Water is a solvent and a pretty good one at that.

Your phone is mostly held together with adhesives.

The water will soak into and destroy those adhesives after a time, but not so fast that you have to worry about a momentary submersion.

As it soaks, water begins to make the adhesive fail. As more water gets between the glass and adhesive, it fails faster and faster.

Depth inscreases this because some of the waterresistance is also caused by air pressure inside the phone at points that need to be open like speaker grilles. The tiny holes help prevent water from making it in due to the air inside the phone. Past a point, the pressure around you compresses the air in the phone, displacing it and replacing the missing air with water. So yes, it is mostly down to pressure with depth.

In which science describes the effects of "religion" and "praying."

Absolutely! I truly do think your purpose is justified and your intent good. That you worried about it in the first place is a sign of that and that you would worry so strongly on the thoughts of others is another. None of us are perfect and some of us would if we could... But we can't and, in some cases, shouldn't have to.

> The American Egg Board has blamed the price rise on an unprecedented outbreak of H5N1, a particularly virulent strain of avian flu that has a near 100% fatality rate among birds. This reduction in supply of egg-laying birds has sent prices soaring. But one farmer-advocacy group accuses major egg producers of gouging prices in a “collusive scheme” aimed at increasing profits.

> The group, called Farm Action, examined publicly available financial data from the egg industry. In a letter calling on the FTC to investigate record prices, Farm Action determined that the avian flu outbreak had only had an “apparently mild impact on the industry”, generally lowering the average size of an egg-laying flock by no more than 6% compared with 2021.

> “Egg prices in the grocer store have on average tripled for consumers since last year,” said Angela Huffman, Farm Action’s co-founder and vice-president. “Dominant egg corporations are blaming inflation and avian flu for price hikes, but if they were only raising prices to cover this cost, why are they raking in fivefold product margins? ”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/25/18-a-dozen-how-did-americas-eggs-get-absurdly-expensive

Could be avian flu. Could be price gouging. It's probably both. Avian flu and inflation gave them reason to increase price, someone somewhere went "nobody knows how much an egg costs, let's really crank the price, we have excuses." And here we are.

I figure many people here are aspiring authors as well. Many of these aspiring authors may also be looking to make it their living or make it "big" and may not have the same "You bought your ticket, you may pass" mentality as I have. A person forced to buy a second book is just more profit, after all.

Law and ethics are separate and they are forever arguable. For those that would profit from an extra copy sold or those that would advocate for the people that write those things which they hold dear... I can understand it.

​

But I still hold that this is harmless and ethically neutral... The copy is for one's own use and they already paid the author and publisher the asking price as you said.

Ahh, but that is the beauty of law. I'm certain I could register as an archive or library if I had a certain number of books, allowed public access, etc. With the small scale here i'd say it could be arguable.

Whether or not this all would hopd up? Iunno. That'd be for courts to decide. It's merely how I judge this. Not saying I'm right!

No. That is different. Making one's own larger copy does not equal walking into a store and taking a second copy that happens to be larger. Someone else made that for sale. That a twist of fate made it so a paying customer suddenly cannot read the copy they already purchased should not remove their access and allows exception in this case and in this manner. Any other "whatabouts" you can come up with do not argue that point.

Walking in to a store and taking a premade copy is far different from digitizing a copy for personal use or -in this specific case - downloading a digital copy. Assuming there are no large print copies - especially on release - is only so bood. Large print is only so marketable.

Further, the store theft... You would be stealing the materials and work done on that individual book regardless of access. The supply chain and etcetera that went into producing a number of access points to the story. That is removing one paid for access ticket from the pool of tickets, if you will. That is another entirely transferrable copy. They could, for instance, buy thebigger print one and happily gove away the other copy because it is a legally distributable cooy.

