Purely functional expressions are not copyrightable. Only creative expressions are copyrightable.

Man, I’m going to get tired typing this.

Purely functional expressions are not copyrightable.

Purely functional expressions are not copyrightable.

Let me remind you that copyright only applies to creative expressions. Purely functional expressions are not copyrightable.

That’s not a problem unless you fail to remain silent. Invoking the 5th, in theory, means the police have to stop questioning you.

Almost right. Copyright protects creative expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves.

If the intent of open code is for learning, it shouldn’t matter if I teach a machine instead of a person.

If your “copyrighted code” comes out of an AI, I would suggest your expression isn’t particularly creative to begin with. Most folks can’t wrap their head around the idea that the vast majority of software is purely functional expression and thus isn’t particularly copyrightable to begin with. Larry can go f#€k his hat.

Oh, that’s cute! a six-digit wearing his dad’s clothes!

From a statistical standpoint, this is the most likely. There is a stigma with mental illness that doesn’t come with a traffic accident or falling off a ladder.

So the State can tell me what to do and not to do with data legally acquired. Bullshit.

Can you provide an example of Slashdot censoring such advice?

Usually this takes two forms: actively downplaying anyone who questions a proprietary software narrative and noticing that the preponderance of comments come from the perspective of accepting proprietary software as legitimate. For the former, try looking for any links to pages on GNU.org's proprietary page where examples that challenge the legitimacy of proprietary control over the user are listed (in a highly organized way both by subject matter with commentary, and by organization). Posts with links to that page (or its subpages) are frequently down moderated and comments from other posters (who ostensibly don't use moderation points) never suggest why. For the latter, one recent example came up where Microsoft was said to "experiment with moving key Control Panel features" much to the chagrin of users who posted in that thread. One response makes a point which tries to engender the reader's sympathy for Microsoft, "Microsoft is in a no win situation, here.". There is no apparent awareness of Windows completely not respecting a user's software freedom. The way for Windows users to win their freedom is to not run Microsoft Windows or any other proprietary software where they are subject to a proprietor's control.

I'm not sure what an "establishment media repeater site" is.

Establishment media is media that frames an issue within the acceptable limits of debate so as to not challenge the wealthiest and most powerful people or organizations. In the context of published computer software that would mean articles which frame the debate around convenience and cost while ignoring software freedom. Proprietary control is assumed and one is supposed to debate which variant of control is appropriate among the available choices. Rarely the terms of debate go to misframing an issue as though software choice is paramount instead of a scam: arguing which is a better word processor, for instance—Microsoft Word or WordPerfect—satisfies choice (there's more than one of them) but ignores that both programs are proprietary and deny the user control over their computer.

It's not hard to see how the ills of proprietary software are ignored and software freedom is never mentioned: in a story about listening devices (Amazon's Alexa, Google's Home, etc.) listening in on people's discussions that are supposed to be confidential and the adverse effect for legal discussions, you don't find much in the way of systemic discussion which frames the debate around how many programs listen in on people and how little control users have over the devices they've surrounded themselves with. One poster asked "Why are you bringing those devices into your house in the first place?" and suggested the alternative of controlling home automation "via an app on your phone, tablet, or computer". The poster said "Siri [is] turned off on all of my devices". The irony is quite rich when one thinks structurally and considers that Siri is proprietary software running on a computer built to give the user only as much control as the proprietor wants them to have. Another poster made a claim beyond available evidence, "You can look at the Alexa app on your phone and see everything that it's transmitted back to the mother ship." which also isn't a structurally advisable view for the same reason as I mentioned before. If data is available the proprietor doesn't want the user to know about, it's not hard to accomplish this. And the real vetting for this spying won't come in the form of checking a page of clips provided by the proprietor. Such vetting will come from vetting complete corresponding source code to the relevant software in order to learn what is possible (not what a UI is designed to reveal) which is exactly what software freedom respects and what these systems deny.