Not inviting, but being honest about corporate behaviors. In the vast majority of cases, taxes for companies come entirely out of profit. If they make a profit in a region, taxes don't change that. And since taxes hit competitors(well, not apple apparently) too, it doesn't affect the marketplace dramatically. It gets a little fuzzy when stock markets, par values, and yield ratios come in, but the best understanding I've got is that taxes still play second fiddle to consumer habits for most industries.
I get the impression that you actually, honestly believe that there is, to quote Mr. Obama, "no there there" in any of these scandals.
I don't "believe" obama on anything. It's just that even more than a cursory examination of these "scandals" reveals them to either be normal function of government misconstrued as a crime or a legitimate problem bent completely out of factual frame of reference in order to blame the president.
As to the entire rest of your post, I can't imagine the level of self-awareness you must lack to write all that in the context of discussing paranoia and not recognize it as such. There is almost nothing there but conspiracy theories unbacked by evidence.
I don't even like Obama much, I just hate the self-reinforcing confirmation bias circle the internet creates in paranoid people. Obama's aggressively center positions on near everything aren't sufficient for a modern world, especially with the overton window shifted so far right.
Let's see.... Nothing you posted was actually what your article said. None of it. It varies between misrepresentation to outright lie. Why can't you just use the truth in your arguments? Really? I know there's problems. Everyone knows there's problems. Making stuff up just makes you look legitimately paranoid.
1. Misrepresentation(A crime was committed, but it wasn't that, paranoid confirmation bias at work) 2. Outright fabrication 3. Was with a warrant, so no. 4. Being sued with a claim doesn't make it true. The complaint includes accusations that representatives were "rude". Really? 5. That's not what happened and that's pretty clearly intentionally a misrepresentation of the investigation's purpose, and only reflects your paranoia. I cannot understand how you'd possibly misconstrue the purpose that far, other than paranoia. 6. Oh no, someone has an opinion that's different than yours. And she's a politician. That's tyranny.
Christ this post is just doubling down on intentionally misreading everything. I used to be sympathetic about the damned IRS thing until everyone started pretending it meant something besides what happened.
gun control is a way for politicians on both sides to make a lot of money and it distracts from actual efforts to make people safer. Notice that mental health programs have received no additional attention even though the last half dozen of these attacks were committed by mentally disturbed people.
The bolded part of your post represents the fallacy here. Even in the U.S.'s broken 2 party system, there are more than 2 sides.
No, but neither is fertilizer when you get down to it. I'm about to go on a tirade for a position that isn't really even mine: Gun control is about impulsive people.
You're never going to stop a McVeigh of Bin Laden with gun control. They're meticulous planners who will not be impeded by inconveniences, and will work around them. They'll build their own materials, circumvent safety control systems, and seek to maximize damage. Those people aren't the most common problem. Their problem is that they are certain that their cause is just.
The most common thread in criminals, particularly murderers, is poor impulse control and emotional volatility. People kill because they get angry, or desperate. 3/4 of people who attempt suicide will be deterred by a simple obstacle or obstruction in their way. People being rational don't murder. Gun control is about limiting the ease with which someone can engage in irrational acts.
You can't 3d print a spring with a plastics printer. You can't 3d print most of the mechanical components that make (semi)automatics work. It would essentially up the number of machined components up to a point that it would no longer really be a "3d printed gun" and more be a gun kit where you can provide the frame.
The sad thing is the Let's Plays originated as a kind of fun art form. Then Youtube got ahold of the concept, and turned it into the shittiest laziest kind of "creative work" I've ever seen.
Academic: Hell no Parody: Nope, except in the rarest of cases Commercial nature or is for nonprofit: quite clearly commercial The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: usually they play through the whole game. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental
I don't see any path for fair use in there. It doesn't really meet any of the requirements.
Yes, some people actually make money off playing games and putting that on the internet. They are also almost exclusively the worst, least interesting LPers in the universe. I wish the idea for let's plays never got out.
Yeah, I know how you feel. Star Trek was a rare bastion of (semi)intellectualism on television, technobabble aside. To see all that removed in favor of violence, pretty colors, and snappy writing, makes me feel sort of depressed.
Of course, the reality is that everyone who likes the non-Abrams Trek's tone has options. The current incarnation of Doctor Who on BBC has exactly the same mix of high-concept, technobabble, silliness, and mystery uncovering plots that Star Trek used to have.
Slashdot Mirror
Not inviting, but being honest about corporate behaviors. In the vast majority of cases, taxes for companies come entirely out of profit. If they make a profit in a region, taxes don't change that. And since taxes hit competitors(well, not apple apparently) too, it doesn't affect the marketplace dramatically. It gets a little fuzzy when stock markets, par values, and yield ratios come in, but the best understanding I've got is that taxes still play second fiddle to consumer habits for most industries.
Obviously you don't have enough hot grits.
It means Microsoft fully intends to spy on their customers all the time. Buried in line 4012 of the EULA of the first system update.
I get the impression that you actually, honestly believe that there is, to quote Mr. Obama, "no there there" in any of these scandals.
