By bringing middle classes to developing nations. People who don't have to have litters to ensure that one child survives have one or two children, below the replacement rate. People who have careers and money to spend and cultural activities to take part in don't spend so much time screwing. And when they do, they realize that having extra children will prevent them from enjoying those luxuries.
In short, the fight against overpopulation is the same as the fight against global inequality.
I haven't used my realname online since 2002, because I don't want to have an online history that employers, governments, et cetera can use to develop a personality profile.
That's exactly why Google wants you to use your real name. The more personal profiles Google has, the more valuable its ads are. The solution is, don't use Google products.
Companies don't just have the option of defending their trademarks, they have the DUTY to defend their trademarks or lose the right to those trademarks
If there is no infringment, there's nothing to defend the trademark from.
Of course nobody is going to presume that a book is a bottle of Jack Daniels
And so there is no infringement.
the design of the cover is clearly recognizable as the Jack Daniels design
And conspicuously missing are the words "Jack Daniels". There is no actual likelihood of confusion here, so there is no infringement.
Bringing up RICO is a common flag that the person has no clue what they are talking about, legally speaking.
And throwing around ad hominems is a common flag that the person doesn't actually care what is true, right, correct, or good. RICO was designed to apply to executives just as much as it applies to the mob. Do you have an actual argument why it doesn't apply here?
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
Simply being the head of an organization that participates in a pattern of racketeering activity.
"Stated income loans," AKA "liar loans" were not illegal (I believe they still are not illegal).
Selling loans that you knew were fraudulent is itself fraud.
In any case, I'll take the word of the guy who put 1000 bankers in jail under Reagan over just about anyone else.
1. The number of citizens with college degrees has gone up something like 300%. 2. The average B.S./B.A. today is watered down considerably compared to 1960.
True, but many people were also able to provide a good life for their family with jobs in manufacturing.
3. There are a few tens of millions more women in the workplace now than compared to then (or at least pre-2008 crash there were)
More women with more buying power means more demand and more work to fill that demand. Adding more workers should make everyone wealthier. If it doesn't that means there is something terribly wrong with the economy.
4. There are conservatively 12 million illegal immigrants doing low-skilled and unskilled jobs and their illegal status makes it impossible for them to demand a decent wage.
Legalize them, and raise the minimum wage to a livable level. Like above, more workers should make everyone wealthier.
Meanwhile, all we hear about is just outsourcing as though outsourcing all by itself killed everything
It's not just outsourcing. It's the death of the union as an effective advocate for the working class. Outsourcing is just one workaround. The solution, like always, is a global workers union.
You can easily buy an home that's the size and style of the 1960's and furnish it with 1960's-level furniture and technology: a phone, a TV receiving three channels, and not much else.
Bullshit. I pretty much do this, but pay one bill for the modern equivalent to phone service. I might have enough for a house in 10 years, with the help of my GF, if we don't have any kids, assuming steady employment for the next decade.
If you want two cars, modern health care, iphones, cable, Internet, large screen TVs, video game consoles, two garages, 2500 sq ft, all close to the highway, coast, and a major urban center, however, then it's going to cost you more.
It might surprise you to find that people in the 60s living one one income and raising a family were able to live in the city and buy toys for their kids.
Your understanding has been shaped by a corporate controlled media.
For one, perjury is a crime covered by RICO. Goldman Sach's robosigning scandal where they committed wide spread perjury for profit is undeniably a "pattern of racketeering activity" as defined by RICO. Why did Obama's justice department pressure state AGs to settle instead of pushing for criminal punishment?
But that's small potatoes. The real problem came from "stated income loans". AKA "liars loans". The banks were informed by Congress and the FBI that liars loans were over 90% fraudulent. In response, the banks INCREASED the amount of liars loans that they issued. I don't see how this can be anything but encouraging and profiting from fraud. AKA, racketeering.
Don't take my word for it. Bill Black, the exact same guy who put all those bankers in jail under Reagan says that fraud was the root cause of the 2008 crisis, and responsibility for that fraud lies squarely on the banks. Why isn't anyone listening to him?
It seems to me today that "poverty" is on par with 1960s luxury, so what's the point?
In 1960 a college graduate could own a home and support a family on one full time salary. In 2012, positions like that are vanishingly rare.
At what point are these people choosing poverty
Perhaps you didn't notice the recent financial crisis and the boom in unemployment. Do you think these people "chose" to be unemployed? Did you choose to be this obtuse?
It speaks volumes that the only "real alternative" available across the country in this election is one who would remove even more of the few regulations left to protect us from corporate excess. Look at "Gary Johnson's track record". He brags about being "an outspoken advocate for...protection of civil liberties", and a couple sentences later he brags about how he "privatized half of the state prisons". WTF?
If the Democrats wanted to be seen as the good guys when it comes to the economy, Obama should have had his Justice Department throw bankers in jail when he had the chance. He also shouldn't have appointed Tim Geithner, or any other crony to the cabinet. And he should have refused donations from Goldman Sachs. And he should have at least tried to bail out home owners directly, instead of giving money to bankers who aren't lending it back out.
