Which is what Brazil did. They did a mandatory licensing. You know, just like the US does with music aired on the radio. Surly, mandatory licensing on something that is a life and death medication is not as bad as mandatory licensing on a non-essential like music. When does the US get put on the piracy watch list?
OK, explain how not pumping more in a particular year shows any correlation to how much is actually there, as opposed to showing how much has been used, or how much pumping power is being utilized. "Peak Oil Production" sounds an awful lot like the oil companies have found a way to get wack-job environmentalists to rationalize their artificial scarcity. Unless, your part of the VERY small minority that thinks oil is not a fossil fuel, you would have to agree that all of the oil that there is, and will be in our lifetimes, already exists, and is just waiting to be pumped from the ground. So, please, explain how "peak oil production" is an indication of the amount of oil that exists. Because, I really don't get it.
That is why when I was in school, and I received this kind of assignment, all of my free association writings ended up being a stream of sentences saying that I was writing a free association assignment. There was no way in hell I was going to spill inner most thoughts to some part time government employee, just because they said to.
"hunting down deadbeat dads is big business, but deadbeat moms? Good luck..."
Well, why would they hunt down deadbeat moms? At least here in California, women can just abdicate their parental rights, and are free to go with no need to cough up a dime. Given that, (at least here in CA) is it even possible to be a "deadbeat mom"?
This is not a joke. I am being absolutely serious. I did an experiment...
Installation:
I formated the drive on my 2 year old son's computer. I then gave him an Ubuntu disk (5.10)and told him to go install it on his computer. I then repeated the experiment with Windows XP. He was successful in his attempt to install Ubuntu. I came back 20 minutes latter and he was playing Klotski. When I tried to do the same with Windows, he simply could not get through the install.
Winner: Ubuntu. Ubuntu is noticeably easier to install than Windows.
Updates
At 3 he is currently running dual boot, as there are 'must have' apps on each of the platforms. On both platforms, he does his own OS security updates. He only does software upgrades on Ubuntu, as there is no way he is capable of hunting down installing application updates on Windows.
Winner: (Security) Tie
Winner: (Applications) Ubuntu
Accident Proof:
In 2 years of running Ubuntu, he has not broken the install once. Yes there have been spare links strewn around the desktop, but the install was still stable.
In 2 years of running Windows, he has broken the install twice to the point of needing to reinstall.
Winner: Ubuntu
Ease of Use:
Once the OS was up and running, he had no trouble figuring out how to load and shut down his programs on either platform.
Winner: Tie
Conclusion: Winner - Ubuntu
I have been using my son as a yardstick for determining whether a person is an idiot or not. I don't expect people to be computer experts, nor do I expect them to know everything that I know. I do, however, expect an adult to be able to grasp anything that even the brightest 2 year old can understand. I don't think that is too much to ask.
This experiment may or may not still be considered relevant, as both Windows and Ubuntu have seen updates since I did it. I would be interested in hearing the results of this experiment being performed by others. The two things that I would want to see changed would be to up the age to 5 or 6, and to use Vista and Feisty.
I'm not interested in the integration for a different reason. We all know the cell phone companies are in the business of nickle and diming us to death. I don't want my mp3 player, camera and pda to be devices used to nickle and dime me to death too. I don't have a problem with an all in one device. I just don't want one that is controlled by the phone companies.
So, your saying that requiring businesses to do things is not the same as requiring businesses to do thing. THAT is why I said your argument makes no sense. By definition if the government requires your business to do something that you don't want to do, you are being forced to engage in business that you don't want to engage in. So, depending on your state, both of those businesses are forced to offer the service of sales tax collection. Do you live in a state that collects sales tax? If so, there you have it. And don't tell me that collecting sales tax doesn't count as a service that is required by law because it is required by law.
The statement that the rest of your argument is based on. "I claim that not every business is required to provide a service that it does not explicitly attempts to engage in." In fact EVERY business is forced to do things that are outside of what it is attempting to engage in. Can you name any businesses that are not forced to do things that are not its intended product?
The point still stands. If you want to do business in the US, you will be forced to do certain things. Even if you are only forced to 'make reasonable accommodations.'
The question is, what is YOUR point. You used the term slavery to say that MS can't be forced to provide as service if they want to continue to be allowed to do business in the US. Then you say "So we practice it. What's your point?". I personally cannot think of a single business that is not required to perform some action if they want to do business in the US. Whether you call that slavery or not, the argument that MS should not be required to do something if they want to continue to do business in the US, because you consider it 'slavery' makes no sense. That would make them the only business that you don't consider a slave. Of course, part of what MS gets out of doing what is asked is that they get to continue using their monopoly on Windows.
