It only makes sense in a capitalist society because copyright and patents are the transformation of creativity and invention into capital. They are not solutions to the problem "how can we get people to create and invent stuff", they are solutions to the problem "how can the rich own culture and science itself, rather than just the machinery it drives?" "How can creativity and invention function as capital accumulation?" A book is personal property, it is something you possess for its use-value. A printing press, and copyright on the book are both private property, means of production, they're both things you need in order to make books. (The difference being that a printing press is a natural requirement, whilst copyright is an artificially imposed one.) Capitalism is, at heart, the system by which means of production are owned as capital by capitalists, who employ workers for a wage and take the products made with them. Without that, there's nothing for these types of "intellectual property" to slot into.

The difference between the past and now being that production which used to require specialised equipment and a non-trivial amount of labour can now be done by millions of individuals almost effortlessly. Copyright is now in many cases the only type of capital which meaningfully exists. It's the only thing keeping the production of copies of computer files capitalist (the capital-owner tells you what you can and cannot make and gets the product) rather than post-capitalist (you can make what you want and keep it, because you control the means of production you use.)

Which is more or less equivalent to observing "we've made this incredible copying machine, which is getting more and more powerful, but we can't unleash its potential because the economic system has not kept up so it isn't allowed."

The next stage of Marxism is for the working class (that's anyone who works for a wage, not just low-paid manual workers,) of the world's most advanced capitalist economies to unite and seize control of the means of production. This simply hasn't happened yet. The German Revolution of 1918-1919 is about as close as we got to this maybe starting to happen. The closest thing that has actually happened you can look at is probably the Paris Commune of 1871.

Liberalism should be left-leaning, it's just that right-wingers in the West love to pretend to be liberals whilst twisting the ideas in service of power, and they drown out the proper ones. It's easy enough to derive the need for socialism from liberalism - basic liberties like the freedom for a thousand people to eat a nutritious diet without being arrested for stealing food are clearly far more important than expensive ones like the freedom for one person to go around the world in an enormous private yacht, so liberty is maximised by a reasonably even property distribution, which you clearly won't get if you allow hierarchies.

Ordinary people aren't allowed to damage the property of others. Corporations should not be allowed to damage the property of millions of others either.

There's a reasonably strong tendency towards this, because right-wing politics is fundamentally the defence of established privilege, and established privilege, whilst rather good for the leaders of our society and most of its influential people, is bad for the vast majority of us, because it means we have to labour for a wage which is less than the value of that labour in order to further enrich the already wealthy. (Or previously do what your feudal lord demands etc.) So unless you're one of the lucky few who are around the top of the tree, if you're right-wing you're acting against both your own interests and the interests of most of humanity.

The two things I've picked up are firstly, games are more responsive on X11 because they get to access the screen directly whereas with Wayland they have to go through a compositor, and secondly, all the applications on X11 are like a big happy family, whereas Wayland tries to secure them from each other, so with X11 you can take screenshots, do all sorts of fun scripting things with the likes of xdotool, but you might be subject to some sorts of attacks, I haven't analysed whether the threats Wayland is guarding against are significant.

That's assuming your day to day stuff all supports both, of course. Which is far from guaranteed.

If efforts against it were focused on rescuing the children from abuse and prosecuting the creators, rather than searching through people's hard drives for files you're not supposed to have (which always seems to end up including a broader range of things for some reason,) then there would be no problem. Actually tackling the problem, rather than just doing something easier to pretend to tackle it, very rarely runs into problems determining whether something is a child or an adult. Or a figment of someone's imagination.

The idea that providing such a service is harmful to children without being harmful to adults is utterly incoherent.

Unfortunately, the existence of stupid objections to "smart" meters does not make them a good thing. You need to look for the intelligent objections to them, don't trust that your "local hippie moms" have the best possible objections.

Any software which you can't remove counts as malware, unless there's a REALLY good reason for that. It's infringing upon your rights to own and do as you see fit with something you pay money for in a shop without mention of rent etc.

Economists have to produce answers which are acceptable to the ruling class, because any popular understanding that people can use democracy to make their lives better by voting for wealth redistribution is too big a threat for the ruling class to allow it to exist. This means economics is not allowed to be a science, it has to be intensely ideological. Which means it will always give wrong answers. I remember taking an economics course in school, it started with how banks create credit with the lend-borrow cycle. As a starting point for economics, it's farcical, it's a starting point for "don't ask where the profit comes from".

Fortunately, a couple of decades later, I came across a single-page description of how profit comes from underpaying labour based on the labour theory of value. And I finally understood how capitalism works, which no economics course or anything else in mainstream culture is going to tell you. (The tendency for the rate of profit to decline is another important one, but it's a lot harder to understand.)

One thing which hurt them quite a bit is Chibnall's spoiler-phobia, which meant he was doing almost no publicity for the show, because he wanted everything to be a surprise. A disgruntled fan such as myself might observe this is because making things a surprise is the only way he knows how to get a reaction and decent writers can make stories which work even if you already know what is going to happen. (Outside of a few very specific story types.)

There is precedent, the BBC have to get the permission of Terry Nation's estate every time they do a dalek story, because he wrote the first one. (He doesn't actually "own" the whole concept, he owns their name and behaviour, the BBC own their appearance because that was invented by the set designer for the story, Raymond Cusick.) But since all these fundamental components of the show were invented by BBC staff, Coburn wouldn't get to own them just for refining them into a script for the same reason that dalek behaviour didn't go back to the BBC because that story had a BBC story editor who refined it.

"Tardis" or "The Ship". "The TARDIS" was not used until later. And since the time lords were not invented until six years later, everything back then was "sans 'Timelords'". Also, these things kept changing, there was an unaired pilot filmed in which Susan was born in the 49th century, which was changed to "another time, another world" when it was redone.

There was also not really any concept of "companions" back then, it was "his granddaughter, and the two protagonists they've kidnapped". Vicki is a kind of replacement granddaughter/young girl, it's probably not until Steven that the word "companion" becomes appropriate.

Contracts don't need to be in writing. For example, every time you go to the supermarket, pick up some food, have it scanned and pay for it, you have made a contract with the supermarket to exchange your money for the food, that's why the food becomes yours. Anything affecting the contract said by one party and reasonably believed by the other can become part of the contract.