Uh, no. The people you are describing are children, not adults. An adult who does not modify his behavior based on societal expectations has some serious problems. For instance, a small child would have no problem walking up to a total stranger and saying "you're fat". A normal adult would never do that, because society says such behavior is unacceptable.
Oh, it's biological, is it? OK, exactly which gene is it that says 'coat and tie good, tee shirt bad'?
What, exactly, do you think it is that determines whether she thinks you are impressive or not? She is using the measure of societal norms, and nothing else, to determine that. You are using your knowledge of societal norms to try meet her expectations. And, in case you are unable to realize it, trying to meet societal norms is the very definition of societal pressure.
Sorry, but you seem to be the one with no idea how society works. Suppose you work in an office, and there is a girl there, always dressed nicely, who you would like to date. You ask her out, and she says yes. You make reservations at a nice restaurant. Are you going to dress nicely for your date, or are you going to wear an old tee shirt and worn out jeans? Gasp! You have just caved in to societal pressure!
Womens clothes don't have pockets because most people do not consider it attractive for a woman to have bulges of keys, phone, wallet, etc in their clothes, and most women want to appear attractive. Any woman can, of course, have pockets but nobody is required to find that attractive. Therefore, some woman deciding 'I care more about having pockets than appearing attractive' is not magically going to make the rest of society find it attractive.
First, I don't know what you mean that there is no premium difference between someone who drives 200000 miles a year and someone who only drives 1000. There certainly is a difference.
Second, of course it matters if you drive for hire. Your liability insurance does not cover you, it covers others you injure. If you crash your car a don't injure anyone other than yourself your insurance pays nothing. That same crash with a paid passenger could cost the insurance company hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Last, that is exactly how it works today - the company carries the insurance. But these wonderful new 'innovative' companies think they should be exempt from all that. Because, you know, it's DIGITAL, so normal rules do not apply.
There was and is no way for Costco to win. If they donated the food, I can assure you that there would have been equal outrage over the gall of Costco dumping food it considered unfit for consumption on the poor. If they donated the food and people actually got sick an unbelievable shit storm would occur. And if they don't donate the food you get the idiots who can't see the problems with donating raising a stink.
Sorry, but this is just nuts. You are making an enormous leap from 'this is possible' to 'people will find it preferable.' I just did a quick walk around my house to see what would be printable. Here is what I found. I would guess that about 99% of the stuff in my house falls into one of the following categories. Wood, glass, cloth, electronics, polished metal, food, consumables. None of those are printable. I suppose some of those things could be replaced by printed plastic, but if I wanted a plastic coffee table I would have one of resin patio tables instead of the solid cherry one I have. About the only thing I found that would be printable and that I would want are things like hair brushes and food storage containers. World changing, indeed.
Now, assuming we get passed that, and by some miracle people decide that they are actually happy with all plastic crap, think of the implications. A store sells thousands of packages a day, any many of those packages contain multiple items. So now you are expecting your average store to have the capacity to makes tens of thousands of items a day. A big box store may have to make hundreds of thousands of items a day. Does that seem even remotely realistic to you? Do you really think a store is going to pay for prime retail space so they can run a factory? How does that make any sense?
No, it doesn't. The first amendment prevents CONGRESS from making a LAW that PREVENTS your right to petition. It most certainly does NOT say that congress must pass a law requiring other people to help you with your petitions. Try not to be so stupid.
Wong, wrong, wrong. You have a right to not be punished by the government for saying something. You do not have, and have never had, the 'right to get your message out'. The very idea is absurd.
OK. Nirvana has been reached and there is no copyright. How, exactly, are you going to compel anyone to release the source of anything? GPL, and its goals, are entirely dependant on copyright. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
What exactly is your point? What are your options? You can keep your money 'under your mattress' at higher risk and even less returns, or you can invest it with higher risk and/or lower liquidity. For most people 'in the bank' is still the best bet.
Complete bullshit. As a depositor in a bank you are NOT an 'unsecured creditor'. Where does this nonsense come from? Thousands of banks have failed since FDIC was formed 80 years ago, and no depositor has lost any insured money.
