A much better and more practical idea would be a modest surcharge (5 cents/bag or whatever) which you then get back when you turn them in for recycling (which would be required in every store, not just at recycling centers).
Leclerc stores, in France, have been doing exactly that for nearly 20 years now. 0.07€ for a small bag and 0.15€ for a large. They are not super-sturdy but not bad. They also have more expensive ones, including thermal bags, also refundable.
Yeah, but it can be argued that a company is an information system, in which the people making the decisions do so according to the informations delivered by the system, informations that are filtered on several levels based largely on what is specifically useful to the company as a whole. It's not that clear-cut.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but oh boy do you mix up three totally unrelated notions: right to one's own image, trademarks, and unauthorized derivative works.
Plus, I hear there are plenty of nice trekking places in South Korea, and some people simply prefer backpacks to suitcases when travelling, which makes the combination of "backpack" and "South Korea" practically a non-information.
On another note, why is it that Google is held to a higher standard than other companies?
Because for a long time they not only advertised that they supported the principles of the Internet, they also looked like they actually meant it. They seemed to have made respecting the Internet environment a part of their business model. They seemed to have found a niche that was win-win between them and userland. And honestly, for a long time they did pretty good with that.
Honestly, I'm disappointed. Not really surprised, but somewhat disappointed nonetheless.
Benjamin Bayart, president of French non-profit ISP FDN, often speaks about "Minitel 2.0", referring to the (old and now defunct) French Videotex service Minitel, to picture what many powers try to do with the Internet. And among the targets of his criticism is ADSL, the asynchronous aspect of which is, in his opinion (and mine), contrary to the spirit of the Internet. He also affirms it's been preferred over SDSL for political more than technical reasons (I'd tend to trust him on that, but I can't back it, my understanding of network technologies is limited).
Its not okay for anyone to break the law willingly or knowingly.
By this standard, what Rosa Parks did was not okay, what the Railway Underground did was not okay, etc.
But for some reason the US government blatantly violating the Fourth Amendment both in words and in spirit seems to be okay to you, since you are stating that it shouldn't have been revealed (even though it wasn't much of a revelation).
I'm strongly law-abiding, but if I ever end up in a situation in which the law and my personal principles are in conflict, I'll follow the latter.
Names are arbitrary. Names are conventions. The word "fire" is no more appropriate to design fire than "fuego", "feu", "Feuer", "tann", "ignis", "pyros", etc. Taxonomy has gone through some turmoil these latter decades in its branches (the advances in genetics are but one of the factors involved) but the way of naming species (the leaves of the tree) is still relevant. It may sound arbitrary to you, but it just carries cultural history, and why the hell not? Look up "psephophorus terrypratchetti" for another example.
Slashdot Mirror
Fracking reduces CO2 emissions? Sounds quite counter-intuitive to me.
You seem to have understood the GP backwards.
If you had brains, you wouldn't use "of" as a verb.
Woosh!
Warren Buffet.
You should look up Eclim.
A much better and more practical idea would be a modest surcharge (5 cents/bag or whatever) which you then get back when you turn them in for recycling (which would be required in every store, not just at recycling centers).
Leclerc stores, in France, have been doing exactly that for nearly 20 years now. 0.07€ for a small bag and 0.15€ for a large. They are not super-sturdy but not bad. They also have more expensive ones, including thermal bags, also refundable.
I may have basically glanced at the summary. I stopped paying close attention after the first sentence mentionned only four tastes. My bad.
Plus, they don't even mention the umami taste. This totally smells and tastes like overhyped bullshit.
So-called "intellectual property" is totally unrelated to actual property.
If it's a French bird, maybe a rooster in disguise? Mmmh, we may be up to something, here...
Joke aside, with the success of Game of Thrones, people tend to overlook Martin's sci-fi works, which are good, too.
Yeah, but it can be argued that a company is an information system, in which the people making the decisions do so according to the informations delivered by the system, informations that are filtered on several levels based largely on what is specifically useful to the company as a whole. It's not that clear-cut.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but oh boy do you mix up three totally unrelated notions: right to one's own image, trademarks, and unauthorized derivative works.
I know I'm nitpicking, but it's more the notion of satire than that of parody that apply here.
should of
You fail.
Plus, I hear there are plenty of nice trekking places in South Korea, and some people simply prefer backpacks to suitcases when travelling, which makes the combination of "backpack" and "South Korea" practically a non-information.
I think the GP wasn't speaking of the CEOs, but of the companies themselves.
On another note, why is it that Google is held to a higher standard than other companies?
Because for a long time they not only advertised that they supported the principles of the Internet, they also looked like they actually meant it. They seemed to have made respecting the Internet environment a part of their business model. They seemed to have found a niche that was win-win between them and userland. And honestly, for a long time they did pretty good with that.
Honestly, I'm disappointed. Not really surprised, but somewhat disappointed nonetheless.
Benjamin Bayart, president of French non-profit ISP FDN, often speaks about "Minitel 2.0", referring to the (old and now defunct) French Videotex service Minitel, to picture what many powers try to do with the Internet. And among the targets of his criticism is ADSL, the asynchronous aspect of which is, in his opinion (and mine), contrary to the spirit of the Internet. He also affirms it's been preferred over SDSL for political more than technical reasons (I'd tend to trust him on that, but I can't back it, my understanding of network technologies is limited).
I, for one, do feel like I'm between a rock and a frying pan.
Its not okay for anyone to break the law willingly or knowingly.
By this standard, what Rosa Parks did was not okay, what the Railway Underground did was not okay, etc.
But for some reason the US government blatantly violating the Fourth Amendment both in words and in spirit seems to be okay to you, since you are stating that it shouldn't have been revealed (even though it wasn't much of a revelation).
I'm strongly law-abiding, but if I ever end up in a situation in which the law and my personal principles are in conflict, I'll follow the latter.
Names are arbitrary. Names are conventions. The word "fire" is no more appropriate to design fire than "fuego", "feu", "Feuer", "tann", "ignis", "pyros", etc. Taxonomy has gone through some turmoil these latter decades in its branches (the advances in genetics are but one of the factors involved) but the way of naming species (the leaves of the tree) is still relevant. It may sound arbitrary to you, but it just carries cultural history, and why the hell not? Look up "psephophorus terrypratchetti" for another example.
A pretty good one, okay, but the best? Come on...
It hasn't been ever demonstrated that lizards are particlularly calculating.