I think that's a good thing. I think Apple has, ironically, killed DRM on music forever.
There's nothing ironic about it: it's one of their stated goals. Simply because they have better gamesmanship than to outwardly admit that restricting their DRM has this effect doesn't mean it hadn't occurred to them.
I think the "perfect" face is one that is almost perfectly symmetric except for one small asymmetry. For instance, Marilyn Monroe's famed beauty mark, the differing shapes of Keira Knightly's eyebrows, and so forth.
Electing a socialist president was the first step to falling under communist influence? You mean how the UK, France, Norway, Sweden etc. all elected socialist governments at some point during the Cold War? Were they all destined to fall under Soviet influence?
There are different degrees of socialist, and the Eurosocialists were well established to be anti-communist.
And you realise your final paragraph is basically a restatement of 'the domino effect' which is pretty much bullshit, and the Soviet Union was never going to control the whole world.
That's an easier judgment to make in hindsight.
And there's no [i]perhaps[/i] about it. It is immoral to install dictators and subject people to totalitarian rule.
But it is perhaps the lesser of two evils, when compared to governments that would make their people poorer, stupider, and more beholden to a totalitarian Soviet Union.
I believe it's different on linux/windows, but on Mac OS X the Objective-C compiler actually extends on top of C++, which has the advantage of giving us C++ style comments (I'm serious, it's the only C++ feature I use often).
First, you are confusing Objective-C with Objective-C++. Secondly, if by "C++ style comments" you mean the//, that's actually included in C99 (the latest C spec), so you get that in C anyway.
A woman's POV isn't worth much on what attracts women?
Paradoxically, it isn't. There's a difference between what attracts a person and what that person believes to attract them. Psychology is like that. Oh, and it works for men too: I don't even pretend to understand why one woman is more attractive to me than the other, aside from the obvious aspects.
Once again, there seems to be some information asymmetry going on here. Before we ousted their democratically elected President and installed a puppet of our own choosing, Iran was a SECULAR country in every modern sense of the word (i.e. women went to school, women were doctors, gays didn't get publicly executed, etc.), the only crime they had committed was that they nationalized their own oil fields and kicked out British Petroleum. That's when everything started going to hell. And that's only then that the religious nationalist nut-jobs rose to power.
You're being dishonest. First, electing a socialist president was very likely the first step to Iran falling under Soviet influence. At the time, the Cold War was a matter of making sure the entire world didn't fall under dictatorship. A few uncoordinated, anti-communist dictatorships could eventually fall to democracy: a coordinated, worldwide communist dictatorship would take longer and would ultimately be worse.
Second, the Islamist nutjobs rose to power in 1979, over 20 years after we overthrow Mossadegh and installed the Shah. It's disingenuous to simply blame the Eisenhower-era foreign policy for that. Part of the blame lies with Eisenhower, of course, for installing someone who couldn't maintain power. Part of the blame lies with the people of Iran for becoming Islamist nutjobs. Part of the blame lies with the Shah for his mistakes.
Now you may say it's immoral to install and support dictators anyway. After all, let's look at a more successful example: even though Pinochet saved Chile from communism and was ultimately overthrown so that Chile remains a democracy today, Pinochet was a right bastard with no respect for human rights. Perhaps it's immoral to install people like that and subject other countries to their rule. On the other hand, perhaps it's immoral to allow the Soviet Union to extend their control so the entire world is subjected to their rule. Having never played "the lesser of two evils" on that grand a stage, I wouldn't look to judge those who did.
That's interesting, we did the same thing. We took your "football" and called it "soccer". These days, soccer is only played by schoolchildren, and even then only when they don't have enough equipment for the infinitely superior game of American football. It amuses us that you folks riot and kill each other over a childrens' game.
Most people do not realize that in small towns, most Newspapers are weeklies, not dailies. In small towns, away from the lights and cameras of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, the weekly Newspaper is about the ONLY source for LOCAL news.
