I can only speak for the people I know and the "general public" I am part of here in Norway. It seems to me that gays are not discriminated against because they are homosexual, but rather because they constantly feel the need to shove in my face who they have sex with.
There are certainly non gay people who do this, even if they use pronouns like "my husband/wife/etc". More subtle would be wearing wedding rings or bringing sposal photographs to work.
More than likely is that the {hetero,homo}sexual dichotomy is not a fair representation of human sexuality and that it's not evolution that creates these categories but rather cultural misunderstandings.
Some sort of "normal distribution", as you find with things like height might make a lot more sense. Though you also need to remember that human sexuality is "multi valued"
Strictly logically speaking, celebrating "gay culture and heritage" would be like me celebrating "diabetic culture and heritage". It's bullshit. It doesn't work that way.
Possibly a more relevent analogy would be something like celibrating culture and heritage according to someone's shoe size or the initial letter of their name.
How about we all just get with the times, face the facts and realize that gay people are different and that it does. not. matter. (apart from those who for some reason think everyone needs to know where they like to stick their genitalia).
Even in terms of what they do sexually homosexual people are likely to be just as diverse as everyone else.But there's probably little difference between a rabid fan of a sport regardless of their sexuality, race, gender, etc.
Maybe this might illustrate it: Imagine you're of African descent,
If you claim not to be then I, for one, would like to know what you are doing on our planet. Things are bad enough with just humans around. Unless aliens are going to make a useful contribution then they can go back to their own planet IMHO.
Also, I often find myself (an American) debating people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. Alan Turing is a great counterexample. Why would you "choose" to be gay if it meant this kind of punishment and drove you to take your life? And it's not like he was illogical, he's one of the greatest recent logicians.
If you follow logic anyone claiming that "homosexuality" is a choice are effectivly claiming that all human sexuality is by choice. Even though this would lead such advocates in directions they typically don't want to go:)
If I am sued in civil court and ordered to pay the "victim" $100,000 in compensation, I can't pay that person in coupons I've been plucking out of magazines etc.
And you certainly wouldn't be allowed to get away with coupons you had printed yourself.
Corporations should face jailtime for any crime or activity that would result in a person being incarcerated. Jail for a person means the loss of most freedoms and it also means they are separated from the rest of society. "Jail" for a corporation should mean that all assets are frozen and all business activities are forced to halt for the same number of days that a real person would have been incarcerated.
In many cases people who are only accused of a crime are held in jails, subject to curfew or bail conditions, etc.
A good alternative might be to keep the limited liability nature of a corporation for any failures or accidents, but to remove it and allow for personally prosecuting and imprisoning any and all members of upper management who knowingly support an illegal action wherever intent can be proven.
Or you could just go back the the original meaning. Where this simply ment that that investors were not liable for the debts of failed companies.
But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.
One very obvious difference is that the former make no secret of their beliefs and you can even buy their holy books (together with comentries) at regular bookstores. There is no such book as "Scientology for Dummies". However "Christianity for Dummies", "Islam for Dummies", "Judeism for Dummies" are books anyone can buy.
Copyright - particularly modern variants that run for decades after the original producer has died, and thus are used best by ageless companies - is precisely that. "We own X and we have a right to make money off it, and bring the power of the courts down on anyone who attempts to use X without giving us money."
Which makes little sense from the POV of encouraging publication of new works. Mr Jackson isn't going to write another note and Mr Crichton isn't going to write another word. Nor does increasing copyright terms on pre-existing works.
Companies need to learn that copyright is not a business model. It is a license, granted by the citizens of a country, to have certain restrictions on the commercial use of a work for a limited time. There is no right to be paid or make money, it is simply an opportunity to do so and if you fail, too bad.
That's not going to happen until they are told "no". That isn't going to happen unless you get at least one major government consider the interests of their citizens and their whole economy on a long term basis. Considering the kind of people you currently see vastly over represented in governments all over the planet that dosn't appear likely to happen.
Banning or restricting time shifting and format shifting is of no use to the busker on the street, but allows a company to profit by re-selling the same product to the same customer in different wrappers should technology or even a person's work schedule change.
If anything buskers are likely to be the targets of such things. Since they may well not "own" the music they perform.
Many of the 'little people' (or people who claim to represent the 'little people' or the 'starving artists') who insist that Canada needs copyright reform so they can better feed their families strangely don't explain why their neighbor, whose family won't see paychecks in the fifty years after he dies, should have to enjoy the things he has bought and paid for only on their terms, even if it means he never gets to enjoy them at all.
Also "reform" always appears to mean more rather than less copyright. At least to these advocates...
