How is this not obvious.Do you accept the consequences that can happen?
It's a primary AXIOM.Human rights must begin with a right to one's own person.Can you define axiom?
Are you suggesting that medical research should be secret?It is a hypothetical. Do you think there is information too dangerous to know about?
I've been a LOGICZOMBIE for about 3 years now and I've converted at least 3 people that I know of.How much time did you spend with them and do you think your asking too much from all/most/some people? The / is whatever you decide to choose.
Explain to them what epistemological limits are and logical fallacies such as "appeal to authority".How about people who have disdain to things they don't understand therefore don't actually take what you said to heart?
So one person instead of multiple people? What if it was a joint effort into lets creating AI? Who gets sole ownership to the invention?
Why 20 years again?
Well stated.Even though I think cenorship is bad if people knew what was fact and opinion it wouldn't be a problem.
If you teach people to distinguish FACT from OPINION, then slander will solve itself.This is just patently false.
The line between truth and slander is often very small.
There is often some level of truth in the slander to sell it. You cannot ever teach people to be able to distinguish between the 2.
It takes a great deal of work to do that and 99% of people wont do it.
What are you so afraid of?
An AXIOM is the basic building block of a Sound-Logical-Statement.
I reject the myth of the "noble lie" wholesale.
Only private-citizens should have iron-clad privacy.
If you are capable of speech you are capable of logically-coherent-skepticism.
Most people are skeptical about at least one thing. That makes a good starting point to build common-ground.
Even though I think cenorship is bad if people knew what was fact and opinion it wouldn't be a problem.Well stated.
The minimum 1% (or whatever they can negotiate) would be split between all patent/copyright holders.
Because it is a reasonable amount of time to build a business (and reward you for your innovation)
but not enough time for you to retire for life (and for your children and grandchildren to retire for life) and revert to generations of pure rent-seeking (monopoly-seeking) behavior (like disney).
None have his name in the title lol.
They know it's a sham. Another deep state CIA shitWhy are they protecting the whistle blower's identity?
Why are they protecting the whistle blower's identity?They know it's a sham. Another deep state CIA shit
Well what if I invented the cure for cancer? I have 20 years to milk everyone dry of there money. Nearing the end I can continue to drop prices until every single person has the cure. At that point I would have accumulated so much wealth to reward my innovation but no one after 20 years will have any customers to sell what I created. I effectively created a market and ended it in 20 years. What do you think?
That would be a reason why I would be for censorship. There are too many idiots to allow stuff like...white supremacy,
communism
and anarchy
...to be associated with the highly regarded institutions.
The minimum 1% (or whatever they can negotiate) would be split between all patent/copyright holders.What if a party involved was a corporation who gave the funding to make this happen?
If there is a socialist professor remove his status as an authority on the subject. If there is a person advocating it on the streets have the person jailed for being a public nuisance.
How is this not obvious.Do you accept the consequences that can happen?
Certainly...Do you care if information can lead to harm?
Hate speech will be categorized as broad-brush ad-hominems and the people advocating hate will be asked to support their statements with FACTS.This wont ever happen. When someone says something stupid like "islam is a religion of hate and should be banned" you can find enough very specific details to sell that.
It doesn't matter that it is a gross misinterpretation, some people will believe it. If you allow people to do stuff like that, then hate and violence will be the result.
If you can accomplish that in 20 years, you deserve what you get.
The most profitable drugs are designed to treat patients without curing them.
A corporation is made up of people. I don't believe a company should have the right to strip their employee's of any and all rights to their creativity.
I would tell them that they are super intelligent for not trusting any information they can't verify logically.They can say back I don't care about logic only God or something essentially that whether it be good or bad faith. What do you have to say to that?
Most adults I've interacted with believe their views are (mostly) logical.What if they say whatever is valid is what God says? Example: Mopac.
If I demonstrate that a 10-year-old can do it, this demonstration strongly implies that if they spend a little time practicing, they can probably do it as well.How about people who are not able to do so? Disabled people, working all day etc.
Given the adult is also older you would have to convince to them why they should do this instead of with a kid who just listens to their parents. How are you going to convince them?
When you understand that these are logical fallacies and recognize that each claim must stand on its own merit, that's a game-changer.Okay. I have already asked a similar question, I was going to put here, above so no point in asking it again.
Yeah sure.Don't you mean, "traditional family values and cultural pride"?
Don't you mean, worker's rights, labor unions, employee owned businesses, and social safety-nets?
Don't you mean, "individual sovereignty"?
What institutions do you consider "highly regarded"?
This seems slightly FASCIST.
If you can accomplish that in 20 years, you deserve what you get.Okay. So your aim for the patent being 20 years is to give people enough time to capitalize on their discovery? What is your previous to that? Reduce harm, give people what they deserve or make sure individuals are free to do what they like?
