You can't possibly prove the holder loses something. To be able to say that, you would have to prove that if this specific copyright violation haven't take place the holder would earn more, which you can't. It is not just difficult to quantify, it is impossible, and the quantity may very well be zero in the end.
Achieving socialism by the capitalist road is like trying to quench a fire by pouring gasoline onto it, and any "People's Revolution" is always hijacked by jackasses, starting by those who first make it happen. Mao was a psychopath of the same kind of Stalin or Hitler.
Capitalism is merely a system. It can be used well or badly. It works better than any other economical system devised up to this date, but it certainly has its problems.
God, Homeland and Family are indeed terms very popular among conservatives, be it in US, Europe or basically anywhere. These ideals need harsh and numerous laws to be maintained and therefore strong governments tending to the authoritarianism. The ideals of family and religion in specific have strong ties with private property even in Latin countries (as mine) and therefore with capitalism.
Regulation exists in every single country of the world. Given, China strongly regulates strategic resources and its economy has traits of crony capitalism, but so does US and it has far more regulations than China could possibly dream to have. That is one of the main traits of crony capitalism, by the way: excessive, complex and often illogical regulations, which favor one part over another depending on political will.
And no, authoritarian capitalism is not a misnomer, authoritarianism and free-market capitalism is exactly what conservatives defend. Strong govern control over personal freedoms and as free as possible market. It is basically the definition of conservationism.
But China is and authoritarian capitalist government nowadays, so capitalism has not failed at all. Actually it is the only economical system that works reasonably well.
What doesn't work is crony capitalism which is what US capitalism is becoming.
What they always do. Deny service to those people with credit cards from the countries that want to forbid and allow service to those people with credit cards from the countries that mandate it.
That is what you want to believe. Unfortunately for you that is not the truth. Obviously there are cultural aspects that influence roles, but many of these cultural aspects are stemmed on physical differences and even in the absence of culture experiments have proven time and again that men's and women's instincts and thought processes have distinct differences. There is no motive to take offence on that as different is not necessarily better or worse.
Hardly. Recognizing that there are differences between the sexes is common sense. Judging people's values and defining their roles solely by their sexes is sexism.
Women and men are not equal in everything. Trying to see equality in everything because it fits your notion of symmetry, fairness or whatever is self-delusion.
There doesn't need to be one or the other. The way it is they have too much power and no one to answer to. It would be considerably better if they had less power and mechanisms to defend themselves from people they answer to, as in every other profession.
We are talking about two different things here. One is holding someone (the parents) accountable for something they cannot possibly fully control (their children acts). The other is impunity.
I do agree that impunity is negative to society, and that the age at which one is held accountable for a crime should depend on the crime and not be homogeneous for all crimes. For example, anyone, no matter the age should be accountable for murder. Fighting with non lethal consequences or grave injuries, on the other hand, is a very minor crime, though, and a necessary part of male development. No kid, or teenager minor should go to jail because of it.
Sure, after all downloading music in the internet is a considerably graver crime and should be punished at all costs, even by transferring the responsibility to the parents, whilst the comparatively mild crime of murder obviously should not.
I don't see why it wouldn't be exactly the same. If the kid robs anything and is caught with whatever he robbed he is forced to give it back and that is about it. If he gets into a fight, he gets into a fight. This happens all the time with a lot of kids if you need a reality check.
And TFA is about world wide sells for smartphones, which makes my argument very relevant, and yours pointless.
Furthermore my post has nothing to do with which currency you are going to use to compare prices, but with the fact that regardless of the currency you use to measure cellphone prices, operators deals vary greatly from country to country and even among operators in the same countries, and therefore, unless you have a lot of data about them throughout all the main consumer markets, it is pointless to use them as argument in this discussion.
Any expanding market is inherently profitable. It may not be as profitable as Apple's currently market but it is still enough to sustain the expansion.
Please, by all means, keep writing long-winded posts like this without any new argument at all to desperately try to justify to yourself the unjustifiable and your own hypocrisy. It is amusing.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't possibly prove the holder loses something. To be able to say that, you would have to prove that if this specific copyright violation haven't take place the holder would earn more, which you can't. It is not just difficult to quantify, it is impossible, and the quantity may very well be zero in the end.