If it's a small enough town, I would probably infer that not enough happens in the town every day to justify printing an entire newspaper. Besides, if one of the 2000 townspeople discovers the mayor in shenanigans, word of mouth will spread the news faster than a daily newspaper. If one of the 2000 townspeople murders another, word of mouth will spread that news too. There's no need to print how the high school football team played last night because everyone who cared went to the game. The entire idea of newspapers (and other mass media) is that human populations had scaled beyond what word of mouth could reach. In small towns this isn't the case, so it's not surprising to see the newspaper beleaguered there.
You know, for a lot of successful athletes stress either doesn't affect them much or it actually works the opposite way: it makes them more successful. These people are who we call "clutch performers". Of course, a lot of talented but non-clutch performers would be eliminated were this compensated for, but a lot of clutch performers would do better.
Fairness is overrated. If we fuck with the markets too much and they stop working, it'll be that much harder for businesses to take investment, which will make it that much harder for workers to find work. The way our economy works is by bribing the rich folks into investing their money into everyone else: the rich get richer but so do everyone else. It's not "fair", in the sense of you and I both having five dollars is fair, but it's better than fair, in that me having twenty dollars and you having ten is better than both of us having five. You could even have the twenty and it's still better than fair. Shit, you could have twenty-four, as long as I had six, and I'd still vote for that plan.
Right you are: the Court would have accepted a full statewide recount, something which was the only mathematical scenartio that could have given Gore the state's electoral votes, though that wasn't known at the time.
I favor the so-called line-item veto plan that I believe DOES pass constitutional muster, which would allow the President to strike portions of a bill and then send it back to both houses of Congress for approval.
That doesn't require any new legislation. The President just has to veto the bill in full, take a printout of the bill, strike out portions of it, make 535 photocopies, mail them to every Representative and Senator, and say "This is the bill I'm willing to sign". And I think he has staff to do most of that for him. Of course, constitutionally, the Congress could override the veto or not make all the requested changes in an effort to concede a little and negotiate. In practice this sort of thing already happens, just the other way: the President threatens to veto unless they pass extra provisions they don't want, instead of demanding Congress remove extra provisions the President doesn't want.
the world is changing. In terms of purchasing power parity, China's economy is now #2 after the US - and we'll probably see them surpass the US within a few years in terms of PPP, and in absolute terms before 2050.
Honestly, they probably should. Their population is almost an order of magnitude higher than ours, but their per-capita GDP is more than an order of magnitude lower than ours. They should claw their way up at least enough to be richer as a country than us, even if the individual Chinese isn't as rich or as economically productive as the individual American, on average. There's always going to be economic disparity between nations but the degree we have now can't and won't stand in the long term. The challenge of the 21st century is making sure that doesn't ruin the situation vis a vis natural resources and the environment since it's not possible for the rest of the world to have the per capita resource consumption and environmental impact Americans do.
In the end, Apple should probably have a "power user" mode on their phones, the activation of which forces you to sign a disclaimer or non-indemnifation agreement that protects them if you screw your iPhone up installing unverified apps, run up your bill because some background process was doing data access thoughout the day while you were in Europe, etc.
They do: it's called a warranty and if you follow a 3-stop process you read about on the internet to run unverified apps on your iPhone, you void it and they're protected.
Most monopolies are government granted--the Postal Service for instance. There are a small number of natural monopolies (it's not cost-efficient for multiple phone companies to bury cables beneath the street) although even this is partly government-granted if the government sees a natural monopoly forming and gives them the kind of deal AT&T had (we'll protect your monopoly status but in return you have to provide this level of service and invent neat things for the military). For most goods and services, there's simply no way a monopoly can exist without government help. Even if I did corner the market on Allen wrenches there's nothing stopping you from making some yourself and screwing me over.
What bothers me is that one distinction is somehow lost in the process, unintentionally I'm sure: prostitute is just like the rest of us (your emphasize), and is also she (my emphasize). Which means: either she is just like the rest of us insofar as we forget for a moment that determination of her as a woman is important (as the empirical facts go, prostitutes are by and large women, johns are men, etc.), or, the second possibility would be "us" here implies something like "us (women)".
Well, I'm not sure if you were clever enough to figure this out, but I'm not a woman. Yes, I was referring to the fact that most prostitutes were women: the demand for male prostitutes is considerably lower: hence, so is the supply (in the long run). I leave it as an exercise to you which gender differences cause this.
