My point is that (absent an enforceable term in the TOS that says the contract ends if the customer dies) the estate owns the *contract*. The owner of the actual content is unimportant.
Points 2 and 3 look solid, but I take issue with this one:
The journalist disclaimed all rights to the site's content and released it into the public domain. Thus there is no content to inherit. His estate has exactly as much claim to the content as anybody else: None. Yahoo can not violate anybody's right to the content, as there is no such right.
Rights to the content aren't the issue here. His contract with Yahoo was that they display the content. That content could be anything he owns, anything in the public domain, or anything he has license to use. The fact that the content is public domain doesn't absolve Yahoo of the responsibility to display the content that he paid them to display.
That being said, if he otherwise violated the TOS, then they may still be within their rights to take it down, depending on whether the terms are enforceable.
The total cost of having employees roughly tracks inflation. The price of maintaining buildings roughly tracks inflation. What we're seeing is universities expanding very aggressively because they can get away with it.
Honestly, I suspect that this is something of a bubble. Sooner or later, the middle class will no longer be able to afford to pay for a college education (even with loans), and attendance will crash. Maybe at that point some newer, more reasonably priced universities will come into existence, but I don't see that happening until then, given how big of a deal the prestige of your university is on your diploma. People will literally only start considering new schools when they just can't afford to go to the old ones, regardless of the quality of the education that the new schools provide.
This seems to be the pattern that the leader of the previous console generation follows (with a few exceptions).
By the end of its generation, the SNES had taken the lead, so Nintendo shoved a bunch of bad decisions down everyones' throats with the N64 (cartridge games, anyone?), and they lost to the PSX. Sony managed not to bork up the PS2, but the hubris had caught up to them with the PS3 and they priced it so high that it hurt their sales and propelled XBox 360 into the lead. Now Microsoft apparently thought they were invincible and pulled the same crap with the Xbone, and they're already hurting because of it. It's safe to say that the PS4 will be the leader of this generation, at least at the outset. Fortunes can eventually change, but right now Microsoft has squandered their goodwill with gamers.
Part of it is that corporate "brand recognition" mindset. Brand loyalty is bullshit. If you make products that people want, people will buy them. Start making products that people *don't* want, and people will go elsewhere. Brand loyalty may keep people from looking at other products if they're satisfied with yours, but if won't keep people satisfied with your product if you suddenly start churning out turds.
That would be a reasonable suspicion, but difficult to verify. In any case, the statistics show with a high degree of certainty that the police are assuming that people with brown skin are committing crimes far more often that they actually are, and are thus expending resources unnecessarily and harassing a lot of people who don't deserve to be harassed.
Interestingly, when you look at the stop-and-frisk statistics, it turned out that white people were the ones most likely to be committing a crime. Clearly they need to be stopping more white people.
Do you have any specific evidence to counter these statistics, or is "LA LA LA THE STATISTICS ARE BEING MANIPULATED BECAUSE ITS THE GOVERNMENT AND ALL GOVERNMENT IS BAD THEREFORE THE STATISTICS MUST BE MANIPULATED" the entirety of your argument?
Perhaps someone has written a paper somewhere picking them apart? I'd love to see it. Maybe it'll even sway my opinion. I'm not so dogmatic about this stuff that I'm not open to new evidence; it's just that people don't seem to be able to put up anything remotely credible.
And I've never read Ayn Rand, but don't let that stop you from justifying your anger towards me.
Perhaps you haven't, but the things you said line right up with her philosophy, so it wasn't much of a leap. It's entirely possible that you came by these views in some other way, but most likely the people you have read or spoken to about them were strongly influenced by her.
Sure, that may be true. But we're not arguing efficiency, as you brought up the moral basis of things in your first few lines: Collective pooling of resources is only moral if you have the active consent of all parties, free from manipulation and coercion.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that manipulation and coercion can't take place when two people agree to a capitalist contract. The reality of a capitalist economy is that when you have a large disparity in wealth, the person who can afford to wait the other person out has much more control over the terms of the contract. As such, the value of the contract isn't the value that a person can provide, but rather the value the absolute lowest value that the person with the negotiating advantage can get away with. That may be how contracts are, but there is absolutely no moral basis for it, since the amount of money the person at a disadvantage gets paid is inversely proportional to how much they need the money to live.
