zero ownership, they can't step in to right the ship.

Don't bother kickstarting any major project that doesn't have a project manager experienced in the field (a famous, experienced designer, for instance, isn't necessarily good enough.)

You missed the part where weapons energy increased to the point where aggression may hurt survival. It's even right in the summary!

Where is he incorrect? Do you think aggression won't make nuclear war more likely or do you just think nuclear war is not bad enough that it's worth the risk?

That depends on the war, doesn't it? You may be right, but if we're going to rest on our evolutionary laurels in the nuclear age, we're in for plenty of trouble.

Which eschews aggression.

What a load of horseshit. That would mean the maximum velocity imparted towards the sun would be 250 miles per hour.

From reading the actual paper, I think it describes reality pretty well. For people that want to just get by with out thinking too hard about it and just naively optimize their own gains, they'll find a cooperative strategy is better. For those who want something a bit more, they'll think about it and realize that exploitation of the cooperators is the fast track to success.

Don't mess with Federal Judges.

You're living in the land of don't fuck with Federal Judges.