We gain the right to express ideas that are contrary to popular opinion. Often, those ideas are unpopular because they're wrong, but sometimes they need to be said, and when they do, freedom of speech is priceless.
Most people don't participate in combat sports, so they don't prove anything. As for video games, they're far less of an outlet than any contact sport can be, combat or otherwise.
The difference is that in your examples, people are searching for applications or services, and Google offers their own first. In TFA, they're talking about people searching for information or people's opinions, and being given the viewpoint that Microsoft wants them to have. If I search for a map of Tokyo and get a Google map, that's fine. I now have a map. But if I want to find an article I remember reading about why Windows is expensive, Bing is useless to me, and if I trust the results it gives, I'll get the impression that Windows is comparatively cheap (which maybe it is, but that's not what I was looking for).
I brought the old edition to several classes when I was in school. In some classes, the profs were generous enough to provide a "translation key" on assignments so that we could figure out which problems were assigned. For others, I went to the library to do my assignments. For one calculus class, where the assignments weren't taken from the textbook, I used a completely different textbook and still did fine.
Old editions have the same information. In fact based classes where there's only one right answer and no possibility of a viewpoint, other textbooks on the same subject have the same information. I never bought a new textbook after first year, and you don't ever have to.
What you're missing is that the large, corporate farms that can afford to implement, and circumvent, these measures are the same ones who will "happily sell us sawdust and animal faeces to eat...". Smaller, one and two person ranches generally raise their animals properly or close to it, and also generally won't be able to afford to start using this system, either in time or in money. That is, of course, if you believe that ranchers will be forced to pay for the equipment and administration of this out of their own pocket.
But in this case, they've already laid out the infrastructure, so that's not an issue. The only issue here is that they're competing with corporate lobbying.
First of all, your scenario is a bunch of nonsense. Have you forgotten about libraries? The internet? There are plenty of free and legal ways to get all the information you need. Say what you want about public schools, but nearly all of them are sufficient to get you out of the trailer park (or mom's basement) if you decide that's what you want.
Second, is this thread seriously comparing copyright with slavery? Really? I love free tunes as much as the next guy, but if those of you making this argument honestly believe it, you need to take a serious look at your lives.
1 - This is interesting. Thanks.
2 - If you're sprinting all out for a full minute, you can bet your ass you'll be taking a break to catch your breath at the end.
Keep in mind that you are receiving money from Alberta, so the issue isn't that they aren't willing to share, it's that having their taxes going to support ridiculous language laws while hearing the Quebec government whine for more is a bit irksome. Being called rednecks and bigots, hearing people complain the the PM actually acknowledges the existence of a Canada between BC and Ontario and other nonsense like that just makes it worse.
I read my history. Quebec WAS Canada. Now, Canada is Canada, though you apparently don't understand what Canada is. We, as Canadians, have a minority government. Not we as Westerners or we as Albertans. Good idea, though, that the right to vote should be taken away based on your ill-informed ideas and prejudices.
Unfortunately for your point, but fortunately for everyone else, the "they" you refer to is a loud minority in Quebec. There may be regions where that portrayal is accurate, but it doesn't define the general population of the province.
1 and 2. I have had bad experiences everywhere. It happens. There are dumb people in every province and city, and living on every block. Nothing you can do about it, but using it as the basis for generalization doesn't do anybody any good.
3 and 4. That's the government, not the people there. The government has its own culture that seems to have pervaded all parties.
5. The language laws are annoying, but they are very rarely a restriction of rights.
That only becomes in issue of French gets somehow wiped out in Canada. While, as you say, language evolves with culture to develop ways of expressing things that are important in that culture, now that the culture is already there, it isn't at risk of dying due to changes in language. In the "worst case" scenario of everyone in Quebec becoming unilingual anglophones, words would be created or held over from French to express the things that were important to the people there and not available in English.
I have two replies to this. First, the Canadian association of video games is comprised of game developers. It is in no way representative of Canadians and they were responding to the Quebec government in the way that made the most financial sense to them.
Second, I think the GP was slightly exaggerating, or doesn't know much beyond his small area of Canada. The problem isn't with those who consider themselves Quebecois, since that would be both unreasonable and, in many cases, hypocritical. The problem is with those who consider themselves Quebecois as opposed to Canadian, and don't believe/recognize that they can be both.
"Everything comes at a price" is a consequence of capitalism, not the goal. The principle is that if I value your skills more than I value X dollars per year, then that's what I'll be willing to pay you. If you won't work for less than X + 10000 dollars per year and that's more than I value your skills, we don't have a deal and I'll keep my money.