I'm sorry, I thought we were conversing in English. Your use of the term 'communist dictatorship' and inability to understand the similarity between other legally required services with services that MS might be required to provide, indicates that you are using some other language that I am unfamiliar with, which makes this thread pointless. Hopefully, there is enough overlap in our two languages for you to make out what this posts says.
You are just wrong. There are plenty of examples businesses that are required to offer services if they want to keep doing business. One very obvious example is anything covered by the Americans with Disability Act. If you don't want to offer wheelchair access, which is definitly a service to those individuals, you don't get to do business. Phone companies are required to offer lifeline service. They are also required to offer 911 service. Car manufacturers are required to offer for sale, replacement parts for a number of years. Restaurants are requried to offer bathrooms if they want to sell food.
The slavery line is simply BS. Slavery is the ownership of one human by another. You might be able to say that requiring one individual to perform work for another is slavery, but requiring a convict to perform some action if they want to take part in another action, certainly is not slavery.
There are plenty of other requirements that have been placed on illegal monopolies other than requiring them to shut down parts of their business. Your statement just doesn't make sense.
I can second the Geo Metro (also, Suzuki Swift) gets that kind of mileage. If they still made them, that would be my next car purchase. Yes, I have a huge truck for pulling my trailer, and hauling lumber, but for around town, and commute driving, the Geo Metro is fantastic.
"Why should a company not be allowed to discontinue a product?"
Uhhh...Because they are a monopoly that was convicted of using their monopoly position in an illegal manner. Given that people still want to buy XP, and that they can sell it at a considerable profit, one must then ask why they would not be willing to sell it to an eager public. The answer entail vendor lock in. This is a problem for a monopoly that has been convicted of anti-competitive behavior.
The gun is a poor analogy, as it is extremely rare that a gun is handed around to strangers. Given it's ability to injure, and it's inability to be used by multiple people at the same time, it is a poor choice. For a better analogy, consider using something that is commonly shared among lots of people. How about a front yard. An open wifi is privately owned, like a front yard, but there is an implicit invitation for strangers to enter. Just like a front yard.
Should finding a picture containing kiddie porn found on someones front lawn, be allowed as probable cause for searching the home?
No, the online predator thing is not a problem. There might be a predator problem, but like bad patents, putting "online", or "computer" on the front does not change what it is. Before you worry about predators "online", you should ask yourself this...
If you had to choose, would you rather leave your child alone for the weekend with the internet, or with a Catholic priest?
Then ask your friends. What you will get is laughter. Why? Because we all know the answer, but are uncomfortable saying it. If you worried about little Sabastian, or little Samantha getting buggered by some old creepy dude, then the internet is just distracting YOU from your goal.
There you have it. The article could just as easily read, 'Women are at such and advantage, that they can afford to quite jobs because the hours are too long, or are too burdensome.' Nobody likes to be on call 24/7, and really, if it necessary for someone to be on call 24/7, your already screwed and don't know it. Now, I can understand why business wouldn't want women shunning them. After all, if I am an employer, I definitely don't want my pool of potential employees cut in half. What this really comes down to.. Is the cost incurred from cutting your potential employee pool in half, greater or less than the cost of implementing improved work conditions like telecommuting, flex hours, proper job coverage and or day care.
Personally, I hope they choose that they want women in the workforce, and implement better work conditions to do it. While I do telecommute, I have turned down several gigs that would have paid noticeably more, so that I can be at home with my child. I will not, though, agree that the reason women are leaving is because they are at a disadvantage. Saying women are leaving IT because they are at a disadvantage is like saying that billionaires are not working at McDonalds because they are at a disadvantage. Those poor, poor billionaires, loosing out to those McDonalds jobs because of the unfair work environment.
I don't know about the parent poster, but your comment sound just like a lot that I would hear before my child was born. What I found was that I had it straight all along so, my child is better behaved, smarter, and happier than 95%+ the other kids I see. In fact most of the bad parents that I know personally, changed their ideas on parenting after their children were born because they simply are too lazy, or more often too self centered to take the time and effort of teaching right from wrong. The parent poster's point is that parents now tend to either don't teach their kids any morals at all, or they only teach them 'right'. This leaves them to figure out wrong all by themselves. He happens to be right.
I have heard this kind of thing before. Do you have any links that might better educate us how to file our own patents at such a low cost? If it is really that cheap and easy, it would do a lot of good if more people knew the process.
You said "Kids should not", you did not say "I feel kids should not". If that is what you meant, it did not come across in your post. The way it came across actually supported the idea of creating a law.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is what Brazil did. They did a mandatory licensing. You know, just like the US does with music aired on the radio. Surly, mandatory licensing on something that is a life and death medication is not as bad as mandatory licensing on a non-essential like music. When does the US get put on the piracy watch list?