You might be tempted to say that competition somehow cancels out this effect, but in reality, we can see that this isn't actually true. It may spread it out somewhat, but as someone paying employees, you know that the less you (and other people in a similar position) pay those employees and the fewer employees you hire, the more desperate people will be for jobs, the more hours they'll be willing to work, and the more willing they'll be to work for less money. So what these people are ultimately paid is the absolute lowest the employer can get away with, independent of the actual value they provide to the employer. Things would be different if the people doing the hiring didn't already hold all the cards.
The point here is that if someone is starving and desperate, a contract between them and someone who isn't starving and desperate is pretty much coercive by definition. There simply aren't enough non-coercive contracts to satisfy peoples' need for jobs, so most people get stuck in a shitty position getting paid far less than the "fruits of their labor" that they have, as you said, a moral right to. Coercion is inherent to pure capitalism, much in the same way it's inherent to every other type of economy, because the people with the most power will always be using whatever means at their disposal to coerce everyone else. In practice, you need to moderate things to some extent by, dare I say, applying coercion in the opposite direction so as to make sure the people in the worst negotiation positions have at least a little bit of power of their contracts.
This is one reason why the Republicans are so desperately against taxpayer funded health care. If people aren't constantly declaring medical bankruptcy, if they're not desperate to take the first job they can find just so they can get a tiny amount of shitty health insurance, the balance of power shifts slightly and now workers can afford to wait and shop around a bit longer so they can get fairer contracts. Most of what the Republicans do is geared toward keeping wages as low as possible, and a social safety net (for the reasons I stated) tends to correlate with higher wages. And somehow companies in countries where wages are higher manage to survive and even flourish.
I'm not sure if you're going to ask the Straw Question, but if you don't, someone else will:
So what you're saying is that we should just raise taxes to 100% and have the government take care of everyone?
No, of course not, because that works even worse than pure capitalism does. What I'm saying is that real-world data indicates that there's a happy me
Turns out that people who don't have enough money to be able to afford it aren't penalized for not buying it, and in fact get a subsidy.
But keep repeating what you said over and over again. Your lies are great for convincing people to hate the health care bill without understanding it, which I'm sure is useful to whatever amoral political view you're trying to push.
Starvation is everyone's problem. Capitalism is just an economic system. Regardless of what Ayn Rand may have told you in her nonsensical and contrived books, there is no moral basis behind it. It's just one way to run an economy that works reasonably well for some things but very poorly for others.
The truth is, without a large nanny state, people will still be fine. Charity will flourish, and the ONLY people losing out are government employees who have evolved a giant, wasteful ecosystem of largely non-functional processes.
Turns out health care costs less and has better outcomes in countries where it's funded entirely by taxpayers.
OMG BUT EMERGENCY ROOM WAIT TIMES
Turns out that if there's a bad wait time at an ER in a country where they have socialized medicine, you can go to a competing hospital, just like you can here. Only difference is that it won't drive you into bankruptcy. Outcomes are still better in other countries.
The fact that you have to threaten people with imprisonment and violence to get them to give to your "social good" deeds is very telling.
The fact that the threat of violence and jail time are required to get you to do good deeds is very telling. You're most likely the sort of person who treats people who work in the service industry as lower life forms. Your logic most likely goes something like this:
If someone is rich, they must have worked hard, so they deserve to be rich. We know they deserve to be rich, because you get rich by working hard, and they're rich, so clearly they worked hard. If someone is poor, they deserve to be poor, because they are lazy. We know that laziness results in poverty because poor people are all lazy, and we know this because laziness results in poverty. If someone claims that there is a hard working poor person, we know that this is false because hard work makes you rich, and if they are poor, they must be lazy. Likewise, if someone was born into money, they must be a hard worker, because they have money. If they were lazy, it would be impossible for them to be born into money, because laziness makes you poor. If everyone worked hard, everyone would be multimillionaires.
Charity will flourish
Unsubstantiated claim is unsubstantiated. Are you prepared to present evidence that a) there will be more charity, and b) that charity will be sufficient to cover health care?
And he raised the price of healthcare, then forced me to buy it!
...and is providing health care to millions upon millions of people who need it and wouldn't otherwise be able to get it. Your issue is petty by comparison.
Some people use their blog as a source of income. That income depends on their blog having an established, searchable presence. Some of those blogs may have the kind of content (like porn) that you or other people may personally look down on.