Sorry, both the Democrats and Republicans work in favor of the rich against the rest of us. If you want me to believe otherwise, do something meaningful. Refuse all corporate donations. Fire all the cronies in your cabinet. Direct your justice department to prosecut Lloyd Blankfein under RICO. DO SOMETHING!
Obama has largely continued the economic policies of his predecessors. There's still no effective regulation of high finance. Dodd-Frank is a joke. Obama's cabinet is packed with Goldman Sachs alums. Not one executive level banker has so much as been arrested for any of the crimes they've committed.
Obama is a crony capitalist just like the rest of them. He's even more corrupt than Reagan, who was at least willing to put bankers in jail after the S&L crisis. Do you understand that? Obama is more corrupt than the guy Reaganomics is named after.
The last half of the sentence was not an important qualifying clause. Continued extraction of fossil fuels will continue to heat the Earth, whether we have an alternative or not. The consequences of this are likely to be so bad, that we should stop entirely even in the absence of alternatives.
You think it would suck living without fossil fuels? It's going to suck even more for your great-great(-n*great) grand children to live without fossil fuels on an Earth that's hotter than it's been in millions of years. Either we take the pain now, or there's going to be orders of magnitude more pain in the future. That's the choice we have.
Yes, it's a valid trademark when it's on a bottle of whiskey. In order to show infringement of your trademark, you must show that there is a "likelihood of confusion". There is no likelihood of confusing a book with a bottle of whiskey, therefore there is no trademark infringement.
You can't fail to enforce a trademark where no valid trademark rights exist. There is no trademark infringement by this book, so there is nothing for JD to defend.
Classy would have been minding their own business. There is no chance of Wensink's book being mistaken for a bottle of Jack Daniels, and therefore there is no trademark infringement or dilution. This letter, though cordial, is as frivolous a trademark complaint as there ever was.
Decriminalization maintains the black market. There's little to be gained from that. It's just more people giving more money to organized crime. There's no sense whatsoever in treating cannabis any different than beer.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't take long for that to result in a world of nutty cultists and few sensible people.
Only about 52 years apparently.
By bringing middle classes to developing nations. People who don't have to have litters to ensure that one child survives have one or two children, below the replacement rate. People who have careers and money to spend and cultural activities to take part in don't spend so much time screwing. And when they do, they realize that having extra children will prevent them from enjoying those luxuries.
In short, the fight against overpopulation is the same as the fight against global inequality.
I'm sorry, somehow my brain didn't read the word "networks" in that sentence.
According to Wikipedia, the first two computer networks were connected together (to form an "internet", because that is what the word means)
That's just a network. An internet is the interconection of networks.
How long do you think it will be until your Youtube account IS your G+ account?
ACs do from time to time post insightful comments. /. would be poorer for the lack of them.
I haven't used my realname online since 2002, because I don't want to have an online history that employers, governments, et cetera can use to develop a personality profile.
That's exactly why Google wants you to use your real name. The more personal profiles Google has, the more valuable its ads are. The solution is, don't use Google products.
Companies don't just have the option of defending their trademarks, they have the DUTY to defend their trademarks or lose the right to those trademarks
If there is no infringment, there's nothing to defend the trademark from.
Of course nobody is going to presume that a book is a bottle of Jack Daniels
And so there is no infringement.
the design of the cover is clearly recognizable as the Jack Daniels design
And conspicuously missing are the words "Jack Daniels". There is no actual likelihood of confusion here, so there is no infringement.
Bringing up RICO is a common flag that the person has no clue what they are talking about, legally speaking.
And throwing around ad hominems is a common flag that the person doesn't actually care what is true, right, correct, or good. RICO was designed to apply to executives just as much as it applies to the mob. Do you have an actual argument why it doesn't apply here?
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
Simply being the head of an organization that participates in a pattern of racketeering activity.
"Stated income loans," AKA "liar loans" were not illegal (I believe they still are not illegal).
Selling loans that you knew were fraudulent is itself fraud.
In any case, I'll take the word of the guy who put 1000 bankers in jail under Reagan over just about anyone else.
1. The number of citizens with college degrees has gone up something like 300%.
2. The average B.S./B.A. today is watered down considerably compared to 1960.
True, but many people were also able to provide a good life for their family with jobs in manufacturing.
3. There are a few tens of millions more women in the workplace now than compared to then (or at least pre-2008 crash there were)
More women with more buying power means more demand and more work to fill that demand. Adding more workers should make everyone wealthier. If it doesn't that means there is something terribly wrong with the economy.
4. There are conservatively 12 million illegal immigrants doing low-skilled and unskilled jobs and their illegal status makes it impossible for them to demand a decent wage.
Legalize them, and raise the minimum wage to a livable level. Like above, more workers should make everyone wealthier.
Meanwhile, all we hear about is just outsourcing as though outsourcing all by itself killed everything
It's not just outsourcing. It's the death of the union as an effective advocate for the working class. Outsourcing is just one workaround. The solution, like always, is a global workers union.
