The point is not to prevent teardown of fences. It's to know why they were setup in the first place. If it was put there for no reason other than to spend what's in the budget, then there is no barrier to removing it. But if it was there for good reason then you need to prepare a counter argument for why it should be removed.
Chesterton’s argument is that we should assume there was a reason in the absence of an argument for the fence. This is only the case if there’s a proliferation of necessary, unjustified fences. We should not let that sort of situation emerge in the first place.
Chesterton finds himself surrounded by fences which have no articulated justification, but which might be necessary/justifiable. This is a predicament of his own making. If he and everyone else in the town always bulldozed any fence they came across which doesn’t have a justification, people who want fences would start writing down why they’d put them there.
This would be helpful, because not only will it tell us which fences shouldn’t be torn down. It would tell us which fences we should actively maintain.
I think this falls down if the consequence of bulldozing a fence are high and if the original builders of the fence are no longer around.
The problem isn't Chesterton's own making. The problem Chesterton is trying to solve is when, for whatever reason, most likely due to many generations passing, the purpose of the fence isn't written down.
That also ignores the fact that some fences are built through an emergent and collaborative process, and so no one is such a co-creator to write down why it is there.
It's the same reason we study history, to know what came before us so that we can make good decisions going forward.
Since "Chesterton's Fence" can not be 100% applicable to every and any situation, you are rejecting it wholesale.
They make their short term gains that they congratulate their cleverness for, then suffer the consequences, and those that survive are the ones that re-learn the lessons of old.
But on the other hand, it's sometimes the only way to get the old method out of the way so that new efficiencies can be gained with the technologies available today. Of course most will fail, but some will survive.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
Making the problem bigger is an interesting way to go about it. I will grant that doing so does expand the number of people impacted, and therefore the number of people interested in solving the problem is also bigger, as well, perhaps, as the apparent pay off for solving it. But ultimately, the solution is going to be something that could have been applied by the same people who expanded the size of the problem.
Yes. Copyright already protects what a patent granted for source code would protect.
The problem you describe exists in both scenarios, and is resolved with enforcement. You can sneakily break the law, and you run the risk of getting caught for fraud.
I don't think that part is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
This is not correct. Patent protects the abstract functional design, copyright protects the reduction to practice. Two implementations of the same algorithm have independent copyrights.
You see the same thing in physical engineering too. A novel chemical process is protected by patent and each reduction to practice is protected by copyright. They are separately licensable.
I'm unfamiliar. Is there a source to this claim?
It's not hot button because there is no FCC chair. If the dems seat a chair, regardless of who it is, that would allow grassroots campaigns to reactivate.
Under Trump, I believe broadband ISPs were implementing data caps, and they backed off on that after Biden was elected. And some telecoms offer zero rated content. It's far more common overseas for telecoms and content providers to partner in providing access, so you get places like the Philippines where Facebook basically is the internet.
You're welcome to believe as you wish. We've never seen data cap issues, under President Trump or Biden, or any president.
> Following a multi-month suspension of its usage-based policy during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, Comcast restored and updated its data usage policies in July 2020, raising the monthly limit to 1.2 terabytes – 200 gigabytes more than the 1TB limit that was in place prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. Under the revised data plan, residential broadband customers who exceed 1.2TB of data per month are charged $10 for each additional bucket of 50GB, up to a maximum of $100 per month (Comcast's maximum data overage charge prior to the pandemic was $200). Comcast also sells a standalone unlimited data option that costs an additional $30 per month.
Edit: oh you do mean sandcats..
I imagine there is some sort of drug trafficking fiesta or holiday that I'm just constantly missing.