What makes you (or anyone else) think this is even remotely possible? Suppose you manage to buy 10% of the coal mines, and shut them down. What do you suppose will happen to the price of the remaining mines?
These 'ideas' (along with other laughably stupid ideas like Google 'buying' the entertainment industry) always seem to miss one important fact: nobody is required to sell at all, much less sell for some pre-determined price.
However, the question is: what authority does their 'trademark license' carry? Trademark law is not copyright law. Things like the GPL and EULAs rely on copyright law, where the 'default' position under the law is 'you must have permission to distribute or make copies'. You don't agree to their terms you don't get permission. Trademark law is not like that. Under trademark law you do not need permission to refer to something by it's trademarked name. So what force does their trademark policy carry?
Uh, no. Like you said Red Hat is not selling Linux, they are selling service. You can not distribute Linux and call it Red hat because you are not offering their service - calling it Red Hat would be deceiving. Dell, on the other hand, is not misleading anyone. They call it Firefox because it IS Firefox. Price does not enter into it at all. You can sell a can of 'Coke' for $100, as long as it is in fact Coke.
You do understand that someone had to decide to make that offering, someone had to update the order system to include that checkbox, someone had to create the image with Firefox, someone had to test that image, someone had to release that into production, someone had to create the automation to install that image, someone had to test that automation, someone had to manage all the above people, someone had to pay the increased IT costs of all the above, someone had to update the helpdesk scripts, etc,right?
'Liability' is not just being held responsible for something. It is any negative situation - it is a liability to have your face covered with tattoos when applying for the job of bank manager.
So to restate the question - how does a company protect itself from the negative effects of network traffic (malware coming in, secrets going out) if they can't look at the traffic?
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't make it all the way to his third sentence, eh?
I would think crossword puzzles, especially the kind that uses puns, etc.
Uh, no. The people you are describing are children, not adults. An adult who does not modify his behavior based on societal expectations has some serious problems. For instance, a small child would have no problem walking up to a total stranger and saying "you're fat". A normal adult would never do that, because society says such behavior is unacceptable.
Oh, it's biological, is it? OK, exactly which gene is it that says 'coat and tie good, tee shirt bad'?
What, exactly, do you think it is that determines whether she thinks you are impressive or not? She is using the measure of societal norms, and nothing else, to determine that. You are using your knowledge of societal norms to try meet her expectations. And, in case you are unable to realize it, trying to meet societal norms is the very definition of societal pressure.
Say what? Aesthetics are a very important part of sexual attraction, which, evolutionarily speaking, is about as functional as you can get.
Sorry, but you seem to be the one with no idea how society works. Suppose you work in an office, and there is a girl there, always dressed nicely, who you would like to date. You ask her out, and she says yes. You make reservations at a nice restaurant. Are you going to dress nicely for your date, or are you going to wear an old tee shirt and worn out jeans? Gasp! You have just caved in to societal pressure!
Womens clothes don't have pockets because most people do not consider it attractive for a woman to have bulges of keys, phone, wallet, etc in their clothes, and most women want to appear attractive. Any woman can, of course, have pockets but nobody is required to find that attractive. Therefore, some woman deciding 'I care more about having pockets than appearing attractive' is not magically going to make the rest of society find it attractive.
First, I don't know what you mean that there is no premium difference between someone who drives 200000 miles a year and someone who only drives 1000. There certainly is a difference.
Second, of course it matters if you drive for hire. Your liability insurance does not cover you, it covers others you injure. If you crash your car a don't injure anyone other than yourself your insurance pays nothing. That same crash with a paid passenger could cost the insurance company hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Last, that is exactly how it works today - the company carries the insurance. But these wonderful new 'innovative' companies think they should be exempt from all that. Because, you know, it's DIGITAL, so normal rules do not apply.
There was and is no way for Costco to win. If they donated the food, I can assure you that there would have been equal outrage over the gall of Costco dumping food it considered unfit for consumption on the poor. If they donated the food and people actually got sick an unbelievable shit storm would occur. And if they don't donate the food you get the idiots who can't see the problems with donating raising a stink.
