Do you really consider it competition when the government can arbitrarily cripple your business as need be?
And what if I don't like either service. Where's the 3rd company? Oh, that's right, companies aren't allowed to lay their own fiber - government restriction. You call this competition?
If people demand fiber, they'll get it, if only the government would permit companies to lay it down as they please. However, low demand combined with government restriction means "No fiber for you!"
Yes, because it's better to have the government run the service than to have a choice between two, five, ten companies competing to give you the best service possible.
Do you send regular mail through UPS or FedEx? No. I don't know about you, but I'd trust them more with my mail than the USPS. I've had so much shit lost/stolen in transit (valuables, loan applications, etc), I'm always surprised when something makes it through. If the government got out of the business of providing a poor, unprofitable service, businesses with an interest in profit could take over and make them profitable, more efficient, and more reliable.
That's exactly why these services should not be provided by the government, any government. As soon as you can physically force your competition out of business, your role becomes unjustifiable.
All you've shown is that people co-opt words for their own purposes. If you trace the source of conservatism, though, you'll find at its root individual rights. Today, however, you'll find that all parties - Canadian and American - are willing to violate any and all rights, on enormous scales, whenever it is politically practical (convenient) to do so. Pragmatism has taken over.
Maybe these "prophets" merely pointed out the ideology's death in order to revitalize it by bringing interest to it. I believe that was the whole point of my post, and of the paper I linked to.
And I'm not sure you do. First, are you talking about the philosophy of Peirce, James, Dewey, etc, or it's popular implementation - in other words, a combination of a) interest only in the short-term, b) disregard for or refusal to think in principle, c) refusal to identify things in definite terms (everything is "sort of" or "seems like"), d) refusal to rule out the possibility of any specific action (this is related to b).
The "makers of a documentary" here is "Ben Stein" and the "documentary" is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I was actually hoping that Yoko and EMI would win this one.
My reply:
Then you're nothing but a pragmatist, willing to discard all principles and ethics when it is convenient to your current position.
Your reply:
In what sense would fair use be applicable?
So now you want to make an actual argument, rather than resort to what's convenient? What a convenient shift in discussion for you.
I haven't seen the film, and will never see it, so I don't know the context of the song. If it's just stuck at the beginning, with no discussion about how the song's words relate to the topic, then yes it is not fair use.
I was actually hoping that Yoko and EMI would win this one.
Then you're nothing but a pragmatist, willing to discard all principles and ethics when it is convenient to your current position. If computers were built by such people, they would still be the size of a room and take 42 days to start up.
Except McCain and the Republicans are just as liberal as the Democrats these days. Conservatism is all but dead, replace with the bogus neocons who think that you can get the benefits of capitalism under a welfare-state system. Check out this very interesting article on the subject:
Spammers get money through ads on websites linked in the spam emails.
As for the legislation at the federal level, I was referring to the ineffective garbage that they continually pass, which completely ignores the whole world outside of the US.
Spammers know that as long as politicians back the opinion that the public can't take care of themselves, and the public believe this opinion, there will never be any incentive for the ISP or email provider to more thoroughly filter spam. Instead, any legislation against spammers will be at the federal level, and thus ineffective against those overseas. The spam will continue to flow.
Then again, McCain is for the same nanny-state, so this explains nothing!
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really consider it competition when the government can arbitrarily cripple your business as need be?
And what if I don't like either service. Where's the 3rd company? Oh, that's right, companies aren't allowed to lay their own fiber - government restriction. You call this competition?
If people demand fiber, they'll get it, if only the government would permit companies to lay it down as they please. However, low demand combined with government restriction means "No fiber for you!"
Yes, because it's better to have the government run the service than to have a choice between two, five, ten companies competing to give you the best service possible.
[/sarcasm]
Do you send regular mail through UPS or FedEx? No. I don't know about you, but I'd trust them more with my mail than the USPS. I've had so much shit lost/stolen in transit (valuables, loan applications, etc), I'm always surprised when something makes it through. If the government got out of the business of providing a poor, unprofitable service, businesses with an interest in profit could take over and make them profitable, more efficient, and more reliable.
