I'm not conceding that Amazon has decided to only sell porn for straight guys, but how would such a decision be more arbitrary than deciding not to sell any porn at all?
I guess these are the tradeoffs for wanting the convenience of an e-book reader.
If you want to have a copy of a work with little chance that it will be rescinded from you, with as few people as possible knowing you have it, with the ability to lend it out to whomever you choose whenever you want, then buy a book (note: Amazon still sells real books, as do other booksellers, whether or not they are local independent merchants). If you want the convenience of having a bunch of content available to you without lugging around a chest of books, then buy an e-book reader.
It is not a mutually exclusive decision. You can use both.
You can't steal abstract information like a particular combination of bits that can be rendered as a book. You can illegally copy them, but you can't steal them.
Then again, in some places in Europe, Nazi memorabilia or the Nazi swastika itself are outlawed, presumably because they'll infect your brain with Hitlerism.
In at least one European country (and one that sometimes wants to be considered European), girls are not allowed to wear headscarves in public schools that are considered religious symbols. And those are laws, as opposed to this, which is the action of a private a company.
The fact that the researchers who published this 'study' also wrote the amicus brief that supported the same claim seems to call their objectivity into question as well.
On the contrary, it means they've corroborated their story. And the more such support they discover, the more they're going to get their findings published, and thus, the more their findings will be corroborated.
You're talking about a ranked ballot system, which is more or less a modification on "first past the post", because the winner of a district is still the person who got at least 50%+1 votes. The difference is that voters are (theoretically) more likely to cast their first vote for a third-party candidate, because their second vote can be the backup for if/when the third-party candidate doesn't win. It resolves the problem of vote-splitting.
If a candidate still only had 10% support in a district, they'd be among the first ones out in the vote-counting rounds.
Doesn't calling it a scam imply that it's not really 3D? I mean, yeah, it's not really projected holographs, but I assure you that the movies do reproduce some level of depth.
If you want to call it a "gimmick", then fine, but it's not a scam. You know pretty much what you're getting; whether the quality of the effect or the content of movies/shows/games are worth the additional cost is up to you to decide.
You folks have a funny way of spelling kilometers (funnier than kilometres) on your road signs, and a funny way if spelling kilograms per kilometer on your fuel economy displays.
Unless it's all changed since I was there 3 years ago...
As for the "legally, the kilogram", that comment applies in the US as well: the metric system has been the official measurement system here since 1893; almost all US customary units are legally defined in terms of metric units. We just don't use the metric units directly as much as you (and you don't as much as the rest of Europe).
You have framed your argument on the assumption that the "freedom" that the GPL was designed to protect is that of the derivative author. But everything Stallman has written indicates that the freedom he is purporting to protect with the GPL is not the derivative author's but the end-user's.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the GPLv3, but the goal of the GPL copyleft in general is to ensure not only that the user has access to the source and the rights to create derivative works from it royalty-free, but that so do all the users of any of the derivative works.
Using the code to support a larger proprietary system does not advance that goal, which is why the 'L' in LGPL was renamed to "Lesser": it goes less far in advancing the goals of the Free Software Foundation, and is mostly offered as a practicality. If Apple wants to add their own Objective-C patches but doesn't want to make them available to the whole community, then the GPL is not for them.
There is nothing in the GPLv3 that says you can't use GPL'd software commercially. Perhaps it doesn't gel with Apple's particular commercial plans for their software. That's fine... they are free to find other options that do so gel. And if those other options involve making their users use proprietary software, then how exactly is that more freedom for us than if they just continued to offer the free software (not to mention get a lot of their OS work done for them, so they can focus on their pretty UIs)?
It's because this guy paid himself the same amount, he just funneled a lot of it through his corporation, of which he owned the dominant share (if he was going through an S-Corp, he only needs at least one other shareholder, I believe). S-Corps don't pay corporate taxes either. Google, Apple, et al are public corporations which pay corporate taxes (though not much, usually, by taking advantage of various loopholes). Most of them don't even pay a dividend, so even if Steve Jobs does have a significant number of Apple shares, he's not getting any direct payment of the company profits.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon is not a company headquartered in, or doing most of its business in, a country where pictures of women are illegal.
I bet you can't find many books on the Tiananmen Square Protests at amazon.cn, though.
I'm not conceding that Amazon has decided to only sell porn for straight guys, but how would such a decision be more arbitrary than deciding not to sell any porn at all?
Good point. It really bothers me how Nineteen Eighty Four and Animal Farm are no longer available through any medium.
I guess these are the tradeoffs for wanting the convenience of an e-book reader.
