It has seemed over the last several months that the only thing he was lying about were his finances. There were injuries and police speculated on whether his nose was broken.
But no, keep feeding those racial-tensions narratives.
Im not sure that its "in the US" that its not PC; ive heard from folks who live there (as well as folks who are themselves Chinese) that the term is indeed insulting, on the level of calling a Scotsman Irish.
I see that you are a republican since you think everyone is after a handout. I was thinking more along the lines of being in a committed relationship, knowing that the person you are with will be with you till the end, that kind of thing.
Apparently communication broke down here. My original question was specifically on why someone would get married if they werent intending it to be "for the long haul". Other than those benefits and any religious ones, there ARE no non-societal benefits.
This isnt some republican narrow thinking, I recognize that society rewards committed relationships and I think that it is a good idea to do so.
Sometimes the harder you try to hold something, the more it slips between your fingers.
Trying too hard can be worse than not trying at all.
One of the reasons that marriage is (theoretically) not a unilateral agreement.
Not that it seems to be the prevailing idea, but at least in theory BOTH people have agreed to make it work. If they cant do so, perhaps that engagement should have been longer.
If you remove the "not intending it to be long term" then I can give you plenty of reasons.
Am I am right in assuming they can be summed up as "benefits society gives me"? If so, realize that those benefits were given historically to promote marriage as a long-term familial relationship; the benefits are not there for their own sake.
And yes Facebook recently dropped, and it is worth less.
Again, it has no appreciable impact on facebook. Once it has sold all the shares it intends to sell, the changing share price doesnt impact their income or expenditures-- as far as I am aware). All that it impacts is the sale of shares. You buying 50,000 shares a broker only helps facebook if they're the ones selling those shares. Their bottom line will remain unaffected otherwise.
Market cap isnt what a company is worth, nor its profits, nor its assets. If you want proof of that, consider what the market cap of Facebook was 2 months ago. Though the market cap DROPPED $30bn, they potentially made as much as $45bn on the IPO; it is conceivable that you could get more from your IPO than your market cap is several weeks later.
Really, market cap is kind of a worthless measure of reality. All it is is "heres what society collectively thinks about the worth of the company", but it can be wholly disconnected from the company's actual worth or ability to generate income.
For example over-the-counter non-prescription drugs, such as Aspirin, are still being made by oligopolies of the Legal Drug Industry, such as Bayer
Although there are generic brands of Aspirin, Bayer is still raking in truckloads of $$$ from Aspirin
You are basically getting mad at Bayer because people prefer Bayer asprin over generic? Wow, just wow. Somehow we went from a country founded on the principles of democracy and capitolism, to one where offering a product to consumers at a price they like is an abominable thing.
Comparing medical drug monopolies in the US to cartels in mexico displays a shocking ignorance. You may use phrases like "these monopolies are killing us" metaphorically, but in Mexico it isnt so metaphorical. Whens the last time these "vultures" killed several reporters for reporting on them? Whens the last time they killed local police with explosives?
The utter lack of perspective from so many in the first world is a little depressing. You realize how great your life is in the US, that you can actually GO to a hospital, that you dont have to worry about a drug cartel firebombing your house? That we have freedom of the press here?
But no, the monopolies here-- not the cartels in mexico-- are the REAL monsters, what with their high prices and all.
According to a post on the official blog, the company thinks modern technology plays a key role in helping to 'expose and dismantle global criminal networks, which depend on secrecy and discretion in order to function.'
Not just about drugs, and its kind of crappy that youd take potshots at them for trying to go above and beyond "just profit".
Honestly, as corporations go, Google tends to be the lease onerous "big guy", ESPECIALLY in regards to "alternatives". Who else would offer 8 zillion ways to get your information out of their services and into someone elses? Who else would actually let you opt out of their bread and butter advertising services?
This may come across as shillish, and if you think so so be it, but its a little tiresome that even when corporations try to go above and beyond they get nailed for it. I have a feeling Sony could announce tomorrow that its donating $1 billion to ending human trafficking in Amsterdam, and someone would find a reason to nail them over it. That being the case, what incentive is there for ANY company to ever try, if theyre never going to get credit where credit is due?
PS, if you think "war on drugs" is limited to just the actions the US takes and doesnt have a more literal meaning, you should take a look at Mexico. Whether or not you approve of US policy RE: drugs, the drug cartels ARE a huge problem in mexico and any effort to tear them down is wonderful.
Our population continues to increase regardless of whether people are forming "sustainable families". Not having those stable families creates additional, serious societal problems on top.
Any time during that period you find your self excessively complaining about your spouse,I recommend that you calmly end the relationship
See, I had always assumed getting married was saying "I intend to make this work", not "We'll just see how it goes." I had thought the latter was distinctly pre-marriage / pre-engagement.
Or am I missing something here?
Granted Im a christian and bring that perspective to it, but Im not seeing why, if youre not having kids, or intending it to be long term, or taking a christian perspective, youre getting married. Is it all just for the tax and legal benefits? That seems counter-romantic.
