It's actually supposed to be how all corporations work - read up on the history of original corporations as chartered by the king, with an automatic death sentence after 8 or 16 years if review finds that they are not operating in the public interest. We lost sight of the original definition.
It's not a double standard. Corporations + something bad = bad. Corporations + something good = good. "Something" is often "politics", and that something is often "bad". In this case, it is not. You've attempted to reduce the "Corporations + bad politics" half of the equation to "corporations + politics". I'm pretty sure if corporations only did good things, 99% of peoples' complaints would go away. Corporations were originally required to serve the public interest, or their charter would automatically dissolve.
Sounds like you want to outlaw normal marriage too, then. Oh wait. Marriage doesn't stop people from making you. You answered his question, but then threw in a red herring that's irrelevant to any argument about marriage. BTW, your'e wrong about the history of the word too. You're basically ignorant all around. It was just 1959 that a white man had to go to the supreme court to not be charged for marrying a black woman. You're ignorance is the exact same ignorance. It's pathetic. You harken back to the old days that never were. And did you ever stop to think that records of gay marriages in the past were destroyed by the church in order to keep their handhold on the institution? I mean, Catholicism destroyed whole cultures' worth of history in South America. And the act of marriage predates recorded history anyway. How the fuck do you know what went in 5000 years ago? And how the fuck is that relevant today?
In short, you win the award for Biggest Piece Of Shit Of The Day.
OMG a corporation doing something for the public good {besides selling us widgets we need}. It's sad, but this. is. news. It really shouldn't be. This is how they should normally act. They should all use their influence to make the world better, not worse.
You're very out of touch. Drug tests are legally required for many jobs. How would those go away? If people move away from a city, supply and demand will drop the price, causing different people to take advantage of the cheaper housing and move back in. One-legged men in america get special buses to bring them out to vote? Really? Where do you get this stuff?
Anyway, please show me some examples of things like this happening. Current examples. Otherwise, you're just blowing idealism up everybody's ass, and wasting humanity's time with idealism rather than real solutions. Running away won't change peoples' behavior. While there may be an occasional exception to the rule, something that works 1 in 100 times doesn't constitute my idea of a "solution".
LMAO.. Your comment almost made it all worth it;) I've been trolling online since the 80's, so it's really hard to try to get through to someone, as I'm usually just stomping on them instead. Occasionally, though, I feel like rising up and actually trying to get through to someone.
So out of the two options - adding more choice by giving us a Windows 8 tablet; or adding more choice by giving us a tablet that runs Windows 8 but can also run other OSes... You can guess which one I think brings more choice to the table;)
Interesting perspective. Not quite how I see it. Question: Is there something stopping all other tablets from running Windows 8? {besides Apple's normal douchebaggery, which is a given?}
Never said it was. Tho, having all possibilities would represent a greater freedom of choice, just like a salad bar with more items is greater freedom of choice. And corporations were originally made for the public good. And forcing a multinational corporation to do some tiny thing violate's no individual's rights, as a corporation is not an individual. Tho the law would beg to differ; but the law is often an asshole.
It's actually more like: If McDonald's somehow had magical powers which kept me from putting ketchup (my preferred condiment for chicken) onto their sandwiches, even if it's my own ketchup, I own the sandwich, and were trying to do this at home -- I'd be all for preventing them from preventing that. It's not the same as forcing them to sell ketchup (or anything anybody demands) on every burger, which is how I'd characterize my perception of how you'd characterize the situation.
No, but you keep thinking that's what I'm saying. And allowing all possibilities is not the same thing as the absence of deliberately disallowing them.
Right. We can't do that in this situation, which is why this situation exists. Were we really just discussing what was possible in the past the whole time?
Actually, we do have that right in certain situations - that's what anti-trust is. So, depending on the situation, people do have that right. Your attempt to simplify to tautology fails. Tons of counter-examples: Anti-pollution laws, anti-trust, homeowners' associations.
p.s. definition 1 a freedom - Yes. Constraints limit freedom. Observing this limitation is not the same as saying "the world should be redefined so this limitation doesn't exist" - a subtlety that you are wholly unable to grasp. You're basically stuck at the first post, unable to get past your whining about what you think it means, while unable to fathom the true meaning of the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect you lack the ability to say anything not linked to superstitions that have been passed down for millenia.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Ira[qn]
Looks like we have a new winner for today.
Equal rights is always good. Fail.
It's actually supposed to be how all corporations work - read up on the history of original corporations as chartered by the king, with an automatic death sentence after 8 or 16 years if review finds that they are not operating in the public interest. We lost sight of the original definition.
I probably should have used 7000 instead of 5000 :)
It's not a double standard. Corporations + something bad = bad. Corporations + something good = good. "Something" is often "politics", and that something is often "bad". In this case, it is not. You've attempted to reduce the "Corporations + bad politics" half of the equation to "corporations + politics". I'm pretty sure if corporations only did good things, 99% of peoples' complaints would go away. Corporations were originally required to serve the public interest, or their charter would automatically dissolve.
Yea you can. It just won't smell as good coming out.
making *out i typed making *you, for some reason
In short, you win the award for Biggest Piece Of Shit Of The Day.
homophobe
OMG a corporation doing something for the public good {besides selling us widgets we need}. It's sad, but this. is. news. It really shouldn't be. This is how they should normally act. They should all use their influence to make the world better, not worse.
The iPhone went in the opposite direction, changing to more proprietary screws. People did not complain, and it did not change. You're wrong.
Anyway, please show me some examples of things like this happening. Current examples. Otherwise, you're just blowing idealism up everybody's ass, and wasting humanity's time with idealism rather than real solutions. Running away won't change peoples' behavior. While there may be an occasional exception to the rule, something that works 1 in 100 times doesn't constitute my idea of a "solution".
Yes.
So out of the two options - adding more choice by giving us a Windows 8 tablet; or adding more choice by giving us a tablet that runs Windows 8 but can also run other OSes... You can guess which one I think brings more choice to the table ;)
Interesting perspective. Not quite how I see it. Question: Is there something stopping all other tablets from running Windows 8? {besides Apple's normal douchebaggery, which is a given?}
excuse the errant apostrophe
Never said it was. Tho, having all possibilities would represent a greater freedom of choice, just like a salad bar with more items is greater freedom of choice. And corporations were originally made for the public good. And forcing a multinational corporation to do some tiny thing violate's no individual's rights, as a corporation is not an individual. Tho the law would beg to differ; but the law is often an asshole.
It's actually more like: If McDonald's somehow had magical powers which kept me from putting ketchup (my preferred condiment for chicken) onto their sandwiches, even if it's my own ketchup, I own the sandwich, and were trying to do this at home -- I'd be all for preventing them from preventing that. It's not the same as forcing them to sell ketchup (or anything anybody demands) on every burger, which is how I'd characterize my perception of how you'd characterize the situation.
No, but you keep thinking that's what I'm saying. And allowing all possibilities is not the same thing as the absence of deliberately disallowing them.
Right. We can't do that in this situation, which is why this situation exists. Were we really just discussing what was possible in the past the whole time?
Actually, we do have that right in certain situations - that's what anti-trust is. So, depending on the situation, people do have that right. Your attempt to simplify to tautology fails. Tons of counter-examples: Anti-pollution laws, anti-trust, homeowners' associations.
p.s. definition 1 a freedom - Yes. Constraints limit freedom. Observing this limitation is not the same as saying "the world should be redefined so this limitation doesn't exist" - a subtlety that you are wholly unable to grasp. You're basically stuck at the first post, unable to get past your whining about what you think it means, while unable to fathom the true meaning of the discussion.