OK, explain how not pumping more in a particular year shows any correlation to how much is actually there, as opposed to showing how much has been used, or how much pumping power is being utilized. "Peak Oil Production" sounds an awful lot like the oil companies have found a way to get wack-job environmentalists to rationalize their artificial scarcity. Unless, your part of the VERY small minority that thinks oil is not a fossil fuel, you would have to agree that all of the oil that there is, and will be in our lifetimes, already exists, and is just waiting to be pumped from the ground. So, please, explain how "peak oil production" is an indication of the amount of oil that exists. Because, I really don't get it.
That is why when I was in school, and I received this kind of assignment, all of my free association writings ended up being a stream of sentences saying that I was writing a free association assignment. There was no way in hell I was going to spill inner most thoughts to some part time government employee, just because they said to.
"hunting down deadbeat dads is big business, but deadbeat moms? Good luck..."
Well, why would they hunt down deadbeat moms? At least here in California, women can just abdicate their parental rights, and are free to go with no need to cough up a dime. Given that, (at least here in CA) is it even possible to be a "deadbeat mom"?
This is not a joke. I am being absolutely serious. I did an experiment...
Installation:
I formated the drive on my 2 year old son's computer. I then gave him an Ubuntu disk (5.10)and told him to go install it on his computer. I then repeated the experiment with Windows XP. He was successful in his attempt to install Ubuntu. I came back 20 minutes latter and he was playing Klotski. When I tried to do the same with Windows, he simply could not get through the install.
Winner: Ubuntu. Ubuntu is noticeably easier to install than Windows.
Updates
At 3 he is currently running dual boot, as there are 'must have' apps on each of the platforms. On both platforms, he does his own OS security updates. He only does software upgrades on Ubuntu, as there is no way he is capable of hunting down installing application updates on Windows.
Winner: (Security) Tie
Winner: (Applications) Ubuntu
Accident Proof:
In 2 years of running Ubuntu, he has not broken the install once. Yes there have been spare links strewn around the desktop, but the install was still stable. In 2 years of running Windows, he has broken the install twice to the point of needing to reinstall.
Winner: Ubuntu
Ease of Use:
Once the OS was up and running, he had no trouble figuring out how to load and shut down his programs on either platform.
Winner: Tie
Conclusion: Winner - Ubuntu
I have been using my son as a yardstick for determining whether a person is an idiot or not. I don't expect people to be computer experts, nor do I expect them to know everything that I know. I do, however, expect an adult to be able to grasp anything that even the brightest 2 year old can understand. I don't think that is too much to ask.
This experiment may or may not still be considered relevant, as both Windows and Ubuntu have seen updates since I did it. I would be interested in hearing the results of this experiment being performed by others. The two things that I would want to see changed would be to up the age to 5 or 6, and to use Vista and Feisty.
If Sony cannot effectively filter out content that belongs to Google, they could be in for a world of trouble.
I'm not interested in the integration for a different reason. We all know the cell phone companies are in the business of nickle and diming us to death. I don't want my mp3 player, camera and pda to be devices used to nickle and dime me to death too. I don't have a problem with an all in one device. I just don't want one that is controlled by the phone companies.
So, your saying that requiring businesses to do things is not the same as requiring businesses to do thing. THAT is why I said your argument makes no sense. By definition if the government requires your business to do something that you don't want to do, you are being forced to engage in business that you don't want to engage in. So, depending on your state, both of those businesses are forced to offer the service of sales tax collection. Do you live in a state that collects sales tax? If so, there you have it. And don't tell me that collecting sales tax doesn't count as a service that is required by law because it is required by law.
The statement that the rest of your argument is based on. "I claim that not every business is required to provide a service that it does not explicitly attempts to engage in." In fact EVERY business is forced to do things that are outside of what it is attempting to engage in. Can you name any businesses that are not forced to do things that are not its intended product?
The point still stands. If you want to do business in the US, you will be forced to do certain things. Even if you are only forced to 'make reasonable accommodations.'
"What's your point?"
The question is, what is YOUR point. You used the term slavery to say that MS can't be forced to provide as service if they want to continue to be allowed to do business in the US. Then you say "So we practice it. What's your point?". I personally cannot think of a single business that is not required to perform some action if they want to do business in the US. Whether you call that slavery or not, the argument that MS should not be required to do something if they want to continue to do business in the US, because you consider it 'slavery' makes no sense. That would make them the only business that you don't consider a slave. Of course, part of what MS gets out of doing what is asked is that they get to continue using their monopoly on Windows.