The problem with that is the business model itself. No artist ever went broke from piracy, but many have gone broke from obscurity.
Also quite a few of the most popular (and highly commercially sucessfull) ones had a hard time getting to market.
Trying to sell bits is like trying to sell air. If you want to sell air, you have to put a baloon or a scuba tank around it and sell that. The same goes for bits.
However, even if you were to assume that the consumer agrees to whatever licence they are presented with and that the licence is enforceable, you are still wrong: When I buy a DVD, I am never presented with a licence agreement - I go into the shop and say "I want to buy this DVD", hand over some money and get given the DVD in return. You cannot argue that this doesn't constitute the sale of the DVD (which would give me all the rights and restrictions granted by copyright law).
Especially if the DVD is advertised with a slogan like "Own it on DVD".
License agreements can not give a corporation legal rights that don't exist. The license is, and can only, provide legal protections that already exist in law.
Something which very often gets overlooked. Also they can't do anything which is explicitally forbidden by the "law of the land".
Any license that takes liberties can be overturned with enough money and effort.
Typically they will contain words to the effect that if any part isn't valid the rest still stand.
This is the real problem with our corporate overlords. They can and do take liberties and seldom do we as consumers take them back.
Typically they rely on ignorance (on the part of customers) as to which terms are bogus (or at least suspect).
Likewise it makes sense that BBC news should not be available to non-UK citizens, just as radio and television programs websites are blocked.
HTML dosn't have a field for citizenship. Anyway BBC news and television broadcasts do reach beyond the UK. In the case of the BBC World Service this is deliberate and there'd be little point on having the Shipping Forcast on R4 long wave were this not the case. This situation existed prior to BBCs dedicated DBS news channel, which covers a big part of Western Europe or just about any BBC programme which someone wanted to listen to/watch being available through bittorrent within minutes.
Non-citizens have not paid the BBC license.
Being able to produce a US (or Polish) passport would not exempt anyone who needed a TV licence:) (Nor would using Noah Webster's spellings for that matter...)
.Guess what two pieces AREN'T covered for in the Warranty? Battery and power supply. Even the Manufacturers warranty for the battery is shorter than the manufacturers warranty for the laptop. This is simply because they are succeptable to ALOT of failure. Now the great thing about laptop batteries is that they are usually completely encased in plastic, and if one "explodes" - its pretty difficult to tell
Also the battery in a typical laptop (even a typical phone) is an easily replacable part. Which isn't the case with the Apple devices.
Incidentally, have you ever noticed the most expensive software typically contains the most bugs? Of course the most expensive software is often the most complex,
There's also plenty of software where more effort appears to have been put into making things "look nice" compared with ensuring that functionality is correct.
but the software industry is one where the saying about "you get what you pay for" most definitely does not apply.
Or rather it's true, but what you get isn't what you actually want:)
Nope, you are wrong. Children shouldn't be receiving a vocationally focused education, especially when given their age the software of the moment will likely be surpassed by the time they enter the workplace.
Even if it's still called the same name. Microsoft Windows (and office) as sold by Microsoft 10-15 years ago is not the same thing as they sell now.
I think that it would be a waste NOT to use these organs. The prisoners will be executed either way, might as well make them contribute some good to society to offset whatever they were sentenced to death for.
Assuming that the execution method does not damage the organs in question.
It'd be the same if I went to Namibia or Ghana or something and tried to sell someone there a software solution by handing out glossy pictures of white/Anglos all over it - it would just seem a bit bizarre.
It would be just as strange if the people were obviously American from their clothes even if they were all dark skinned. It would also be unwise to use the term "African-American" anywhere in Africa. At best it's a sign of a "clueless American", at worst it's considered to be swearing.
I've never been to Poland. But you would sorta expect there to be far more Asians than blacks there, given history and geographical proximity between Asia/Europe (well really it's just one large continent of Eurasia).
Consider that all of North Asia is one country. The "Asians" you'd most expect to find in Poland would be Russians.
People in Central Europe don't give a shit about USian prejudices. We have our own.
Which may not align very well with those used in the US. An interesting test would be if it's possible to tell the origin of a question about ethnic origin.
Microsoft Poland did the "right" thing. A black (sorry I don't know what the PC way is of saying that:-)) man is a very rare thing in Poland, doubly so in a business context. So the ad wouldn't be as believable with him in it. The quality of the work is something completely diffrent.
It's not as if you can't find models and photographers in Poland. So why not just take a new photograph?
Slashdot Mirror
It's strange, bisexuality is still something that a lot of people in our culture just cannot get their heads around.. they just can't understand it.
Most likely it has something to do with "binary attitudes" being commonplace.