Since it's really about a common condition of all human beings (and not about quite specific relations between one human being and another one, a woman) that they in majority do not like (distaste qualifies here as well) their jobs, be that job cooking or cleaning, or also prostitution, and since you prefer empirical evidence, non-bias and no-nonsense terminology, neither dislike nor distaste being the basis for discrimination against professions, least of all puritanism, here is my suggestion, in this midnight hour after the end of the day, how to get to the essence or get convinced in these matters: perhaps you should become a prostitute.
Ah yes: any job that I would not be willing to do, or would not enjoy, is exploitative. As I already explained: I am not a megalomaniac and do not find that line of argumentation convincing. Please, when you disagree with me, come with a rational argument or hold your silence.
Not really. In 1968, to write an article you had to be employed by a large company that had the resources to publish things and distribute them around a geographical area, and most of the time that geographical area was just a small home town. In 2008 even blathering idiots with poor command of English can run their mouth on the internet and be heard by millions. While this does make it easier for intransigent idiots like 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs to have a disproportionate say, it's still a net gain.
Before it was required, people were getting completely fucked. You'd get hit by some asshole and he's be broke and not give a shit. You can't get blood from a stone, so you could potentially lose everything you own paying for an accident that wasn't your fault.
Clearly, the solution is to legalize indentured servitude for these situations.
Thanks for the link. However, I'm not convinced. A series of arguments-by-assertion, provided without empirical evidence by a biased source, is not what I would consider "bursting my balloon". I would call it "stating disagreement", often in wildly propagandistic and nonsensical terms. For instance:
Legal prostitution is state-sponsored prostitution. Legal prostitution means that the state of Nevada legally permits the buying and selling of women in prostitution.
There's a distinction between legalization and state sponsorship. I'm not aware that Nevada subsidizes prostitution, although they may subsidize the regular medical screenings that prostitutes have to go through.
Prostitution is also not "the buying and selling of women". That would be slavery, and there's a distinction between sex slavery and prostitution: at the end of the day, the prostitute can quit her job, spend her money how she wants, and so forth, just like the rest of us.
Nevadaâ(TM)s counties collect taxes from the sales of women to men who buy them (johns or tricks). In Nevada legal prostitution, the counties are the pimps, collecting taxes.
By that standard, the government are pimps to us all. They collect our earnings in taxes, allegedly provide services to us, and at the end of the day often end up abusing us more than they help us. That's pretty similar to pimping, except the government does it to all of us, often by criminalizing consenting acts between adults. That said, most Nevada counties do not physically or sexually abuse prostitutes the way pimps are known to do.
If it would make them feel better, however, I'm willing to get on board with a tax-free status for prostitutes. Unfortunately, that would cross the line into state sponsorship.
Since we know that prostitution always harms women...
Yeah, we don't "know" that, that's what you're trying to prove. I'm not convinced. And it's idiots like that, who go around patronizingly telling other people what is or isn't demeaning to them, who are the entire problem here. I'm sure a great number, even a majority of prostitutes don't like their job and choose it for lack of better alternatives. I'm also sure that a great number, even a majority of human beings don't like their job and choose it for lack of better alternatives, and if we were as puritanical about cooking or cleaning, we'd criminalize chefs and maids and then blame the profession when gangsters took it over. Prostitution is personally distasteful to me, but I am not enough of a megalomaniac to use that as a basis for dictating to other people what to do with their lives.
He can't anyways. This is his second term, and that's all the President of the United States gets.
Not quite. Read the Constitution: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." The operative language is shall be elected, not shall serve. Bush could still serve a third term by becoming Vice-President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, or a Cabinet secretary and succeeding to the office.
William Howard Taft was also later appointed to the Supreme Court! On the other hand, Taft was also morbidly obese, and had a larger bathtub specially installed in the White House to fit his enormous body.
Why do they take Muslims seriously?
Because Muslims are standing up seriously for what they believe. They fight, they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.
That's the only thing that matters. Your values cost only as much as you are willing to pay to defend them.
