global climate change would continue for more than a thousand years
Global climate change has been going on for the last 4 billion years. What makes anyone think that it is going to stop just because it would be convenient for the human?
That's just it. I don't have all the answers either, nor did I claim to
In other words, you don't know and so you think other don't know either. Your failure to recognize or accept evidence or a theory does not invalidate the evidence or theory. You argue from ignorance.
The more petty among you will read what I said and decide (entirely without consulting me) what alternative theory I believe in
Then, perhaps you should elaborate in what alternative you believe in instead of making pronouncements about how wrong a theory is without offering a more valid alternative.
Yes, let's kill ourselves faster! That is the way to win a war, kill our side off faster./sarcasm
Suicide bombing is not an effective tactic for anything except terrorism and terrorism doesn't effect enemy soldiers. The suicide bombings in Iraq don't target the U.S. military. It targets the Iraqi police, the Iraqi army, and the Iraqi people.
Roadside bombs are a much more effective tactic. Attacking supply lines, destroying communications, general harassing attacks, snipers, guerrilla warfare, etc. work against invaders and occupiers. Suicide attacks don't.
Just ask the Vietnamese. They succeeded in stymieing one of the largest and well-equipped military forces on the planet. They rarely used suicide bombers because the tactic was counter-productive.
Just because you are an idiot, it doesn't mean I have poor communication skills. Maybe if you were smarter, you would be able to understand. But, as I do not wish to waste any more time on idiots, I will let you leave you in your ignorance.
Of course, in a capitalist system, not aiming for maximum profit is folly.
That is a false statement. Aiming for maximum profit at the expense of all others is a sure way to ruin.
Maybe you should go back to that logic class, or maybe try a reading comprehension class because I really don't see any other options between "all of one", "all of the other one", and "a balance or compromise between one and the other one". Is there a fourth alternative that I am unaware of?
Please, do tell what your alternative to capitalism is.
The government statement might be a little dated, but the business statement is not. All one has to do is look at the recent myriad of failed companies that sacrificed profit in their over-concern for the public concern. No profit means no means to pay the bills means no business.
And, there was no false dilemma because I did not choose one side or the other but rather stated that in order to be successful one must balance the two.
Maybe you should try taking a logic class and a reading comprehension class and get back to us, m'kay.
However, a person is behaving in an anti-social way, business is down in revenue, and the revenue the business would have received from said person is being spent on other things.
There is more in common with the broken window parable than is not in common.
The only problem is that the study is only valid for dutch people and, as said by someone else, the company that did the study is known for their biased research.
I don't see how this study would do that. This study only applies to Dutch people and, as someone else has pointed out, the company who did the study tends to find in favor of whomever pays for the study.
No, you are not. The music companies worst nightmare is hordes of people who do listen to their music, but download said music instead of paying for it. They don't care about you because, if what you say is true and you do not listen to their music, you would not download or buy said music so nothing is lost or gained.
If the story was "Study Says Filesharing Has Negative Economic Effects", most of the people here would be saying that the study was tainted, the RIAA was behind it, and it was all a conspiracy.
Well, we don't know if she did that. But, we do know that it didn't work if she did do that.
Remember, she received her "magic internet disk" from Verizon and we don't know what is on it. It could be drivers for a specific device, internet settings, some other software. Regardless of what is on the CD, she was told "You need to install this so you can use your internet service." by her ISP.
she could have asked someone in her class to do this
You mean the on-line class she can't get to because she can't get on line?
Slashdot Mirror
Global climate change has been going on for the last 4 billion years. What makes anyone think that it is going to stop just because it would be convenient for the human?
That's just it. I don't have all the answers either, nor did I claim to
In other words, you don't know and so you think other don't know either. Your failure to recognize or accept evidence or a theory does not invalidate the evidence or theory. You argue from ignorance.
Then, perhaps you should elaborate in what alternative you believe in instead of making pronouncements about how wrong a theory is without offering a more valid alternative.
