You're really trying to argue that men are discriminated against for their own benefit? Half of what you say is true. The purpose of Ladies Night is to attract more women and thereby more men with the lure of drunk women. It's for the benefit of the business owner.
As for why feminists are not complaining about it, it's because they generally find the whole concept to be stupid beyond belief, patronizing, and avoid it.
Have you seen the pointless bullshit that modern feminists complain about? Nothing is too pointless for them to bitch about it.
If you still think that ladies' night is unfair to men, then I'd say that you're not really seeing the big picture here.
To treat someone differently because of their genitals is sexual discrimination, depending on your state it is illegal to discriminate in an establishment that is open to the public. Private property can still be a public accommodation. Besides, I don't need to ply women with cheap alcohol to get laid. I'm off the market, but when I wasn't... women bought me drinks.
They get free admission and cheaper drinks because they have a hole instead of a pole? That's pretty much the kind of unfair treatment that feminists have been crusading against for a generation, but the one time it works out in their favor they have nothing to say...
She consented to the intercourse until the next day when he didn't show her any interest or her friends/family found out that she fucked a stranger then she decided she was raped.
While we're on the subject of rape, another one that makes no sense to me is that if a man has sex with a drunk woman they call it rape but if a woman has sex with a drunk man, he's supposed to be grateful.
McD's fries, OTOH, are fine. I hear they have a lot of beef (fat) in them too. And sugar.
I don't know how old you are, but do you remember how the fries used to taste? They used to use animal fat to fry them back in the 1970s. They switched to vegetable shortening when I was a kid. I, and millions of other people, noticed the difference.
I don't know whether you're so stupid that you didn't grok that the lego gun is a toy, that you think the person you're replying to is similarly afflicted, or whether you were just desperate to wave your substitute dick around.
Clearly, you don't know what I was doing.
I was reminding the person that I replied to that we were discussing a very serious matter. I'm completely satisfied with my meat penis.
Here's the reality of the situation: we do not know the effect of mankind on the climate and the ecology. However, we do know that certain activities *have* an impact. The fact remains that complex systems, be they markets, ecologies, or climate, remain unbelievably complex, and we have no way of knowing what our actions could do.
So, in other words the climate change skeptics are right. WE DON'T KNOW! We will find out through observation and if sunspot activity leads to a drop in Earth's surface temperature, that goes a long way to disproving AGW.
Very cute but utterly pointless. I shoot regularly. A 308 rifle will handily kill a man wearing body armor at sever hundred yards. Personally, I'm only effective out to about 300 yards. Beyond that, it's a matter of luck. But a dedicated marksman can do the job out to 1000 yards. In the event of a really bad economic collapse, people with specialized skills will be able to find employment of one form or another. When some downsized military sniper can only feed his children by employing his ability to kill people at great distances, how cute will your lego guns be?
It amazes me how much work businesses will perform to avoid taxes.
It shouldn't. Nobody pays taxes out of the kindness of their hearts. Even the talking heads on tv who bitch that we should be taxing "the rich" are rich themselves and if they felt undertaxed could give the government more money, but they don't.
People and businesses will pay the minimum amount of tax that they can. Remember that billionaire who would commute to work in New York 182 days a year to avoid the state's millionaire tax?
If your tax is higher than the cost of avoiding it, only a bad businessman would pay it. Every time they give some figure for how much their new taxes are going to bring in, just on GP, you can cut the figure by 75-90% because they don't anticipate market elasticity.
Could someone please require legislators to take a freshman level economics class?
This WILL drive business out of California. Amazon will pick the fuck up and move out of the state. The companies that don't move will be driven out of business because they can't compete with the ones who do. The SCOTUS has held that individual states don't have the right to tax entities that don't have a physical presence in that state.
This is about some know-nothing asscock wanting to stick it to "the corporations". It completely misses the fact that it will hurt people in their state.
But it isn't just giving your device away. It is using the device for your own advertising/profit. As several other posts mention it is against copyright law to devalue someone else's copyright.
Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.
Did this business pay for the iPads? Yes. Did this business own the iPads? Yes, because they bought them.
Can you do anything you want with your own property, including giving it away to promote your business? Yes.
