All monopolies are creations of governments. They don't exist in a free market.
The U.S. government has had to step in many times to break up monopolies. If all monopolies are created by governments then why would they break them up?
Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell) and Standard Oil monopolies and then why they would dismantle what they created.
While I agree with you and the GP, one thing I would say is that most of the world doesn't give a shit about cursive writing and I don't know why it is still taught in the US. Hand writing, joined up, legibly, sure. But cursive just seems like teaching Latin, maybe because of tradition or something.
I'm confused. You say you don't understand why cursive writing is still taught in the U.S. but it's OK to teach "hand writing, joined up, legibly".
You might not be aware of it but cursive writing and joined-up hand writing are the same thing.
Factually incorrect.Copyright infringement and theft have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each.
You're starting off on a false premise, and using mathy-looking letter variables doesn't make your logic any less sloppy.
It might not have been clear but the person I was responding to said that copyright extensions were "stealing" society but copyright infringement wasn't stealing. I was merely pointing out their sloppy logic that if one of them was an act of theft then they were both an act of theft. I know legally that copy infringement is not theft however, the copyright holder makes less money as a result of the infringement which is why it has the appearance of theft. Of course how much money is lost is the great debate that no one can ever truly settle.
I'm sorry you found the "mathy-looking letter variables" overwhelming but they were simply used for conciseness. Here's a more wordy version that should be more to your liking.
I know logic probably escapes you but in both cases a person deprives another person of something. So if in one case it's stealing then it's stealing in both cases.
I borrowed a book from a friend and read it. I got the use of something that costs money without paying for it. By your "logic"... I stole it?
Your "logic" sucks rather badly.
I was talking about copyright infringement not fair use (i.e. borrowing a book) which by definition is not copyright infringement so no, I'm not saying you stole it.
If you read my post and concluded that I equated copyright infringement with fair use then I think you have the problem with logic.
Copyright infringement isn't stealing - the legitimate holder of the copyright still has it and is still free to use it however they want, including using it to prosecute infringement. Extended copyright terms do in fact steal from society, using the proper definition of "steal" - members of society are deprived of the means to use those works to build upon them, or to preserve them.
Yes, copyright infringement is stealing. If you get the use or enjoyment of something that normally costs money then you have deprived the copyright holder of that money. So if depriving society of free access to movies due to copyright extensions is, by your own admission, stealing then depriving the current copyright holder of the fee required to view or use those very same works is also stealing.
I know logic probably escapes you but in both cases A deprives B of C. So if in one case it's stealing then it's stealing in both cases.
A little more office downsizing and a little more chicken coop expansion and California will be able to pass a single law to cover both chickens and office workers.
Technically, it isn't an internet (International Network) as it is only national. It is a lot closer to an intranet than an internet
The "inter" part of "internet" stands for "interconnected" not "international". So North Korea does have an internet (interconnected network) but their internet is not connected to the Internet.
You are confusing Airbus with Airbus Defence and Space. Airbus is not involved at all in SpaceX decision.
You are correct, my mistake.
Airbus Group is not a Dutch multinational. It is simply registered in Netherlands for corporate tax-benefits.
Sorry, but regardless of the reason for being registered in the Netherlands it still makes it a Dutch multinational corporation. But I'll compromise and call it a Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation.
Airbus Defence and Space is not a German subsidiary. It consists of independent companies from France, Germany, UK and other EU mignon-states. These companies like to pretend on paper they are unified. France has the largest share of ADS, then Germany, then UK.
Yeah, no. According to ADS's own website those companies were consolidated into ADS as a German based division (i.e. subsidiary) of AG.
And regardless of who owns the shares, government or otherwise, AG is still a publicly traded company that owns ADS.
So I will amend my original post to say that a French politician is complaining that the German division [wikipedia.org] of a Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation [wikipedia.org] is choosing an American launch vehicle instead of one offered by the very same German division of that very same Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation.
Except that Airbus is not government owned and it's no more subsidized than any other aerospace firm.
It would be more accurate to say that a French politician is complaining that the French subsidiary of a Dutch multinational corporation is choosing an American launch vehicle instead of one offered by the German subsidiary of that very same Dutch multinational corporation.
