Cogito

Why couldn't the default of copyright law be "no fair use" and then have those who want fair use applied say so in their copyright statement? Or why couldn't copyright law have a provision where you can apply for a "strict" copyright or something?

I'd say that in this case it isn't initiating force.

What do people know about it? Does anyone know anyone who has gone there? I was looking at the website earlier and it made me wish I had lived in California when I was younger.

Wow, I have no idea why I used such language for this post... autodidaction, rut, flourish, stagnated, appreciatively... I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, but when I read it it doesn't seem like it's me that wrote it.

I'd love to read it

If I write a book and wish to sell it under the condition that it can be read but that the idea of fair use does not apply, how would I go about doing that? By your definition, I would not want to publish my book, so what would I want to do with it?

Why should the assumption be that allowing 'fair use' is the desired situation? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

Why? Why couldn't I publish and sell my book under the condition that fair use doesn't apply?

Not that this is related, but is that an alternate spelling?

*Takes out the popcorn* I can't wait to watch this:D

That's the point... Look at where it says "for example"

Not that I necessarily believe this, but couldn't the response be instinctual as opposed to volitional?

That really cheers me up... And I was happy already

Good choice... I usually have a knoppix CD with me when I go to fix people's computers in case I need to do something that is easier on Linux than Windows, or if the problem is with Windows itself.

Of course, you could just go linux... We're past the days where only us computer nerds could use it, and there's the nice fact that you can get the majority of the system without spending a dollar. I could go into a long-winded rant about its advantages, but so many other people have done that for me... Try this website to find a few.

From the article: Is this really shrugging? [edit] Man, SN got there first

Well, if you wanna try it, you know where to reach me.

I use the PCs I build, and I have been known to put together computers for friends and family, if you're interested. [edit] Wow that was dumb, I didn't even consider the fact that you might not live near me. Ohio might be an issue

Ayn Rand's centennial was in 2005... Perhaps this is why?

Do animals(non-human) have volition? How do you know either way?

How could it go further than that? If instead of the situation being a human loving another being, the situation were a human loving himself... So intellectualammo, does this mean that your twist involves somehow two characters ending up as the same or something? Or is that way of base? Eh, I know you won't answer anyway, I'm just curious.

I currently find myself in a rut in my scientific learning at school. Even though math, the hard sciences (by this I mean physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, etc.), and computer sciences have always been my favorite sciences and I am very sure I want to go to a college (right now my top choice is Harvey Mudd) where I can flourish in these subjects, I've recently been feeling that my education within the school environment has stagnated. As such, I was wondering if anybody knew of any books/lectures/websites/methods for self-teaching extensive knowledge of these (and by these I mean mathematics, hard sciences, and computer sciences) subjects. In particular, I recall seeing something a while back, I think it was on the meta-blog, about a physics course which took the student through a logical progression of physics. Appreciatively, as always, Cogito

Are you: A. Being facetious to set yourself up to prove a point about property? B. Being facetious to set yourself up to bring up a problem you have with our current conceptions of property? C. Being facetious for a good time? D. Being facetious for some reason I can't fathom? or E. Being completely serious?

I'm not commenting on whether or not you are wrong in saying that this conception fits the viewpoints you say it does, but I do know that there is no such thing as an "objectivistic" picture. Properly, it is the Objectivist picture.

In mweiss's defense (and if I'm wrong, correct me), I don't think he's saying that it is criminal(i.e. rights violating) for Vista to be set up this way, but that it is immoral(i.e. against the rational self-interest of Microsoft)