The very notion that the courts are being called in to resolve a personal spat strikes me as utterly ridiculous.
It's because it involves employment. We've come up with the idea that employment is not personal and should involve everybody. If you want to abort a baby that's a private decision between you and your doctor, but if money changes hands and somebody is employed we all need to stick our noses into it to make sure everything is "fair."
But I never do that anymore. It simply isnâ(TM)t worth it. You shouldnâ(TM)t either.
What the heck does this self-important know it all know about my projects and what I should be doing with them?
Exactly. It's not about whether the opinion is right or wrong - it's about the lecture. Most grown people don't want to be lectured about what they "should" or "should" not do. Maybe people disagree with the logic, or have different goals. Maybe they want to simply do something somebody else thinks is irrational.
I had enough lectures when I was a kid. I'm grown now and don't usually put up with it when people lecture me. (But I try to keep my emotions in check and not get in a big fight with them; instead, if they don't stop it after I let them know they are bothering me, I try to just get away from them without debating it further.)
The judge didn't rule that that song is public domain now. It was just ruled that Warner/Chappell Music is not the copyright holder as they claimed to be. There still could be a copyright owner. The song has not reached the age to be public domain yet.
If I run an extremely successful restaurant chain and my waiters perform the song every night for customers who are celebrating birthdays, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will sue me now, and if anyone does, it is extremely unlikely that they will succeed.
If I create an extremely successful movie and include a performance of the song in it with some characters in the movie who are privately celebrating a birthday, again, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will sue me now, and if anyone does, it is extremely unlikely that they will succeed.
I, for one, would love to prevent desperation, crime, and abuse by paying losers to sit at home playing xbox and smoking weed staying out of my way and off of the streets..
Great, do what you believe. But when you start forcing your beliefs on other people, that's tyranny.
It would be nice if there were more of a specific description of what this app does. How does it help you move to iOS? I'm assuming it doesn't (couldn't) overwrite the existing operating system on your android device with iOS, so what does it do? Advertise?
I don't think of myself as elite; more of a dinosaur. But my point was nobody forces you to use twitter; it's a voluntary relationship. Unlike my government which is forced on me by my neighbors because of their blind religious faith.
Okay, hmm, having read some more, the affair was with a junior partner, so I'm assuming this person was her senior. In that case he should bear more of the liability for the affair and it is likely that in many states she'd be able to sue him and the company for it. Still not a women's rights issue. Maybe the women's rights issue is that he didn't get terminated or disciplined for seducing someone below him in the hierarchy?
She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.
What the hell? People who have workplace affairs should be fired - not have management support them by forcing the affair to continue.
The Gene L. Coon episode The Devil in the Dark, in which a bunch of miners have come under attack by a strange stone-like creature, made an indelible impression on me, certainly more than any bit of religious scripture I've encountered
For what it's worth, Sunday afternoons after church we watch Star Trek with our kids over lunch. Seen The Devil in the Dark with them twice.:)
Sure, you can get away with it...but at some point, for most people, life becomes more about right & wrong than what you can get away with.
Clearly you and I have very different conceptions of right and wrong. I believe using force to punish somebody for printing and selling their own 10 million copies of Harry Potter is wrong. To me it's so clearly wrong it's hard to even explain it to those who think otherwise. It's like we are from totally different cultures or something.
Copyright laws are the only things preventing someone from immediately printing & selling (or giving away) their own 10 million copies of Harry Potter. You wouldn't allow that
What? Yes I would; of course I would. I think that is perfectly moral and ethical behavior.
Courts have been ruling that use of the term "piracy" is inadmissible obfuscation. Simply copying and assisting in copying data does not involve raping or pillaging anybody and is not theft.
But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.
But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just cheating men cheating on their wives.
I think a realist would say that Ashley Madison is just men trying to cheat on their wives but generally failing because there are no women to cheat with.
The Josh Duggar revelation took me by surprise because my first thought was "He was unfaithful, really? With who - I don't think there were any real women on that site." (Now it sounds like it was unfaithful through other venues. I wonder if he even had a genuine affair through AM. For awhile I wondered if he was just calling the act of signing up alone "unfaithful.")
Happily married? Seems to be at odds with having an affair.
Nope, check the research of Dr. Willard Harley. An unhappy marriage is not the defining feature leading to an affair, and a number of happily married people do fall into affairs. The defining feature is lack of boundaries around the opposite sex.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you opened yourself up with that one
I did? I thought I was completely consistent in asserting that all of the above are private.
The very notion that the courts are being called in to resolve a personal spat strikes me as utterly ridiculous.
It's because it involves employment. We've come up with the idea that employment is not personal and should involve everybody. If you want to abort a baby that's a private decision between you and your doctor, but if money changes hands and somebody is employed we all need to stick our noses into it to make sure everything is "fair."
Unfriending employees on Facebook and not saying good morning could constitute workplace bullying
Well, of course it could, but that's no reason to get the law involved.
But I never do that anymore. It simply isnâ(TM)t worth it. You shouldnâ(TM)t either.
