"You act as if local businesses aren't there trying to make money as well. They are, and believe me they fight for advantages whenever they can. The sooner people wake up to that fact, the better off we'll all be."...Of course local businesses are trying to make money. That's part of the business of being a business.
Local businesses don't tend to have the clout and resources that national chains do so they generally have to be more receptive to their customer. McD's doesn't care if something pisses of a handful of customers that usually visited a particular store. Joe's Greasy Spoon probably doesn't have that luxury.
Cheaper isn't always better and if a (local) business isn't giving you service commensurate with what you pay them don't do business with them. Most places probably wouldn't want you as a customer anyways.
"No, we can't have nice things because we have limited resources, and thus can't do everything that we would like."
We may have limited resources but we can choose how we use them. Just because I can't afford a Ferrari doesn't mean that I'm entitled to get a free car from Ford. I can however use my limited resources to purchase whatever car I will enjoy the most that I can afford.
Our fault!? The rest of the world cheered when Obama was elected proclaiming that America had "finally done something right." This is as much everyone else's fault as it is America's. See what happens when you believe political propaganda!? They go and take your internet away!
Fixed that for ya.
Politicians are politicians. Which party doesn't matter.
Because perhaps the "laws" that are bringing an end to the lawless period only represent the views of a very small and select group and are almost entirely out of phase with the established but non-codified norms?
"Um, if the coffee house let you use wifi all day after purchasing a single item, what is wrong with taking advantage of that? The coffee house goes under? So what, it was a bad business plan then and should be left to die."
This is why we can't have nice things.
"Ya right, like corportations aren't trying to screw you out of every cent possible either. Turn about is fair play you know."
Not every business is a soulless corporation... Though behavior like that will be sure to leave the big corps as the only ones left standing.
Bandwidth isn't the only limited resource. Physical space is a limited resource.
That "overpriced" coffee includes the rent for the space (resources) you take up. If the place is charging for WiFi then it is because too many people were ordering a single small coffee of the day and then plunking themselves down for the day with their laptop and not ordering anything else.
If you like the coffee house enough to go there and make use of its services you should also be willing to pay for them. Really good coffee houses are hard to find and its a shame when a group of freeloaders disrupts things so that enough of the paying regulars go somewhere else and the place goes under.
When enough of the WiFi leeches become paying customers, the WiFi might become free again. If something is annoying for the regulars a good manager would want to change that, if it was affordable to do so. Pay WiFi is annoying to everybody.
"I like making use of your establishment but I don't feel the need to contribute towards its ongoing operations." seems to be all too common of an attitude these days.
$100 per month just for access to a mobile data network is a fair chunk of change to most people and considering that kids are a big segment of Nintendo's consumer base...
If I was somewhere where I needed to use a GPS device I wouldn't want its battery being drained by cell phone functions blasting out at full power trying to reach a non-existent tower.
I have a cell phone. I have an mp3 player. My cell phone is not my mp3 player. I want the phone's battery to be ready for phone usage, not to be drained by playing music. Likewise I don't want my mp3 player's battery being drained by my cell phone. If I had a GPS device I wouldn't want it getting drained by cell phone use or playing music. Any GPS device I would buy would need to be much more durable and rugged than I would need for either my phone or mp3 player.
USA will be conquered by Chinese thanks to Americans giving Chinese american know-how, money and land in exchange for few truckloads of cheap consumer goods.
Well, at least the descendants of the American Indians who traded their land for cheap trinkets and goods will be getting a good chuckle out of this...
Jocks won wars back when mankind was pounding on each other with their bare fists. Once we picked up rocks that hit harder than the strongest brawler, the jocks were obsolete...
Jocks won wars back when mankind was pounding on each other with rocks. Once we stuck the rocks on sticks, the jocks were obsolete...
Jocks won wars back when mankind was pounding on each other with sticks with rocks attached. Once we figured out we could throw those sticks, the jocks were obsolete...
Jocks won wars back when mankind was throwing spears at each other. Once we figured out that a stick with a string could out-range the strongest spear-thrower, the jocks were obsolete...
Modern equipment for a soldier is heavy. Soldiers have to be in rather hostile environments. Just because the human isn't providing the power to propel the weapon doesn't mean that Jockish attributes aren't necessary in modern combat.
Not really. When more than one country has nukes all nukes do is counter/deter nukes.
Using a nuke for anything else than responding to a nuke would be utterly suicidal and even then your country may be better off not launching a retaliatory strike if the initial attack was fairly limited.