Yes, let's kill ourselves faster! That is the way to win a war, kill our side off faster. /sarcasm
Suicide bombing is not an effective tactic for anything except terrorism and terrorism doesn't effect enemy soldiers. The suicide bombings in Iraq don't target the U.S. military. It targets the Iraqi police, the Iraqi army, and the Iraqi people.
Roadside bombs are a much more effective tactic. Attacking supply lines, destroying communications, general harassing attacks, snipers, guerrilla warfare, etc. work against invaders and occupiers. Suicide attacks don't.
Just ask the Vietnamese. They succeeded in stymieing one of the largest and well-equipped military forces on the planet. They rarely used suicide bombers because the tactic was counter-productive.
Just because you are an idiot, it doesn't mean I have poor communication skills. Maybe if you were smarter, you would be able to understand. But, as I do not wish to waste any more time on idiots, I will let you leave you in your ignorance.
That is a false statement. Aiming for maximum profit at the expense of all others is a sure way to ruin.
Maybe you should go back to that logic class, or maybe try a reading comprehension class because I really don't see any other options between "all of one", "all of the other one", and "a balance or compromise between one and the other one". Is there a fourth alternative that I am unaware of?
Please, do tell what your alternative to capitalism is.
Ah, the refrain of the idiot when called out on his idiocy.
It is not flaimbait, dumbasses.
If the person would have otherwise bought the song, yes it did.
If you can't see that, then you are just an idiot.
Apparently you are not a jedi and you can't read.
The government statement might be a little dated, but the business statement is not. All one has to do is look at the recent myriad of failed companies that sacrificed profit in their over-concern for the public concern. No profit means no means to pay the bills means no business.
And, there was no false dilemma because I did not choose one side or the other but rather stated that in order to be successful one must balance the two.
Maybe you should try taking a logic class and a reading comprehension class and get back to us, m'kay.
However, a person is behaving in an anti-social way, business is down in revenue, and the revenue the business would have received from said person is being spent on other things.
There is more in common with the broken window parable than is not in common.
The only problem is that the study is only valid for dutch people and, as said by someone else, the company that did the study is known for their biased research.
I don't see how this study would do that. This study only applies to Dutch people and, as someone else has pointed out, the company who did the study tends to find in favor of whomever pays for the study.
People have tried that. Their businesses failed.
Governments tried that. It was called the USSR. It failed.
The extreme of either is bound to fail. The trick is to maximize profits, but not at the expense of the public good.
No, you are not. The music companies worst nightmare is hordes of people who do listen to their music, but download said music instead of paying for it. They don't care about you because, if what you say is true and you do not listen to their music, you would not download or buy said music so nothing is lost or gained.
If the story was "Study Says Filesharing Has Negative Economic Effects", most of the people here would be saying that the study was tainted, the RIAA was behind it, and it was all a conspiracy.
Information wants you to quit anthropomorphizing it.
I guess that means we can completely ignore the rest of your post because it is, at best, an anecdote.
Sounds like the broken window fallacy to me.
Yes, and apparently you don't understand the meaning of the tag.
You mean like the bias and bigotry of the linux fanboys, yourself included, have shown both towards people who use Windows, and people like this girl?
Oh, wait, that is ok because it is YOU.... I forgot how you people are hypocrites.
Now, shove your opinion up your ass to keep your head company, shit head.
and, of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that linux is server-centric and poor on the desktop for the average user.
Actually, the article does not say that. Perhaps you should stop lying about the contents of the article.
Sadly, no. So, I should know better.
Well, we don't know if she did that. But, we do know that it didn't work if she did do that.
Remember, she received her "magic internet disk" from Verizon and we don't know what is on it. It could be drivers for a specific device, internet settings, some other software. Regardless of what is on the CD, she was told "You need to install this so you can use your internet service." by her ISP.
You mean the on-line class she can't get to because she can't get on line?
Try reading, it does wonders.