That's exactly why these services should not be provided by the government, any government. As soon as you can physically force your competition out of business, your role becomes unjustifiable.
That only invalidated the de minimis doctrine, not fair use.
no where in pragmatism do you only focus on the short term, or "discard all principles and ethics when it is convenient to [a] position."
Examples? Again are you talking about the philosophy or the popular practice?
Indeed, I was thinking about that yesterday, but failed to make that point today. An easier thing to say is that pragmatism is alive and well.
Then why did you say it? The post you link to was made after the post he replied to. Are we supposed to read your mind?
All you've shown is that people co-opt words for their own purposes. If you trace the source of conservatism, though, you'll find at its root individual rights. Today, however, you'll find that all parties - Canadian and American - are willing to violate any and all rights, on enormous scales, whenever it is politically practical (convenient) to do so. Pragmatism has taken over.
Even with those definitions I'm not sure what he's talking about, because they agree with what I have been saying.
Maybe these "prophets" merely pointed out the ideology's death in order to revitalize it by bringing interest to it. I believe that was the whole point of my post, and of the paper I linked to.
Hate to break it to you man, but pointing that is a strawman argument.
Except that it's not an argument. It's an observation. Stop trying to apply "straw man" to anything besides actual arguments against a position.
My response to his argument was directly below that observation.
I'm not sure you understand what pragmatism is.
And I'm not sure you do. First, are you talking about the philosophy of Peirce, James, Dewey, etc, or it's popular implementation - in other words, a combination of a) interest only in the short-term, b) disregard for or refusal to think in principle, c) refusal to identify things in definite terms (everything is "sort of" or "seems like"), d) refusal to rule out the possibility of any specific action (this is related to b).
The "makers of a documentary" here is "Ben Stein" and the "documentary" is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I was actually hoping that Yoko and EMI would win this one.
My reply:
Then you're nothing but a pragmatist, willing to discard all principles and ethics when it is convenient to your current position.
Your reply:
In what sense would fair use be applicable?
So now you want to make an actual argument, rather than resort to what's convenient? What a convenient shift in discussion for you.
I haven't seen the film, and will never see it, so I don't know the context of the song. If it's just stuck at the beginning, with no discussion about how the song's words relate to the topic, then yes it is not fair use.
Actually both the Dems and Repubs are very conservative
... how so?
I was actually hoping that Yoko and EMI would win this one.
Then you're nothing but a pragmatist, willing to discard all principles and ethics when it is convenient to your current position. If computers were built by such people, they would still be the size of a room and take 42 days to start up.
Except McCain and the Republicans are just as liberal as the Democrats these days. Conservatism is all but dead, replace with the bogus neocons who think that you can get the benefits of capitalism under a welfare-state system. Check out this very interesting article on the subject:
The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism
Can't the film makers just countersue to get the losses incurred by this lawsuit? If not, then there's a serious problem with the judicial system.
I like this explanation of their differences:
Obama promises to hold a gun to your head. McCain promises to let you choose what brand of gun he holds to your head.
Spammers get money through ads on websites linked in the spam emails.
As for the legislation at the federal level, I was referring to the ineffective garbage that they continually pass, which completely ignores the whole world outside of the US.
You're telling me that spam hasn't made you think more about your penis size than ever before?
Spammers know that as long as politicians back the opinion that the public can't take care of themselves, and the public believe this opinion, there will never be any incentive for the ISP or email provider to more thoroughly filter spam. Instead, any legislation against spammers will be at the federal level, and thus ineffective against those overseas. The spam will continue to flow.
Then again, McCain is for the same nanny-state, so this explains nothing!
I wonder if all the breeding that was done to get the best cuts of meat didn't bother to check if the offspring were dumber than their predecessors.
I've noticed that my representative needs the occasional cooing in his ear to stop him from throwing a fit and puking all over himself.