Stealing a published copy is not making your own copy of something you already paid for for your personal use. That is stealing a publically sold and published copy. To make one's own copy for a very good, personal use reason causes no commercial strain on anyone in that chain as the book was already purchased by one person once. You can only ever ask for that first purchase, really. Especially of a book. The hope is that many will like it and the sheer volume of sales make it worth it... But if you have 10,000 copies and all 10,000 sell and someone makes their own personal pdf on a phone somewhrlere, never distributes it, never even tells anyone... Then there is no impact. Maybe on the... Falsified rarity of making only 10,000 copies, but since we started with ethics... That's hardly ethical to me. Art is to be shared. Fairly compensated for, but made freely available.

The skirting here is downloading of a digital copy rather than making one's own copy. What you are describing is not the same as what I am describing. It is not having a single digital copy of the physical work already purchased. This is a false equivalance.

I got the amount of copies from the law. The archival section. I said it was arguable under either, but you stuck on fair use.

Archival allows archives or employee of archives to make no more than one copy for archival purposes. If she were to argue that it was being stored for personal archival purposes, it could likely be arguable under this. Bit again as stated multiple times, I am not a laywer. I am a person giving an asked for opinion on the internet.

It also allows up to three reproductions for the purposes of replacing damaged works.

And an archive is an archive. As long as they follow certain rules, even a personal archive would be an archive.

Law is flexible. What works in one situation does not fit another. In this situation no law is broken in my eyes. That's it. You aren't going to convince me otherwise, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. We both stated our opinions, neither of us are lawyers (i assume) and i'm certain we are merely going to disagree on this interpretation of the law. Shall we merely agree to disagree and move on?

I did not miss it. You ignored the three surrounding clauses and leaned heavily on one. All parts are important and the other three simply outweigh that one, so it was never mentioned. Not ignored.

> (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Nonprofit educational. Degrading eyesight makes a digital copy with scalable text make sense. Individual has agreed to one personal use digital copy.

> (2)the nature of the copyrighted work;

A physical book that I will boldly assume is available in one font purchased through a proper author to retailer chain.

> (3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

The entirety.

> (4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

None, as this copy will remain on this individual's personal device and is acting as a replacement for their physical copy which they are retaining.

With all these factors in mind, i think it is perfectly acceptable to allow it. These are a set of criteria. It doesn't even say that it cannot be done, merely that these factors will be considered when judging a case. It is then up to the judge to rule on the criteria set forth.

Were I the judge, I would deem it well within rights for fair use since it is a personal copy allowing the purchaser to continue enjoying what they purchased in spite of their degrading health. Maybe with a cheeky warning about having the foresight to buy the digital copy first next time with thr amazingly and frustratingly connected world we live in.

I didn't ignore anything. You're focusing on one thing too much.

Yes.

As one would be purchasing their initial copy of the book.

I have been handed an entire plastic punch-bound cover to cover copy of a book to read along in class only to turn them in at the end.

Part of copyright is the distribution aspect. I was incorrect on my statement of "1000." An exaggeration. But for fair use it would be a simple lack of sale or distribution. It is not being distributed, sold, or otherwise causing some undue commercial impact to the party that sold the book as it was already purchased. The purchaser cannot read two books at the same time, will not be offering one book to one person whooe they read theirs (which, in the case of a book club, would it not be fair use for educational purpose?)

Copyright is intended to protect the sales and ownership of a work. If a person is making a copy for personal use, they may as well have made no copy at all as only that one person will ever use it.

I suppose I could also argue archival context, but again... I'm not a lawyer. What I do see is a law that is made to protect the integrity and ownership of a work as well as to make sure the owner of that work is fairly compensated for their work. As long as that is not broken, no law is broken.

This person has a very good reason to need this copy. It helps them read what they already bought without further undue hardship. No law is broken.

Not so, I'd say

I would argue that fair use allows for a full "blown up" copy for the sake of a purchaser's eyesight. It allows them to more easily understand the text. A single copy for private use - even if it was to have one in the study and one in the john just in case you forget it - is well within fair use so long as the copy does not leave the premises. A specific caveat made by the law. The caveat is that it is not then distributed as far as the law is concerned.

