What is this "limited" you speak of? A cartoon made 82 years ago, by a guy who's been dead 44 years now, still has another 13 years of protection before it gets another extension.
Morally, I have no problem with polygomy. But when we're talking about legal contracts that bind financial assets, things can get really complicated really fast.
Clearly the best solution is to eliminate tax "benefits" for marriage and other means of social engineering.
Apparently, according to tax law, you shouldn't smoke, drink, own any of a very broad range of firearms, live unmarried, have no children or other dependents, have no vehicles or more than one or two vehicles (depending on locale), own your own business, or a whole world of other concerns the government and neighbors should keep its face out of. Nobody cares though, or they don't realize. Flat tax is the only way to have tax without imposing social control.
The equivalent of actually destroying it? Not really. Not unless they run off and spend it on hookers and blow and don't have any other cash to pay it back with, otherwise... that's a bit silly.
No need for that. Despite Paypal not being considered and federally regulated like a bank, they do clearly have the power to create money out of nothing. They would probably have an easier time about it, too.
If they were a federally-regulated bank the IRS would get sigmoid-colon deep in Paypal's affairs. I'm not terribly fond of Paypal's habits, but they save me a lot of technical bullshit and I don't have to worry that the government will have the power to invade my privacy any further.
Just kidding, I know they'll bend over backwards for any three-letter agency that knocks on their door.
If you don't think people should have a right to control anything other than a physical entity then cut out the amateur debating of a dubious premise and get to that point.
Personally I have no issue with granting people this right but feel these rights should be sufficient not excessive.
You're suggesting that there is some intrinsic or natural reason for people to lay claim to ideas. So... prove it.
With all this fear about the Gnome community fracturing and KDE being Too Uber for the average user, why can't Conanical use it's resources to fork Gnome and/or KDE into something easier to work with?
I'm not very convinced by this... selection... of a leader... Conanical Is Ubuntu Is Linux, I don't care what they say their business is, they fucking need to focus on the source of their very existence.
And this... clown who doesn't know shit about the community or the operating system that will be paying his bills.
It's like putting a rich white guy in charge of poor black rights. It's not that it can't be done or that it can't be right, it just doesn't really rally the troops.
You can't write down a set of rules for the average (ignorant) user; having an awareness of what is dangerous and what's not in the big fun world of computers requires a level of experience most people who use computers more secondarily just don't have the time to accomplish.
Computers are useful tools, it's a shame there's so many people out there intent on turning those tools against their users. Wrenches can't be programmed to give away a mechanic's secrets, scissors can't be infected with malicious code to destroy a hairdresser's business...
These people do very important work and their inability to understand the complexities of computers should not be such a threat to their lives.
You don't do stupid shit because you're aware what stupid shit is with computers, but can you overhaul a V6 and give perms, cuts and other fancy hair stuff?
[...] there aren't enough other new players to make online play worthwhile. Playing against diehard fans who have been playing since launch week is like a high school football team trying to challenge an NFL team.
Fortunately, these aren't the kind of people I am interested in casually playing a game with. I'm not into the whole "matchmaking" gaming, however.
And give that high school football team some credit, they probably take football as a sport more seriously than the guys that can live a lifetime off a single contract.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to be at the shareholder meeting when they discuss this.
What is this "limited" you speak of? A cartoon made 82 years ago, by a guy who's been dead 44 years now, still has another 13 years of protection before it gets another extension.
That depends on if you consider him dead.
Well, if you just design if for IE you'll take care of about half your customers, demographics depending. Half is better than nothing!
Now instead of relying on proprietary binaries we'll get to rely on proprietary codecs, whoopee!
Why are homosexuals so intent on changing language to fit their needs rather than being willing to call these civil unions and get the same benefits?
Not sure, probably has something in relation to those people who are so intent on defining marriage as a man-and-woman thing.
Morally, I have no problem with polygomy. But when we're talking about legal contracts that bind financial assets, things can get really complicated really fast.
