The problem is, very few people in the Islamic world are polygamous anymore. Maybe a few rich Afghans, Sudanese, or Saudis, but they represent a tiny fraction of all Muslims. Polygamy has vanished in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, North Africa, Iran, Indonesia...
As with most religions, Islamic practice has little to do nowadays with its historical theology. Western writers who only know a little bit about the latter and nothing about the former just make themselves look like idiots.
I'm not saying it's socially optimal. I'm saying that, to patentholding businesses, it's not in their interest to unilaterally give up patents, even if acquiring patents isn't cost-effective by itself. It's a prisoner's dilemma.
Or it would be if not for the anticompetitive atmosphere caused by large companies holding lots of patents. Since that is the case, those with enough patents to get in on the detente enjoy an advantage over those on the outside that makes up for the costs of the patents.
Are they counting opportunity costs? If having a patent allows you to get into patent detente with other patentholders, then the patent saves you the license fees/amount you'd be sued by that you'd accrue if you tried to operate without it.
That's where the value of patents truly lies.
Just to be clear, that doesn't take away from the tragedy or from the responsibility of the cops. It's just that the rallying cry should be "They shot an unarmed innocent!" rather than "41 shots!"
Actually, at the ensuing protests large crowds waved their wallets and shouted "It's a wallet, not a gun!"
Also, this is why New Yorkers find the specter of a Giuliani presidency disquieting. We know he's only got one mode, and that that's tough-as-nails and undiplomatic, plus in love with his own authority. Basically the least likely to clean up Bush's mess, and the least trustworthy with dramatically-expanded executive power.
Also, dyslexia is a poor excuse when you've spelled a word phonetically. Dyslexia could be responsible for "preujry," or somesuch, but "purgery" is clearly caused by the writer sounding the damn thing out.
Similarly, spelling "two" instead of "to" is not a typo. A typo is when your hand slips, so you write teh or pwn or something like that. Your finger cannot accidentally slide from the t to the w while you're reaching for the o. Typo =/= not knowing how to fracking spell.
The guns they were issued were automatic pistols capable of firing 10 shots in about 2 seconds. With 4 cops, that's 2 seconds of firing, in a situation where it was dark enough so they mistook a wallet for a gun.
I'm not surprised they fired as much as they did, or missed as much as they did. The crime was opening fire in the first place--once they'd started shooting, ~40 shots was about what you'd expect.
Lots of times Itunes is cheaper. It depends what you listen to--some CDs I want cost $10, and I buy 3 and use supersaver free shipping; others cost $16 and I download them.
The problem is that the legal definition of frivolous is very narrow, much more so than the commonly-used vernacular one. The Roy Pearson pants suit, for example, was not legally frivolous.
Also, most cell phones provide basic functionality, so what usually happens is that you choose your carrier, sign a 2-year contract with them, and get a heavily-discounted phone, then in 2 years repeat the process. Only a few phones are worth going about it the other way.
Yep, and you can't block them. I've heard tell of groups harassing people by sending thousands of text-messages to one person, overloading their text message quota (if they have texting service).
Personally, I don't use texts and I'd like to be unable to recieve them. Lazy friends, pick up the fracking phone and call me.
Precisely. The demand curve for music is very elastic. People will get free stuff that they wouldn't pay $1 for, people will pay $1 for stuff they wouldn't pay $16.99 for, and so on. The RIAA's claim that music demand is totally inelastic is, IMO, more laughable than any of their legal claims.
When your kids get a bit older, you send them to put the trolley back to get them out of your hair for a bit. They have fun, pocket the $1, and then you go home.
I don't see how you can point to this as a pro-free-market decision. It's a pro-monopoly decision, because only firms with sufficient market power to distort the free market in their favor will be able to take advantage of it.
In a truly free market, firms would be free to establish price floors, constrained only by the fact that they'd lose business by it and be forced into either the high-end market, into bankruptcy, or into repealing the price floor. As it stands, many firms will instead have the market power to get away with it, and the result will be completely antithetical to a truly free market.
Free markets only work if they're free on both the supply and demand sides. This decision frees things up a bit on the supply side of the wholesale market, but because the demand side of wholesale is unfree due to the market power of the wholesalers, it's not an improvement at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, very few people in the Islamic world are polygamous anymore. Maybe a few rich Afghans, Sudanese, or Saudis, but they represent a tiny fraction of all Muslims. Polygamy has vanished in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, North Africa, Iran, Indonesia...