"Just make your own blog" is a terrible option when you already *have* an established blog, because it means moving and losing a lot of your traffic.
I don't see anyone where arguing that what Yahoo is doing should be *illegal*. They're arguing that it's not a good thing to do, and I agree with them. Finally, I fail to see any good reason that they need to do it, since the major search engines all have adult content filtering already. It's unlikely that Google or Bing demanded that they de-index adult oriented blogs.
The term "piracy" when it refers to making unauthorized duplications of a copyrighted work is actually in reference to how pirates used to board merchant ships and make exact copies of everything on board, leaving the crew and cargo unharmed, but devaluing the goods slightly.
...because he's been very effective about handling kernel development. The real problem is that other, lesser people, think that he's a good example to follow, so you end up with petty nobodies who emulate Torvalds' abusiveness (albeit generally directed towards new people asking reasonable questions, rather than experienced developers) but utterly lack his vision, talent, and leadership skills. Torvalds may be an asset to his project, but most of the people who attempt to emulate him are not.
If you act like an ass because you think that it's okay since Linus Torvalds does it, chances are you're a net drain on whatever project(s) you're involved with.
Bear in mind, that ship was overloaded enough to break it in half. Even assuming the measurement is imprecise and allowing for a generous amount of leeway, the ship was almost certainly loaded way past its weight limit. The measurements don't have to be particularly exact to catch this kind of thing. In fact, realistically, they shouldn't even need an initial measurement. How far the ship sits into the water when it's completely empty is a known quantity. Just measure the difference from that and you get the weight of the cargo and fuel, then subtract the weight of a full tank assuming the fuel is at its most dense. If it's still way over the maximum capacity, then you have a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that (absent an enforceable term in the TOS that says the contract ends if the customer dies) the estate owns the *contract*. The owner of the actual content is unimportant.
Points 2 and 3 look solid, but I take issue with this one:
The journalist disclaimed all rights to the site's content and released it into the public domain. Thus there is no content to inherit. His estate has exactly as much claim to the content as anybody else: None. Yahoo can not violate anybody's right to the content, as there is no such right.
Rights to the content aren't the issue here. His contract with Yahoo was that they display the content. That content could be anything he owns, anything in the public domain, or anything he has license to use. The fact that the content is public domain doesn't absolve Yahoo of the responsibility to display the content that he paid them to display.
That being said, if he otherwise violated the TOS, then they may still be within their rights to take it down, depending on whether the terms are enforceable.
The total cost of having employees roughly tracks inflation. The price of maintaining buildings roughly tracks inflation. What we're seeing is universities expanding very aggressively because they can get away with it.
Honestly, I suspect that this is something of a bubble. Sooner or later, the middle class will no longer be able to afford to pay for a college education (even with loans), and attendance will crash. Maybe at that point some newer, more reasonably priced universities will come into existence, but I don't see that happening until then, given how big of a deal the prestige of your university is on your diploma. People will literally only start considering new schools when they just can't afford to go to the old ones, regardless of the quality of the education that the new schools provide.
This seems to be the pattern that the leader of the previous console generation follows (with a few exceptions).
By the end of its generation, the SNES had taken the lead, so Nintendo shoved a bunch of bad decisions down everyones' throats with the N64 (cartridge games, anyone?), and they lost to the PSX. Sony managed not to bork up the PS2, but the hubris had caught up to them with the PS3 and they priced it so high that it hurt their sales and propelled XBox 360 into the lead. Now Microsoft apparently thought they were invincible and pulled the same crap with the Xbone, and they're already hurting because of it. It's safe to say that the PS4 will be the leader of this generation, at least at the outset. Fortunes can eventually change, but right now Microsoft has squandered their goodwill with gamers.
Part of it is that corporate "brand recognition" mindset. Brand loyalty is bullshit. If you make products that people want, people will buy them. Start making products that people *don't* want, and people will go elsewhere. Brand loyalty may keep people from looking at other products if they're satisfied with yours, but if won't keep people satisfied with your product if you suddenly start churning out turds.
That would be a reasonable suspicion, but difficult to verify. In any case, the statistics show with a high degree of certainty that the police are assuming that people with brown skin are committing crimes far more often that they actually are, and are thus expending resources unnecessarily and harassing a lot of people who don't deserve to be harassed.