How's this headline look to you: Thousands Sickened by Contaminated Peanut Butter that COSTCO Dumped on Poor
Sorry, but this is just nuts. You are making an enormous leap from 'this is possible' to 'people will find it preferable.' I just did a quick walk around my house to see what would be printable. Here is what I found. I would guess that about 99% of the stuff in my house falls into one of the following categories. Wood, glass, cloth, electronics, polished metal, food, consumables. None of those are printable. I suppose some of those things could be replaced by printed plastic, but if I wanted a plastic coffee table I would have one of resin patio tables instead of the solid cherry one I have. About the only thing I found that would be printable and that I would want are things like hair brushes and food storage containers. World changing, indeed.
Now, assuming we get passed that, and by some miracle people decide that they are actually happy with all plastic crap, think of the implications. A store sells thousands of packages a day, any many of those packages contain multiple items. So now you are expecting your average store to have the capacity to makes tens of thousands of items a day. A big box store may have to make hundreds of thousands of items a day. Does that seem even remotely realistic to you? Do you really think a store is going to pay for prime retail space so they can run a factory? How does that make any sense?
Ha ha. You think you can buy the materials for the same price that Lego buys it?
No, it doesn't. The first amendment prevents CONGRESS from making a LAW that PREVENTS your right to petition. It most certainly does NOT say that congress must pass a law requiring other people to help you with your petitions. Try not to be so stupid.
Wong, wrong, wrong. You have a right to not be punished by the government for saying something. You do not have, and have never had, the 'right to get your message out'. The very idea is absurd.
OK. Nirvana has been reached and there is no copyright. How, exactly, are you going to compel anyone to release the source of anything? GPL, and its goals, are entirely dependant on copyright. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
So GPL (which relies 100% on copyright law for its very existence) is anti-copyright? Explain.
So Nortel was not advancing the sciences and useful arts?
What makes you think no tax applies to a barter transaction?
And yet not one hit on that behavior on Google. Weird.
What exactly is your point? What are your options? You can keep your money 'under your mattress' at higher risk and even less returns, or you can invest it with higher risk and/or lower liquidity. For most people 'in the bank' is still the best bet.
Complete bullshit. As a depositor in a bank you are NOT an 'unsecured creditor'. Where does this nonsense come from? Thousands of banks have failed since FDIC was formed 80 years ago, and no depositor has lost any insured money.
What makes you (or anyone else) think this is even remotely possible? Suppose you manage to buy 10% of the coal mines, and shut them down. What do you suppose will happen to the price of the remaining mines?
These 'ideas' (along with other laughably stupid ideas like Google 'buying' the entertainment industry) always seem to miss one important fact: nobody is required to sell at all, much less sell for some pre-determined price.
However, the question is: what authority does their 'trademark license' carry? Trademark law is not copyright law. Things like the GPL and EULAs rely on copyright law, where the 'default' position under the law is 'you must have permission to distribute or make copies'. You don't agree to their terms you don't get permission. Trademark law is not like that. Under trademark law you do not need permission to refer to something by it's trademarked name. So what force does their trademark policy carry?
Uh, no. Like you said Red Hat is not selling Linux, they are selling service. You can not distribute Linux and call it Red hat because you are not offering their service - calling it Red Hat would be deceiving. Dell, on the other hand, is not misleading anyone. They call it Firefox because it IS Firefox. Price does not enter into it at all. You can sell a can of 'Coke' for $100, as long as it is in fact Coke.
You do understand that someone had to decide to make that offering, someone had to update the order system to include that checkbox, someone had to create the image with Firefox, someone had to test that image, someone had to release that into production, someone had to create the automation to install that image, someone had to test that automation, someone had to manage all the above people, someone had to pay the increased IT costs of all the above, someone had to update the helpdesk scripts, etc,right?
'Liability' is not just being held responsible for something. It is any negative situation - it is a liability to have your face covered with tattoos when applying for the job of bank manager.
So to restate the question - how does a company protect itself from the negative effects of network traffic (malware coming in, secrets going out) if they can't look at the traffic?