that 'Revenge of the Sith' is our generation's greatest work of art. That's right: Titian, Bernini, Monet, Picasso, Jackson Pollock and... George Lucas.
George Lucas is the only one of those people who has been alive in the last 30 years, let alone produced "art". Titian and Bernini have been dead for hundreds of years (unless there's more modern artists also using those names of course, but you'd expect a better reference than those famous single names) and are ridiculous to include in a "this generation" category.
I gave an example (though with the wrong software name) of why you might want to include that. You personally mightn't see any difference but "making money off it" sometimes pushes some people over their moral line.
And it doesn't matter what the correct intepretation, the statement stands on its own, and might as well be addressed under the only interpretation that makes the statement make sense.
Assuming children are exactly like their parents. After all no child whose parents are on welfare has ever got a job when they grew up, right? And no child whose parents had a job has ever gone on welfare, right?
It's hardly a generous reading. "He ran and jumped" - most people don't assume that there's any claim that running is the same as jumping. Yes "and" can has more than one meaning in English.
So it's an ambigious statement. But you are taking one interpretation and asserting that the poster is obviously an idiot and so you will ignore their comments rather than taking a just as valid interpretation in which the claim makes sense.
Yes it very well may be that the poster thinks that selling GPLed software violated the GPL. But it may also just be that they think there'd be more of an uproar on slashdot for the case of someone selling binary copies of openoffice without complying with the GPL than there would be for someone putting binary copies of openoffice up for free download without complying with the GPL.
The words "and violating the GPL" mean something, in this case most likely not including the source or removing copyright notices or whatever else results in not being covered by the GPL.
So because making a change has a short term cost we should never make it even though it has a long term gain*?
That seems remarkably short sighted, you must hate the concept of getting an education and taking short term financial opportunity cost for a long term financial gain.
* assuming the "net costs of accidents had climbed by more than $1 million at intersections with cameras" claim is true.
Because never in all of space launches has a launch failed in a way that destroys the payload and hence you should just build the dozen you need and not a couple of extras just in case a rocket goes boom in the wrong fashion.
Sure, if you determine taxes paid as a percentage of income. But it's a consumption tax, so that makes little sense as a percentage of consumption is the metric that makes sense.
If someone is earning $2,000,000/year but only spending $50,000/year then sure they are paying the same dollar amount of taxes as a person earning $50,000/year and spending all of it. But they are also living the same lifestyle - they are spending the same amount on food/rent/mortgage/etc after all. If they want to collect currency a hide it under the mattress, then good for them. It'll get taxed when they do spend it and if they never spend it then it never did them any good anyway so there's no "fairness" issue anyway.
Of course they're more likely to invest it and earn even more money. But the same thing applies - if they are just collecting ever increasing amounts of bonds/stocks/etc then it isn't doing them any good until they actually spend it (and pay taxes on it with no income versus capital gains garbage). And of course taxes get paid by the company that issued the bonds when they spend the money and pay the sales tax.
In fact that's a key feature of sales versus income taxes. Loans are taxable which would help short circuit property bubbles - one idiocy of ever increasing house valuations is the ability to take out home equity loans which are effectively tax free income (until the bubble bursts).
I happen to think a no-deduction/no-rebate progressive income tax is a better idea - but I do see that a sales tax system is significantly less complex to run.
A sales tax with a fixed rebate isn't inherently regressive. In fact it's inherently progressive. A sales tax without a fixed rebate is inherently proportional. Are you sure it's not you who needs to look up some word meanings?
Every time they spend their money. If they never spend it then sure they don't get taxed on it. Then again that means they aren't actually getting any benefit from it. And of course with an income tax system they'll pay 0% on it - since they already have it so it isn't income.
If you run a deficit during growth years then you are ignoring what "Keynes taught us", you can't just grab the one bit you happen to like.
It is not inevitable that deficit to GDP stabilizes, numerous countries have collapsed in the past rather than stabilizing. With collapse meaning many things from people starving to standards of living plummeting to civil war.
And somehow the country that was probably worst affected by that financial crisis and has best fixed things up - Iceland - went the austerity route. It cut government spending by a massive amount in real terms.
medicare/medicaid is not universal health care. So the fact that other countries manage to fund universal health care says exactly nothing about whether the US can afford to fund its bizarre setup.
Because of course you know far more about the budget of the US government than the Congressional Budget Office. I wonder why they don't just get you to do all their research and write all their reports?
As long as it costs less than the damage bill it saves (which the summary says it does) then it's not a "sucking sound on the Israeli economy". Assuming the incoming rockets are going to happen either way.
Slashdot Mirror
George Lucas is the only one of those people who has been alive in the last 30 years, let alone produced "art". Titian and Bernini have been dead for hundreds of years (unless there's more modern artists also using those names of course, but you'd expect a better reference than those famous single names) and are ridiculous to include in a "this generation" category.
I gave an example (though with the wrong software name) of why you might want to include that. You personally mightn't see any difference but "making money off it" sometimes pushes some people over their moral line.
And it doesn't matter what the correct intepretation, the statement stands on its own, and might as well be addressed under the only interpretation that makes the statement make sense.
Assuming children are exactly like their parents. After all no child whose parents are on welfare has ever got a job when they grew up, right? And no child whose parents had a job has ever gone on welfare, right?