The system may have been better due to the fact anyone in the world could develop it, however Larry & Sergey would not be credited with it as they would have no rights to the code. So in short less lawyers in short run, less money/praise in long run. Hmmm what to chose?
That's your problem. You don't understand the issue. Copyright isn't what we want to abolish, it's software patents.
The code that your write, or pay someone to write on your behalf, is yours. You own it. No one can directly copy that code without your permission. That is copyright.
Software patents are more like this... Someone develops a piece of software that highlights a link when the user mouses over it. They patents this behavior as a part of their web based business. You also run a web based business and you think that it would be nifty to have links highlighted when a user mouses over them. You write, or pay someone to write on your behalf, a piece of software to do this. Your code is pristine. You or your agent wrote it from scratch, you didn't copy any of the other person's code. But, he has a patent on that behavior. He sues you and you have to pay him thousands of dollars and lawyer fees because you had the same idea but he patented it first.
Slashdot Mirror
When guys start defending the practice of plying women with alcohol, it makes them look like they can't get laid without drugging women.
LK
You're really trying to argue that men are discriminated against for their own benefit? Half of what you say is true. The purpose of Ladies Night is to attract more women and thereby more men with the lure of drunk women. It's for the benefit of the business owner.
As for why feminists are not complaining about it, it's because they generally find the whole concept to be stupid beyond belief, patronizing, and avoid it.
Have you seen the pointless bullshit that modern feminists complain about? Nothing is too pointless for them to bitch about it.
If you still think that ladies' night is unfair to men, then I'd say that you're not really seeing the big picture here.
To treat someone differently because of their genitals is sexual discrimination, depending on your state it is illegal to discriminate in an establishment that is open to the public. Private property can still be a public accommodation. Besides, I don't need to ply women with cheap alcohol to get laid. I'm off the market, but when I wasn't... women bought me drinks.
LK
If they don't go, you don't go.
I don't need to ply women with alcohol to get laid.
LK
I live in a state that just expanded Castle Doctrine. Civilians have been protected from civil lawsuits if they legally use a firearm in self defense.
LK
No one who values his life shoots to wound. That's Hollywood bullshit. If you have to shoot, you shoot for center of mass. You aim for the heart.
I hope that I never have to fire a gun at another human being, but if I ever have to do it to save my life, I will be shooting for center of mass.
LK
Since you mention it, ladies night is bullshit.
They get free admission and cheaper drinks because they have a hole instead of a pole? That's pretty much the kind of unfair treatment that feminists have been crusading against for a generation, but the one time it works out in their favor they have nothing to say...
LK
You forgot the other, but sometimes true defense.
She consented to the intercourse until the next day when he didn't show her any interest or her friends/family found out that she fucked a stranger then she decided she was raped.
While we're on the subject of rape, another one that makes no sense to me is that if a man has sex with a drunk woman they call it rape but if a woman has sex with a drunk man, he's supposed to be grateful.
LK
I could stand Unity, but this is too much.
Another step closer to every OS being Cell-Phoned.
LK
Remember - there is no spoon
Of course not, because it's a fork.
LK
Say what you want about Bush and his wars of aggression, but the Senate approved them.
Obama really thinks that by calling a fork a spoon, he can change reality.
LK
McD's fries, OTOH, are fine. I hear they have a lot of beef (fat) in them too. And sugar.
I don't know how old you are, but do you remember how the fries used to taste? They used to use animal fat to fry them back in the 1970s. They switched to vegetable shortening when I was a kid. I, and millions of other people, noticed the difference.
LK
Why not just eat an actual steak?
Seriously. Shit burger? You've got to be kidding me.
It's not even like it's going to be cheaper. The professor believes that it will be the same price as real meat if he can bring it to market.
Wait, is this a delayed April 1 joke?
LK
And your creator sent you that list of "natural rights" when? And how? Per Fedex? Or does he do his business with UPS?
I got a registered letter on my 18th birthday. You mean that you didn't? No, by way of the gift of reason that he also gave me.
LK
I don't know whether you're so stupid that you didn't grok that the lego gun is a toy, that you think the person you're replying to is similarly afflicted, or whether you were just desperate to wave your substitute dick around.
Clearly, you don't know what I was doing.