I can only speak for the people I know and the "general public" I am part of here in Norway. It seems to me that gays are not discriminated against because they are homosexual, but rather because they constantly feel the need to shove in my face who they have sex with.
There are certainly non gay people who do this, even if they use pronouns like "my husband/wife/etc". More subtle would be wearing wedding rings or bringing sposal photographs to work.
More than likely is that the {hetero,homo}sexual dichotomy is not a fair representation of human sexuality and that it's not evolution that creates these categories but rather cultural misunderstandings.
Some sort of "normal distribution", as you find with things like height might make a lot more sense. Though you also need to remember that human sexuality is "multi valued"
Strictly logically speaking, celebrating "gay culture and heritage" would be like me celebrating "diabetic culture and heritage". It's bullshit. It doesn't work that way.
Possibly a more relevent analogy would be something like celibrating culture and heritage according to someone's shoe size or the initial letter of their name.
How about we all just get with the times, face the facts and realize that gay people are different and that it does. not. matter. (apart from those who for some reason think everyone needs to know where they like to stick their genitalia).
Even in terms of what they do sexually homosexual people are likely to be just as diverse as everyone else.But there's probably little difference between a rabid fan of a sport regardless of their sexuality, race, gender, etc.
Maybe this might illustrate it: Imagine you're of African descent,
If you claim not to be then I, for one, would like to know what you are doing on our planet. Things are bad enough with just humans around. Unless aliens are going to make a useful contribution then they can go back to their own planet IMHO.
Also, I often find myself (an American) debating people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. Alan Turing is a great counterexample. Why would you "choose" to be gay if it meant this kind of punishment and drove you to take your life? And it's not like he was illogical, he's one of the greatest recent logicians.
:)
If you follow logic anyone claiming that "homosexuality" is a choice are effectivly claiming that all human sexuality is by choice. Even though this would lead such advocates in directions they typically don't want to go
If I am sued in civil court and ordered to pay the "victim" $100,000 in compensation, I can't pay that person in coupons I've been plucking out of magazines etc.
And you certainly wouldn't be allowed to get away with coupons you had printed yourself.
Corporations should face jailtime for any crime or activity that would result in a person being incarcerated. Jail for a person means the loss of most freedoms and it also means they are separated from the rest of society. "Jail" for a corporation should mean that all assets are frozen and all business activities are forced to halt for the same number of days that a real person would have been incarcerated.
In many cases people who are only accused of a crime are held in jails, subject to curfew or bail conditions, etc.
A good alternative might be to keep the limited liability nature of a corporation for any failures or accidents, but to remove it and allow for personally prosecuting and imprisoning any and all members of upper management who knowingly support an illegal action wherever intent can be proven.
Or you could just go back the the original meaning. Where this simply ment that that investors were not liable for the debts of failed companies.
But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.
One very obvious difference is that the former make no secret of their beliefs and you can even buy their holy books (together with comentries) at regular bookstores.
There is no such book as "Scientology for Dummies". However "Christianity for Dummies", "Islam for Dummies", "Judeism for Dummies" are books anyone can buy.
Copyright - particularly modern variants that run for decades after the original producer has died, and thus are used best by ageless companies - is precisely that. "We own X and we have a right to make money off it, and bring the power of the courts down on anyone who attempts to use X without giving us money."
Which makes little sense from the POV of encouraging publication of new works. Mr Jackson isn't going to write another note and Mr Crichton isn't going to write another word. Nor does increasing copyright terms on pre-existing works.
Companies need to learn that copyright is not a business model. It is a license, granted by the citizens of a country, to have certain restrictions on the commercial use of a work for a limited time. There is no right to be paid or make money, it is simply an opportunity to do so and if you fail, too bad.
That's not going to happen until they are told "no". That isn't going to happen unless you get at least one major government consider the interests of their citizens and their whole economy on a long term basis. Considering the kind of people you currently see vastly over represented in governments all over the planet that dosn't appear likely to happen.
Because they've got the lobbyists to make it happen.
Ironically an industry which was truely in trouble probably could not afford to lobby.
Banning or restricting time shifting and format shifting is of no use to the busker on the street, but allows a company to profit by re-selling the same product to the same customer in different wrappers should technology or even a person's work schedule change.
If anything buskers are likely to be the targets of such things. Since they may well not "own" the music they perform.
Many of the 'little people' (or people who claim to represent the 'little people' or the 'starving artists') who insist that Canada needs copyright reform so they can better feed their families strangely don't explain why their neighbor, whose family won't see paychecks in the fifty years after he dies, should have to enjoy the things he has bought and paid for only on their terms, even if it means he never gets to enjoy them at all.
