Said the guy whose "argument" is nothing more than argumentum ad lapidem.

What do you do for an encore?
Roll on the floor crying "NO! NO! NO! YOU ARE WRONG!" while tearing your hair out?

The moment you give people guaranteed basic income and replace them with robots - everything that robots can produce becomes FREE, with price of labor producing those products becoming zero.
Because production scales up and cost goes down with number of robots added. Including the production of more robots.

Nothing changes in areas where you still need humans - other than the price of labor being replaced with price of QUALITY.

Not quality as in "this is a 5 stars product" but quality as in "this product is purple - I like purple".
You can get the price of materials and labor down to zero with enough robots.
There is no such thing as scarcity of LOVE AND DESIRE, nor is there an upper limit to the price we are willing to pay for certain things.

We already got examples of that with artists and performers being paid bajilions of dollars for songs and movies nobody actually likes.
Paul Blarp: Mall Blarp 2 made about $62 million so far. It cost $30 million to make.
It has 4% on Rotten Tomatoes, up from 0% it had last week.

There is no reason for that movie to cost so much OR make so much - other than people simply willing to pay for even a chance of entertainment of the kind of QUALITY they might expect from a Kevin James movie.
There are people out there with DESIRE for that crap.
Countries spending billions on nukes they hope they'll never use are the same thing.
Only instead of paying for an illusion of entertainment they are paying for an illusion of security.

There are some things money can't buy.
But that don't mean we should stop tryin.

Strawberries are not pizza or BigMacs.

They grow low on the ground, rot easily, bruise easily, have to be picked and shipped quickly... and are not cheap to produce either, with all that water they suck up, while the rodents just love eating them cause they are sweet.
It is backbreaking work to pick them and it must be done quickly and be gentle about it.

The dirty little secret is that they were NEVER priced fairly - it's just that the cheap labor allowed farmers to shift the costs onto someone else's back. Quite literally.

It is a luxury item. Not food.
Think almonds - only you can't just shake them down nor can you pick them all at once like almonds.
Nor store them. Nor pack them dried. Nor ship them in bags. Nor...

Now think of the price of almonds per kilo... multiply it by all the things you can't do with strawberries but you can with almonds...
And then imagine buying them at that "fair" price. Then imagine how much the farmer would sell at that price.

And then what?
Force the "third world" to eat overpriced (for their wallets) strawberries while you don't get yours cause they are still rotting on the vine in the fields?

Strawberries are more perishable than corn.
Also, you can't pick them all at once with a huge, field-leveling machine. Too gentle for that.
Nor can you store them like corn. Nor can you turn them into HFCS or feed livestock with them.
And it is literally a backbreaking job to pick them.

But you need them picked during a very short window, and you need a LOT of them picked fast...
And pretty soon you're either employing armies of people who can still only pick your strawberries while there is light outside - or you got strawberries rotting in the field. After you've spent all that water and fertilizer on them.
And then you have to sort them and rush them to the market before they rot in their little baskets.

So you can sell them cheap and fast - or close up shop and let those armies of pickers go.
And just plant corn instead.

Notice how nobody questions the use of combines to pick corn instead of hiring "third world" do it by hand.
Cause if anyone used people instead of machines to pick the corn it would rot "on the stalk", and the price of food would skyrocket and it would end up hurting the most the very people one would try to "raise from poverty".

Endgame is not to make everyone rich by paying more for simple work. It does not work that way.
That would just be devaluing money until everyone is a millionaire while a loaf of bread costs two million.
Or four. Or five.

The goal is to make expensive things cheap and affordable so that "poor" means "we only have two cars and our TV is too small".
Make pickers into buyers.

If you can't find pickers for a certain price it no longer means that you don't want to pay them a decent wage.
It means you can't AFFORD them at the wages they can now earn doing something else.
They are no longer illiterate half-humans half-slaves willing to do any job just so as not to starve.
They had to fight HARD to get to that point. And there is more road ahead.

Now the goal is to have robots pick so many strawberries, that you need to hire more people for your strawberry processing plant where you make jams, pies, ice creams...
That's how you pay those pickers more - by creating better paying jobs.

NOPE.
It's because culture, cultural artifacts and works by there very nature have no expiration date - unlike humans who are limited by their mortality.

You are confusing the rule we came up with to try to harness that natural quality of cultural works in order to monetize them - with the reason for the existence of said rules in the first place.
I.e. You're engaging in circular reasoning where "old works can't belong to one person - because authors died so long ago that copyright ran out".