If you want to have a copy of a work with little chance that it will be rescinded from you, with as few people as possible knowing you have it, with the ability to lend it out to whomever you choose whenever you want, then buy a book (note: Amazon still sells real books, as do other booksellers, whether or not they are local independent merchants). If you want the convenience of having a bunch of content available to you without lugging around a chest of books, then buy an e-book reader.
It is not a mutually exclusive decision. You can use both.
You can't steal abstract information like a particular combination of bits that can be rendered as a book. You can illegally copy them, but you can't steal them.
Then again, in some places in Europe, Nazi memorabilia or the Nazi swastika itself are outlawed, presumably because they'll infect your brain with Hitlerism.
In at least one European country (and one that sometimes wants to be considered European), girls are not allowed to wear headscarves in public schools that are considered religious symbols. And those are laws, as opposed to this, which is the action of a private a company.
I hope not, because that could land them in prison.
But could you do that without the companies finding out?!
I read a study published in EGM that says there's no such link, and if disagree, I'll pop you right in your mouth.
On the contrary, it means they've corroborated their story. And the more such support they discover, the more they're going to get their findings published, and thus, the more their findings will be corroborated.
It's called argumentum ad bootstrapum. Google it.
...the "Federal stimulus for Florida's 15th congressional district to get Bill Posey re-elected" bill.
Ha ha ha ha... ha ha ha ha ha ha!
MAGIC MAN DONE IT!
You're talking about a ranked ballot system, which is more or less a modification on "first past the post", because the winner of a district is still the person who got at least 50%+1 votes. The difference is that voters are (theoretically) more likely to cast their first vote for a third-party candidate, because their second vote can be the backup for if/when the third-party candidate doesn't win. It resolves the problem of vote-splitting.
If a candidate still only had 10% support in a district, they'd be among the first ones out in the vote-counting rounds.
Doesn't calling it a scam imply that it's not really 3D? I mean, yeah, it's not really projected holographs, but I assure you that the movies do reproduce some level of depth.
If you want to call it a "gimmick", then fine, but it's not a scam. You know pretty much what you're getting; whether the quality of the effect or the content of movies/shows/games are worth the additional cost is up to you to decide.
You folks have a funny way of spelling kilometers (funnier than kilometres) on your road signs, and a funny way if spelling kilograms per kilometer on your fuel economy displays.
Unless it's all changed since I was there 3 years ago...
As for the "legally, the kilogram", that comment applies in the US as well: the metric system has been the official measurement system here since 1893; almost all US customary units are legally defined in terms of metric units. We just don't use the metric units directly as much as you (and you don't as much as the rest of Europe).
...why do they still (informally) use customary units for food weights, or (more formally) for gas and driving speed (gallons and miles per hour).
Old habits die hard.
You have framed your argument on the assumption that the "freedom" that the GPL was designed to protect is that of the derivative author. But everything Stallman has written indicates that the freedom he is purporting to protect with the GPL is not the derivative author's but the end-user's.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the GPLv3, but the goal of the GPL copyleft in general is to ensure not only that the user has access to the source and the rights to create derivative works from it royalty-free, but that so do all the users of any of the derivative works.
Using the code to support a larger proprietary system does not advance that goal, which is why the 'L' in LGPL was renamed to "Lesser": it goes less far in advancing the goals of the Free Software Foundation, and is mostly offered as a practicality. If Apple wants to add their own Objective-C patches but doesn't want to make them available to the whole community, then the GPL is not for them.
There is nothing in the GPLv3 that says you can't use GPL'd software commercially. Perhaps it doesn't gel with Apple's particular commercial plans for their software. That's fine... they are free to find other options that do so gel. And if those other options involve making their users use proprietary software, then how exactly is that more freedom for us than if they just continued to offer the free software (not to mention get a lot of their OS work done for them, so they can focus on their pretty UIs)?
I'm pretty sure that's just evidence of fossilized space bacteria.
...when posting pics of Picard and/or Riker facepalming is much more entertaining.
Apple vs PC flamewar... BEGIN!!
And I guarantee you he has to pay income taxes on them (and payroll taxes, for the amount below the FICA threshold).
Well, yes, that's explained in the summary. But when the profits pass through, the shareholders don't pay payroll taxes.
It's because this guy paid himself the same amount, he just funneled a lot of it through his corporation, of which he owned the dominant share (if he was going through an S-Corp, he only needs at least one other shareholder, I believe). S-Corps don't pay corporate taxes either. Google, Apple, et al are public corporations which pay corporate taxes (though not much, usually, by taking advantage of various loopholes). Most of them don't even pay a dividend, so even if Steve Jobs does have a significant number of Apple shares, he's not getting any direct payment of the company profits.
Hopefully it's after the day WebM does more than just play compressed video and audio.