I'm sorry, I thought we were conversing in English. Your use of the term 'communist dictatorship' and inability to understand the similarity between other legally required services with services that MS might be required to provide, indicates that you are using some other language that I am unfamiliar with, which makes this thread pointless. Hopefully, there is enough overlap in our two languages for you to make out what this posts says.
You are just wrong. There are plenty of examples businesses that are required to offer services if they want to keep doing business. One very obvious example is anything covered by the Americans with Disability Act. If you don't want to offer wheelchair access, which is definitly a service to those individuals, you don't get to do business. Phone companies are required to offer lifeline service. They are also required to offer 911 service. Car manufacturers are required to offer for sale, replacement parts for a number of years. Restaurants are requried to offer bathrooms if they want to sell food.
The slavery line is simply BS. Slavery is the ownership of one human by another. You might be able to say that requiring one individual to perform work for another is slavery, but requiring a convict to perform some action if they want to take part in another action, certainly is not slavery.
There are plenty of other requirements that have been placed on illegal monopolies other than requiring them to shut down parts of their business. Your statement just doesn't make sense.
I can second the Geo Metro (also, Suzuki Swift) gets that kind of mileage. If they still made them, that would be my next car purchase. Yes, I have a huge truck for pulling my trailer, and hauling lumber, but for around town, and commute driving, the Geo Metro is fantastic.
"Why should a company not be allowed to discontinue a product?"
Uhhh...Because they are a monopoly that was convicted of using their monopoly position in an illegal manner. Given that people still want to buy XP, and that they can sell it at a considerable profit, one must then ask why they would not be willing to sell it to an eager public. The answer entail vendor lock in. This is a problem for a monopoly that has been convicted of anti-competitive behavior.
Using a car as an analogy is has the exact same problem as using a gun. Leaving keys in your car is not an implied invitation for strangers to use it.
The gun is a poor analogy, as it is extremely rare that a gun is handed around to strangers. Given it's ability to injure, and it's inability to be used by multiple people at the same time, it is a poor choice. For a better analogy, consider using something that is commonly shared among lots of people. How about a front yard. An open wifi is privately owned, like a front yard, but there is an implicit invitation for strangers to enter. Just like a front yard.
Should finding a picture containing kiddie porn found on someones front lawn, be allowed as probable cause for searching the home?
That sir, is the most important part of this entire article.
No, the online predator thing is not a problem. There might be a predator problem, but like bad patents, putting "online", or "computer" on the front does not change what it is. Before you worry about predators "online", you should ask yourself this...
If you had to choose, would you rather leave your child alone for the weekend with the internet, or with a Catholic priest?
Then ask your friends. What you will get is laughter. Why? Because we all know the answer, but are uncomfortable saying it. If you worried about little Sabastian, or little Samantha getting buggered by some old creepy dude, then the internet is just distracting YOU from your goal.
I would, but they are all too lazy to attend, or to bad to care.
What makes that funnier is that the answer isn't, "Green Groups".
There you have it. The article could just as easily read, 'Women are at such and advantage, that they can afford to quite jobs because the hours are too long, or are too burdensome.' Nobody likes to be on call 24/7, and really, if it necessary for someone to be on call 24/7, your already screwed and don't know it. Now, I can understand why business wouldn't want women shunning them. After all, if I am an employer, I definitely don't want my pool of potential employees cut in half. What this really comes down to.. Is the cost incurred from cutting your potential employee pool in half, greater or less than the cost of implementing improved work conditions like telecommuting, flex hours, proper job coverage and or day care.
Personally, I hope they choose that they want women in the workforce, and implement better work conditions to do it. While I do telecommute, I have turned down several gigs that would have paid noticeably more, so that I can be at home with my child. I will not, though, agree that the reason women are leaving is because they are at a disadvantage. Saying women are leaving IT because they are at a disadvantage is like saying that billionaires are not working at McDonalds because they are at a disadvantage. Those poor, poor billionaires, loosing out to those McDonalds jobs because of the unfair work environment.
I don't know about the parent poster, but your comment sound just like a lot that I would hear before my child was born. What I found was that I had it straight all along so, my child is better behaved, smarter, and happier than 95%+ the other kids I see. In fact most of the bad parents that I know personally, changed their ideas on parenting after their children were born because they simply are too lazy, or more often too self centered to take the time and effort of teaching right from wrong. The parent poster's point is that parents now tend to either don't teach their kids any morals at all, or they only teach them 'right'. This leaves them to figure out wrong all by themselves. He happens to be right.
I have heard this kind of thing before. Do you have any links that might better educate us how to file our own patents at such a low cost? If it is really that cheap and easy, it would do a lot of good if more people knew the process.
You said "Kids should not", you did not say "I feel kids should not". If that is what you meant, it did not come across in your post. The way it came across actually supported the idea of creating a law.