If you want something without giving anything in return, what you are talking about isn't capitalism.
I don't think that's really true. If you were looking at a good map you might be able to guess how much of the Earth is covered in water, but just because you've seen one doesn't mean you can infer it. Even though I know the answer, if I close my eyes and imagine a map of the earth, it looks like it's mostly land mass to me, because whenever I've seen maps, that's what I've focused on. The water is just the background. Someone who doesn't know the answer and just tries to guess from their mental image of a map would not stand a chance, I'd wager.
Sure it does. The kid was probably learning in school to write formally, which involves plenty of verb conjugations, so it would be fresh in her mind. The father was presumably long out of school, so he would be in the habit of speaking informally, where the Subjunctive is used less frequently. Plenty of English speakers are informal and technically wrong, even though they learned how to speak properly in school, and are in a position to be corrected by their kids who are thinking about the rules.
I think that what you are noticing isn't the difference between English and other languages, but between mother tongue and second (or third or whatever) languages. I studied French as a second language when I was in school, and we spent much more time learning the technical rules of French than we did English, where we generally learned about creative writing and things. It was pretty much assumed that we would be able to put sentences together on our own. Friends of mine who learned English as a second language in Quebec generally report the opposite, that they learned technical language skills in English while it was assumed that they could express themselves in French. I suspect it has more to do with the expectation that people have a basic proficiency in their mother tongue by virtue of the environment they live in but they need to be taught a second language completely.
Note: When I say I took French as a second language, I mean that starting at 6 years old, all classes were in French, so I "know" more about French than I do about English, even though I speak better English.
That's just not true. Accountants, lawyers and engineers are expected to work unpaid overtime if there is work that needs to be done. That's part of being a "professional" is that you do what needs to be done and you get paid by the year, not the hour.
I was thinking more that non-programmers/general computer users would be atheists. As far as they're concerned, computers exist and work, and software just sort of comes about on its own. All that talk of programming languages is just the socially awkward trying to develop some kind of relevance for themselves.
My favourite part of this post is "Without evidence". This is not Nature, it's a joke. References will not be checked and there's no peer review before you can publish it. That being said, isn't there a history of fundamentalist Christians literally burning people at the stake? The other stuff you're complaining about are hyperbole, not bigotry.
Slashdot Mirror
We gain the right to express ideas that are contrary to popular opinion. Often, those ideas are unpopular because they're wrong, but sometimes they need to be said, and when they do, freedom of speech is priceless.
Most people don't participate in combat sports, so they don't prove anything. As for video games, they're far less of an outlet than any contact sport can be, combat or otherwise.
Except the original query didn't mention Macs at all, and none of the results contained anything about Windows being expensive.
The difference is that in your examples, people are searching for applications or services, and Google offers their own first. In TFA, they're talking about people searching for information or people's opinions, and being given the viewpoint that Microsoft wants them to have. If I search for a map of Tokyo and get a Google map, that's fine. I now have a map. But if I want to find an article I remember reading about why Windows is expensive, Bing is useless to me, and if I trust the results it gives, I'll get the impression that Windows is comparatively cheap (which maybe it is, but that's not what I was looking for).
Old editions have the same information. In fact based classes where there's only one right answer and no possibility of a viewpoint, other textbooks on the same subject have the same information. I never bought a new textbook after first year, and you don't ever have to.
What you're missing is that the large, corporate farms that can afford to implement, and circumvent, these measures are the same ones who will "happily sell us sawdust and animal faeces to eat...". Smaller, one and two person ranches generally raise their animals properly or close to it, and also generally won't be able to afford to start using this system, either in time or in money. That is, of course, if you believe that ranchers will be forced to pay for the equipment and administration of this out of their own pocket.
Both? There are many forms of energy that aren't electrical. I assume that for the most part, though, they're talking heating and transportation.
But in this case, they've already laid out the infrastructure, so that's not an issue. The only issue here is that they're competing with corporate lobbying.
What if the sentiment is that God disapproves (or should disapprove) of the word Fuck?
First of all, your scenario is a bunch of nonsense. Have you forgotten about libraries? The internet? There are plenty of free and legal ways to get all the information you need. Say what you want about public schools, but nearly all of them are sufficient to get you out of the trailer park (or mom's basement) if you decide that's what you want.
Second, is this thread seriously comparing copyright with slavery? Really? I love free tunes as much as the next guy, but if those of you making this argument honestly believe it, you need to take a serious look at your lives.