Clearly the best solution is to eliminate tax "benefits" for marriage and other means of social engineering. Apparently, according to tax law, you shouldn't smoke, drink, own any of a very broad range of firearms, live unmarried, have no children or other dependents, have no vehicles or more than one or two vehicles (depending on locale), own your own business, or a whole world of other concerns the government and neighbors should keep its face out of. Nobody cares though, or they don't realize. Flat tax is the only way to have tax without imposing social control.
Clearly not, being that everyone has one.
Well, most people.
The equivalent of actually destroying it? Not really. Not unless they run off and spend it on hookers and blow and don't have any other cash to pay it back with, otherwise... that's a bit silly.
No need for that. Despite Paypal not being considered and federally regulated like a bank, they do clearly have the power to create money out of nothing. They would probably have an easier time about it, too.
If they were a federally-regulated bank the IRS would get sigmoid-colon deep in Paypal's affairs. I'm not terribly fond of Paypal's habits, but they save me a lot of technical bullshit and I don't have to worry that the government will have the power to invade my privacy any further.
Just kidding, I know they'll bend over backwards for any three-letter agency that knocks on their door.
Then someone with a "legit" copy just needs to get through the game the first time.
Just insert an tag. I think that will grossly deliver the sentiment, more or less.
Damnit, I meant to say <Eric Cartman>. I should take advantage of the compulsory Preview feature.
Just insert an tag. I think that will grossly deliver the sentiment, more or less.
... and nothing changed ...
Now we just need to bury 7 and 8!
This is absolutely disgusting, regardless of its effectiveness. Using Pavlonian conditioning to undermine free will is beyond inhumane.
Not only that, but they are also abusing these ancient and highly-prized works and further destroying anyone's interest in them in the future.
If you don't think people should have a right to control anything other than a physical entity then cut out the amateur debating of a dubious premise and get to that point.
Personally I have no issue with granting people this right but feel these rights should be sufficient not excessive.
You're suggesting that there is some intrinsic or natural reason for people to lay claim to ideas. So... prove it.
I've grown pretty fond of maximus and window-picker-applet. No titlebar and the close button is always in the same place on the screen.
With all this fear about the Gnome community fracturing and KDE being Too Uber for the average user, why can't Conanical use it's resources to fork Gnome and/or KDE into something easier to work with?
I'm not very convinced by this... selection... of a leader... Conanical Is Ubuntu Is Linux, I don't care what they say their business is, they fucking need to focus on the source of their very existence.
And this... clown who doesn't know shit about the community or the operating system that will be paying his bills.
It's like putting a rich white guy in charge of poor black rights. It's not that it can't be done or that it can't be right, it just doesn't really rally the troops.
How about we just stop using taxation for the purpose of social engineering?
You can't write down a set of rules for the average (ignorant) user; having an awareness of what is dangerous and what's not in the big fun world of computers requires a level of experience most people who use computers more secondarily just don't have the time to accomplish.
Computers are useful tools, it's a shame there's so many people out there intent on turning those tools against their users. Wrenches can't be programmed to give away a mechanic's secrets, scissors can't be infected with malicious code to destroy a hairdresser's business...
These people do very important work and their inability to understand the complexities of computers should not be such a threat to their lives.
You don't do stupid shit because you're aware what stupid shit is with computers, but can you overhaul a V6 and give perms, cuts and other fancy hair stuff?
Maybe the route some universities have taken of fines and downtime for those caught spreading malware or spam, knowingly or not, is what we need.
Sounds like another tool for the proverbial man to keep us down.
[...] It is copyright law that gives the right[...]
It is impossible for a law to create a natural freedom.
Who here has NOT ever been bitten in the ass by shitty code gaming?
*raises hand quickly*
*brain kicks in*
*puts hand back down*
To expand on this, you also have a chance to get 'of the year' editions which usually wil include all the DLC packages to date.
And give new life to the popularity of the game.
[...] there aren't enough other new players to make online play worthwhile. Playing against diehard fans who have been playing since launch week is like a high school football team trying to challenge an NFL team.
Fortunately, these aren't the kind of people I am interested in casually playing a game with. I'm not into the whole "matchmaking" gaming, however.
And give that high school football team some credit, they probably take football as a sport more seriously than the guys that can live a lifetime off a single contract.