In my study, (n=2), I can attest, indeed, that both of my dogs will willingly give up roaming outside in the wild for snacks, scritches, and belly-rubs.
My current dog wouldn't give up. It really depends on the breed.
Some ancient races still have those very old instincts of hunting and being independent, even doing some weird scream when given a bone or a having found a potential "hunt". (that's how people used to hunt!)
Youtube shiba scream :-)
All my previous dogs (>5) would always prefer the snack though.
Like terriers, Jack russel etc. lol. They will just go. They will ignore you. Yes we tried having meatballs. They don't care. Hunt hunt hunt. (Male, non snipped)
I can confirm. My Rat Terrier will absolutely not respond if she gets out. Best I can do is throw tennis balls towards the house so she runs in that general direction, assuming that’s the most interesting thing she’s found to hunt yet.
Frankly, at least in the context of US Copyright Law, we need to go back to Article I of the Constitution that defines copyright. The very first sentence is "To promote the useful arts and sciences..."
If congress passes a copyright law, and that law can't demonstrate that it actually MEASURABLY does promote the useful arts and sciences, (but rather hinders them, as is often the case), then that law should be overturned, desecrated, and posted on a wall-of-shame as an example to others of what doesn't work.
I think that would solve 90% of our problems with copyright law. But that's just me. I'm not typically a "Constitutional Originalist" but I think this kind of thinking here could help.
You can blame brain-dead case law and precedent for that, no doubt bought and paid for by corporations who can afford great lawyers to keep stretching the definition until it's completely unrecognizable.
> You can blame brain-dead case law and precedent for that, no doubt bought and paid for by corporations who can afford great lawyers to keep stretching the definition until it's completely unrecognizable.
How important is precedent..? Roe v Wade was overturned despite decades of precedent. Law right now seems to be as dynamic as tech.
The problem with that approach is that it would be trivial for companies to produce volumes of work and information demonstrating that it does.
Do you really think that someone like archive.org can do a better job of proving the negative than DisneyDiscoveryWarnerComcast will do producing volumes and reams of information demonstrating how they can only afford to keep making new content and supporting small creators if copyright lifetime is extended to 500 years?
The full quote is: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The Constitution does not require that IP laws actually or measurably promote the "useful arts and sciences" because the Constitution does not require the promotion of the useful arts and sciences but rather the progress of such. Moreover, the second half of the statement, says how Congress is Constitutionally supposed to accomplish that.
The idea is protecting even the stupid stuff is what lets the actual innovation proceed, the same way protecting Larry Flynch and flag burning protects other forms of speech.
Pretty sure that 'useful' has been defined as 'make someone ridiculous amounts of money' and is part of the 'constitution' that lobbyists imprint on their marks.
I don't disagree until your ending qualification. Being picky and choosy on when it's good to be a Constitutional Originalist means you might as well not be. If the Consitution is a dynamic living document beyond just amendments on one topic, then an originality argument loses weight even on another topic
Constitutional originalism is a rather recent construct. Its just that no one points out it was something mostly crafted by antonin scalia and friends that we think its some idea someone like Thomas Jefferson came up with.
Isn't it, really, a counter to Woodrow Wilson's, then, new idea of the Constitution being a "living" document?
And it's funny you bring up Thomas Jefferson, who wrote it as a static document with a mechanism to change it (Amendments). Add to that the fact that he said it should be scrapped every generation so it would better reflect the current times. Neither of these approaches argue for it being a "dynamic living document".
It would be funny if I didn’t think you were actually serious. It may be a recent term, but only because so many have arrayed against the Constitution and all the freedom and liberty it provides. It is solely a function of the enemies of freedom and self-governance that we even require such a ludicrous category as constitutional originalist, aka abiding by the Constitution.
That's how one should primarily live - the middle way, the narrow path, but without being lukewarm.
I'm pointing out that being an originalist is also a sort of appeal to authority to the Constitution. If the authority is then wrong on another topic, it undermines the point of the respect of the authority.
That's why saying "I'm not always an Originalist" while literally making an Originalist argument makes no sense. It would've been better to simply not make that qualification.
Modern homes have much better insulation and energy efficiency (like LED bulbs), etc. But I think it's also true that a lot of builders can get away with cutting corners, and the materials that go into homebuilding are also often of lesser quality (like wallboard from China that outgasses toxic sulfur fumes). Modern plumbing is mostly snap-fit plastic tubing rather than copper pipes. It's a LOT cheaper to install. Supposedly lasts as long or longer, but it's still shitty plastic.
Shitty wildcat builders throwing down entire subdivisions of deeply defective homes is a serious problem in the Phoenix area, I know that for a fact.
This is not new. My 1954 bay area house: the builders mixed scrap wood in to the foundation concrete to make up for undersizing the order, broken roof boards were patched with coffee cans and other garbage (coffee can had a 1940s date, it was there since built). These are just the most obvious examples.
lol. that's me; only I start by writing out the problem as an email to ask someone for help. 90% of the time, I find that I didn't have a complete understanding of the problem to begin with, and I usually end up solving it before hitting "send".
Then I'll have this odd memory of - "I discussed this with you, I told you all abo- oh wait, I didn't send it."
I thought I was the weird one...
Many a times have I debugged an issue and was convinced of where is the bug and what the fix is. Only to discover that I was off in both the regards when I sat down to write a detailed email to the team!
I felt I was wasting too much time. But I've realized that for me the time spent writing something in details has always helped me fill in the gaps and also discover the unknowns.
I found that sometimes sending it is required for me when I‘m absolutely stuck and have explained it a few times. It sort of commits it to memory and frees up mental resources then able to come from a different direction.
Pretty amazing to think that since this life evolved here, a lot of it thrives on methane. Therefore: I think there's a high likelihood of similar life on Titan. (which has a mostly-methane atmosphere)
