It's odd that the US is the most church going of the first world nations and the least Christian in practice. I would say ironic, but Americans don't understand that. As my atheist wife has said to a devout Christian friend "I hope you get found by someone like me rather than someone like you when you are in most need"
"you are required to pay them or the service will be shut off", not so with water. You will be taken to court if you don't pay, but they can't turn off a domestic supply. These aren't free, but you are entitled to them. Same with the NHS, it still has to be paid for (taxes) but even the lowest criminal is entitled to the same basic treatment as the highest lord. You can pay for comfy pillows, or better food, but the same doctor will probably treat you. It's almost impossible for us to think that in the US some people can't afford to mend a broken arm.
Here in the UK you have a right to fresh running water. Water Companies are obliged to supply it and cannot turn that supply off unless a fault occurs. You still have to pay, if you don't pay it doesn't get cut off, but you may be taken to court. I'm quite often not nice to idiots I find on the internet, no one has arrested me yet. Porn is very easy to find. You should try talking to UK citizens before saying what you can or can't do in the UK otherwise people may think you're a cunt.
No death pannels here in the UK, we do have NICE that refuses to pay for cancer drugs that extend life for a few months because the price is exorbitant. The "death pannel" ruse was invented by American Republicans at the same time they said that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive if he lived in the UK (he was, and he did.) https://www.nice.org.uk/News/A...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
The ethical option isn't "do it the exact way I want or I'll steal it" it's "I don't agree with your practices so I will boycott your product". What makes you think you are entitled to the content?
So to paraphrase...
I would work for money if they let me have time off when I like, and didn't make me do things.
My boss restricts what I can do at work, while making money from making meth in a lab allows me to spend my time on anything,
So long as the legit ways of making money are inferior to drug dealing, people will deal drugs. Make jobs as good or better and people will have little excuse for dealing drugs.
Now does your post read as rational?
Then you have two options, boycott the product or change the law.
If you boycott the product, publicise they boycott and try and get others to do likewise then the copyright owners will, if there is enough support for your position, change the restrictions.
You could always join or start a political party with the stated aim of rationalising copyright law. With enough support you could achieve this.
You could I guess go the cowardly and unethical way and just break the law. It could be justified to break the law if your family was starving and you stole bread to keep them alive, but breaking copyright law just because you want to watch the latest Marvel film is imposssible to justify.
Yes, I think being celibate is bad for replication. By definition of replication and by definition of celibate. In fact, any activity which does NOT result in replication will not positively affect replication.
Only for the individual. What if a celibate friend introduces you to your soul mate? Or in the dim and distant past, a priest marrying a couple. There are many ways that an individual who does not reproduce can increase the reproduction rate of a population.
Look, if you ask Google what percentage of men dont have kids, it will tell you what percentage of women dont have kids.
Not true at all.
For example consider a group of 3 men and 3 women. 2 of the men have a child with each of the women. 33% of men don't have children. 0% of women don't have children.
What you say works if you only have sex within a monogamous relationship and only have one such relationship in your life.
So you agree with the idea that inheritance tax should be 100% then? Otherwise you think it's OK to get free stuff from your dead dad. Christmas and Birthdays are out for you as well. The police shouldn't help unless you have a tax receipt? Can't use any public highway or side walk if you are too young to pay tax?
How much did you pay to sign up to Slashdot?
You're confusing price with value.
The price is $50. It's value is an estimate of the gain you get - the cost you incur (including the price). e.g. you think you get about $1,000 worth of gain. And you value the data it gathers as $100 you're still up on the deal. You can't factor in cost without factoring in the benefit that's dishonest. The two inputs are completely personal you may not get the same value of gain and the value of the cost may be more.
Only if you're bad at capitalism, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Didn't Michael Moore already skewer that canard over a decade ago? if the primary goal of a business is to make money, why aren't they selling drugs?
spotted!
Note, the response "lol you're using x as a source" it is definitely from IRA, I've noticed that exact same on other pages that have discussed exactly the same thing, it's been used against me "lol your using vice as a source"...
For example: here Rei makes a nice little post. The anonymous IRA goon does the standard format "lol, your using x" post to try and knock it down (not noting that it was the new york times, not the the national enquirer). Rei responds in kind, detailing why his post was correct. Another IRA goon, or the same one by mistake uses the same style of takedown as before, making the classic rookie mistake of highlighting their tactics. Notice also the outdated homophobic slur "gaydrian chen", so obviously russian it's painful (ok the poster may be a 6 year old child, but few adult westerners would do that) , might as well have a bear on a red background.
The point isn't for you to question one news source, but for you to question all of them. They are so obvious and transparent in their lies, it's not propaganda, it's something even worse it's using media as a weapon to attack.
Slashdot Mirror
It's odd that the US is the most church going of the first world nations and the least Christian in practice. I would say ironic, but Americans don't understand that. As my atheist wife has said to a devout Christian friend "I hope you get found by someone like me rather than someone like you when you are in most need"
"you are required to pay them or the service will be shut off", not so with water. You will be taken to court if you don't pay, but they can't turn off a domestic supply. These aren't free, but you are entitled to them. Same with the NHS, it still has to be paid for (taxes) but even the lowest criminal is entitled to the same basic treatment as the highest lord. You can pay for comfy pillows, or better food, but the same doctor will probably treat you. It's almost impossible for us to think that in the US some people can't afford to mend a broken arm.
