If they were hired through official channels, sure.

More specifically, the pirates were the people who hired the scribes, particularly when they were doing so with some intent to discredit the original author.

... then I can see absolutely no reason that a package that is clearly marked fragile, and probably nowhere near as fragile as this monstrosity, should be mishandled in transit *EVER* again.

I hope they pull this off.

I look forward to an age where couriers can actually be relied upon to deliver such goods without subjecting them to g forces beyond what their structural integrity can withstand.

Actually, the documentary said in a subtitle that I was supposedly a pirate for downloading it for free.

And as land would remain scarce, so would most types of food,which require land to grow the food upon.

The one time I downloaded a documentary that was released for free by the owners on pirate bay (while evidently also being released as a for-pay downloadable movie), a running subtitle not far into the film started going by, and chastised me for downloading it off of pirate bay instead of buying it.

I didn't even watch the rest of the film, and I no longer even remember what it was supposed to be about, but the experience kinda soured me against trusting people who willingly put their content onto pirate bay. If they are going to suggest that I'm a criminal for doing something they evidently were explicitly going to actively permit, I have no interest in what they have to say.

I never suggested that they could... only that laws would be passed prohibiting it.

Even supposing that this person somehow got their robot for free, he or she would still need to buy land to build their house on unless they wanted to build it somewhere that absolutely nobody else had any interest in being.

Even assuming that such DRM were feasible to implement, it still could not stop people from printing guns which do not conform to legal standards in the first place, but may still be entirely functional.

Of course, I expect that once this is fully realized, home manufacturing of any kind, without some sort of license and thus subject to regular inspection, is I'm afraid likely to be outlawed in the not too distant future.

Actually, the term even predates the printing press, and was used to refer to the activities of people other than those who were initially contracted to create the work to reproduce the work, typically attempting to discredit the original creator. People who would participate in such endeavors were called "pirates", and looked upon with similar contempt by society. when and where they were identifiable, even though there was no real laws prohibiting this kind of reproduction. The activity originally called piracy as it applies to creative works bears more resemblance to what we call plagiarism today than mere copyright infringement, but given the difficulty, expense, and effort that was required to make duplicates of works ta the time (everything having to be done entirely manually), the notion of copying something without also trying to take any of the credit probably hadn't even been given any serious thought of at the time. It probably still would have been discouraged, however, because such unauthorized copies may have been made at lesser expense, and may have been perceived to be more likely to contain errors, which could harm the public perception of the original creator.

I believe the argument against that, however, is that if you are going to ever allow anyone else to see or use what you own, then one should forever forfeit the right to claim any control over it, since one cannot reasonably control what others do with it.

Copying of creative works that were not recognized as legitimate by its creator or those who had financed their creation has been called "piracy" since even before copyright itself had been invented.

Words can have more than one definition, you know.

Where are they going to get the money to buy their robot? They've been put out of work *BY* robots.

The owner of the building, in the case of shelter The owner of the land on which produce was grown, in the case of food.

Again, mean is not the same thing as median except in a gaussian distribution. I understood it was right skewed also, and being right skewed, then that means that more samples exist right of the mean than to the left, which means that the median, the point at which half the samples are below, and half the samples are above, is also right of the mean. If it were perfectly gaussian, then that would mean that exactly 50% have an IQ greater than the mean, but if it is right skewed, then that percentage would actually go up, not down, since there are more samples to the right of the mean, and the median would also exist at some point to the right of the mean. If, in fact, by right skewed you actually mean that the median is at 107 instead of exactly at 100, then that would still mean that 50% have more than 107 and 50% have less. This would also mean that more than 50% have an IQ greater than 100, since in addition to those above the median, you would be including those with an IQ from 100 to 107.