H1B visas aren't an essential feature of capitalism.

Point taken on property, but unlike other property where ownership is an inherent right, copyrights are granted by Congress to benefit society (talking about US here), and the terms of copyright are set by congress using powers laid out in the constitution. Would the Supremes interfere too much with this power?

If specific copyrights were wiped out using eminent domain, then I agree the owners would have to be confiscated.

Even if there is no climate change, oil is such a useful material that burning it for fuel is insane.

Yeah, *thats* why we should admire Galileo [rolls eyes].

Copyright is a restriction on the freedom of speech. Anything that restricts free speech must have a serious justification. "This guy is the creator and he needs to make a living." doesn't cut it.

That's a bad thing to rely on.

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?