I agree that most people who want to stream won't buy DVDs, and thus piracy probably doesn't have a large impact on revenue stream, but it does still display a sense of entitlement.
Do you think corporations buy from wherever they want in the world and flout the law often? Because I'm pretty sure they would get fined heavily for that. They may buy from places you don't want them to, or they buy from places that do not have the same regulations as the corporation's home office, but they still obey local laws, for the most part.
Well, part of the problem with resuming the Korean War is the fact that Seoul, a place we happen to like, is within artillery range of NK. Unless the first strike took out the vast majority of the NK artillery, lots of innocents would die in Seoul. Would it be nice if North Korea had a better government and some measure of freedom and prosperity? Of course. But getting there will not be easy, and a lot of people are going to die.
It could also just be good old-fashioned trolling. Trump upsets a lot of people, so if I wanted to troll people who support other candidates, I'd pretend to be a Trump supporter too. And then feel dirty afterwards.
It's probably not Netflix's fault; the people who own the copyrighted material charge Netflix more to have their content available in other countries. If the Canadian market isn't big enough to offset those costs, then Canadians don't get to see things on Netflix.
I mean if NETFLIX US had double the content than the Canadian version, then shouldn't we be logically paying half the price?
Which countries in northern Europe are socialist? Oh, that's right, none of them. They tend to have large social welfare systems and have socialized a few sectors of their economy, but for the most part, they still use (regulated) capitalism. Social welfare systems and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.
That seems doubtful. Even assuming you go with the "compelling people to buy new stuff" angle, they'd probably just make them more easily transferable between devices, and make you buy the phone and battery separately. And the people who patent it may well charge high fees, but only if people are willing to pay those fees. There's no point in demanding irrationally large sums of money if it won't get you anywhere.
Well, I'm sure the people in Africa would much rather have paying jobs than die from malaria. And raising the standard of living in Africa will help the rest of the world - more trade is generally better.
He is spending a lot of his own money. Asking the government to fund more R&D is a good thing, and even as rich as Bill Gates is, the feds have way more money.
Oh, sure - communists were definitely unfairly persecuted at many levels of government, but that specific law wasn't used to do it. Which really makes you wonder why they passed it in the first place.
A lot of cancer charities are scams, but the research is, definitively, not.
Part of the problem with cancer research is that we keep finding ways in which cancers we thought were the same are, in fact, different and need to be treated differently (sometimes). Immunotherapy, however, has already had some really big successes. Carl June's group has gotten success rates of 90%+ with some leukemias and lymphomas. The main reason we're seeing more and more people get/die from cancer is that cancer is sort of inevitable if you live long enough, and we're getting better at treating and preventing other things that could kill you first.
It's also worth pointing out that many cancer researchers have lost friends and family members to cancer. A lot of them are actually working hard; sure, if they succeed, they have to look for a new job, but that's really not so bad in the long run.
If you stop at a B.S. in science, sure, your job prospects aren't great if you want to stay in science (although being a lab tech isn't too bad). Get an M.S. or your Ph.D. and things are substantially better - not great in academia right now, true, but there's always industry, science writing, consulting, etc.
I completely agree that we should encourage politicians to support science - the NIH and NSF could both use quite a bit of money.
Being anti-"SJW" doesn't necessarily mean being anti-social justice. Of course, that really depends on what your definition of "social justice" is, and who you think the "SJWs" are.
So, here's the thing. Yes, there are racial institutional barriers in the US. However, they alone don't explain why blacks still have a much higher poverty rate than whites do. Black immigrants from Africa tend to do pretty well for themselves - not as well as white immigrants, generally speaking, but better than black Americans.
I agree that there are certainly things that can be done - but governments typically just add in more spying or security theater, which generally don't make us safer, are routinely abused, and cost us a lot. It's a problem that can be fixed, but I'm not sure it can be fixed by governments.
That depends on the state, actually. Some states allow female-on-male rape to be counted as such; others specifically define rape as something that happens to a woman, and some states are in between. The FBI definition doesn't include "made to penetrate", so by that definition, a women can rape a man, but only if she uses something to penetrate him without his consent. Having sex with him while he cannot consent, or coercing him into sex, would only be sexual assault.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that most people who want to stream won't buy DVDs, and thus piracy probably doesn't have a large impact on revenue stream, but it does still display a sense of entitlement.
Do you think corporations buy from wherever they want in the world and flout the law often? Because I'm pretty sure they would get fined heavily for that. They may buy from places you don't want them to, or they buy from places that do not have the same regulations as the corporation's home office, but they still obey local laws, for the most part.