Boots on the ground blood and guts warfare is here to stay until one country develops the next atom bomb and that effect will only last as long as only one country has that weapon.
If you caught a bunch of "terrorists", wouldn't you rather have caught "dangerous" terrorists and not "on the verge of stinking up an airplane's cabin with chemical fumes and smoke" terrorists?
I don't recall any public news about anyone actually attempting to blow up an airplane with binary liquid explosives that were mixed in flight. I do recall that they busted a group that was planning to try to do so.
So we have to surrender liquids not because someone tried (like the shoe bomber) but because some people thought about it.
You've never used a coffee house in the correct manner then. The price you pay for the coffee includes the 'rent' for your being there and enjoying whatever amenities the place has to offer. Books, board games, social gathering place, etc.
A good coffee house is not a place to go if you're in a hurry and you plan to complain about spend $X on a coffee even though *you* are willingly ignoring most of the value of your purchase. To use a car analogy, getting a coffee from a coffee house to go is like buying a new car and only driving it once and then complaining how expensive it is to get around.
Names are quite powerful. Do you think the biblethumpers would even notice if any two people could file for "property and inheritance status subsection b paragraph one"?
There's no holy "property and inheritance status subsection b paragraph one". No sanctity of "property and inheritance status subsection b paragraph one" to protect.
Anyways, the two are ideas aren't exactly the same. We don't need to keep adding bloat to an already over-bloated definition boundary conditions be damned. The law needs refactoring.
Marriage, as pregnancy insurance, doesn't really apply to the situation.
Yes, people can adopt, but that is entirely different process that has its own safeguards to be sure society isn't over-burdened by abandoned adoptees.
Monogamy is choice, whether or not one is married. Being polyarmorous while being married carries legally enforceable penalties which are there to make monogamy more appealing. Being married doesn't make you monogamous, it just makes it possibly very expensive to be otherwise.
"Now, for legal benefits that come with a marriage license, those options should be available through other means for people to establish a legal equivalent to a spouse or household."
The legal, religious, and romantic concepts of marriage have unfortunately been inseparably fused. If a couple wants to get married, generally at least two of the three are involved and if the third wasn't initially society will try to force it on the couple eventually. The point was that marriage, as is, doesn't really apply and we don't need to further complicate it by forcing it to cover what is wasn't meant to cover, at least in the legal sense. Religious and romantic contexts can go do whatever the hell they want to since they *shouldn't* being screwing with anyone not directly involved.
So basically, the argument was gays shouldn't be legally married because marriage doesn't apply. What I didn't posit was that gays shouldn't be entitled to the same statuses and benefits through other means.
I don't care really. You asked for something not based on hate. I said that one could make the case that marriage doesn't fit and thus itself shouldn't be used.
Marriage is a societal contract. This contract evolved so that offspring would be provided for by the 'father' and to contain the spread of venereal disease. Marriage creates a construct that will allow for public shaming for extra-marital affairs as well as legal consequences. As such, marriage is basically pregnancy insurance.
The other function of marriage is to allow for easier property transitions after a death of someone in the "family". A boilerplate legal document of sorts that existed before everyone had access to lawyers. Spouse gets X, descendants get Y, state gets Z.
The concept of romantic (or any other love) is actually foreign to marriage and should not be considered as part of it.
So to sum up: just because you "love" (or lust after) someone does not mean that you should be married to them. In fact, with modern contraceptive measures, marriage shouldn't be as necessary. Unfortunately religious and romantic ideals have become intertwined with a legal concept.
Now, for legal benefits that come with a marriage license, those options should be available through other means for people to establish a legal equivalent to a spouse or household.
Personally, I don't care who marries what, though I do wonder why same sex couples are trying so hard to be as miserable as hetero couples. Work for the legal benefits, avoid the societal drawbacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama is a politician. This is what professional politicians do.
I doubt we'll ever see another Cincinnatus.
As Douglas Adams wisely told us, no one who wants to be president should ever be allowed to become the president.
"You act as if local businesses aren't there trying to make money as well. They are, and believe me they fight for advantages whenever they can. The sooner people wake up to that fact, the better off we'll all be." ...Of course local businesses are trying to make money. That's part of the business of being a business.
Local businesses don't tend to have the clout and resources that national chains do so they generally have to be more receptive to their customer. McD's doesn't care if something pisses of a handful of customers that usually visited a particular store. Joe's Greasy Spoon probably doesn't have that luxury.
