🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Empiricism_Reloaded @TruthSandwich

> I’m just going to explain how this point is magical thinking (not practical) and then leave this conversation.

It isnt magical thinking or practical.. we arent talking about if it is practical, we are talking about the fact that it is doable... why isnt it practical? Cause we have much cheaper fossil fuels... thats it... We can and do reverse the reaction for hydrogen production all the time, it isnt affordable an option, but yes very doable.

> What fuel are you referring to? (hydrogen fuel has no carbon element)

You clearly arent reading what I said, in that very sentence I specifically stated hydrogen has no CO2 element.

> You’re inferring unpractical ideologies. However, if you had a time machine you could go back in time before the fuel was incinerated. Even better, go back in time before all the coal, oil, forests, etc, were burnt and those actions will have been reversed (not done).

I am not proposing practical solutions, because the most practical solution is fossil fuel, thats why we use it. Nor am I suggesting this is a "second best". You seem to forget where this started from and why we are discussing it. You are trying to claim that things mined fromt he ground are bad. I am suggesting they arent because they dont disapear once we use them, so simply being mined from the ground doesnt necceseraly make it bad, it is other factors (like many you reiterated) that make some things taken from the ground bad, and fossil fuels was exactly one I touched on.

@Pat

And no, saying that "I put all the stuff i stole in a 3x2 grid" would not be considered transformative.

@coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

@Pat

No they werent.. neither were reproductions.. one was time shifted (one copy viewed only so not a reproduction by definition), the other was modified (transformative) so also not reproduced in full, a modified version of it was produced.

@coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

@freepeoplesfreepress I didnt mean to imply your intent was to abolish the second amendment.

I am just trying to point out that the framing of your question is flawed and likely the result of social biases many people have...

Do we have a gun problem? No... we have a violence problem. Many tools are used to carry out violence, but having access to those tools dont cause the violence, they are very much secondary.

The proof we have that there isnt a gun problem is simple, just look at how homicide or violence rates (not gun violence all violence) change when guns are banned... if guns were the causitive agent (and thus appropriate to say we have a gun problem) then when guns are banned then violence overall would go down. Thats not what we see, in fact more often violence goes up, considerably. This clearly demonstrates we have a violence problem, and guns have little to do with it even when they are often the tool of choice.

@Pat

Nope.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. - In this case you are not reproducing , you are time shifting (you are allowed to watch once, not reproduce,a nd cant share it).

Blanch v. Koons - Also not an unaltered reproduction, this falls under transformatic fair use and by definition only applies when your version changes substantially the original.

@coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

@Empiricism_Reloaded not for profits still profit , its a misleading term I know... It means it doesnt have owners or people that profit through the ownership.. the people in a non profit still walk away with money (sometimes a lot of it), and the company itself still accrues profit and grows.

I suppose you could build a company that never grows, but if it does good by its very nature why would not want it to grow and spread the good thing it does to more people?

@Empiricism_Reloaded You seem to really misunderstand ideas like "money" or "wealth". you dont need money to make profits.. if i sell 2 cows to you for 10 sheep, then sell 10 sheep to someone else for 4 cows, even though money doesnt exist I still profited.

Yes you can be motivated by things other than money, but in doing so you have created a venture dealing in profits whether you want it or not.. as long as people need things and provide things you have an economy, and capitalism and economy existed long before money.

@Pat

harm against the copyright holder is one measure, but no, you can **not** reproduce something in full simply because you want to critique it.. show a court case that says that, none exists!

As for google, google images doesnt "reproduce" the work... for starters the images you see if cached are lower resolution, if not cached they link and reproduce the original work AND respect metatags that tell it when this is allowed or not... so you are really grasping at straws on this one.

@coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

@Empiricism_Reloaded

> Evidently, when we use a finite resource for fuel, once it's combusted, its usefulness is effectively over.

Not at all, fuels are completely reversable reaction. Hydrogen is the simplest to understand, but it applies to fossil fuels too.. burn the fuel and you get co2 and water (though there is no co2 with hydroen)... add energy back and you get the fuel from water again.

The issue is that when we dont reverse the reaction all that CO2 gets in the air, which is more the issue than anything else, reversing the reaction isnt the issue though.

> Whilst we can recycle metals, metal degrades over time. For example, electricity degrades the conductors. That's why electronics eventually malfunction.

Only partly true.. Yes metals oxidize, but no that doesnt mean the metals disappear. Just means its in its oxide form. When you recycle metals you can (and usually do) convert it back into its metal form from its oxides. So no the metal isnt lost and is still fully recoverable when/if it degrades.

> Plastics that are made from crude oil can only be recycled a limited number of times. Fundamentally, when plastic is made from crude oil, that product will either one day be microplastic particle pollution or, if it's burnt, air pollution (plastic will degrade until it's not useful. But it's not biodegradable).

Yes plastics have limits, and issues, but that isnt because the material disappears, its more that it just isnt economical to take short-chain polymers and reconstitute them, especially when new plastic is much cheaper and easier... so while you are right plastics have limited recyling chances in any practical sense that isnt entirely relevant here.

@TruthSandwich

@Pat

In that case you have two options... show a small portion of the whole, or link to the original.. but no you cant show the entire thing in full quality, critiquing it doesnt get you off.

@coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

@Empiricism_Reloaded haha you sure could, yet that implies demand and thus something that can be profited from.

@Pat

The 4 criteria are hard in the sense that, while there are some exceptions, it is well established by the supreme court, and the exceptions are well noted...

There is **no** court case which suggests if you criticise a thing then you are allowed to reproduce it in full detail. In fact fair use **always** requires a low-quality reproduction as a universal criteria among others.

@coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

@Empiricism_Reloaded Just because you may not define it as such doesnt change that its impossible to have something be sustainable without it being profitable. Anything people want is profitable (see my earlier example), and people must want a thing in order for them to be motivated to sustain the thing.

@Pat @coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

@Pat @coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

No not how it works, youcant reproduce something simply if you intend to criticise it... there are 4 criteria all of which much be met to qualify as fair use (outside of de minima clause)... none of those conditions are met here.

Google satisfies the criteria, stux did not.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Finite resources are perfectly fine. Its not like when you use a finite resource it disapears... whe you use copper the copper still sits on the surface of the earth ready to be used again when its done, you never use it all up.

There are only a few truly concerning resources, and its not because they are finite, but because of other reasons: Helium because it cant be made and escapes the atomosphere, and fossile fuels because it converts into harmful gases that cause other issues.. you can apply this to a few other things of course, but overall having a finite amount isnt the top concern

@TruthSandwich

@TruthSandwich

They tend to act as super conductors. In fact I was just involved (marginally) in this application in our lab.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@tatzelbrumm @freepeoplesfreepress

every type of violence is unique... knife violence is easier to get through metal detectors (ceramic knives), poisons are more covert and easier to kill larger people, etc... Every type of violence has its own unique concerns and factors, and none of them are particularly valuable to put all your focus on.

@Empiricism_Reloaded That seems like defeatist logic... if someone cant get rich off the product then the product wont ever be made.. even if something is plentiful and renewable it can still be something people get rich off of.... People literally get rich selling mushrooms and you could grow your own in a showbox with some woodchips.

@TruthSandwich

Absolutely, and that is a challenge we may not be able to solve... but its not impossible... If its made from microorganisms it may be quite economical, it would grow itself with a bit of nutrients

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Metal is biodegradable, and doesn't necessarily need to be mined (for example it can be extracted from ocean water, though its not efficient). But the conductors might be hard to do non-metal... only non metal conductors I know of are ceramics and they still need mining I think.

@TruthSandwich