That's a lie. Muslims are taken seriously because everyone who peacefully criticizes them or draws insulting cartoons gets death threats, many of them called "fatwas" and issued by actual Muslim clerics. Meanwhile, Muslims start riots, destroy embassies, and murder people over it. And the West has become a civilization of cowards who are afraid to offend anyone, so all too meekly we submit to the intimidation. That's called terrorism, and the reason Muslims are taken seriously is because so many of them are terrorists. Most of the West is too far out of practice dealing with the types of people who handle disagreements by strapping bombs to their chests and walking into pizzerias, or shooting rockets into residential neighborhoods.
I know that I am allowed to enslave empoverished women and sell them for sex in at least one state of this country called Nevada.
I do not need those rights. Thank you.
Enslavement refers to forced labor. Unlike the prostitutes you find in states where prostitution is illegal, Nevada prostitutes are not forced into their jobs by poverty or any other means: they freely choose it and freely keep what money they earn for themselves. It is actually a lucrative occupation, one that many of them even come to enjoy. See, I know it's natural for some people to think of women as passive helpless beings for them to take care of, but American women aren't quite so helpless. That's why they have the freedom and the courage to show their face in public, speak to and make eye contact with men outside their family, and even, should they choose to, become prostitutes.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing ironic about it: it's one of their stated goals. Simply because they have better gamesmanship than to outwardly admit that restricting their DRM has this effect doesn't mean it hadn't occurred to them.
I think the "perfect" face is one that is almost perfectly symmetric except for one small asymmetry. For instance, Marilyn Monroe's famed beauty mark, the differing shapes of Keira Knightly's eyebrows, and so forth.
Among other things, the Shah established public education in Iran and made a lot of investment in technology and infrastructure.
There are different degrees of socialist, and the Eurosocialists were well established to be anti-communist.
And you realise your final paragraph is basically a restatement of 'the domino effect' which is pretty much bullshit, and the Soviet Union was never going to control the whole world.That's an easier judgment to make in hindsight.
And there's no [i]perhaps[/i] about it. It is immoral to install dictators and subject people to totalitarian rule.But it is perhaps the lesser of two evils, when compared to governments that would make their people poorer, stupider, and more beholden to a totalitarian Soviet Union.
First, you are confusing Objective-C with Objective-C++. Secondly, if by "C++ style comments" you mean the //, that's actually included in C99 (the latest C spec), so you get that in C anyway.
Paradoxically, it isn't. There's a difference between what attracts a person and what that person believes to attract them. Psychology is like that. Oh, and it works for men too: I don't even pretend to understand why one woman is more attractive to me than the other, aside from the obvious aspects.
You're being dishonest. First, electing a socialist president was very likely the first step to Iran falling under Soviet influence. At the time, the Cold War was a matter of making sure the entire world didn't fall under dictatorship. A few uncoordinated, anti-communist dictatorships could eventually fall to democracy: a coordinated, worldwide communist dictatorship would take longer and would ultimately be worse.
Second, the Islamist nutjobs rose to power in 1979, over 20 years after we overthrow Mossadegh and installed the Shah. It's disingenuous to simply blame the Eisenhower-era foreign policy for that. Part of the blame lies with Eisenhower, of course, for installing someone who couldn't maintain power. Part of the blame lies with the people of Iran for becoming Islamist nutjobs. Part of the blame lies with the Shah for his mistakes.
Now you may say it's immoral to install and support dictators anyway. After all, let's look at a more successful example: even though Pinochet saved Chile from communism and was ultimately overthrown so that Chile remains a democracy today, Pinochet was a right bastard with no respect for human rights. Perhaps it's immoral to install people like that and subject other countries to their rule. On the other hand, perhaps it's immoral to allow the Soviet Union to extend their control so the entire world is subjected to their rule. Having never played "the lesser of two evils" on that grand a stage, I wouldn't look to judge those who did.
That's interesting, we did the same thing. We took your "football" and called it "soccer". These days, soccer is only played by schoolchildren, and even then only when they don't have enough equipment for the infinitely superior game of American football. It amuses us that you folks riot and kill each other over a childrens' game.