That is a term of service and a generic statement of copyright.

Fair use and archival purposes allow for copies for use of many reasons, including educational and research, so long as the copies do not leave the premises.

I would argue "I made photocopies / downloaded an archived copy for the ease of reading on a screen for my own personal use" falls withon fair use when the person has no intention of distribution themselves. Indeed we are skirting an edge by just downloading a copy, but since they have a full copy themselves it is a shortcut and nothing more.

Now, egg on my face, it does seem copies for replacement of a damaged copy are actually limited to 3 in total so... No, no plastering a wall, but copies for personal use fall well within copyright.l imo. Obviously not a lawyer, but it seems fairly clearly stated.

There is more nuance to the law than some blurb on a page and it all has to do with commercial loss and context of use and status of distribution.

If we went full Minority Report we would have nothing. We cannot prevent the dishonest from being dishonest. We can only punish the dishonest after the fact. A dishinest person doesn't care about ethics. There are none. They do as they please and do anything to get what they desire. We cannot blanket out a simple binar ly switch of whether it is ethical or not. It is too nuanced. The billionaire that steals an apple os a criminal. The starving man that steals an apple is in dire need of help and cannot be blamed. Would he otherwise be condemned to death?

This is not as extreme, of course, but the same ideas can apply. The person who digs a copy out of the trash and goes "haha! Here's my access pass!" Is just as legitimate as the person who purchases it in my book... With some caveats...

The thing is, once that person throws away or sells their purchased copy, they have sood their access. It is the person who sold that tattered copy that now needs to be sure they have no further copies. If they do, they've now copied for redistribution. Doesn't matter that they're selling the original, they've still essentially stolen a copy by gaining access, making a copy, then revoking access while keeping the copy.

The vast majority will be honest.

Are we so worried about that one person costing an author the $15 they were never going to get from that person anyway that we would hover, paranoid, over the shoulder of every person that would want to follow the rules?

After all, in your scenario, they are buying a damaged, presumably used book... So the money doesn't go back to the author or the publisher anyway. It goes to the original purchaser who is now reselling something not meant for resale and making money off of someone else's work after they have already consumed it. If anything, selling the original after consumption and damage is now the unethical thing. At least the person that bought the ruined copy tried to pay for it! They did not steal it outright, they legitimately purchased a copy that the reseller valued at a lower dollar amount.

The vast majority are people like OP. They just want their own personal use copy. They have every means to make their own personal use copy. If someone else already did it the only ethical "break" perhaps is that they are using the shorter road instead of putting in the effort of copying it themselves.

And those two are not participating in redistribution. Only one would be on technicality because the one who purchased an illegible copy does not have that same ability to make their own copy. There it does become greyer, but only because it is indeed being downloaded from an outside source and is not a perfect copy of the exact book in their hands. They are aiding in someone else's redistribution, but their downloading it doesn't change if it was there or not. It was already redistributed illegally.

They have a full, readable copy and could copy it themselves. Thus, I feel it is ethically ok to download a copy that has already been digitalized since it is essentially a shortcut of something they could do themselves.

The person with an illegible book does not have this same ability and, thus, hits one of those caveats on ownership I was speaking of.

Ownership is becoming muddier by default these days anyway. With streaming, digital distribution and other such things it actually is the access you pay for. If I buy a book on Kindle, i have purchased the right to access that book on any Kindle device or App. I do not own any part of that book, even a physical copy... So if I print it for my own use, that is just... Access. Access that can actually be revoked at any time, unlike a physical copy.

The second I give a copy to someone else I break ethics.

I don't think it's too grey. Personal use is acceptable. Redistribution is unethical.

I'd argue it to be more unethical to force someone to pay for the same thing twice just because the medium is different. Whther physical pages or digital text, the words don't change and the individual already paid for access to the words.

