sunshinenbrick

There could be a time limit though, like with common private to public domain transfer. Maybe it needs to be catered to modding and the age of the industry, but it is something of a compromise and also means great works by those whom didn't know about such things (or before they were even in place) will not be forever locked away and pushed into pirate channels.

I don't think forcing or strong arming anyone into anything is a good tactic. But there is a dilemma around how to coexist and how to keep the 'amateur' and 'professional' scenes alive. I think better labeling and search may help, like if you could search for assets and resources based on licence, for example, so new modders have somewhere to start. Thing is there is stuff out there but it perhaps needs to be organised better and with a easy to interact with interface that clearly states any ToS, permissions etc... something like this would hopefully avoid the 'stepping on toes' that happens so regularly and causes so much confusion and drama. Suppose this still doesn't answer any questions on legalities and enforceablity but that is perhaps just going to take time and precedence. Starting somewhere and trying to guide people from the 'bottom-up' is surely an economical way to approach things, at least to begin with and until things take more shape.

I am more than willing to concede that there are extreme zealots on either side that say cringe worthy things to those of us in the middle. I find little difference between the taking heads such as Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow.. ..except political allegiance, both make me cringe.Though I would point out that there are some very intelligent, erudite, rational and respected Liberals on this forum that know how to rationally substantiate their contentions, not one has come to the defense of his assertions...rather telling IMO. Most political and mainstream narratives make me cringe as well. The agenda all seems to be the same. Divide and rule. Well I wouldn't like to speak for anyone... but perhaps that is the very nature of being liberal (both in the objective and subjective :tongue:)? I wouldn't like to assume I know the circumstances nor the intentions of yourself or those that may or may not have defended themselves, but I too have on a number of occasions also run into dead ends as well. I usually put it down to not wanting to tempt the boundaries of the rules here at Nexus, or maybe it is because some things don't have answers that aren't dualist in nature... On the odd occasion I may consider it might be because other people also don't like to feel they are talking to a wall. :wink: Edited for rephrasing. Sorry :confused:

Erm... I am cynical of both camps, but let's be clear that the right whinge and distort things as much as the left does. That is politics after all. We are all human, or is it that some are more human than others?

*Really? I suppose that depends on your perspective and understanding of contextual intent* One need not stick to a stereotypical line, especially when its flawed and dogeared on both ends...and there is oh so much more to be said. A thing can be both right and wrong in the same breath for different reasons, in many contexts. Few truths are universally applied in the same way to everyone. Some see Irony with a capital ''I'' everywhere they look. This is telling. So, are you being facetious? EDIT: No reply? Unfortunate, and I do honestly find it a little surprising you don't seem to detect a sense of irony in what you were saying. Perhaps I should explain my reasoning a little further... I am not attempting to take a stereotypical line, apologies if that was how something was received. However, I would point to your comments about "united league of minorities and new agers" as a good example of stereotyping - it so happens to also be a good example of the irony to which I was referring. There are other examples and points I could draw on but don't really want to turn this into some kind of critique, but merely to try flesh out some of your assumptions and inferred judgments. I invite you to help me understand better your arguments as I, like you, feel an urgent need to find and hold on to what good there is in this world. May I also take this time to apologise for my own flippancy, however I'd say that humour is oft the best medicine, and it seemed helpful when I felt the use of argument and language had and 'uneasy' flavour to it. :tongue: Sláinte!

We supply only the sharpest irony®. Thank you, come again!

Alright peeps let's keep it cool eh? There is nothing 'absurd' about people having different opinions and holding them dear. That is the premise of most debate. Besides, is it not these very 'rights' that all this is about anyway? A joke is also a joke and perhaps the last laugh, is just that. 'Conspiracy' is pretty old-school though, think of it as 'alternative facts'.

Thought I had seen that image somewhere before...

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity.

I hope Trump makes a good job of it, for all our sakes, because if he doesn't it will be bad for everyone. I may not necessarily agree with all the policies (or at least the surface of them) but I do think the whole thing had become too toxic to actually discuss anything. I am afraid I think Trump, or rather the republican/democrat (i.e. establishment) actually deliberately toxified the narrative because they saw the chance to take/maintain control and gain more power. Now 'they' have it, they will be able to what they do with it (some more). I only hope that all these new 'politically incorrect', sharpshooting 'conservatives' can remain stoic enough to not to let themselves (and everyone else) be be taken for another ride the way Neoliberalism™ and Globalism™ has taken the world into the sticky situation we are now trying to get out of. Party politics is as dangerous as anarchy, moderation and the inclusion of minorities is what separates a democracy from tyranny. Maintain reason and the freedom to think for yourself otherwise we may skip the waterboarding and go full-on capsized!

Intermission...