You might have something. Maybe the sea level isn't rising. People are just getting heavier and hence pushing the ground lower.
It's hardly a generous reading. "He ran and jumped" - most people don't assume that there's any claim that running is the same as jumping. Yes "and" can has more than one meaning in English.
So it's an ambigious statement. But you are taking one interpretation and asserting that the poster is obviously an idiot and so you will ignore their comments rather than taking a just as valid interpretation in which the claim makes sense.
Yes it very well may be that the poster thinks that selling GPLed software violated the GPL. But it may also just be that they think there'd be more of an uproar on slashdot for the case of someone selling binary copies of openoffice without complying with the GPL than there would be for someone putting binary copies of openoffice up for free download without complying with the GPL.
The words "and violating the GPL" mean something, in this case most likely not including the source or removing copyright notices or whatever else results in not being covered by the GPL.
They had exclusive rights to determine copying and distribution of the material. They no longer had that. Thus stealing by your definition.
Send a representative who isn't going to get arrested at the airport.
So because making a change has a short term cost we should never make it even though it has a long term gain*?
That seems remarkably short sighted, you must hate the concept of getting an education and taking short term financial opportunity cost for a long term financial gain.
* assuming the "net costs of accidents had climbed by more than $1 million at intersections with cameras" claim is true.
Because never in all of space launches has a launch failed in a way that destroys the payload and hence you should just build the dozen you need and not a couple of extras just in case a rocket goes boom in the wrong fashion.
Sure, if you determine taxes paid as a percentage of income. But it's a consumption tax, so that makes little sense as a percentage of consumption is the metric that makes sense.
If someone is earning $2,000,000/year but only spending $50,000/year then sure they are paying the same dollar amount of taxes as a person earning $50,000/year and spending all of it. But they are also living the same lifestyle - they are spending the same amount on food/rent/mortgage/etc after all. If they want to collect currency a hide it under the mattress, then good for them. It'll get taxed when they do spend it and if they never spend it then it never did them any good anyway so there's no "fairness" issue anyway.
Of course they're more likely to invest it and earn even more money. But the same thing applies - if they are just collecting ever increasing amounts of bonds/stocks/etc then it isn't doing them any good until they actually spend it (and pay taxes on it with no income versus capital gains garbage). And of course taxes get paid by the company that issued the bonds when they spend the money and pay the sales tax.
In fact that's a key feature of sales versus income taxes. Loans are taxable which would help short circuit property bubbles - one idiocy of ever increasing house valuations is the ability to take out home equity loans which are effectively tax free income (until the bubble bursts).
I happen to think a no-deduction/no-rebate progressive income tax is a better idea - but I do see that a sales tax system is significantly less complex to run.
Whereas I read that as those offering the loans doing it, since the offering is what is being mentioned not the accepting.
A sales tax with a fixed rebate isn't inherently regressive. In fact it's inherently progressive. A sales tax without a fixed rebate is inherently proportional. Are you sure it's not you who needs to look up some word meanings?
Every time they spend their money. If they never spend it then sure they don't get taxed on it. Then again that means they aren't actually getting any benefit from it. And of course with an income tax system they'll pay 0% on it - since they already have it so it isn't income.
If you run a deficit during growth years then you are ignoring what "Keynes taught us", you can't just grab the one bit you happen to like.
It is not inevitable that deficit to GDP stabilizes, numerous countries have collapsed in the past rather than stabilizing. With collapse meaning many things from people starving to standards of living plummeting to civil war.
And somehow the country that was probably worst affected by that financial crisis and has best fixed things up - Iceland - went the austerity route. It cut government spending by a massive amount in real terms.
medicare/medicaid is not universal health care. So the fact that other countries manage to fund universal health care says exactly nothing about whether the US can afford to fund its bizarre setup.
Because of course you know far more about the budget of the US government than the Congressional Budget Office. I wonder why they don't just get you to do all their research and write all their reports?
Given that those home loans happened before Obama was President how does that possibly make it "Obama's fault"?
Given that the poor people weren't the ones offering the loans how does the offering of them make it "the poor ones who did it all"?
"they obviously hosted lots of pirated material" and "Megaupload was mostly used for non-piracy related files" do not contradict each other.
Neither statement claimed they did.
You would say I don't have a facebook page.
Of course if the other side shows that you do you are going to be in a world of hurt.
I'm sorry you can't sentence me to 5 years in prison, see I have this contract that requires me to be elsewhere.
Because you have batter understanding of the laws in question and the specific details of this case than the judge?
Apparently it is a "one-match-and-you're-guilty" system. Here's two cases in which the only possible evidence was the DNA match (since the two people were in fact innocent) and it was enough to get a conviction: http://www.lvrj.com/news/dna-related-error-led-to-wrongful-conviction-in-2001-case-125160484.html or http://www.smh.com.au/national/dna-lab-error-led-to-false-conviction-20091002-ggj6.html. Of course sometimes you get lucky and only get to spend a few months of your life in custody before they notice they screwed up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17324912, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19412819.
And yes your "qualified expert"s are great. You know aside from minor issues like putting the wrong name on samples and contaminating samples.
And where is a place that people don't hate them?
As long as it costs less than the damage bill it saves (which the summary says it does) then it's not a "sucking sound on the Israeli economy". Assuming the incoming rockets are going to happen either way.