An NDA is someone volunteering to give up certain rights in return for access to various non-entitled privileges. Getting rid of NDAs would require the abolition of contract law; what you propose is utterly ridiculous.
Stop right there. This matter is subjective and can therefore be very important to certain individuals.
You have to use common sense. Is the government imprisoning parts of the populace in internment camps? Probably time for civil disobedience. Is your access to certain entertainment media restricted? Probably not of the same importance.
How do we deal with differing values and judgements on the matter? Pretty much the way we have been. If you practice your own brand of "civil disobedience" and the majority of society disagrees either that it is a just cause or else that it is important, then you will face the legal penalty and the banner of your cause will get no support. Right now, the support im hearing is mostly from inflexible folks who would tear society down in its efforts to fix the relatively small issues of copyright.
Many of us do find copyright law to be unconscionable
You do that word a disservice. Noone has died because of copyright, and you cant argue that our quality of life has been irreparably damaged because of it (seeing as how we have one of the highest in the world).
Every time this topic comes up someone tries that angle, but Im sorry: this isnt the biggest problem out there right now. This is a first world problem, and a populace that ignores its laws as it sees fit is a bigger issue than that Snow White will be copyrighted until the end of time.
Get rid of copyright, and NDAs STILL apply. Releasing non-copyrighted information in violation of NDA is breach of contract. Whether or not EULAs are enforceable is a totally separate issue from copyright, as well.
You really have no idea who RMS is at all do you? He's saying the end (the benefits of Kazaa) aren't justified by the means
Which isnt for him to decide. Its for the user, the maker of the program, and the legal system. Everyone else really doesnt have a say in "was it justified".
Do you think writings like this one actually help promote a dialogue on copyright? Or just make "copyright reform" folks look like as big of a loon as RMS?
Slashdot Mirror
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
Which by all appearances was a justified shooting. Or haven't you been keeping up?
http://www.libertysentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ht_george_zimmerman_injuries_ll_120517_wg.jpg
It has seemed over the last several months that the only thing he was lying about were his finances. There were injuries and police speculated on whether his nose was broken.
But no, keep feeding those racial-tensions narratives.
Its almost as if they think their target demographic doesnt care in the LEAST about disassembling computer hardware. What a bunch of maroons!
. I appreciate that in the US "Oriental" isn't PC
Im not sure that its "in the US" that its not PC; ive heard from folks who live there (as well as folks who are themselves Chinese) that the term is indeed insulting, on the level of calling a Scotsman Irish.
Stranglehold meaning they "hasnt managed to run their economy into the ground yet", of course.
Same as always. Take the amount of data being worked with, multiply it by two, and then lock up the entire machine.
I see that you are a republican since you think everyone is after a handout.
I was thinking more along the lines of being in a committed relationship, knowing that the person you are with will be with you till the end, that kind of thing.
Apparently communication broke down here. My original question was specifically on why someone would get married if they werent intending it to be "for the long haul". Other than those benefits and any religious ones, there ARE no non-societal benefits.
This isnt some republican narrow thinking, I recognize that society rewards committed relationships and I think that it is a good idea to do so.
When people profit off attacking X, they are profiting off the existence of X, and the last thing they would want is to eliminate X entirely.
So in your view, Richard Stallman profits off of the existence of non-free software?
Sometimes people take a stand on principle, not because it gets them something.
Sometimes the harder you try to hold something, the more it slips between your fingers.
Trying too hard can be worse than not trying at all.
One of the reasons that marriage is (theoretically) not a unilateral agreement.
Not that it seems to be the prevailing idea, but at least in theory BOTH people have agreed to make it work. If they cant do so, perhaps that engagement should have been longer.
If you remove the "not intending it to be long term" then I can give you plenty of reasons.
Am I am right in assuming they can be summed up as "benefits society gives me"? If so, realize that those benefits were given historically to promote marriage as a long-term familial relationship; the benefits are not there for their own sake.
And yes Facebook recently dropped, and it is worth less.
Again, it has no appreciable impact on facebook. Once it has sold all the shares it intends to sell, the changing share price doesnt impact their income or expenditures-- as far as I am aware). All that it impacts is the sale of shares. You buying 50,000 shares a broker only helps facebook if they're the ones selling those shares. Their bottom line will remain unaffected otherwise.
Market cap
Market cap isnt what a company is worth, nor its profits, nor its assets. If you want proof of that, consider what the market cap of Facebook was 2 months ago. Though the market cap DROPPED $30bn, they potentially made as much as $45bn on the IPO; it is conceivable that you could get more from your IPO than your market cap is several weeks later.
Really, market cap is kind of a worthless measure of reality. All it is is "heres what society collectively thinks about the worth of the company", but it can be wholly disconnected from the company's actual worth or ability to generate income.