You are a wizard, no? Or maybe you are trolling me? Ah well nevermind, it wasn't a funny joke anyway :laugh: I am more than happy for you to indicate what parts of the argument you find bewildering. Unfortunately "Huh?" doesn't help much in the debate. It is okay for you to not understand it, but that is no reason to indicate the argument as nonsense. I have already laid the argument out as straightforward and as 'layman' as possible but you seem to have not given any further argument (other than perhaps through the practice of obfuscation - which a very valid subject to the discussion, but then lets be 'clear' that is what we are talking about :tongue:). So again in the most 'simple' fashion I can think of: "You can't have your cake and eat it." In more detail: the idea revolves around the fact that you cannot, for example, eat meat and call yourself a vegetarian. Well of course you can (I'll admit that I have but then that is because for the most part I was and still try to do as much as I can), but this then doesn't translate very well into a social structure because people will not know what you mean by 'vegetarian', possibly calling you dishonest - which in some regards you may very well be, while still be honest to yourself. Now this maybe all well and good and the idea is now that many people believe they have this 'new' kind of freedom, to say what they want to say but also not feel that it has any political consequence i.e. a lack of 'political correctness'. However the argument in context was that this may be the case for a while but ever so surely people will opt for order over chaos and new systems will be put in place that frame the narrative so that whatever is said is kept within that space. Perhaps not personally, but socially which will eventually reach everybody. Think of it like a pendulum, many people believe we reached the end of one swing and are now heading in another direction. It is much like in many of Orwell's books, a sort of 'doublethink' where what you say has more than one meaning and then this logic is used to replace the thoughts and speech of others. The wider point being that, like I've said, nothing has really changed it has just gone up a gear and an extra layer of disillusionment and propaganda has been added to the scene. Freedoms will quickly come with a price tag attached as government takes hold, and Trump is very pro government - in fact he is governor.

Huh?Yes indeed, a practical exercise in the choiced I'm referring to. Maybe 'self-censorship' is not the correct phrase as that seems a little triggered... The point is that you can't live multiple lives and so we have no real relatable comparison. There are not two presidents, for example, so we can only speak from the one perspective. We choose to believe and think a certain way and although that can change, we cannot change what has happened nor easily the thoughts and actions of others. We make decisions we may think are our own, but they are always made from the experiences and formulated opiniona that have led us to that point. Like I said before it may be possible to be 'different' but it takes a special kind of conviction and if it is not in the interest of an established order then if you don't buy into it then things will quite a challenge to say the least. You are babbling.Why i don't get it?Do you actually think that nonsense impresses? I see no need to resort to insults just to make a point. "You can't have your cake and eat it." No insult if you don't choose to be insulted.I just don't understand what you're talking about.Like i said before i'm old and demented.Look kindly on us for our time is near over. OK I choose not to feel insulted, but what is done is done. Don't worry, you'll come back all the wiser :wink:

Huh?Yes indeed, a practical exercise in the choiced I'm referring to. Maybe 'self-censorship' is not the correct phrase as that seems a little triggered... The point is that you can't live multiple lives and so we have no real relatable comparison. There are not two presidents, for example, so we can only speak from the one perspective. We choose to believe and think a certain way and although that can change, we cannot change what has happened nor easily the thoughts and actions of others. We make decisions we may think are our own, but they are always made from the experiences and formulated opiniona that have led us to that point. Like I said before it may be possible to be 'different' but it takes a special kind of conviction and if it is not in the interest of an established order then if you don't buy into it then things will quite a challenge to say the least. You are babbling.Why i don't get it?Do you actually think that nonsense impresses? I see no need to resort to insults just to make a point. "You can't have your cake and eat it."

Huh?Yes indeed, a practical exercise in the choices I'm referring to. Maybe 'self-censorship' is not the correct phrase as that seems a little triggered... The point is that you can't live multiple lives and so we have no real relatable comparison. There are not two presidents, for example, so we can only speak from the one perspective. We choose to believe and think a certain way and although that can change, we cannot change what has happened nor easily the thoughts and actions of others. We make decisions we may think are our own, but they are always made from the experiences and formulated opinions that have led us to that point. Like I said before it may be possible to be 'different' but it takes a special kind of conviction and if it is not in the interest of an established order then if you don't buy into it then things will be quite a challenge to say the least.

By saying something you always choose not to say something else. However much we might find it infuriating, we are still products of our surroundings.

Indeed the Trump supporters are in for a HUGE shock.Mainly because what they expect is not going to happen.What do you mean by," What we say and think will be socially manipulated to serve our masters."I'm apolitical i'm not at all impressed by political figures so i can't see how i could be manipulated.Self censorship will be one way, unless one really is willing to go the distance... Which could be very ugly. Another way is the changing and selecting of context. Taking what people say and changing its meaning to serve political ends. Lastly being disengaged and ambivalent will not stop people speaking for you and signing you up to things you may not agree with or even know about.This isn't to even confront the problem of 'real' and 'fake' news which if not intentionally misleading, still makes it next to impossible to know what you believe is true or gather enough support to fight for that truth. Even if you are and you can, they will still crush most opposition wuth relative ease. Self censorship?I don't even understand the concept,why in Zeus would anyone that respects their own perception want to censor themselves?I censor nothing,ask my friends they hate me sometimes.What do you mean by,"changing and selecting of context"Could you give an example? I am very much the same and get into hot water with folks all the time. Even through the choice of words we self censor, it is a human natural trait for creating social constructs. This is looking at it from a most fundamental level. In fact the only people I've met who were properly 'uncensored' would be considered autistic or learning disabled (this is one example of the other point about the changing of context and intention). Another example of changing what people mean is evident in the art world, or religion. Taking things and applying a narrative and subjection to what was originally intended. This happens all the time, it is what inherently defines propaganda, and most things are propaganda from one perspective or another. Thus the importance of finding different sources and applying critical thinking. Unfortunately the number of people willing and able to apply the time and resources to do so is dwindling. Welcome to a new dark ages, or enlightenment depending on your disposition and research on the subject! :D