You can easily buy an home that's the size and style of the 1960's and furnish it with 1960's-level furniture and technology: a phone, a TV receiving three channels, and not much else.
Bullshit. I pretty much do this, but pay one bill for the modern equivalent to phone service. I might have enough for a house in 10 years, with the help of my GF, if we don't have any kids, assuming steady employment for the next decade.
If you want two cars, modern health care, iphones, cable, Internet, large screen TVs, video game consoles, two garages, 2500 sq ft, all close to the highway, coast, and a major urban center, however, then it's going to cost you more.
It might surprise you to find that people in the 60s living one one income and raising a family were able to live in the city and buy toys for their kids.
Good cop/bad cop. Neither are your friend.
Your understanding has been shaped by a corporate controlled media.
For one, perjury is a crime covered by RICO. Goldman Sach's robosigning scandal where they committed wide spread perjury for profit is undeniably a "pattern of racketeering activity" as defined by RICO. Why did Obama's justice department pressure state AGs to settle instead of pushing for criminal punishment?
But that's small potatoes. The real problem came from "stated income loans". AKA "liars loans". The banks were informed by Congress and the FBI that liars loans were over 90% fraudulent. In response, the banks INCREASED the amount of liars loans that they issued. I don't see how this can be anything but encouraging and profiting from fraud. AKA, racketeering.
Don't take my word for it. Bill Black, the exact same guy who put all those bankers in jail under Reagan says that fraud was the root cause of the 2008 crisis, and responsibility for that fraud lies squarely on the banks. Why isn't anyone listening to him?
Malnutrition is down, but obesity is up. The symptoms of poverty change depending on social/cultural context, but it's still poverty.
It seems to me today that "poverty" is on par with 1960s luxury, so what's the point?
In 1960 a college graduate could own a home and support a family on one full time salary. In 2012, positions like that are vanishingly rare.
At what point are these people choosing poverty
Perhaps you didn't notice the recent financial crisis and the boom in unemployment. Do you think these people "chose" to be unemployed? Did you choose to be this obtuse?
It speaks volumes that the only "real alternative" available across the country in this election is one who would remove even more of the few regulations left to protect us from corporate excess. Look at "Gary Johnson's track record". He brags about being "an outspoken advocate for...protection of civil liberties", and a couple sentences later he brags about how he "privatized half of the state prisons". WTF?
If the Democrats wanted to be seen as the good guys when it comes to the economy, Obama should have had his Justice Department throw bankers in jail when he had the chance. He also shouldn't have appointed Tim Geithner, or any other crony to the cabinet. And he should have refused donations from Goldman Sachs. And he should have at least tried to bail out home owners directly, instead of giving money to bankers who aren't lending it back out.
Sorry, both the Democrats and Republicans work in favor of the rich against the rest of us. If you want me to believe otherwise, do something meaningful. Refuse all corporate donations. Fire all the cronies in your cabinet. Direct your justice department to prosecut Lloyd Blankfein under RICO. DO SOMETHING!
Obama has largely continued the economic policies of his predecessors. There's still no effective regulation of high finance. Dodd-Frank is a joke. Obama's cabinet is packed with Goldman Sachs alums. Not one executive level banker has so much as been arrested for any of the crimes they've committed.
Obama is a crony capitalist just like the rest of them. He's even more corrupt than Reagan, who was at least willing to put bankers in jail after the S&L crisis. Do you understand that? Obama is more corrupt than the guy Reaganomics is named after.
The last half of the sentence was not an important qualifying clause. Continued extraction of fossil fuels will continue to heat the Earth, whether we have an alternative or not. The consequences of this are likely to be so bad, that we should stop entirely even in the absence of alternatives.
You think it would suck living without fossil fuels? It's going to suck even more for your great-great(-n*great) grand children to live without fossil fuels on an Earth that's hotter than it's been in millions of years. Either we take the pain now, or there's going to be orders of magnitude more pain in the future. That's the choice we have.
Yes, it's a valid trademark when it's on a bottle of whiskey. In order to show infringement of your trademark, you must show that there is a "likelihood of confusion". There is no likelihood of confusing a book with a bottle of whiskey, therefore there is no trademark infringement.
Maybe you are confused as to what a trademark is.
You can't fail to enforce a trademark where no valid trademark rights exist. There is no trademark infringement by this book, so there is nothing for JD to defend.
Classy would have been minding their own business. There is no chance of Wensink's book being mistaken for a bottle of Jack Daniels, and therefore there is no trademark infringement or dilution. This letter, though cordial, is as frivolous a trademark complaint as there ever was.
You have a specific reason in mind as to why we should avoid continued gathering of an existing resource
Because some people want their great-great grand children to inherit a habitable Earth. The Cretaceous period was not "the good old days".
I know. It's like those greedy scientists don't care about anything but money. That's why they went into science after all.
Decriminalization maintains the black market. There's little to be gained from that. It's just more people giving more money to organized crime. There's no sense whatsoever in treating cannabis any different than beer.