The idea that a company can remain solvent in perpetuity doing nothing but simply licensing out ancient IP and suing those who violate said IP rights is an incredible bastardization of Capitalism.
If one more person on the internet says "Fox News" as a pejorative.towards me I'm going to hit them with a sack full of rainbow trout filets. It's a COP OUT. Argue against my point, don't insinuate I'm a tool because I happen to share some opinions with people on that network.
How is it stupid? I think it sums up the Democrat platform quite nicely. They believe in a proactive approach to social justice with weights and balances to favor minority groups deeply entrenched in government. Are you telling me you disagree with this? Because if you do, I'd think long and hard about the party you're supporting.
“I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights. She stated, “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution.”
The idea of representative democracy is that you will elect someone whom you trust to represent your interests, not simply a middle-man between you and your government. How popular was TARP in terms of raw polling numbers? The idea was hated roundly by both sides, but it passed and worked because we had a lot of people in Congress with greater foresight than the average Joe. I know I wouldn't want the Republic subjected to the whims of the mob, whose opinions change as often as the weather.
No, it's actually more like 50% of the country's wealth: How is it that the bottom 50% paying no federal income taxes at all and the top 10% paying 70% of the country's income taxes is any sort of fair?
These suggestions ignore a critical issue: Patronage of these companies is entirely voluntary. If you don't like their terms of use or business practices, you can simply abstain from using them.
[quote]The second is to reform the corporate structure of larger companies to include some directors elected by consumers, rather than just shareholders. [/quote]
This IS a radical notion; it's also a terrible one as well as a legally problematic one. Corporations, at least in the US, are required to act in the interests of delivering profits to its shareholders. Consumers will always act against those interests as they want increased goods and services at decreased profit margins. You don't see union bosses sitting in on board meetings, do you?
With iCloud, I don't see any reason to install iTunes for an Apple device unless you have physical CDs or DVDs you want to upload to your device. Even then, it seems a shame to have to put it on; it's like taking a media player and strapping a 200-lb armoire to its back.
Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?
Go back in the server room in your office. See the little dark blue 4:3 Dell 15" LCD that's either attached to a server KVM or otherwise sitting in a corner with its cord tied around the base? That's 1024x768. There's a few left in every office, not quite crappy enough to put out to pasture on the shop floor but too old and small to be of practical use for the desk jockeys.
What people are complaining about is the fact that there are a lot of teachers who really want to teach creationism to kids and dis evolution in their classrooms. This gives them license to do so.
Then call them on it if they do. No teacher has the right to undermine what you're trying to teach your kids, no matter your religion or lack thereof. More than likely if this is a valid concern, they're doing it anyway.
They're not forced to teach that, but it's fairly easy for a teacher to stand up in class and talk about evolution as some fairy tale make-up by atheists and how life was obviously designed by a creator and, without getting too much into it, he can effectively paint the situation as "evolution = lies, creationism = truth, I'm not going to tell you which God did it, but we're all from the Bible-belt so we all know who we're talking about here." Wink. Wink.
See previous statement.
Yeah, like that will happen in a heavily Christianized state. I'm sure teachers will give a nice, balanced presentation for all the religions they don't believe in.
Just like they give a nice balanced presentation of school levies, current affairs, and elections, being they're government union employees and have a self-interest in leftist positions. More than you think are likely on your side already...
Yeah, I don't think at all that your labeling of those with religious faith as undeserving of human rights is flamebait at all. I think of it as out-and-out disingenuity. Leave evolution aside for a second (which I happen to "believe" in, just FYI): The idea that there was a force behind the creation of existence as we know it is just as plausible as there not being one. If we don't know, we believe. Rational or irrational, the foundations of human society as we know it were created by people of faith. Are you planning on labeling every one of them ignorant as cattle? Grow up. Religion needs to be taught as one of the building blocks of human history, from a scholarly perspective. Whether that is taught in science class or history class, I could give a shit less.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that a company can remain solvent in perpetuity doing nothing but simply licensing out ancient IP and suing those who violate said IP rights is an incredible bastardization of Capitalism.
Very well said and I agree with your point.
If one more person on the internet says "Fox News" as a pejorative.towards me I'm going to hit them with a sack full of rainbow trout filets. It's a COP OUT. Argue against my point, don't insinuate I'm a tool because I happen to share some opinions with people on that network.
The laws that are the most unconstitutional are the drug seizure laws from Reagan.
What laws did Democrats pass that you think are unconstitutional?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Enacted
How is it stupid? I think it sums up the Democrat platform quite nicely. They believe in a proactive approach to social justice with weights and balances to favor minority groups deeply entrenched in government. Are you telling me you disagree with this? Because if you do, I'd think long and hard about the party you're supporting.