Copyright violation is not theft, you fucking imbecile.
But it is interesting to see the discussions when it is GPL code or the CSS of a favorite site that is being copied and used against the license, then communities that usually say the above often change their tone on the subject.
I hate to break the news to you, but these so-called "Millenials" you keep ranting about do not exist. And if they existed, theyd' all be 14 years old.
I hate to break it to you but the group called the "Millennials" are not called that because they were born at the beginning of this millennium but because they were born at the end of the last one. Generally that means from early/mid 1980's to 2000.
That anythink you're complaining about the Millenials fucking up is directly the responsibility of the Boomers since they didn't not only didn't have time to raise us, but let us be told we couldn't be responsible nor self sufficient until we were adults.
If you really are a Millennial then your parents are likely Gen-Xers so the Baby Boomers had no role in raising you except as grandparents. If you really were raised by a Baby Boomer then you're more likely Gen-X.
While it is possible for some exceptions for people born at one end of a group or the other, Millennials are the children of Gen-X and Gen-X are the children of the Baby Boomers. For example, it is possible for someone at the end of the Baby Boom to have a child but that would be a rare exception that proves the rule.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone knows better, I'd be happy to be corrected but as I see it the correct forms are the OP's
and
and also
The two "corrections" are incorrect:
and
Obligatory Slashdot car metaphor in 3...2...1:
We should update the UI in our cars. That steering wheel is soooo 1903.
My girl's muffin is user friendly, flexible and inflatable, thank you very much.
FTFY
According to the Oxford dictionary using "fail" informally to mean "a mistake or lack of success in doing something" is an acceptable use.
So, your correction would be an epic fail.
A rare expression but nothing odd about it. With respect to definition it was correctly used and appropriate for the context.
Rather than showing English is not their native language, it shows a better than average command of the language.
He's a Canadian not a sailor.
It's, "He's sorry, eh"
The love child of a Ferengi and a Pakled might be closer.
All monopolies are creations of governments. They don't exist in a free market.
The U.S. government has had to step in many times to break up monopolies. If all monopolies are created by governments then why would they break them up?
Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell) and Standard Oil monopolies and then why they would dismantle what they created.
Damning documents that do what? Make him look like a moron? A jackass?
Better yet, if they could find something that made him look like a liberal, that would be the surest way to drive away his supporters.
St. Pierre & Miquelon are islands. i.e. not a border
I wish there was a +1000 Funny mod option.
Best zinger I've seen in years. It'll keep me laughing for days.
Nixon is too liberal for the modern conservative party.
I think even Reagan would be too liberal.
While I agree with you and the GP, one thing I would say is that most of the world doesn't give a shit about cursive writing and I don't know why it is still taught in the US. Hand writing, joined up, legibly, sure. But cursive just seems like teaching Latin, maybe because of tradition or something.
I'm confused. You say you don't understand why cursive writing is still taught in the U.S. but it's OK to teach "hand writing, joined up, legibly".
You might not be aware of it but cursive writing and joined-up hand writing are the same thing.
Regardless of how it is classified he still discovered it. So I'm guessing yes, they still would have sent his ashes.
Yes, copyright infringement is stealing.
Factually incorrect.Copyright infringement and theft have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each.
You're starting off on a false premise, and using mathy-looking letter variables doesn't make your logic any less sloppy.
It might not have been clear but the person I was responding to said that copyright extensions were "stealing" society but copyright infringement wasn't stealing. I was merely pointing out their sloppy logic that if one of them was an act of theft then they were both an act of theft. I know legally that copy infringement is not theft however, the copyright holder makes less money as a result of the infringement which is why it has the appearance of theft. Of course how much money is lost is the great debate that no one can ever truly settle.
I'm sorry you found the "mathy-looking letter variables" overwhelming but they were simply used for conciseness. Here's a more wordy version that should be more to your liking.
I know logic probably escapes you but in both cases a person deprives another person of something. So if in one case it's stealing then it's stealing in both cases.
I borrowed a book from a friend and read it. I got the use of something that costs money without paying for it. By your "logic"... I stole it?