Here in the UK you have a right to fresh running water. Water Companies are obliged to supply it and cannot turn that supply off unless a fault occurs. You still have to pay, if you don't pay it doesn't get cut off, but you may be taken to court. I'm quite often not nice to idiots I find on the internet, no one has arrested me yet. Porn is very easy to find. You should try talking to UK citizens before saying what you can or can't do in the UK otherwise people may think you're a cunt.
No death pannels here in the UK, we do have NICE that refuses to pay for cancer drugs that extend life for a few months because the price is exorbitant. The "death pannel" ruse was invented by American Republicans at the same time they said that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive if he lived in the UK (he was, and he did.) https://www.nice.org.uk/News/A... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
It was bigotry against his orientation in society. His existence was breaking the law.
Or just go without.
The ethical option isn't "do it the exact way I want or I'll steal it" it's "I don't agree with your practices so I will boycott your product". What makes you think you are entitled to the content?
So to paraphrase... I would work for money if they let me have time off when I like, and didn't make me do things. My boss restricts what I can do at work, while making money from making meth in a lab allows me to spend my time on anything, So long as the legit ways of making money are inferior to drug dealing, people will deal drugs. Make jobs as good or better and people will have little excuse for dealing drugs. Now does your post read as rational?
So what are you doing to change the situation? Throwing your toys around and saying "not fair!" won't change the status quo.
Then you have two options, boycott the product or change the law. If you boycott the product, publicise they boycott and try and get others to do likewise then the copyright owners will, if there is enough support for your position, change the restrictions. You could always join or start a political party with the stated aim of rationalising copyright law. With enough support you could achieve this. You could I guess go the cowardly and unethical way and just break the law. It could be justified to break the law if your family was starving and you stole bread to keep them alive, but breaking copyright law just because you want to watch the latest Marvel film is imposssible to justify.
keeping the tape lid open to press on the azimuth alignment head at just the right angle to get the thing loaded.
All of them? Are you sure? Really?
You're confusing scat with gay.
Straight women can have anal sex, and can perform it on straight men. Some gay men don't like to give or receive anal sex.
Yes, I think being celibate is bad for replication. By definition of replication and by definition of celibate. In fact, any activity which does NOT result in replication will not positively affect replication.
Only for the individual. What if a celibate friend introduces you to your soul mate? Or in the dim and distant past, a priest marrying a couple. There are many ways that an individual who does not reproduce can increase the reproduction rate of a population.
Look, if you ask Google what percentage of men dont have kids, it will tell you what percentage of women dont have kids.
Not true at all. For example consider a group of 3 men and 3 women. 2 of the men have a child with each of the women. 33% of men don't have children. 0% of women don't have children. What you say works if you only have sex within a monogamous relationship and only have one such relationship in your life.
Apart, from the times he's demonstrably lied. http://www.politifact.com/pers...
So you agree with the idea that inheritance tax should be 100% then? Otherwise you think it's OK to get free stuff from your dead dad. Christmas and Birthdays are out for you as well. The police shouldn't help unless you have a tax receipt? Can't use any public highway or side walk if you are too young to pay tax? How much did you pay to sign up to Slashdot?
Billy Connolly's idea is the best. A six inch spike in the middle of the steering wheel, that's make people concentrate when driving.
True, it's well known that us Brits are the rudest people on Earth.
You're confusing price with value. The price is $50. It's value is an estimate of the gain you get - the cost you incur (including the price). e.g. you think you get about $1,000 worth of gain. And you value the data it gathers as $100 you're still up on the deal. You can't factor in cost without factoring in the benefit that's dishonest. The two inputs are completely personal you may not get the same value of gain and the value of the cost may be more.
Only if you're bad at capitalism, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... Didn't Michael Moore already skewer that canard over a decade ago? if the primary goal of a business is to make money, why aren't they selling drugs?
spotted! Note, the response "lol you're using x as a source" it is definitely from IRA, I've noticed that exact same on other pages that have discussed exactly the same thing, it's been used against me "lol your using vice as a source"... For example: here Rei makes a nice little post. The anonymous IRA goon does the standard format "lol, your using x" post to try and knock it down (not noting that it was the new york times, not the the national enquirer). Rei responds in kind, detailing why his post was correct. Another IRA goon, or the same one by mistake uses the same style of takedown as before, making the classic rookie mistake of highlighting their tactics. Notice also the outdated homophobic slur "gaydrian chen", so obviously russian it's painful (ok the poster may be a 6 year old child, but few adult westerners would do that) , might as well have a bear on a red background.
The point isn't for you to question one news source, but for you to question all of them. They are so obvious and transparent in their lies, it's not propaganda, it's something even worse it's using media as a weapon to attack.
There was a fantiatic piece in the Guardian a few months ago detailing exactly this kind of thing. http://www.theguardian.com/new...