I think this would be more akin to buying a book and owning your own printing press. You are making a copy to be privately used in case the original is damaged. This is a practice going back to scribes and handwriting copies.

You bought the first copy and there is no law stating that you cannot reproduce it for personal use and that is the line.

It has nothing to do with the book itself or any number of copies. If I'd purchased an original scroll of an ancient text, nothing stops me from hand-vopying it as many times as I desire. That it is digital and, thus, easier is no different than moving from handwriting to the printing press. I wouldn't feel entitled to walk in and get a different book, but this is not that. This is copying the book by hand in a larger font and saving the original book, essentially. To grab another copy from a store would not be the same. Those materials are still worth something, even if you already purchased the story part. It isn't equivalant.

What stops me from recounting the tale orally from memory? Is copying it to my mind and redistributing it aloud breaking some law? We could argue the lines all day as it's all mere social agreement.

Thus, to me, the line is drawn at true redistribution and the nuance of the situation.

If i am OP, this is my thought:

I have already purchased a hard copy of the book.

I own a physical access pass to the words the author wrote.

I have multiple ways to consume words.

A physical book does not emit light of its own has a few other issues and being able to read on the go then return to the physical book would be nice.

I am not redistributing the copy I make for myself.

Making another copy for myself does not harm the author as I have already paid to read those words.

Where I read them does not matter.

Purchase is access to the book and words therin. You now own that book for any level of personal use. Make 1000 copies and wallpaper your house with it. Let anyone who's anyone borrow a read while they're in your home. As long as they stay within your personal sphere of influence and are not goven to others, you violate nothing.

To flip your analogue... What of a DVD i've purchased? Must I charge every person who comes to my home a Box Office fee and pay the distributor of the movie a fee for allowing a few friends to consume it with me? I am the one who paid for access yet they did not. Now a number of people have seen the movie without paying anything for it.

You paid to own a copy of that movie and watch it yourself. Not redistribute it. Is that then illegal?

The reality is that there is much more nuance to things than we'd like to think. You purchased a pre-written pre-copied version of the book distributed by a single publisher and a single author. If anything, you are paying for the work done and access to the story. You pay as much for the materials as for the access. If I were an author and someone came to me and said "i read your book into the ground and the pages are frayed and unreadable. I'd love another copy." I'd... Give it to them. I lose on the materials, but they already bought access to that story. I got paid once for the story I wrote once.

Having to repurchase a same book is a quirk of capitalism and of physical product. If I pay for a digital book, i indeed have "infinite copies" because I can view it on any device and read it as many times as I want wherever I want. I even have the option of printing the book into as many physical copies for my personal use as I'd like. I'm just not allowed to redistribute it. That's the consistent lynch pin.

My take: You already paid for it. You could go through the process of cutting the binding, scanning it into a computer converting it into a PDF, and then reading it on your phone... Or you can find a PDF someone else already did that for. You already paid for access, digital is just a backup.

Well there ya go. Guess I was right the first time and all the eye crossing just made me want to see it.

I mean, its taken.

Indeed it can be both ways around and I shouldn't generalize.

When you sleep, your body actually produces mild paralytics to keep you from acting out your dreams.

Sometimes, you regain consciousness before the "keep the body paralysed" system shuts off and you basically become mentally awake while physically asleep.

This is also why so many experience "sleep paralysis demons." These are usually anomolies of a partially conscious mind as it tries to take control of the body. The feeling of someone "sitting on your chest" comes from trying to wrest control of your breathing from your autonomous nervous system as panic and sleep clash.

Hallucinations can then be formed as the mind tries to rationalize why it cannot take full control. "Aha! I am pinned!" It thinks, and in a dreamlike state hallucinates... Something. A shadow, a beast, a nightmare. Surely it must be malicious if it has drained you of your ability to move and takes your very breath!

But it is not. You have merely experienced your conscious mind awaking while still having most of the "be asleep" chemicals still clearing out.