For example over-the-counter non-prescription drugs, such as Aspirin, are still being made by oligopolies of the Legal Drug Industry, such as Bayer
Although there are generic brands of Aspirin, Bayer is still raking in truckloads of $$$ from Aspirin
You are basically getting mad at Bayer because people prefer Bayer asprin over generic? Wow, just wow. Somehow we went from a country founded on the principles of democracy and capitolism, to one where offering a product to consumers at a price they like is an abominable thing.
Comparing medical drug monopolies in the US to cartels in mexico displays a shocking ignorance. You may use phrases like "these monopolies are killing us" metaphorically, but in Mexico it isnt so metaphorical. Whens the last time these "vultures" killed several reporters for reporting on them? Whens the last time they killed local police with explosives?
The utter lack of perspective from so many in the first world is a little depressing. You realize how great your life is in the US, that you can actually GO to a hospital, that you dont have to worry about a drug cartel firebombing your house? That we have freedom of the press here?
But no, the monopolies here-- not the cartels in mexico-- are the REAL monsters, what with their high prices and all.
Are you seriously slamming Google for somehow profiting off of attacking human trafficking networks?
How, exactly, does that work?
According to a post on the official blog, the company thinks modern technology plays a key role in helping to 'expose and dismantle global criminal networks, which depend on secrecy and discretion in order to function.'
Not just about drugs, and its kind of crappy that youd take potshots at them for trying to go above and beyond "just profit".
Honestly, as corporations go, Google tends to be the lease onerous "big guy", ESPECIALLY in regards to "alternatives". Who else would offer 8 zillion ways to get your information out of their services and into someone elses? Who else would actually let you opt out of their bread and butter advertising services?
This may come across as shillish, and if you think so so be it, but its a little tiresome that even when corporations try to go above and beyond they get nailed for it. I have a feeling Sony could announce tomorrow that its donating $1 billion to ending human trafficking in Amsterdam, and someone would find a reason to nail them over it. That being the case, what incentive is there for ANY company to ever try, if theyre never going to get credit where credit is due?
PS, if you think "war on drugs" is limited to just the actions the US takes and doesnt have a more literal meaning, you should take a look at Mexico. Whether or not you approve of US policy RE: drugs, the drug cartels ARE a huge problem in mexico and any effort to tear them down is wonderful.
Our population continues to increase regardless of whether people are forming "sustainable families". Not having those stable families creates additional, serious societal problems on top.
Any time during that period you find your self excessively complaining about your spouse,I recommend that you calmly end the relationship
See, I had always assumed getting married was saying "I intend to make this work", not "We'll just see how it goes." I had thought the latter was distinctly pre-marriage / pre-engagement.
Or am I missing something here?
Granted Im a christian and bring that perspective to it, but Im not seeing why, if youre not having kids, or intending it to be long term, or taking a christian perspective, youre getting married. Is it all just for the tax and legal benefits? That seems counter-romantic.
The law we're talking about is criminalizing the very thing that has made our current society possible in the first place.
Which is why there are explicit copyright clauses in the constitution? Yea, ok.
An NDA is someone volunteering to give up certain rights in return for access to various non-entitled privileges. Getting rid of NDAs would require the abolition of contract law; what you propose is utterly ridiculous.
Stop right there. This matter is subjective and can therefore be very important to certain individuals.
You have to use common sense. Is the government imprisoning parts of the populace in internment camps? Probably time for civil disobedience. Is your access to certain entertainment media restricted? Probably not of the same importance.
How do we deal with differing values and judgements on the matter? Pretty much the way we have been. If you practice your own brand of "civil disobedience" and the majority of society disagrees either that it is a just cause or else that it is important, then you will face the legal penalty and the banner of your cause will get no support. Right now, the support im hearing is mostly from inflexible folks who would tear society down in its efforts to fix the relatively small issues of copyright.
Many of us do find copyright law to be unconscionable
You do that word a disservice. Noone has died because of copyright, and you cant argue that our quality of life has been irreparably damaged because of it (seeing as how we have one of the highest in the world).
Every time this topic comes up someone tries that angle, but Im sorry: this isnt the biggest problem out there right now. This is a first world problem, and a populace that ignores its laws as it sees fit is a bigger issue than that Snow White will be copyrighted until the end of time.
Get rid of copyright, and NDAs STILL apply. Releasing non-copyrighted information in violation of NDA is breach of contract. Whether or not EULAs are enforceable is a totally separate issue from copyright, as well.
... And obscene gestures from Linus Torvards.
Which is why no Linux game player would EVER use an nVidia card, they all use ATI/AMD cards.
Oh wait.
And wood screws.
You really have no idea who RMS is at all do you? He's saying the end (the benefits of Kazaa) aren't justified by the means
Which isnt for him to decide. Its for the user, the maker of the program, and the legal system. Everyone else really doesnt have a say in "was it justified".
The world needs people like RMS...
Do you think writings like this one actually help promote a dialogue on copyright? Or just make "copyright reform" folks look like as big of a loon as RMS?