Cheaper isn't always better and if a (local) business isn't giving you service commensurate with what you pay them don't do business with them. Most places probably wouldn't want you as a customer anyways.
"No, we can't have nice things because we have limited resources, and thus can't do everything that we would like."
We may have limited resources but we can choose how we use them. Just because I can't afford a Ferrari doesn't mean that I'm entitled to get a free car from Ford. I can however use my limited resources to purchase whatever car I will enjoy the most that I can afford.
Our fault!? The rest of the world cheered when Obama was elected proclaiming that America had "finally done something right." This is as much everyone else's fault as it is America's. See what happens when you believe political propaganda!? They go and take your internet away!
Fixed that for ya.
Politicians are politicians. Which party doesn't matter.
Because perhaps the "laws" that are bringing an end to the lawless period only represent the views of a very small and select group and are almost entirely out of phase with the established but non-codified norms?
"Um, if the coffee house let you use wifi all day after purchasing a single item, what is wrong with taking advantage of that? The coffee house goes under? So what, it was a bad business plan then and should be left to die."
This is why we can't have nice things.
"Ya right, like corportations aren't trying to screw you out of every cent possible either. Turn about is fair play you know."
Not every business is a soulless corporation... Though behavior like that will be sure to leave the big corps as the only ones left standing.
Bandwidth isn't the only limited resource. Physical space is a limited resource.
That "overpriced" coffee includes the rent for the space (resources) you take up. If the place is charging for WiFi then it is because too many people were ordering a single small coffee of the day and then plunking themselves down for the day with their laptop and not ordering anything else.
If you like the coffee house enough to go there and make use of its services you should also be willing to pay for them. Really good coffee houses are hard to find and its a shame when a group of freeloaders disrupts things so that enough of the paying regulars go somewhere else and the place goes under.
When enough of the WiFi leeches become paying customers, the WiFi might become free again. If something is annoying for the regulars a good manager would want to change that, if it was affordable to do so. Pay WiFi is annoying to everybody.
"I like making use of your establishment but I don't feel the need to contribute towards its ongoing operations." seems to be all too common of an attitude these days.
He's saying no one can tell him how he can use software unless he signs something.
The GPL tells you how you can use software.
OMG!!!!11! Apple is telling me how to use software!!! Teh 3vil!!!!! But no one better dare try to use the software I wrote in a way I don't like!!!!
"If you want to specify what I can do with a copy of your software, write a contract and make me sign it."
Dollars to doughnuts you'd scream bloody murder if some big company decided to do something that would violate the GPL....
About a week or so on standby. And if my math is correct, 168 hours is greater than 24.
$100 per month just for access to a mobile data network is a fair chunk of change to most people and considering that kids are a big segment of Nintendo's consumer base...
Who needs to carry around a toolbox full of tools when they can just carry a multi-tool? It's just as good as the real tools, right?
If I was somewhere where I needed to use a GPS device I wouldn't want its battery being drained by cell phone functions blasting out at full power trying to reach a non-existent tower.
I have a cell phone. I have an mp3 player. My cell phone is not my mp3 player. I want the phone's battery to be ready for phone usage, not to be drained by playing music. Likewise I don't want my mp3 player's battery being drained by my cell phone. If I had a GPS device I wouldn't want it getting drained by cell phone use or playing music. Any GPS device I would buy would need to be much more durable and rugged than I would need for either my phone or mp3 player.
USA will be conquered by Chinese thanks to Americans giving Chinese american know-how, money and land in exchange for few truckloads of cheap consumer goods.
Well, at least the descendants of the American Indians who traded their land for cheap trinkets and goods will be getting a good chuckle out of this...
Actually he was flaming Abble products. A very reputable brand, just like Magetbox and Panaphonic.
Safary and iToons are great programs. I don't know what his problem is.
Jocks won wars back when mankind was pounding on each other with their bare fists. Once we picked up rocks that hit harder than the strongest brawler, the jocks were obsolete...
Jocks won wars back when mankind was pounding on each other with rocks. Once we stuck the rocks on sticks, the jocks were obsolete...
Jocks won wars back when mankind was pounding on each other with sticks with rocks attached. Once we figured out we could throw those sticks, the jocks were obsolete...
Jocks won wars back when mankind was throwing spears at each other. Once we figured out that a stick with a string could out-range the strongest spear-thrower, the jocks were obsolete...