Agree on all points eh? Gee, thanks. :p

But hey, none of us are. We're mostly arguing opinion here. Fact-backed, but opinion. I'm glad we found the disconnect! I find that truly is where "argument" comes about. Most folks wanna agree, just not at the cost of their morals and standards. But we're all flexible too, or should be. Nobody wants what they think is worst it's just the ignorant sorts that wanna stick their head in the sand that cause issues.

But yeah, the perfect world it'd be like the water cycle. Trap the methane, convert it to CO2, plant the food crop, trap the CO2, rinse, and repeat. The problem I see here is just people seeing this and people calling it "clean" and going "so... That's it, right?" when we still have reduction efforts and alternative solutions in other fields and all that to consider. That's all. This one effort just feels like a "no duh, why didn't we do this 20 years ago? Now this effort is too late!

I am glad it helps! I just... don't think it helps enough in this field. And I just don't want to see it turned into a marketing ploy as manipulatable as "carbon offsets" and all that. Just raising a flag, not chaining to the tree. Lol.

And of course, I'd never directly deny science. It is because science says that we are in an emergency state that I hold this very opinion! Passionate and a bit of a tight pull on the rope, if you'll forgive further idiom; but, i live on the west coast of the US and breathing smoke is rather unpleasant. I'd like to see reduction in production ASAP. XD

And to you a cheers on that. I appreciate your passion and for presenting fact and arguing through logically with me. If ever either of our logics could be flawed. We're human, after all, that's why we temper it with fact. My view, at least. But I ramble! Have a wonderful one, stranger-friend. o7

Then I think we actually... Mostly agree, and I'm glad we kept up the discussion!

As for that, you're mostly right I think, but that dispersion is important. The greater surface area makes it easier to break down in other ways and keeps it from creating concentrated blankets. A pasture is like sticking a straw in the water and blowing bubbles rather than using a fine aerator. The aerator will get some in solution at least, rather than just jetting gobs of the less dense gas up to the top. Hell, if we had many smaller pastures rather than big industrial ones, that could even help. There are a lot of ways to tackle things that I am in no way qualified to speak on.

My only point really was to say "neat but... Why not just stop producing as much methane? And how can we truly call this 'clean?'

I was in no way trying to say this wasn't beneficial in some way, just that it doesn't address the fact that we're creating too much anthropogenic methane to begin with and that this narrative and the conflation of "clean" with being the perfect solution - especially in marketing - is... Misleading.

Perhaps I am arguing semantics here, but had they even called it "green" rather than "clean" I'd have had less to say. To call it "clean," to most, is to imply that it is the solution, not just an effort. Feels like poorly disguised marketing around something that could otherwise have a decent application with a more transparent understanding.

You said yourself that "clean" is relative unless I'm conflating conversations. Science indeed does not change. Conditions do. 20 to 30 years ago, we weren't as poor off in all of our greenhouse issues and this kind of planned can-kicking would have been much more beneficial.

And the statements are not. This is not clean and should not waste things actually clean (for the atmosphere) resources should get. That does not mean the product should not exist for uses when fuel is needed. Indeed utilize it... But don't call it "clean" and act like it's the end. That is it.

Having a gas station for vehicles specifically is my argument, I suppose. If using it as a fuel is viable, use it in the use cases that absolutely need combustible fuel. Vehicles don't need that.

I've been speaking of vehicle use the entire time. I've been speaking of our production of methane the whole time. Not about naturally ocurring methane. Not of use cases that are outside of a gas station on the side of the road. That's the biggest over-user of combustible fuels. If methane use in areas where combustion is absolutely needed helps? Cool! Not talking about those.

I'm speaking specifically of this application. A fuel station made for vehicles that combust fuel on the road. You are arguing many other points that do not apply. You even stated that that is what the article is discussing. That is what I am discussing. No more. No less. I am not talking about non-anthrogenic carbon emissions.