What the heck does this self-important know it all know about my projects and what I should be doing with them?
Exactly. It's not about whether the opinion is right or wrong - it's about the lecture. Most grown people don't want to be lectured about what they "should" or "should" not do. Maybe people disagree with the logic, or have different goals. Maybe they want to simply do something somebody else thinks is irrational.
I had enough lectures when I was a kid. I'm grown now and don't usually put up with it when people lecture me. (But I try to keep my emotions in check and not get in a big fight with them; instead, if they don't stop it after I let them know they are bothering me, I try to just get away from them without debating it further.)
The judge didn't rule that that song is public domain now. It was just ruled that Warner/Chappell Music is not the copyright holder as they claimed to be. There still could be a copyright owner. The song has not reached the age to be public domain yet.
If I run an extremely successful restaurant chain and my waiters perform the song every night for customers who are celebrating birthdays, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will sue me now, and if anyone does, it is extremely unlikely that they will succeed.
If I create an extremely successful movie and include a performance of the song in it with some characters in the movie who are privately celebrating a birthday, again, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will sue me now, and if anyone does, it is extremely unlikely that they will succeed.
That's good enough for me.
I'm in support of it.
Great, support what you want, but don't force other people to support it.
What will kill the idea is our shitty attitude toward our fellow human being
For example - assuming that if I don't support your idea it's because I have a bad attitude is very disrespectful.
I, for one, would love to prevent desperation, crime, and abuse by paying losers to sit at home playing xbox and smoking weed staying out of my way and off of the streets..
Great, do what you believe. But when you start forcing your beliefs on other people, that's tyranny.
Whatever it leads to, there isn't any work left for most people to move to
Human wants are unlimited. There are plenty of things that people can still do for each other that others are willing to pay for.
When there's nowhere to go, and society still uses money to value things, basic income is a good idea
Great - you believe that, you pay for it, rather than forcing other people to do it. I don't force my religious beliefs on you; this is no different.
It would be nice if there were more of a specific description of what this app does. How does it help you move to iOS? I'm assuming it doesn't (couldn't) overwrite the existing operating system on your android device with iOS, so what does it do? Advertise?
Are those who support this basic income contributing their own money to make it happen, or do they plan to do it with other people's money?
I don't think of myself as elite; more of a dinosaur. But my point was nobody forces you to use twitter; it's a voluntary relationship. Unlike my government which is forced on me by my neighbors because of their blind religious faith.
I haven't used twitter in five years and in that time they haven't intercepted, read, or altered any of my messages.
I'm not condemning workplace romances; I'm condemning workplace adultery.
Okay, hmm, having read some more, the affair was with a junior partner, so I'm assuming this person was her senior. In that case he should bear more of the liability for the affair and it is likely that in many states she'd be able to sue him and the company for it. Still not a women's rights issue. Maybe the women's rights issue is that he didn't get terminated or disciplined for seducing someone below him in the hierarchy?
Having a workplace affair does not make you a champion of women's rights.
She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.
What the hell? People who have workplace affairs should be fired - not have management support them by forcing the affair to continue.
The Gene L. Coon episode The Devil in the Dark, in which a bunch of miners have come under attack by a strange stone-like creature, made an indelible impression on me, certainly more than any bit of religious scripture I've encountered
For what it's worth, Sunday afternoons after church we watch Star Trek with our kids over lunch. Seen The Devil in the Dark with them twice. :)
Sure, you can get away with it...but at some point, for most people, life becomes more about right & wrong than what you can get away with.
Clearly you and I have very different conceptions of right and wrong. I believe using force to punish somebody for printing and selling their own 10 million copies of Harry Potter is wrong. To me it's so clearly wrong it's hard to even explain it to those who think otherwise. It's like we are from totally different cultures or something.
Copyright laws are the only things preventing someone from immediately printing & selling (or giving away) their own 10 million copies of Harry Potter. You wouldn't allow that
What? Yes I would; of course I would. I think that is perfectly moral and ethical behavior.
Courts have been ruling that use of the term "piracy" is inadmissible obfuscation. Simply copying and assisting in copying data does not involve raping or pillaging anybody and is not theft.
Drinking out of the wrong water fountain used to be illegal, too. The law is essentially constructed to benefit some people at the expense of others.
But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.
But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just cheating men cheating on their wives.
I think a realist would say that Ashley Madison is just men trying to cheat on their wives but generally failing because there are no women to cheat with.
The Josh Duggar revelation took me by surprise because my first thought was "He was unfaithful, really? With who - I don't think there were any real women on that site." (Now it sounds like it was unfaithful through other venues. I wonder if he even had a genuine affair through AM. For awhile I wondered if he was just calling the act of signing up alone "unfaithful.")
There is no husband. She's just in a "long term relationship," not marriage.
Happily married? Seems to be at odds with having an affair.
Nope, check the research of Dr. Willard Harley. An unhappy marriage is not the defining feature leading to an affair, and a number of happily married people do fall into affairs. The defining feature is lack of boundaries around the opposite sex.