Interestingly, when you look at the stop-and-frisk statistics, it turned out that white people were the ones most likely to be committing a crime. Clearly they need to be stopping more white people.
Do you have any specific evidence to counter these statistics, or is "LA LA LA THE STATISTICS ARE BEING MANIPULATED BECAUSE ITS THE GOVERNMENT AND ALL GOVERNMENT IS BAD THEREFORE THE STATISTICS MUST BE MANIPULATED" the entirety of your argument?
Perhaps someone has written a paper somewhere picking them apart? I'd love to see it. Maybe it'll even sway my opinion. I'm not so dogmatic about this stuff that I'm not open to new evidence; it's just that people don't seem to be able to put up anything remotely credible.
And I've never read Ayn Rand, but don't let that stop you from justifying your anger towards me.
Perhaps you haven't, but the things you said line right up with her philosophy, so it wasn't much of a leap. It's entirely possible that you came by these views in some other way, but most likely the people you have read or spoken to about them were strongly influenced by her.
Sure, that may be true. But we're not arguing efficiency, as you brought up the moral basis of things in your first few lines: Collective pooling of resources is only moral if you have the active consent of all parties, free from manipulation and coercion.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that manipulation and coercion can't take place when two people agree to a capitalist contract. The reality of a capitalist economy is that when you have a large disparity in wealth, the person who can afford to wait the other person out has much more control over the terms of the contract. As such, the value of the contract isn't the value that a person can provide, but rather the value the absolute lowest value that the person with the negotiating advantage can get away with. That may be how contracts are, but there is absolutely no moral basis for it, since the amount of money the person at a disadvantage gets paid is inversely proportional to how much they need the money to live.
You might be tempted to say that competition somehow cancels out this effect, but in reality, we can see that this isn't actually true. It may spread it out somewhat, but as someone paying employees, you know that the less you (and other people in a similar position) pay those employees and the fewer employees you hire, the more desperate people will be for jobs, the more hours they'll be willing to work, and the more willing they'll be to work for less money. So what these people are ultimately paid is the absolute lowest the employer can get away with, independent of the actual value they provide to the employer. Things would be different if the people doing the hiring didn't already hold all the cards.
The point here is that if someone is starving and desperate, a contract between them and someone who isn't starving and desperate is pretty much coercive by definition. There simply aren't enough non-coercive contracts to satisfy peoples' need for jobs, so most people get stuck in a shitty position getting paid far less than the "fruits of their labor" that they have, as you said, a moral right to. Coercion is inherent to pure capitalism, much in the same way it's inherent to every other type of economy, because the people with the most power will always be using whatever means at their disposal to coerce everyone else. In practice, you need to moderate things to some extent by, dare I say, applying coercion in the opposite direction so as to make sure the people in the worst negotiation positions have at least a little bit of power of their contracts.
This is one reason why the Republicans are so desperately against taxpayer funded health care. If people aren't constantly declaring medical bankruptcy, if they're not desperate to take the first job they can find just so they can get a tiny amount of shitty health insurance, the balance of power shifts slightly and now workers can afford to wait and shop around a bit longer so they can get fairer contracts. Most of what the Republicans do is geared toward keeping wages as low as possible, and a social safety net (for the reasons I stated) tends to correlate with higher wages. And somehow companies in countries where wages are higher manage to survive and even flourish.
I'm not sure if you're going to ask the Straw Question, but if you don't, someone else will:
So what you're saying is that we should just raise taxes to 100% and have the government take care of everyone?
No, of course not, because that works even worse than pure capitalism does. What I'm saying is that real-world data indicates that there's a happy me
Speak for yourself, Musk. Tube Land sounds awesome.
Turns out in countries where the government pays for all of health care, the total cost is lower than here in the US, and the outcomes are better.
Kind of blows a gigantic hole in your argument.
Turns out that people who don't have enough money to be able to afford it aren't penalized for not buying it, and in fact get a subsidy.
But keep repeating what you said over and over again. Your lies are great for convincing people to hate the health care bill without understanding it, which I'm sure is useful to whatever amoral political view you're trying to push.
It's telling that the only way someone can argue against this is by using strawmen.