But we also need to be looking at the root and trying to stop our own methane emissions entirely. Because those vehicles are the end of a chain that need not exist. That is my entire point. This is kicking the can, not cutting our methane emissions which is what needs to happen. Because there are so many natural sources that our anthrogenic production is overloading the system.

That was... Kinda my point. It's what I was talking about from the start.your "why not utilize it" argument is absolutely beside that point when my entire point was to say "this is just exchanging one gas for another in vehicles... It doesn't address the root... It just kicks the can."

I think our disconnect is that you think I'm arguing against this... I'm not!

I'm arguing that we need to call a kettle black and not waste time on psuedo "clean" solutions while lamenting the timing of this. 20-30 years ago i'd have agreed that this was clean. Now? Hardly.

And the rate of growth is not equivalant to the rate of consumption. That's the problem. We consistantly undergrow and use other wastes to make up that lack of growth. Indeed I suppose it is more of an argument to farming practices, but that's attached to this "solution." Again why I said we'd be in full agreement if they were pulling from a natural methane vent.

Hell, we could easily be growing meat in labs with 0 methane production if we could get over it. Just tell some muscle cells to start growing and cut off a slab whenever you're hungry for some meat. It'll grow back soon enough.

That is the other point. Because of how late this has come, I feel that the resources could have gone elsewhere.

It's a good idea... But feels like too little too late. That was and has been my only point. We're past this kind of can kicking. That's my only point and lament.

Heck, I'll even agree for its use in other fuel applications. Using it in cars doesn't feel like it's the one to go for.

How fast do you think grass dies and decays rather than being mowed through by cows? How fast do you think it decays into CO2that isn't then immediately absorbed by the growth around it? Clear a field and kill the grass on the regular and that is not the "natural" process you're alliding to. Volcano eruptions are "natural" too, so I guess we just keep marching toward a new paleolithic era at a human-accelerated rate because "well, volcanos explode all the time."

Just because there is a natural parallel does not mean this is equivalent. You're comparing slow natural decay to rapid, acid and enzyme-based decay due to the overpopulation of a certain animal in concentrated locations.

I addressed that it is an acceleration of natural processes. Just because it would happen over time does not mean it is ok to press fast forward on the process. This is a foolish argument.

The parallel drawn was merely to point out that whether we are speaking fresh grass or old fossilized plant matter, it is still "carbon that existed in the environment." The fuel was trapped deep underground before we drilled and fracked for it. I even said I'd agree further if you were talking about someone capturing from a methane vent.

This is not that. This is taking methane that we are producing at an accelerated rate and turning it into CO2 that we will be releasing at an accelerated rate.

No matter what, this is humans still releasing solid carbons from their trapped forms into the atmosphere and accelerating the process. That is the root problem.

It isn't "clean" it isn't a "solution." It's fine and dandy as better-than-methane but at this point in the game more can-kicking isn't what we need. We need to find a way to stop releasing carbons as gasses as entirely as possible. It is, of course, going to happen... But doing it in every single vehicle is a bad idea no matter how you slice it.

No. If they wanted to frack my back yard to prevent the world from catching on fire, i might have some problems with the process of fracking and mining needs its own regulations, but at least my driving to my 9 to 5 isn't leading to global extinction. I never said the prectices in mining were great, I'm speaking of the broad spectrum impact on the earth and humanity as a whole.

I also happen to agree mining conditions are terrible and that can be done better too. That isn't the discussion at hand. The discussion is whether this is "clean" or a "solution" and it is neither when other actual solutions exist.

How can you in one breath defend this as great yet imperfect then turn around and make such an accusation when I offer another imperfect, yet non extinction event forming solution.

Did i say it was perfect? Never made the claim. But it at least damages a country side and not the entire atmosphere and is a solution to global climate change. How the people in those mines are treated is an entirely different subject and one I happen to think needs fixing as well. You are making a lot of assumptions.