If it's a small enough town, I would probably infer that not enough happens in the town every day to justify printing an entire newspaper. Besides, if one of the 2000 townspeople discovers the mayor in shenanigans, word of mouth will spread the news faster than a daily newspaper. If one of the 2000 townspeople murders another, word of mouth will spread that news too. There's no need to print how the high school football team played last night because everyone who cared went to the game. The entire idea of newspapers (and other mass media) is that human populations had scaled beyond what word of mouth could reach. In small towns this isn't the case, so it's not surprising to see the newspaper beleaguered there.
You know, for a lot of successful athletes stress either doesn't affect them much or it actually works the opposite way: it makes them more successful. These people are who we call "clutch performers". Of course, a lot of talented but non-clutch performers would be eliminated were this compensated for, but a lot of clutch performers would do better.
Fairness is overrated. If we fuck with the markets too much and they stop working, it'll be that much harder for businesses to take investment, which will make it that much harder for workers to find work. The way our economy works is by bribing the rich folks into investing their money into everyone else: the rich get richer but so do everyone else. It's not "fair", in the sense of you and I both having five dollars is fair, but it's better than fair, in that me having twenty dollars and you having ten is better than both of us having five. You could even have the twenty and it's still better than fair. Shit, you could have twenty-four, as long as I had six, and I'd still vote for that plan.
Right you are: the Court would have accepted a full statewide recount, something which was the only mathematical scenartio that could have given Gore the state's electoral votes, though that wasn't known at the time.
That doesn't require any new legislation. The President just has to veto the bill in full, take a printout of the bill, strike out portions of it, make 535 photocopies, mail them to every Representative and Senator, and say "This is the bill I'm willing to sign". And I think he has staff to do most of that for him. Of course, constitutionally, the Congress could override the veto or not make all the requested changes in an effort to concede a little and negotiate. In practice this sort of thing already happens, just the other way: the President threatens to veto unless they pass extra provisions they don't want, instead of demanding Congress remove extra provisions the President doesn't want.
Honestly, they probably should. Their population is almost an order of magnitude higher than ours, but their per-capita GDP is more than an order of magnitude lower than ours. They should claw their way up at least enough to be richer as a country than us, even if the individual Chinese isn't as rich or as economically productive as the individual American, on average. There's always going to be economic disparity between nations but the degree we have now can't and won't stand in the long term. The challenge of the 21st century is making sure that doesn't ruin the situation vis a vis natural resources and the environment since it's not possible for the rest of the world to have the per capita resource consumption and environmental impact Americans do.
They do: it's called a warranty and if you follow a 3-stop process you read about on the internet to run unverified apps on your iPhone, you void it and they're protected.
Most monopolies are government granted--the Postal Service for instance. There are a small number of natural monopolies (it's not cost-efficient for multiple phone companies to bury cables beneath the street) although even this is partly government-granted if the government sees a natural monopoly forming and gives them the kind of deal AT&T had (we'll protect your monopoly status but in return you have to provide this level of service and invent neat things for the military). For most goods and services, there's simply no way a monopoly can exist without government help. Even if I did corner the market on Allen wrenches there's nothing stopping you from making some yourself and screwing me over.
Well, I'm not sure if you were clever enough to figure this out, but I'm not a woman. Yes, I was referring to the fact that most prostitutes were women: the demand for male prostitutes is considerably lower: hence, so is the supply (in the long run). I leave it as an exercise to you which gender differences cause this.
Since it's really about a common condition of all human beings (and not about quite specific relations between one human being and another one, a woman) that they in majority do not like (distaste qualifies here as well) their jobs, be that job cooking or cleaning, or also prostitution, and since you prefer empirical evidence, non-bias and no-nonsense terminology, neither dislike nor distaste being the basis for discrimination against professions, least of all puritanism, here is my suggestion, in this midnight hour after the end of the day, how to get to the essence or get convinced in these matters: perhaps you should become a prostitute.Ah yes: any job that I would not be willing to do, or would not enjoy, is exploitative. As I already explained: I am not a megalomaniac and do not find that line of argumentation convincing. Please, when you disagree with me, come with a rational argument or hold your silence.