Which is another way of saying "There is no copyright - because it ran out".
Which is an ignoratio elenchi claim regarding the issue why " works of CULTURE AND ART AND STORYTELLING... can [NOT] ultimately belong to one person or a group of persons".

I.e. That it is THAT very property... attribute... of the works of culture to transcend any physical limitations through which mortal humans might try to limit access to such works in order to monopolize their value - WHY we had do come up with the idea of copyright.
Cause you can't expunge information and ideas from someone's mind.

You can't physically unhear a song or unsee an image or force others to do so if they don't want to pay for experiencing that work of culture.
You can only create a rule that they MUST pay.

I really can't go into other "points" you make there, other than to point out that they are all based on more ignoratio elenchi.
That is, ignoring that I am making points on WHY we have copyright laws instead of the HOW - i.e. particular nature and implementation of such laws.
Sorry.

All in all you're just a-nother layer of sediment...

Close.
Animals are incapable of being held responsible.

Much like children or mentally challenged (i.e. retarded) humans who are not in control of their faculties or incapable of understanding or holding on to agreements, rules and contracts, including but not limited to social contracts.

A human child is literally millions of years ahead of a chimp in mental development, but no one with any sense would dream of treating a child as an adult, capable of agreeing to or signing contracts.
Including those that the society one is born into has established for that child centuries and millennia ago.
Do not steal, do not kill, do not attack other people, don't light fires on the carpet...

Accepting those preestablished societal RULES (i.e. responsibilities) is the basis of having RIGHTS - or the society puts you in a cage.
Or, if you are REALLY incapable of following rules, keep hurting others and live in a place which practices a death penalty - society kills you to protect others from you.

And while you CAN explain such abstract concepts as good and bad to children or retarded adults, and have them obey the rules based on those concepts, you can't do that with animals.

You start treating animals like humans, you better plan for mass killing of said animals.
Cause that's where it ends at, very quickly - as they CAN'T FOLLOW HUMAN RULES AND REGULATIONS.
They will continue to break the rules they can't even understand, you will continue to punish them for that, until you either end up killing them or you get them to try to kill you.
At which point someone will HAVE TO kill them.

Shutting the mouths of all those "Leave Earth alone!!!" nutcases arguing that it is humanity's duty to reduce it's numbers until it is not a burden to the planet?

That, and being actual... you know... science.
Instead of... you know... a straw man troll in the same vein as "Why is this news for nerds?"

In ALL cases, every single one, EVER - victims became victims cause nobody heard or acted upon their cries for help.
Victims are acutely aware of that.

And they are aware of how valuable and invaluable it is to just have someone tell their story to the world.
Even if it is told badly. Like with "Mississippi Burning".
Which beats almost every single movie about Vietnam war - a war that was totally only about Americans and how THEY suffered.

Which again beats every single movie NOT made about Jeju uprising, regarding the mass executions, burning of villages, rape and the following coverup which lasted for some 60 years.
In a friendly, forward thinking, western democracy of South Korea.
Just like the Bodo League massacre and systematic mass execution of hundreds of thousands of "communist sympathizers".
Covered up for over 40 years... and clearly not considered a big deal.
Not big enough to warrant a movie, anyway.

Movies, like books, are primarily works of CULTURE AND ART AND STORYTELLING - and neither of those can ultimately belong to one person or a group of persons any more than the works of Shakespeare or the Bible or the Greek myths do.
Someone can own a block of wood with a Mona Lisa painted on it - but no one can own Mona Lisa no more than anyone can own the letter 'A'.

That's why we have copyright laws.
To assure that those who create/produce that cultural wealth FOR EVERYONE get paid something in exchange for their effort in creating something that is only valuable if everyone has free access to it.
Because you can't stop someone from seeing a movie or hearing a song - not if you ever want to make money out of showing them a movie or playing them a song.
It must be free and available to everyone so you could charge money for it.
Jerry Lewis can't charge people money for "The Day the Clown Cried". Even if he wanted to. Or if they did. And though they do.

Human art is designed to be appreciated and experienced and absorbed by other humans.
If it wasn't so easy for humans to experience that art and culture without paying or even trying (just quiz yourself about a movie you are not at all interested in - like Twilight or 50 Shades of Gray) no regulation would be needed.
Hell... you can chase down a thief and make him either burn up the calories in that apple he stole from you, beat it out of him or make him throw it up.
No amount of force or persuasion can make someone unwatch a movie or unhear a song. Sadly, in many cases.

So we have laws to try to make sure that at least some people pay for what they willingly experience.

