My point was that he made an overly broad statement that businesses should always be helped and never punished for what they did, sarcasm is apparently dead..
Again no, it was not. IE was targeted because they took one artifical monopoly and used it to gain leverage in another market creating an even more artificial monopoly. The competition had better browsers on their own, but could not hook into the OS because MS would not allow it to allow them a lead. That is anticompetitive behavior.
Nice revisionist history buddy.. The problem was not that integrated it into the OS, but that they did so without allowing others to hook into those same hooks, and refused to let us, the consumers remove it. There were other FASTER browsers at the time, but you cannot compete with a monopoly who has hooked their stuff into their system. People WERE complaining, it was not like they just woke up one day and said "hmm I think I wanna target MS today for anticompetitive action"
Generally most features of a software product is advertised somewhere. In addition a bug that allows hackers to compromise the system is indeed a defect in all sense.
The fallacy still exists. They could have used the money/time in game for other things, or to expand their holdings instead of rebuilding, they could have been larger. The only person who has a net benefit in this is the company that owns eve. In terms of the games economy there is a loss.
Actually not true at all. I dont agree with dems or moderate republicans, but I dont believe them to be extreme....Just because you dont agree with someone does not mean you think they are extreme, you do understand that simple fact, right?
Firstly that does not in any way counter my argument, you stated rights were well generated, and implied that since they were you had no other rights, as evidenced by your list, which is what I countered, and you seemed to have ignored.
Secondly you, yourself, are abusing the word right.. You have a right to secure housing, you just do not have a right to have it given to you, meaning the government should not be allowed to make your house less secure for some reason. As for protection, it was one of the reasons the US was founded..
Just because you have a right does not mean it is something that has to be given to you, just means the government does not have the right to take it away from you, or infringe on it. For example having the freedom of speech does not mean the government is obligated to buy you a podium to stand at and speak, just that it cannot block access to the podium you want to speak at.
He made no such implications...You assumed he was talking about you, however every use of the word you in his post seems to be directed generally at the GOP, or some other third party. It seems you over thought his post.
There are lots of blame I can heap on republicans, just as much a dems, because they are both the same, except for the far righter which I would which I would hate to have in office, or more accurately I hate having in office since I am from NC.
You of all people should not be talking about logical fallacies, as your post claiming them are full of them, starting with the assumption he is talking about you directly, when he clearly is talking about the GOP in general.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the GOP for you, they are for no regulation unless that regulation benefits one of their members.
Also IE was more than just a rendering engine, it allowed them to integrate an whole host of features from network sharing to file exploration.
He was speaking of the US cases, not the EU.
My point was that he made an overly broad statement that businesses should always be helped and never punished for what they did, sarcasm is apparently dead..
Again no, it was not. IE was targeted because they took one artifical monopoly and used it to gain leverage in another market creating an even more artificial monopoly. The competition had better browsers on their own, but could not hook into the OS because MS would not allow it to allow them a lead. That is anticompetitive behavior.
Yes let the businesses do whatever they want, kill people, but dont ever punish them!!!
Nice revisionist history buddy.. The problem was not that integrated it into the OS, but that they did so without allowing others to hook into those same hooks, and refused to let us, the consumers remove it. There were other FASTER browsers at the time, but you cannot compete with a monopoly who has hooked their stuff into their system. People WERE complaining, it was not like they just woke up one day and said "hmm I think I wanna target MS today for anticompetitive action"
Dear Oracle, Then give me the money back for the machines I bought with the understanding I would get those updates. That is false advertising.
Generally most features of a software product is advertised somewhere. In addition a bug that allows hackers to compromise the system is indeed a defect in all sense.
In what way. They made a decent product at one point, that has become so bloated, and their support sucks. So where is the good job?
To a point yes, after that no. After you get a few patents to lock people in the bigger asshole you are the better, until then you need to be nice.
The fallacy still exists. They could have used the money/time in game for other things, or to expand their holdings instead of rebuilding, they could have been larger. The only person who has a net benefit in this is the company that owns eve. In terms of the games economy there is a loss.
How do you steal something that does not physically exist?
No, but the declaration is seen by the government as being part of the body of natural laws that include it and the constitution.
yes because your anecdotal statement makes it true for all.
Actually not true at all. I dont agree with dems or moderate republicans, but I dont believe them to be extreme....Just because you dont agree with someone does not mean you think they are extreme, you do understand that simple fact, right?
Secondly you, yourself, are abusing the word right.. You have a right to secure housing, you just do not have a right to have it given to you, meaning the government should not be allowed to make your house less secure for some reason. As for protection, it was one of the reasons the US was founded..
Just because you have a right does not mean it is something that has to be given to you, just means the government does not have the right to take it away from you, or infringe on it. For example having the freedom of speech does not mean the government is obligated to buy you a podium to stand at and speak, just that it cannot block access to the podium you want to speak at.
He made no such implications...You assumed he was talking about you, however every use of the word you in his post seems to be directed generally at the GOP, or some other third party. It seems you over thought his post.
There are lots of blame I can heap on republicans, just as much a dems, because they are both the same, except for the far righter which I would which I would hate to have in office, or more accurately I hate having in office since I am from NC.
You understand that they are not mutual exclusive right, GOP and its tea partiers are way more extreme than the dems.
You of all people should not be talking about logical fallacies, as your post claiming them are full of them, starting with the assumption he is talking about you directly, when he clearly is talking about the GOP in general.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This means our rights are NOT well enumerated, and some of those things you say are not a right could be.
I have paid a negative income tax for a few years while in college as an adult. It is called tax credits, which are paid even if you have no income.
He said ONE of the reasons, not the only reason.
Well there is quality vs quantity. They could make up for it, not saying they do, but with more quality education.