I was reminding the person that I replied to that we were discussing a very serious matter. I'm completely satisfied with my meat penis.
LK
Here's the reality of the situation: we do not know the effect of mankind on the climate and the ecology. However, we do know that certain activities *have* an impact. The fact remains that complex systems, be they markets, ecologies, or climate, remain unbelievably complex, and we have no way of knowing what our actions could do.
So, in other words the climate change skeptics are right. WE DON'T KNOW! We will find out through observation and if sunspot activity leads to a drop in Earth's surface temperature, that goes a long way to disproving AGW.
LK
Where do you think your "natural rights" come from?
From my creator. I believe that creator to be God. Perhaps yours is evolution. Regardless, all of our rights predate any government.
LK
And you can build your own Bad-ass Lego Guns to fight the rich:
http://www.amazon.com/Badass-LEGO-Guns-Building-Instructions/dp/1593272847
Very cute but utterly pointless. I shoot regularly. A 308 rifle will handily kill a man wearing body armor at sever hundred yards. Personally, I'm only effective out to about 300 yards. Beyond that, it's a matter of luck. But a dedicated marksman can do the job out to 1000 yards. In the event of a really bad economic collapse, people with specialized skills will be able to find employment of one form or another. When some downsized military sniper can only feed his children by employing his ability to kill people at great distances, how cute will your lego guns be?
LK
I love how this was modded insightful.
So do I. Apparently we have enough people here who have seen the face that the police show when they think there are no cameras on them.
LK
Seriously, think before you go castrating the public's protective services just because you want to be a dick to a cop and not get punched
Fantastic idea. Castrate all cops!
LK
the cops could have avoided all that trouble
Yes, by not shooting people or threatening witnesses at gunpoint.
But then why would anyone bother to become a cop?
There're still plenty of drug dealers to shake down and prostitutes to extort free sex from.
LK
It amazes me how much work businesses will perform to avoid taxes.
It shouldn't. Nobody pays taxes out of the kindness of their hearts. Even the talking heads on tv who bitch that we should be taxing "the rich" are rich themselves and if they felt undertaxed could give the government more money, but they don't.
People and businesses will pay the minimum amount of tax that they can. Remember that billionaire who would commute to work in New York 182 days a year to avoid the state's millionaire tax?
If your tax is higher than the cost of avoiding it, only a bad businessman would pay it. Every time they give some figure for how much their new taxes are going to bring in, just on GP, you can cut the figure by 75-90% because they don't anticipate market elasticity.
LK
Could someone please require legislators to take a freshman level economics class?
This WILL drive business out of California. Amazon will pick the fuck up and move out of the state. The companies that don't move will be driven out of business because they can't compete with the ones who do. The SCOTUS has held that individual states don't have the right to tax entities that don't have a physical presence in that state.
This is about some know-nothing asscock wanting to stick it to "the corporations". It completely misses the fact that it will hurt people in their state.
LK
But it isn't just giving your device away. It is using the device for your own advertising/profit. As several other posts mention it is against copyright law to devalue someone else's copyright.
Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.
Did this business pay for the iPads? Yes.
Did this business own the iPads? Yes, because they bought them.
Can you do anything you want with your own property, including giving it away to promote your business? Yes.
LK
Here, let me fix the OP's post for you to make it more accurate:
Better?
Well, no. The innovation is in the implementation.
LK
The system may have been better due to the fact anyone in the world could develop it, however Larry & Sergey would not be credited with it as they would have no rights to the code. So in short less lawyers in short run, less money/praise in long run. Hmmm what to chose?
That's your problem. You don't understand the issue. Copyright isn't what we want to abolish, it's software patents.
The code that your write, or pay someone to write on your behalf, is yours. You own it. No one can directly copy that code without your permission. That is copyright.
Software patents are more like this... Someone develops a piece of software that highlights a link when the user mouses over it. They patents this behavior as a part of their web based business. You also run a web based business and you think that it would be nifty to have links highlighted when a user mouses over them. You write, or pay someone to write on your behalf, a piece of software to do this. Your code is pristine. You or your agent wrote it from scratch, you didn't copy any of the other person's code. But, he has a patent on that behavior. He sues you and you have to pay him thousands of dollars and lawyer fees because you had the same idea but he patented it first.
LK