BUT... as those laws are about monetary compensation to the creators of that art, we are fed a story that it is "all about the money" and that the movies are "just business".
Which is not true even for the most commercial of all art - pornography.
We can joke that it does not matter as long as there's sex in it - but we can't ignore the fact that there are porn STARS, and then there are "others".

Meaning that even with a movie that is so cheap to produce, both artistically and monetarily, where actor's skills are down to simple physical attributes and looks, and which is produced to satisfy such a base need - people will demand more than just a "recording of two people fucking for money".

And people will favor those who produce more than just a "recording" - thus creating popularity and fame for those performers who do "more than just recording".
That favoritism will not create MORE money though. It will only cut out of the picture those who produce only "recordings".

Even in such an utterly commercial field of film making, the goal is towards more than just money and money earned alone does not equal success nor is it the ultimate and only goal of producing the movie.

Movies are about art and culture and telling stories...
And that is where the victims of massacres and crimes get "compensated" - their story gets told.
Even if told badly, at least it allows them the opportunity to criticize the story told and instead tell their version to the world - who is now primed to listen.

Cause it is not about the money for the victims either. You can't pay someone back for a genocide or rape or dead and murdered relatives.
You CAN tell their story though.

Sounds more like she was a victim of suicide. Caused by mental illness.
And yes.
I am saying that anyone who decides to kill themselves because of their "honor and reputation" being "sullied" is either mentally ill or a fucking moron. Or both.

This is not 1st century B.C.
"Fate worse than death" and such shit is a retarded concept relegated to myth and bodice ripper literature.
Or religious fanaticism.

If anyone, people parroting such messages of "OMG! Reputation!" to others should be put on trial for endangerment of mentally inept persons in their care.
If someone's solution to trolling is suicide, that someone needs professional help.
If their relatives/caretakers just shrugs off such obvious mental issues - they should be investigated and if possible prevented from doing similar harm in the future.

By definition, what you are describing is a VERY isolated, ANECDOTAL case.
Unless you have some well researched data pointing to an epidemic of kids offing themselves, clearly caused by someone they were dumb enough to let into their pants later posting a photo of their wee-wee without permission.
And not something else... like undiagnosed mental illness and/or shitty parenting.

Also, it is bullshit. If it were true there'd be a huge Facebook-Twitter-whatever spike.
There isn't one. The rate of suicide among teens is pretty steady, and it is among lower rates.
Suicide rate also generally being FAR higher among males.

So your "not an isolated case" is PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!

No.
To suggest that there is an epidemic of pixel-related suicides is a vile and dishonest setup of a straw man.
So is implying blame of "attacking a victim" on anyone saying otherwise.
And same goes for putting words in other people's mouth.

On the other hand, all that bullshit straw man argumentation does not refute the fact that it is prudent to practice restraint with recordings of one's private parts or actions one does not want the whole world to see.

Also, suggesting that it was sextrolling that caused the suicide and not some other underlying issue...
That's not just counterproductive - that's perpetuating a "suicide as solution for stained honor" myth.

People will go on for decades with untreated PTSD and years with clinical depression before they decide to "end it all".
That's suffering daily mental torture and still pushing on.
But a naked photo posted online will make a sane person snap instantly?

There is something VERY wrong with your view of the world if you believe that happy crap.

...full of Star Wars toys.

That guy he plays in that Amazing Stories episode - that's him in real life + acting career. 268 credits on imdb.

Anyway... It was mentioned in one of Kevin Smith's "Fatman on Batman" podcasts.
Hamill asked if he could have one of every toys they were going to make. He thought it would be kinda cool.
Imagine that, you know. You're in a movie, and they make a toy that's you in a movie... Crazy, I know!
Nobody gave it a second thought, so they included that bit in his contract.

One of every Star Wars toys. Ever.

What I want to know is do Angela Merkel's documents show that her real father was Adolf Hitler?

What's with all the "mulling"?

They are not designed with power efficiency in mind. They are designed to be functional, fashionable and cheap to produce.
So, though the same setup could be designed with more power-efficient components or solutions...
Why bother about a Watt or two or twenty lost on standby on a product that uses hundreds or thousands of Watts when working, right?

http://standby.lbl.gov/summary...

I think that my favorite on that list is the gas range that uses on average 1.13 Watts per hour on standby.
GAS range. As in... it doesn't run on electricity.

That's about 6-15 kilowatts wasted every year, per household.
Just so one could light the highly flammable gas with a press of a button instead of with a match or one of those piezoelectric gas lighters.

As for this part:

http://recode.net/2015/02/25/a...