1 - This is interesting. Thanks. 2 - If you're sprinting all out for a full minute, you can bet your ass you'll be taking a break to catch your breath at the end.
Keep in mind that you are receiving money from Alberta, so the issue isn't that they aren't willing to share, it's that having their taxes going to support ridiculous language laws while hearing the Quebec government whine for more is a bit irksome. Being called rednecks and bigots, hearing people complain the the PM actually acknowledges the existence of a Canada between BC and Ontario and other nonsense like that just makes it worse.
Try not to let the PQ do your thinking for you.
I read my history. Quebec WAS Canada. Now, Canada is Canada, though you apparently don't understand what Canada is. We, as Canadians, have a minority government. Not we as Westerners or we as Albertans. Good idea, though, that the right to vote should be taken away based on your ill-informed ideas and prejudices.
1 and 2. I have had bad experiences everywhere. It happens. There are dumb people in every province and city, and living on every block. Nothing you can do about it, but using it as the basis for generalization doesn't do anybody any good.
3 and 4. That's the government, not the people there. The government has its own culture that seems to have pervaded all parties.
5. The language laws are annoying, but they are very rarely a restriction of rights.
That only becomes in issue of French gets somehow wiped out in Canada. While, as you say, language evolves with culture to develop ways of expressing things that are important in that culture, now that the culture is already there, it isn't at risk of dying due to changes in language. In the "worst case" scenario of everyone in Quebec becoming unilingual anglophones, words would be created or held over from French to express the things that were important to the people there and not available in English.
Second, I think the GP was slightly exaggerating, or doesn't know much beyond his small area of Canada. The problem isn't with those who consider themselves Quebecois, since that would be both unreasonable and, in many cases, hypocritical. The problem is with those who consider themselves Quebecois as opposed to Canadian, and don't believe/recognize that they can be both.
You laugh, but I've got a degree in Alchemy. I turn rocks into gold!!
"Everything comes at a price" is a consequence of capitalism, not the goal. The principle is that if I value your skills more than I value X dollars per year, then that's what I'll be willing to pay you. If you won't work for less than X + 10000 dollars per year and that's more than I value your skills, we don't have a deal and I'll keep my money.
If you want something without giving anything in return, what you are talking about isn't capitalism.
Note: By you, I don't mean you, I mean them.
I don't think that's really true. If you were looking at a good map you might be able to guess how much of the Earth is covered in water, but just because you've seen one doesn't mean you can infer it. Even though I know the answer, if I close my eyes and imagine a map of the earth, it looks like it's mostly land mass to me, because whenever I've seen maps, that's what I've focused on. The water is just the background. Someone who doesn't know the answer and just tries to guess from their mental image of a map would not stand a chance, I'd wager.
Sure it does. The kid was probably learning in school to write formally, which involves plenty of verb conjugations, so it would be fresh in her mind. The father was presumably long out of school, so he would be in the habit of speaking informally, where the Subjunctive is used less frequently. Plenty of English speakers are informal and technically wrong, even though they learned how to speak properly in school, and are in a position to be corrected by their kids who are thinking about the rules.
I think that what you are noticing isn't the difference between English and other languages, but between mother tongue and second (or third or whatever) languages. I studied French as a second language when I was in school, and we spent much more time learning the technical rules of French than we did English, where we generally learned about creative writing and things. It was pretty much assumed that we would be able to put sentences together on our own. Friends of mine who learned English as a second language in Quebec generally report the opposite, that they learned technical language skills in English while it was assumed that they could express themselves in French. I suspect it has more to do with the expectation that people have a basic proficiency in their mother tongue by virtue of the environment they live in but they need to be taught a second language completely.
Note: When I say I took French as a second language, I mean that starting at 6 years old, all classes were in French, so I "know" more about French than I do about English, even though I speak better English.
That's just not true. Accountants, lawyers and engineers are expected to work unpaid overtime if there is work that needs to be done. That's part of being a "professional" is that you do what needs to be done and you get paid by the year, not the hour.
I was thinking more that non-programmers/general computer users would be atheists. As far as they're concerned, computers exist and work, and software just sort of comes about on its own. All that talk of programming languages is just the socially awkward trying to develop some kind of relevance for themselves.
My favourite part of this post is "Without evidence". This is not Nature, it's a joke. References will not be checked and there's no peer review before you can publish it. That being said, isn't there a history of fundamentalist Christians literally burning people at the stake? The other stuff you're complaining about are hyperbole, not bigotry.
Or a search can return a list of results based solely on what I typed in, and I can go through them and decide which are appropriate for me.