Starvation is everyone's problem. Capitalism is just an economic system. Regardless of what Ayn Rand may have told you in her nonsensical and contrived books, there is no moral basis behind it. It's just one way to run an economy that works reasonably well for some things but very poorly for others.
The truth is, without a large nanny state, people will still be fine. Charity will flourish, and the ONLY people losing out are government employees who have evolved a giant, wasteful ecosystem of largely non-functional processes.
Turns out health care costs less and has better outcomes in countries where it's funded entirely by taxpayers.
OMG BUT EMERGENCY ROOM WAIT TIMES
Turns out that if there's a bad wait time at an ER in a country where they have socialized medicine, you can go to a competing hospital, just like you can here. Only difference is that it won't drive you into bankruptcy. Outcomes are still better in other countries.
The fact that you have to threaten people with imprisonment and violence to get them to give to your "social good" deeds is very telling.
The fact that the threat of violence and jail time are required to get you to do good deeds is very telling. You're most likely the sort of person who treats people who work in the service industry as lower life forms. Your logic most likely goes something like this:
If someone is rich, they must have worked hard, so they deserve to be rich. We know they deserve to be rich, because you get rich by working hard, and they're rich, so clearly they worked hard. If someone is poor, they deserve to be poor, because they are lazy. We know that laziness results in poverty because poor people are all lazy, and we know this because laziness results in poverty. If someone claims that there is a hard working poor person, we know that this is false because hard work makes you rich, and if they are poor, they must be lazy. Likewise, if someone was born into money, they must be a hard worker, because they have money. If they were lazy, it would be impossible for them to be born into money, because laziness makes you poor. If everyone worked hard, everyone would be multimillionaires.
Charity will flourish
Unsubstantiated claim is unsubstantiated. Are you prepared to present evidence that a) there will be more charity, and b) that charity will be sufficient to cover health care?
And he raised the price of healthcare, then forced me to buy it!
...and is providing health care to millions upon millions of people who need it and wouldn't otherwise be able to get it. Your issue is petty by comparison.
Relevant.
Probably not.
Most likely it's notjust heat so much as deviation from what people find the most comfortable.
It's still a dick move, and you know it.
Some people use their blog as a source of income. That income depends on their blog having an established, searchable presence. Some of those blogs may have the kind of content (like porn) that you or other people may personally look down on.
"Just make your own blog" is a terrible option when you already *have* an established blog, because it means moving and losing a lot of your traffic.
I don't see anyone where arguing that what Yahoo is doing should be *illegal*. They're arguing that it's not a good thing to do, and I agree with them. Finally, I fail to see any good reason that they need to do it, since the major search engines all have adult content filtering already. It's unlikely that Google or Bing demanded that they de-index adult oriented blogs.
I had one.
Touch screen dialing was slow, so that sometimes you had to sit there and hold a number down and wait.
It was an expensive piece of garbage.
Surface doesn't run Android.
"So what does that make us?"
"ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Which is what you are about to become!"
The term "piracy" when it refers to making unauthorized duplications of a copyrighted work is actually in reference to how pirates used to board merchant ships and make exact copies of everything on board, leaving the crew and cargo unharmed, but devaluing the goods slightly.
...because he's been very effective about handling kernel development. The real problem is that other, lesser people, think that he's a good example to follow, so you end up with petty nobodies who emulate Torvalds' abusiveness (albeit generally directed towards new people asking reasonable questions, rather than experienced developers) but utterly lack his vision, talent, and leadership skills. Torvalds may be an asset to his project, but most of the people who attempt to emulate him are not.
If you act like an ass because you think that it's okay since Linus Torvalds does it, chances are you're a net drain on whatever project(s) you're involved with.
Bear in mind, that ship was overloaded enough to break it in half. Even assuming the measurement is imprecise and allowing for a generous amount of leeway, the ship was almost certainly loaded way past its weight limit. The measurements don't have to be particularly exact to catch this kind of thing. In fact, realistically, they shouldn't even need an initial measurement. How far the ship sits into the water when it's completely empty is a known quantity. Just measure the difference from that and you get the weight of the cargo and fuel, then subtract the weight of a full tank assuming the fuel is at its most dense. If it's still way over the maximum capacity, then you have a problem.
Students entering and exiting UC dorms will now be required to submit to a cavity search.
You mean figure out how much fuel was added to a ship that you just refueled in your harbor? You already have that information.
Still trivial.