I don't "believe" obama on anything. It's just that even more than a cursory examination of these "scandals" reveals them to either be normal function of government misconstrued as a crime or a legitimate problem bent completely out of factual frame of reference in order to blame the president.
As to the entire rest of your post, I can't imagine the level of self-awareness you must lack to write all that in the context of discussing paranoia and not recognize it as such. There is almost nothing there but conspiracy theories unbacked by evidence.
I don't even like Obama much, I just hate the self-reinforcing confirmation bias circle the internet creates in paranoid people. Obama's aggressively center positions on near everything aren't sufficient for a modern world, especially with the overton window shifted so far right.
Let's see.... Nothing you posted was actually what your article said. None of it. It varies between misrepresentation to outright lie. Why can't you just use the truth in your arguments? Really? I know there's problems. Everyone knows there's problems. Making stuff up just makes you look legitimately paranoid.
1. Misrepresentation(A crime was committed, but it wasn't that, paranoid confirmation bias at work)
2. Outright fabrication
3. Was with a warrant, so no.
4. Being sued with a claim doesn't make it true. The complaint includes accusations that representatives were "rude". Really?
5. That's not what happened and that's pretty clearly intentionally a misrepresentation of the investigation's purpose, and only reflects your paranoia. I cannot understand how you'd possibly misconstrue the purpose that far, other than paranoia.
6. Oh no, someone has an opinion that's different than yours. And she's a politician. That's tyranny.
Christ this post is just doubling down on intentionally misreading everything. I used to be sympathetic about the damned IRS thing until everyone started pretending it meant something besides what happened.
gun control is a way for politicians on both sides to make a lot of money and it distracts from actual efforts to make people safer. Notice that mental health programs have received no additional attention even though the last half dozen of these attacks were committed by mentally disturbed people.
The bolded part of your post represents the fallacy here. Even in the U.S.'s broken 2 party system, there are more than 2 sides.
That's needlessly antagonistic for when I lead the post with the assertion that it wasn't even a defense of my own position.
I just told you we don't need to be reminded that you're paranoid. Christ
No, but neither is fertilizer when you get down to it. I'm about to go on a tirade for a position that isn't really even mine:
Gun control is about impulsive people.
You're never going to stop a McVeigh of Bin Laden with gun control. They're meticulous planners who will not be impeded by inconveniences, and will work around them. They'll build their own materials, circumvent safety control systems, and seek to maximize damage. Those people aren't the most common problem. Their problem is that they are certain that their cause is just.
The most common thread in criminals, particularly murderers, is poor impulse control and emotional volatility. People kill because they get angry, or desperate. 3/4 of people who attempt suicide will be deterred by a simple obstacle or obstruction in their way. People being rational don't murder. Gun control is about limiting the ease with which someone can engage in irrational acts.
Yes, yes, we know everyone who's really attached to their guns is paranoid about impending tyranny. You don't need to remind us.
I think bullets and casings contain enough metal to set off most metal detectors anyways, though I'm already envisioning ways to bypass that.
You can't 3d print a spring with a plastics printer. You can't 3d print most of the mechanical components that make (semi)automatics work. It would essentially up the number of machined components up to a point that it would no longer really be a "3d printed gun" and more be a gun kit where you can provide the frame.
Honestly, I don't care. Who buys a surface anyways?
The sad thing is the Let's Plays originated as a kind of fun art form. Then Youtube got ahold of the concept, and turned it into the shittiest laziest kind of "creative work" I've ever seen.
You can get adblock for firefox on the android. I hate firefox on android in terms of UI, but adblock is a necessity.
Fair use for LPs:
Academic: Hell no
Parody: Nope, except in the rarest of cases
Commercial nature or is for nonprofit: quite clearly commercial
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: usually they play through the whole game.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental
I don't see any path for fair use in there. It doesn't really meet any of the requirements.
Yes, some people actually make money off playing games and putting that on the internet. They are also almost exclusively the worst, least interesting LPers in the universe. I wish the idea for let's plays never got out.
Right of first sale...
...is completely irrelevant to making derivative works and distributing those.
That's what you were going to say before you hit preview then submit too early, right?
I'm sure your mind-numbing lack of intellectual curiosity and trivially short attention span makes you everyone's favorite to talk to too.
Please adblock the hell out of everything. No one deserves money for letting somone mind control you.
It's not that it can't be. It's that it isn't. Name one intellectually interesting occurrence in Star Trek(2009), that raises questions of any sort.
Check out the 50th anniversary special this year. I have heard that your wish will granted(temporarily).
Yeah, I know how you feel. Star Trek was a rare bastion of (semi)intellectualism on television, technobabble aside. To see all that removed in favor of violence, pretty colors, and snappy writing, makes me feel sort of depressed.
Of course, the reality is that everyone who likes the non-Abrams Trek's tone has options. The current incarnation of Doctor Who on BBC has exactly the same mix of high-concept, technobabble, silliness, and mystery uncovering plots that Star Trek used to have.
Yep. I'm recording people I meet all the time, with a low-fidelity camera called "memory." What privacy?