Also "reform" always appears to mean more rather than less copyright. At least to these advocates...
The problem with that is the business model itself. No artist ever went broke from piracy, but many have gone broke from obscurity.
Also quite a few of the most popular (and highly commercially sucessfull) ones had a hard time getting to market.
Trying to sell bits is like trying to sell air. If you want to sell air, you have to put a baloon or a scuba tank around it and sell that. The same goes for bits.
An interesting analogy
However, even if you were to assume that the consumer agrees to whatever licence they are presented with and that the licence is enforceable, you are still wrong: When I buy a DVD, I am never presented with a licence agreement - I go into the shop and say "I want to buy this DVD", hand over some money and get given the DVD in return. You cannot argue that this doesn't constitute the sale of the DVD (which would give me all the rights and restrictions granted by copyright law).
Especially if the DVD is advertised with a slogan like "Own it on DVD".
License agreements can not give a corporation legal rights that don't exist. The license is, and can only, provide legal protections that already exist in law.
Something which very often gets overlooked. Also they can't do anything which is explicitally forbidden by the "law of the land".
Any license that takes liberties can be overturned with enough money and effort.
Typically they will contain words to the effect that if any part isn't valid the rest still stand.
This is the real problem with our corporate overlords. They can and do take liberties and seldom do we as consumers take them back.
Typically they rely on ignorance (on the part of customers) as to which terms are bogus (or at least suspect).
Likewise it makes sense that BBC news should not be available to non-UK citizens, just as radio and television programs websites are blocked.
:) (Nor would using Noah Webster's spellings for that matter...)
HTML dosn't have a field for citizenship. Anyway BBC news and television broadcasts do reach beyond the UK. In the case of the BBC World Service this is deliberate and there'd be little point on having the Shipping Forcast on R4 long wave were this not the case.
This situation existed prior to BBCs dedicated DBS news channel, which covers a big part of Western Europe or just about any BBC programme which someone wanted to listen to/watch being available through bittorrent within minutes.
Non-citizens have not paid the BBC license.
Being able to produce a US (or Polish) passport would not exempt anyone who needed a TV licence
.Guess what two pieces AREN'T covered for in the Warranty? Battery and power supply. Even the Manufacturers warranty for the battery is shorter than the manufacturers warranty for the laptop. This is simply because they are succeptable to ALOT of failure. Now the great thing about laptop batteries is that they are usually completely encased in plastic, and if one "explodes" - its pretty difficult to tell
Also the battery in a typical laptop (even a typical phone) is an easily replacable part. Which isn't the case with the Apple devices.
Incidentally, have you ever noticed the most expensive software typically contains the most bugs? Of course the most expensive software is often the most complex,
:)
There's also plenty of software where more effort appears to have been put into making things "look nice" compared with ensuring that functionality is correct.
but the software industry is one where the saying about "you get what you pay for" most definitely does not apply.
Or rather it's true, but what you get isn't what you actually want
Nope, you are wrong. Children shouldn't be receiving a vocationally focused education, especially when given their age the software of the moment will likely be surpassed by the time they enter the workplace.
Even if it's still called the same name. Microsoft Windows (and office) as sold by Microsoft 10-15 years ago is not the same thing as they sell now.
I think that it would be a waste NOT to use these organs. The prisoners will be executed either way, might as well make them contribute some good to society to offset whatever they were sentenced to death for.
Assuming that the execution method does not damage the organs in question.
It'd be the same if I went to Namibia or Ghana or something and tried to sell someone there a software solution by handing out glossy pictures of white/Anglos all over it - it would just seem a bit bizarre.
It would be just as strange if the people were obviously American from their clothes even if they were all dark skinned. It would also be unwise to use the term "African-American" anywhere in Africa. At best it's a sign of a "clueless American", at worst it's considered to be swearing.
I've never been to Poland. But you would sorta expect there to be far more Asians than blacks there, given history and geographical proximity between Asia/Europe (well really it's just one large continent of Eurasia).
Consider that all of North Asia is one country. The "Asians" you'd most expect to find in Poland would be Russians.
People in Central Europe don't give a shit about USian prejudices. We have our own.
Which may not align very well with those used in the US.
An interesting test would be if it's possible to tell the origin of a question about ethnic origin.
As to the matter at hand,
:-)) man is a very rare thing in Poland, doubly so in a business context. So the ad wouldn't be as believable with him in it. The quality of the work is something completely diffrent.
Pun, presumably unintended.
Microsoft Poland did the "right" thing. A black (sorry I don't know what the PC way is of saying that
It's not as if you can't find models and photographers in Poland. So why not just take a new photograph?