Not really. In 1968, to write an article you had to be employed by a large company that had the resources to publish things and distribute them around a geographical area, and most of the time that geographical area was just a small home town. In 2008 even blathering idiots with poor command of English can run their mouth on the internet and be heard by millions. While this does make it easier for intransigent idiots like 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs to have a disproportionate say, it's still a net gain.
Clearly, the solution is to legalize indentured servitude for these situations.
Thanks for the link. However, I'm not convinced. A series of arguments-by-assertion, provided without empirical evidence by a biased source, is not what I would consider "bursting my balloon". I would call it "stating disagreement", often in wildly propagandistic and nonsensical terms. For instance:
Legal prostitution is state-sponsored prostitution. Legal prostitution means that the state of Nevada legally permits the buying and selling of women in prostitution.There's a distinction between legalization and state sponsorship. I'm not aware that Nevada subsidizes prostitution, although they may subsidize the regular medical screenings that prostitutes have to go through.
Prostitution is also not "the buying and selling of women". That would be slavery, and there's a distinction between sex slavery and prostitution: at the end of the day, the prostitute can quit her job, spend her money how she wants, and so forth, just like the rest of us.
Nevadaâ(TM)s counties collect taxes from the sales of women to men who buy them (johns or tricks). In Nevada legal prostitution, the counties are the pimps, collecting taxes.By that standard, the government are pimps to us all. They collect our earnings in taxes, allegedly provide services to us, and at the end of the day often end up abusing us more than they help us. That's pretty similar to pimping, except the government does it to all of us, often by criminalizing consenting acts between adults. That said, most Nevada counties do not physically or sexually abuse prostitutes the way pimps are known to do.
If it would make them feel better, however, I'm willing to get on board with a tax-free status for prostitutes. Unfortunately, that would cross the line into state sponsorship.
Since we know that prostitution always harms women...Yeah, we don't "know" that, that's what you're trying to prove. I'm not convinced. And it's idiots like that, who go around patronizingly telling other people what is or isn't demeaning to them, who are the entire problem here. I'm sure a great number, even a majority of prostitutes don't like their job and choose it for lack of better alternatives. I'm also sure that a great number, even a majority of human beings don't like their job and choose it for lack of better alternatives, and if we were as puritanical about cooking or cleaning, we'd criminalize chefs and maids and then blame the profession when gangsters took it over. Prostitution is personally distasteful to me, but I am not enough of a megalomaniac to use that as a basis for dictating to other people what to do with their lives.
No point, I just thought derailing the discussion into William Howard Taft trivia would be fun.
Not quite. Read the Constitution: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." The operative language is shall be elected, not shall serve. Bush could still serve a third term by becoming Vice-President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, or a Cabinet secretary and succeeding to the office.
William Howard Taft was also later appointed to the Supreme Court! On the other hand, Taft was also morbidly obese, and had a larger bathtub specially installed in the White House to fit his enormous body.
That's a lie. Muslims are taken seriously because everyone who peacefully criticizes them or draws insulting cartoons gets death threats, many of them called "fatwas" and issued by actual Muslim clerics. Meanwhile, Muslims start riots, destroy embassies, and murder people over it. And the West has become a civilization of cowards who are afraid to offend anyone, so all too meekly we submit to the intimidation. That's called terrorism, and the reason Muslims are taken seriously is because so many of them are terrorists. Most of the West is too far out of practice dealing with the types of people who handle disagreements by strapping bombs to their chests and walking into pizzerias, or shooting rockets into residential neighborhoods.
Enslavement refers to forced labor. Unlike the prostitutes you find in states where prostitution is illegal, Nevada prostitutes are not forced into their jobs by poverty or any other means: they freely choose it and freely keep what money they earn for themselves. It is actually a lucrative occupation, one that many of them even come to enjoy. See, I know it's natural for some people to think of women as passive helpless beings for them to take care of, but American women aren't quite so helpless. That's why they have the freedom and the courage to show their face in public, speak to and make eye contact with men outside their family, and even, should they choose to, become prostitutes.