As with most religions, Islamic practice has little to do nowadays with its historical theology. Western writers who only know a little bit about the latter and nothing about the former just make themselves look like idiots.
Not necessarily. My grandfather fought in WWII (he was in his 30s), and I'm only about 8 years older than the people who talk like that.
Like this?
Or it would be if not for the anticompetitive atmosphere caused by large companies holding lots of patents. Since that is the case, those with enough patents to get in on the detente enjoy an advantage over those on the outside that makes up for the costs of the patents.
Are they counting opportunity costs? If having a patent allows you to get into patent detente with other patentholders, then the patent saves you the license fees/amount you'd be sued by that you'd accrue if you tried to operate without it. That's where the value of patents truly lies.
It's not 10-bullet clips, it's 5 bullets a second. One of them fired for 2.2 seconds instead of 2 seconds.
iNsane, actually.
Actually, at the ensuing protests large crowds waved their wallets and shouted "It's a wallet, not a gun!"
Also, this is why New Yorkers find the specter of a Giuliani presidency disquieting. We know he's only got one mode, and that that's tough-as-nails and undiplomatic, plus in love with his own authority. Basically the least likely to clean up Bush's mess, and the least trustworthy with dramatically-expanded executive power.
Similarly, spelling "two" instead of "to" is not a typo. A typo is when your hand slips, so you write teh or pwn or something like that. Your finger cannot accidentally slide from the t to the w while you're reaching for the o. Typo =/= not knowing how to fracking spell.
Many casual users would be fooled and scared off of BT.
The guns they were issued were automatic pistols capable of firing 10 shots in about 2 seconds. With 4 cops, that's 2 seconds of firing, in a situation where it was dark enough so they mistook a wallet for a gun. I'm not surprised they fired as much as they did, or missed as much as they did. The crime was opening fire in the first place--once they'd started shooting, ~40 shots was about what you'd expect.
Lots of times Itunes is cheaper. It depends what you listen to--some CDs I want cost $10, and I buy 3 and use supersaver free shipping; others cost $16 and I download them.
The problem is that the legal definition of frivolous is very narrow, much more so than the commonly-used vernacular one. The Roy Pearson pants suit, for example, was not legally frivolous.
Also, most cell phones provide basic functionality, so what usually happens is that you choose your carrier, sign a 2-year contract with them, and get a heavily-discounted phone, then in 2 years repeat the process. Only a few phones are worth going about it the other way.
Sudo wrestling.
Thanks, I'll be here all night.
Yep, and you can't block them. I've heard tell of groups harassing people by sending thousands of text-messages to one person, overloading their text message quota (if they have texting service). Personally, I don't use texts and I'd like to be unable to recieve them. Lazy friends, pick up the fracking phone and call me.
Precisely. The demand curve for music is very elastic. People will get free stuff that they wouldn't pay $1 for, people will pay $1 for stuff they wouldn't pay $16.99 for, and so on. The RIAA's claim that music demand is totally inelastic is, IMO, more laughable than any of their legal claims.
When your kids get a bit older, you send them to put the trolley back to get them out of your hair for a bit. They have fun, pocket the $1, and then you go home.
I'd believe you if you spelled corporate correctly.
The fact that other countries also suck doesn't make us suck less. Censorship of this nature is a negative-sum game, not a zero-sum one.
China doesn't border Iran, dipshit.
In a truly free market, firms would be free to establish price floors, constrained only by the fact that they'd lose business by it and be forced into either the high-end market, into bankruptcy, or into repealing the price floor. As it stands, many firms will instead have the market power to get away with it, and the result will be completely antithetical to a truly free market.
Free markets only work if they're free on both the supply and demand sides. This decision frees things up a bit on the supply side of the wholesale market, but because the demand side of wholesale is unfree due to the market power of the wholesalers, it's not an improvement at all.
I have no mod points, but you've convinced me to check out the EU theory in greater depth (and to wait and see if those formations are glassified).
But the USA would get more by method 2, and it supports method 1. I guess we're an irredentist power only in sandy deserts.