[citation fucking needed]
http://greenmountainscribes.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/scotus-justice-ginsburg-calls-u-s-constitution-a-bad-example/
“I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights. She stated, “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution.”
He's a Democrat. Democrats view the Constitution as an outmoded, unjust document anyway.
The idea of representative democracy is that you will elect someone whom you trust to represent your interests, not simply a middle-man between you and your government. How popular was TARP in terms of raw polling numbers? The idea was hated roundly by both sides, but it passed and worked because we had a lot of people in Congress with greater foresight than the average Joe. I know I wouldn't want the Republic subjected to the whims of the mob, whose opinions change as often as the weather.
All this means is "Christian Republicans are in denial about Global Warming."
Currently in my pocket.
I'm sorry, the idea that what made this country great was demanding handouts just does not compute with me.
I was thinking this myself after I posted the comment, but hey; I'll take my +5 Informative, thank you very much.
If the router was infected and the client machine was set to 8.8.8.8, it would pass the Botnet DNS, though.
What DNS issues?
Perhaps they could put their money to more constructive uses, like, you know, feeding their severely malnourished populous.
No, it's actually more like 50% of the country's wealth: How is it that the bottom 50% paying no federal income taxes at all and the top 10% paying 70% of the country's income taxes is any sort of fair?
Tax-free? We have a progressive income tax system. The top 10% of earners paid 70 percent of income taxes last year.
From NPR, not Fox News or talk radio:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/15/150632993/the-tax-man-cometh-but-for-whom
These suggestions ignore a critical issue: Patronage of these companies is entirely voluntary. If you don't like their terms of use or business practices, you can simply abstain from using them.
[quote]The second is to reform the corporate structure of larger companies to include some directors elected by consumers, rather than just shareholders. [/quote]
This IS a radical notion; it's also a terrible one as well as a legally problematic one. Corporations, at least in the US, are required to act in the interests of delivering profits to its shareholders. Consumers will always act against those interests as they want increased goods and services at decreased profit margins. You don't see union bosses sitting in on board meetings, do you?
I know Slashdot is a force in webtraffic, but did we just overwhelm their site?
What are you afraid of? That your narrative of so-called "clean energy" might come crashing down around your feet?
With iCloud, I don't see any reason to install iTunes for an Apple device unless you have physical CDs or DVDs you want to upload to your device. Even then, it seems a shame to have to put it on; it's like taking a media player and strapping a 200-lb armoire to its back.
Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?
Go back in the server room in your office. See the little dark blue 4:3 Dell 15" LCD that's either attached to a server KVM or otherwise sitting in a corner with its cord tied around the base? That's 1024x768. There's a few left in every office, not quite crappy enough to put out to pasture on the shop floor but too old and small to be of practical use for the desk jockeys.
I was standing in the shower last night thinking exactly what you're saying. "I guess 'ramdisk in memory' is kind of redundant..."
Is it sad that I think about my Slashdot comments in the shower?
Oh noes, someone has pwned my LiveCD linux distribution, running entirely from a ramdisk in memory! Whatevers shall I do?!
*reboots*
What people are complaining about is the fact that there are a lot of teachers who really want to teach creationism to kids and dis evolution in their classrooms. This gives them license to do so.
Then call them on it if they do. No teacher has the right to undermine what you're trying to teach your kids, no matter your religion or lack thereof. More than likely if this is a valid concern, they're doing it anyway.
They're not forced to teach that, but it's fairly easy for a teacher to stand up in class and talk about evolution as some fairy tale make-up by atheists and how life was obviously designed by a creator and, without getting too much into it, he can effectively paint the situation as "evolution = lies, creationism = truth, I'm not going to tell you which God did it, but we're all from the Bible-belt so we all know who we're talking about here." Wink. Wink.
See previous statement.
Yeah, like that will happen in a heavily Christianized state. I'm sure teachers will give a nice, balanced presentation for all the religions they don't believe in.
Just like they give a nice balanced presentation of school levies, current affairs, and elections, being they're government union employees and have a self-interest in leftist positions. More than you think are likely on your side already...
Yeah, I don't think at all that your labeling of those with religious faith as undeserving of human rights is flamebait at all. I think of it as out-and-out disingenuity. Leave evolution aside for a second (which I happen to "believe" in, just FYI): The idea that there was a force behind the creation of existence as we know it is just as plausible as there not being one. If we don't know, we believe. Rational or irrational, the foundations of human society as we know it were created by people of faith. Are you planning on labeling every one of them ignorant as cattle? Grow up. Religion needs to be taught as one of the building blocks of human history, from a scholarly perspective. Whether that is taught in science class or history class, I could give a shit less.