Well, part of the problem with resuming the Korean War is the fact that Seoul, a place we happen to like, is within artillery range of NK. Unless the first strike took out the vast majority of the NK artillery, lots of innocents would die in Seoul. Would it be nice if North Korea had a better government and some measure of freedom and prosperity? Of course. But getting there will not be easy, and a lot of people are going to die.
It could also just be good old-fashioned trolling. Trump upsets a lot of people, so if I wanted to troll people who support other candidates, I'd pretend to be a Trump supporter too. And then feel dirty afterwards.
This election season, man... It's a wild ride. It'd be funnier if it wasn't actually really important.
I mean if NETFLIX US had double the content than the Canadian version, then shouldn't we be logically paying half the price?
Only if all content is equal, which it isn't.
Presumably they could still buy hard copies, no? There may not be a cheap, convenient way to buy something, but they could still buy it.
If somebody isn't willing (or able) to sell you something, but you take it anyway, then yes, that is a sense of entitlement.
But when you adjust for frequency of crimes committed (blacks in the US do commit more crimes per capita), it's roughly equivalent.
Which countries in northern Europe are socialist? Oh, that's right, none of them. They tend to have large social welfare systems and have socialized a few sectors of their economy, but for the most part, they still use (regulated) capitalism. Social welfare systems and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.
That seems doubtful. Even assuming you go with the "compelling people to buy new stuff" angle, they'd probably just make them more easily transferable between devices, and make you buy the phone and battery separately. And the people who patent it may well charge high fees, but only if people are willing to pay those fees. There's no point in demanding irrationally large sums of money if it won't get you anywhere.
Well, I'm sure the people in Africa would much rather have paying jobs than die from malaria. And raising the standard of living in Africa will help the rest of the world - more trade is generally better.
He is spending a lot of his own money. Asking the government to fund more R&D is a good thing, and even as rich as Bill Gates is, the feds have way more money.
This was waste from making nuclear bombs. It is not related to nuclear power plants.
I don't recall anyone saying those things about nuclear bombs, which was the primary purpose of the Hanford Site.
Seeing as this was military waste from making bombs, go ahead and tell them that.
Oh, sure - communists were definitely unfairly persecuted at many levels of government, but that specific law wasn't used to do it. Which really makes you wonder why they passed it in the first place.
*Never* enforced, according to that article.
Oh yeah?
A lot of cancer charities are scams, but the research is, definitively, not.
Part of the problem with cancer research is that we keep finding ways in which cancers we thought were the same are, in fact, different and need to be treated differently (sometimes). Immunotherapy, however, has already had some really big successes. Carl June's group has gotten success rates of 90%+ with some leukemias and lymphomas. The main reason we're seeing more and more people get/die from cancer is that cancer is sort of inevitable if you live long enough, and we're getting better at treating and preventing other things that could kill you first.
It's also worth pointing out that many cancer researchers have lost friends and family members to cancer. A lot of them are actually working hard; sure, if they succeed, they have to look for a new job, but that's really not so bad in the long run.
If you stop at a B.S. in science, sure, your job prospects aren't great if you want to stay in science (although being a lab tech isn't too bad). Get an M.S. or your Ph.D. and things are substantially better - not great in academia right now, true, but there's always industry, science writing, consulting, etc.
I completely agree that we should encourage politicians to support science - the NIH and NSF could both use quite a bit of money.
Being anti-"SJW" doesn't necessarily mean being anti-social justice. Of course, that really depends on what your definition of "social justice" is, and who you think the "SJWs" are.
So, here's the thing. Yes, there are racial institutional barriers in the US. However, they alone don't explain why blacks still have a much higher poverty rate than whites do. Black immigrants from Africa tend to do pretty well for themselves - not as well as white immigrants, generally speaking, but better than black Americans.
I agree that there are certainly things that can be done - but governments typically just add in more spying or security theater, which generally don't make us safer, are routinely abused, and cost us a lot. It's a problem that can be fixed, but I'm not sure it can be fixed by governments.
Shouldn't it be as many bits as I can write on a bear arm?
That depends on the state, actually. Some states allow female-on-male rape to be counted as such; others specifically define rape as something that happens to a woman, and some states are in between. The FBI definition doesn't include "made to penetrate", so by that definition, a women can rape a man, but only if she uses something to penetrate him without his consent. Having sex with him while he cannot consent, or coercing him into sex, would only be sexual assault.