Achieving socialism by the capitalist road is like trying to quench a fire by pouring gasoline onto it, and any "People's Revolution" is always hijacked by jackasses, starting by those who first make it happen. Mao was a psychopath of the same kind of Stalin or Hitler.
Capitalism is merely a system. It can be used well or badly. It works better than any other economical system devised up to this date, but it certainly has its problems.
God, Homeland and Family are indeed terms very popular among conservatives, be it in US, Europe or basically anywhere. These ideals need harsh and numerous laws to be maintained and therefore strong governments tending to the authoritarianism. The ideals of family and religion in specific have strong ties with private property even in Latin countries (as mine) and therefore with capitalism.
Regulation exists in every single country of the world. Given, China strongly regulates strategic resources and its economy has traits of crony capitalism, but so does US and it has far more regulations than China could possibly dream to have. That is one of the main traits of crony capitalism, by the way: excessive, complex and often illogical regulations, which favor one part over another depending on political will.
And no, authoritarian capitalism is not a misnomer, authoritarianism and free-market capitalism is exactly what conservatives defend. Strong govern control over personal freedoms and as free as possible market. It is basically the definition of conservationism.
But China is and authoritarian capitalist government nowadays, so capitalism has not failed at all. Actually it is the only economical system that works reasonably well.
What doesn't work is crony capitalism which is what US capitalism is becoming.
What they always do. Deny service to those people with credit cards from the countries that want to forbid and allow service to those people with credit cards from the countries that mandate it.
That is what you want to believe. Unfortunately for you that is not the truth. Obviously there are cultural aspects that influence roles, but many of these cultural aspects are stemmed on physical differences and even in the absence of culture experiments have proven time and again that men's and women's instincts and thought processes have distinct differences. There is no motive to take offence on that as different is not necessarily better or worse.
Hardly. Recognizing that there are differences between the sexes is common sense. Judging people's values and defining their roles solely by their sexes is sexism.
Women and men are not equal in everything. Trying to see equality in everything because it fits your notion of symmetry, fairness or whatever is self-delusion.
That is exactly his point.
There doesn't need to be one or the other. The way it is they have too much power and no one to answer to. It would be considerably better if they had less power and mechanisms to defend themselves from people they answer to, as in every other profession.
I don't know how exactly force could be involved in this. Could you elaborate?
Which they will as the vast majority of applications work very well in Android 2.x
We are talking about two different things here. One is holding someone (the parents) accountable for something they cannot possibly fully control (their children acts). The other is impunity.
I do agree that impunity is negative to society, and that the age at which one is held accountable for a crime should depend on the crime and not be homogeneous for all crimes. For example, anyone, no matter the age should be accountable for murder. Fighting with non lethal consequences or grave injuries, on the other hand, is a very minor crime, though, and a necessary part of male development. No kid, or teenager minor should go to jail because of it.
You don't need to preach me that infringing copyright is not theft. You are preaching to the converted here, and nowhere I said it was.
And more importantly: cannot prove it.
Not when the IP vendors do not sell what you want to buy...
Sure, after all downloading music in the internet is a considerably graver crime and should be punished at all costs, even by transferring the responsibility to the parents, whilst the comparatively mild crime of murder obviously should not.
I don't see why it wouldn't be exactly the same. If the kid robs anything and is caught with whatever he robbed he is forced to give it back and that is about it. If he gets into a fight, he gets into a fight. This happens all the time with a lot of kids if you need a reality check.
And TFA is about world wide sells for smartphones, which makes my argument very relevant, and yours pointless.
Furthermore my post has nothing to do with which currency you are going to use to compare prices, but with the fact that regardless of the currency you use to measure cellphone prices, operators deals vary greatly from country to country and even among operators in the same countries, and therefore, unless you have a lot of data about them throughout all the main consumer markets, it is pointless to use them as argument in this discussion.
ISP contracts are not homogeneous world wide and vary greatly even between carriers in the same countries.
$250,00 is still too expensive. Compared to similar featured Android Phones it is more than twice the price.
Any expanding market is inherently profitable. It may not be as profitable as Apple's currently market but it is still enough to sustain the expansion.
http://xkcd.com/327/
Please, by all means, keep writing long-winded posts like this without any new argument at all to desperately try to justify to yourself the unjustifiable and your own hypocrisy. It is amusing.