Your "logic" sucks rather badly.
I was talking about copyright infringement not fair use (i.e. borrowing a book) which by definition is not copyright infringement so no, I'm not saying you stole it.
If you read my post and concluded that I equated copyright infringement with fair use then I think you have the problem with logic.
Copyright infringement isn't stealing - the legitimate holder of the copyright still has it and is still free to use it however they want, including using it to prosecute infringement. Extended copyright terms do in fact steal from society, using the proper definition of "steal" - members of society are deprived of the means to use those works to build upon them, or to preserve them.
Yes, copyright infringement is stealing. If you get the use or enjoyment of something that normally costs money then you have deprived the copyright holder of that money. So if depriving society of free access to movies due to copyright extensions is, by your own admission, stealing then depriving the current copyright holder of the fee required to view or use those very same works is also stealing.
I know logic probably escapes you but in both cases A deprives B of C. So if in one case it's stealing then it's stealing in both cases.
California now requires egg-laying chickens to have at least 116 sq in of floor space.
A little more office downsizing and a little more chicken coop expansion and California will be able to pass a single law to cover both chickens and office workers.
Technically, it isn't an internet (International Network) as it is only national.
It is a lot closer to an intranet than an internet
The "inter" part of "internet" stands for "interconnected" not "international". So North Korea does have an internet (interconnected network) but their internet is not connected to the Internet.
You keep talking about the work. I'm talking about the politics and the accounting. We're both right.
You are confusing Airbus with Airbus Defence and Space. Airbus is not involved at all in SpaceX decision.
You are correct, my mistake.
Airbus Group is not a Dutch multinational. It is simply registered in Netherlands for corporate tax-benefits.
Sorry, but regardless of the reason for being registered in the Netherlands it still makes it a Dutch multinational corporation. But I'll compromise and call it a Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation.
Airbus Defence and Space is not a German subsidiary. It consists of independent companies from France, Germany, UK and other EU mignon-states. These companies like to pretend on paper they are unified. France has the largest share of ADS, then Germany, then UK.
Yeah, no. According to ADS's own website those companies were consolidated into ADS as a German based division (i.e. subsidiary) of AG.
And regardless of who owns the shares, government or otherwise, AG is still a publicly traded company that owns ADS.
So I will amend my original post to say that a French politician is complaining that the German division [wikipedia.org] of a Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation [wikipedia.org] is choosing an American launch vehicle instead of one offered by the very same German division of that very same Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation.
Feel better.
Except that Airbus is not government owned and it's no more subsidized than any other aerospace firm.
It would be more accurate to say that a French politician is complaining that the French subsidiary of a Dutch multinational corporation is choosing an American launch vehicle instead of one offered by the German subsidiary of that very same Dutch multinational corporation.
distributing stolen property is a crime!
Copyright violation is not theft, you fucking imbecile.
But it is interesting to see the discussions when it is GPL code or the CSS of a favorite site that is being copied and used against the license, then communities that usually say the above often change their tone on the subject.
Ahhh, perspective. Thou art a cruel bitch.
I hate to break the news to you, but these so-called "Millenials" you keep ranting about do not exist. And if they existed, theyd' all be 14 years old.
I hate to break it to you but the group called the "Millennials" are not called that because they were born at the beginning of this millennium but because they were born at the end of the last one. Generally that means from early/mid 1980's to 2000.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Millennial
http://www.livescience.com/38061-millennials-generation-y.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/millennial+generation
That anythink you're complaining about the Millenials fucking up is directly the responsibility of the Boomers since they didn't not only didn't have time to raise us, but let us be told we couldn't be responsible nor self sufficient until we were adults.
If you really are a Millennial then your parents are likely Gen-Xers so the Baby Boomers had no role in raising you except as grandparents. If you really were raised by a Baby Boomer then you're more likely Gen-X.
While it is possible for some exceptions for people born at one end of a group or the other, Millennials are the children of Gen-X and Gen-X are the children of the Baby Boomers. For example, it is possible for someone at the end of the Baby Boom to have a child but that would be a rare exception that proves the rule.