Modern equipment for a soldier is heavy. Soldiers have to be in rather hostile environments. Just because the human isn't providing the power to propel the weapon doesn't mean that Jockish attributes aren't necessary in modern combat.
Not really. When more than one country has nukes all nukes do is counter/deter nukes.
Using a nuke for anything else than responding to a nuke would be utterly suicidal and even then your country may be better off not launching a retaliatory strike if the initial attack was fairly limited.
Boots on the ground blood and guts warfare is here to stay until one country develops the next atom bomb and that effect will only last as long as only one country has that weapon.
If you caught a bunch of "terrorists", wouldn't you rather have caught "dangerous" terrorists and not "on the verge of stinking up an airplane's cabin with chemical fumes and smoke" terrorists?
And would be rather dicey to make in a airplane's bathroom. Not ka-boom dicey but *fizzle* with a puff of obvious smoke dicey.
I don't recall any public news about anyone actually attempting to blow up an airplane with binary liquid explosives that were mixed in flight. I do recall that they busted a group that was planning to try to do so.
So we have to surrender liquids not because someone tried (like the shoe bomber) but because some people thought about it.
You've never used a coffee house in the correct manner then. The price you pay for the coffee includes the 'rent' for your being there and enjoying whatever amenities the place has to offer. Books, board games, social gathering place, etc.
A good coffee house is not a place to go if you're in a hurry and you plan to complain about spend $X on a coffee even though *you* are willingly ignoring most of the value of your purchase. To use a car analogy, getting a coffee from a coffee house to go is like buying a new car and only driving it once and then complaining how expensive it is to get around.
As the song goes, love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage.
If it wasn't for the harness and blinders the horse wouldn't normally have anything to do with the carriage.
Names are quite powerful. Do you think the biblethumpers would even notice if any two people could file for "property and inheritance status subsection b paragraph one"?
There's no holy "property and inheritance status subsection b paragraph one". No sanctity of "property and inheritance status subsection b paragraph one" to protect.
Anyways, the two are ideas aren't exactly the same. We don't need to keep adding bloat to an already over-bloated definition boundary conditions be damned. The law needs refactoring.
Marriage, as pregnancy insurance, doesn't really apply to the situation.
Yes, people can adopt, but that is entirely different process that has its own safeguards to be sure society isn't over-burdened by abandoned adoptees.
Monogamy is choice, whether or not one is married. Being polyarmorous while being married carries legally enforceable penalties which are there to make monogamy more appealing. Being married doesn't make you monogamous, it just makes it possibly very expensive to be otherwise.
"Now, for legal benefits that come with a marriage license, those options should be available through other means for people to establish a legal equivalent to a spouse or household."
The legal, religious, and romantic concepts of marriage have unfortunately been inseparably fused. If a couple wants to get married, generally at least two of the three are involved and if the third wasn't initially society will try to force it on the couple eventually. The point was that marriage, as is, doesn't really apply and we don't need to further complicate it by forcing it to cover what is wasn't meant to cover, at least in the legal sense. Religious and romantic contexts can go do whatever the hell they want to since they *shouldn't* being screwing with anyone not directly involved.
So basically, the argument was gays shouldn't be legally married because marriage doesn't apply. What I didn't posit was that gays shouldn't be entitled to the same statuses and benefits through other means.
I don't care really. You asked for something not based on hate. I said that one could make the case that marriage doesn't fit and thus itself shouldn't be used.
One could have the view that:
Marriage is a societal contract. This contract evolved so that offspring would be provided for by the 'father' and to contain the spread of venereal disease. Marriage creates a construct that will allow for public shaming for extra-marital affairs as well as legal consequences. As such, marriage is basically pregnancy insurance.
The other function of marriage is to allow for easier property transitions after a death of someone in the "family". A boilerplate legal document of sorts that existed before everyone had access to lawyers. Spouse gets X, descendants get Y, state gets Z.
The concept of romantic (or any other love) is actually foreign to marriage and should not be considered as part of it.
So to sum up: just because you "love" (or lust after) someone does not mean that you should be married to them. In fact, with modern contraceptive measures, marriage shouldn't be as necessary. Unfortunately religious and romantic ideals have become intertwined with a legal concept.
Now, for legal benefits that come with a marriage license, those options should be available through other means for people to establish a legal equivalent to a spouse or household.
Personally, I don't care who marries what, though I do wonder why same sex couples are trying so hard to be as miserable as hetero couples. Work for the legal benefits, avoid the societal drawbacks.
Or they'll just plug into an external cell antenna.