Indeed the Trump supporters are in for a HUGE shock.Mainly because what they expect is not going to happen.What do you mean by," What we say and think will be socially manipulated to serve our masters."I'm apolitical i'm not at all impressed by political figures so i can't see how i could be manipulated. Self censorship will be one way, unless one really is willing to go the distance... Which could be very ugly. Another way is the changing and selecting of context. Taking what people say and changing its meaning to serve political ends. Lastly being disengaged and ambivalent will not stop people speaking for you and signing you up to things you may not agree with or even know about. This isn't to even confront the problem of 'real' and 'fake' news which if not intentionally misleading, still makes it next to impossible to know what you believe is true or gather enough support to fight for that truth. Even if you are and you can, they will still crush most opposition with relative ease.

The whole thing with political correctness and whatever is a worrying joke... People who think that they have all this new found freedom are in for a shock, because nothing is free. It will be paid for with lives if need be. Political affiliation is meaningless unless you have the power and wealth to rise above it all anyway. What happens is the reshaping of narrative, and Trump is exceptionally good at this to the point where many journalists are concerned. Perhaps they may have themselves to blame but this doesn't help us because journalism is important even if much of it has become a farce. What we say and think will continue to be socially manipulated to serve the masters, which Trump is not going to di anything about - drain the swamp of the unemployed and disaffected more like... Nothing has really changed, the overton window is still very much intact. This is the 'new' political landscape and they have done an exceptional job at pulling the curtains, it's almost admirable if it wasn't so deceptive and exploititive. Trump is even more 'neoliberal' than any president before him. It's just fuel for the fire, like a poison to cure disease. Don't get me wrong though, democrats and republicans have long since realised the potential of working together.

I at least hope people can still make a (positive) difference, but perhaps it is to choose or realise you won't necessarily be 'recognised' for it because as soon as you do it can become toxic, exploding in your face - quite literally in some cases... I also think the hammer will continue to fall, and people will be certain to eventually prefer accuracy over immediacy (likely until that becomes the problem!). This is of course if we haven't completely lost our senses through lunacy and technology.

I remember we came to similar resource paradoxes in another thread. Even if we can (and I hope we can) make fusion work, the energy, technology and materials to get to that point will still largely be oil based. Also energy, while a main factor, is not the only thing that has us hooked on oil, and all of these products and materials will have to be replaced as well (some not yet replaceable), again though only by the use of oil to get there. So we are left with the conundrum of choosing between saving or spending our way out a hole and as any decent economist will tell you (and this is all economics - or rather geopolitical economics) you actually need a little bit of both, but in the right places. It's a very careful balancing act that needs the correct investment at the correct time. The problem at the moment seems to be that collaboration has broken down. However, politics and power is a circus, so I do also wonder if many things are a smokescreen (a real and deadly for many of us, kind of smokescreen) that leads us all on a wild goose chase, while those who are 'warning' us make of with the golden egg. Hmmm... but then maybe it is a double bluff! Who knows at this point, and I think that is actually the point.

The chaos in the lives of plebeians is a somewhat small price to pay for oil, money, and influence. We all bought (continue to buy) into living outside our means and enjoying freedoms at the expense of those less fortunate, and so really only have ourselves and the governments/corporations we put in power to blame.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Yeah. "Peak Oil".... I have been hearing that one since the 70's..... And supply still outstrips demand, and we still have huge untapped reserves. Don't see that becoming an issue for several decades, at least. In that time, I would hope that we will finally achieve a commercially viable fusion reactor.... something small enough to power our personal vehicles...... I imagine that technology will enable oil production for a fair while, but not at no cost to human life and our environment. Perhaps it is likely that if we leave earth, it will be out of necessity and not choice... if the two are any different. Still, monopolies can prove to be very dangerous beasts (i.e. too big to fail) and can seriously jeopardise the entire free-market if the invisible hand becomes *ahem*... too invisible. If we lose sight of our senses, to chance 'the big one' regardless... we might end up with nothing at all. But yeah I think we are currently coming of an age and there are warning signs saying, "Whatever you do, just don't touch this button!"... but alas if we are not careful... well, we know what supposedly happens to the cat. Speaking of cats, wouldn't the final irony be some sort of fusion experiment gone wrong in which we destroyed ourselves and gave birth to a new Big Bang! :laugh:

We either have passed or will reach a point where we will have to replace fossil fuels with something. The race is to find something that can replace the technology not only as an energy source but also as a building material et al. before it all runs out. The tricky part will perhaps really be not killing ourselves in the process.