Well, she was right: there was violence in the streets after the results were announced. Car-burning, the second French national pastime after Pétanque, reached a new high (low?) on the night of Sunday-Monday, with over 700 cars being burned.
I guess the problem is that standardized tests don't measure critical thinking. But any test that did so would need a bit more brainpower to grade than the wisdom of the venerable Scantron, so there are none.
Mais non, tu ne comprends toujours pas. L'erreur qu'il a faite n'est pas l'emploi d'un mot mal approprié. Le mot "nettoyer" corréspond tout à fait à ce qu'il veut faire (et ce qu'il veut faire n'est nullement raciste). Il a dit qu'il voulait nettoyer ces fameuses banlieues au Kärcher car le Kärcher est quelque chose de puissant, de fort...
Je dis qu'il a commis une erreur car il n'a pas envisagé qu'un certain nombre de Français pourraient prendre cela comme une remarque raciste. C'est tout.
Je veux quand même préciser que je n'aurais jamais, mais jamais de la vie! voté pour Sarkozy (en tout cas je ne peux pas voter en France, mais même si je pouvais je n'aurais pas voté pour lui). Mais cette décision n'est guère basée sur l'interpretation inexacte de l'une de ces remarques par ces ennemis.
As-tu lu ce que j'ai écrit ou pas? M. Sarkozy a fait une erreur, en fait il n'a pas du tout voulu faire une remarque raciste. Il voulait "nettoyer les banlieues", ce qui est un objectif tout à fait admirable: il ne voulait pas débarasser la France de ses minorités ethniques mais de son problème de violence.
If he were a little more savvy, he would've blamed it on the lack of gun control, which is a much more defensible position and still ends up hurting the conservatives.
Il a employé le mauvais mot, et alors? Laisse tomber, on s'en fout. Sarkozy aime bien les immigrés (si, bien sûr, ils veulent "travailler plus pour gagner plus").
NB: Même si je pouvais voter en France, je n'aurais jamais voté pour Nicolas Sarkozy. Mais il y a un tellement grand nombre de problèmes avec lui qu'il n'est guère nécessaire d'en inventer d'autres.
Of course he makes sense. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he doesn't make sense. He's saying that non-Windows users would not want.NET. But Windows users already have.NET! So porting.NET is pointless.
OK, if you define morality as "personal interests", then I suppose I'm just as moral as everyone else.
But how in the world is the golden rule based on personal interests? It's based on upholding other people's interests, using what I would feel in that situation as an approximation of those people's interests. It has nothing to do with serving my own. "Serving my own interests" is sociopathy, definitely not the golden rule.
P.S. I am not a sociopath, which is probably genetically determined. I simply wish I were.
Allow me to point out the only two possible scenarios if I like the band and want their music:
1) I like the band and buy their CD for $15. The record label adds this to their Big Pot o'Money. If this Big Pot o'Money is full enough, the artist will produce another CD. 2) I like the band and infringe on their copyright. No money goes to the record label. If their Big Pot o'Money is full enough, the artist will produce another CD.
It's extremely unlikely that my $15 will be the deciding factor. And don't give me the bullshit "if everyone thought that way..." argument that people use to get other people to go vote. It's simply logically ridiculous.
My interests are defined by whatrever will increase my total happiness over the course of my life. Capping a bunch of people will not, thus, it does not serve my interest.
I wasn't talking about whether it's moral or not. I was talking about whether it's theft or not, which is an entirely different subject. I see no reason to qualify the RIAA as "thieves".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, she was right: there was violence in the streets after the results were announced. Car-burning, the second French national pastime after Pétanque, reached a new high (low?) on the night of Sunday-Monday, with over 700 cars being burned.
For what it's worth.
Move to Europe then. Who says you have to be tied to your nationality (arbitrarily assigned at birth) for the rest of your life?
If you lived in a country founded by religious fanatics, you'd have the same problems.
I guess the problem is that standardized tests don't measure critical thinking. But any test that did so would need a bit more brainpower to grade than the wisdom of the venerable Scantron, so there are none.
No, it's like eating a plate of food, you retarded asshole. Learn the difference between nouns and verbs.
It's not necessary, but it sure does make it easier.
Mais non, tu ne comprends toujours pas. L'erreur qu'il a faite n'est pas l'emploi d'un mot mal approprié. Le mot "nettoyer" corréspond tout à fait à ce qu'il veut faire (et ce qu'il veut faire n'est nullement raciste). Il a dit qu'il voulait nettoyer ces fameuses banlieues au Kärcher car le Kärcher est quelque chose de puissant, de fort...
Je dis qu'il a commis une erreur car il n'a pas envisagé qu'un certain nombre de Français pourraient prendre cela comme une remarque raciste. C'est tout.
Je veux quand même préciser que je n'aurais jamais, mais jamais de la vie! voté pour Sarkozy (en tout cas je ne peux pas voter en France, mais même si je pouvais je n'aurais pas voté pour lui). Mais cette décision n'est guère basée sur l'interpretation inexacte de l'une de ces remarques par ces ennemis.
As-tu lu ce que j'ai écrit ou pas? M. Sarkozy a fait une erreur, en fait il n'a pas du tout voulu faire une remarque raciste. Il voulait "nettoyer les banlieues", ce qui est un objectif tout à fait admirable: il ne voulait pas débarasser la France de ses minorités ethniques mais de son problème de violence.
If he were a little more savvy, he would've blamed it on the lack of gun control, which is a much more defensible position and still ends up hurting the conservatives.
Il a employé le mauvais mot, et alors? Laisse tomber, on s'en fout. Sarkozy aime bien les immigrés (si, bien sûr, ils veulent "travailler plus pour gagner plus").
NB: Même si je pouvais voter en France, je n'aurais jamais voté pour Nicolas Sarkozy. Mais il y a un tellement grand nombre de problèmes avec lui qu'il n'est guère nécessaire d'en inventer d'autres.
I wanted Bayrou to win. In the second round I wanted Royal. But I can't vote, as I'm not French, and, "de surcroît", I'm only 17 years old.
Anyway, French students already stand up until their teacher gives them permission to sit down. I don't really see what Sarko's talking about here.
Care to elaborate?
Apple is based in a socialist country that most of us call California. I fail to see your point.
Of course he makes sense. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he doesn't make sense. He's saying that non-Windows users would not want .NET. But Windows users already have .NET! So porting .NET is pointless.
I love you.
Allow me to use a Venn diagramme to help clarify things:
_
Those who do not use Windows: |_|
_
Those who care: |_|
Alternatively,
____
Those who use Windows: | |_| <--- Those who care.
| |
|____|
Not that I agree with the OP, I'm just trying to help you understand his point.
Very truly yours,
koreaman.
My dear Twitter,
Microsoft has indeed released Free software.
Very truly yours,
koreaman
Care to give an argument as to why it's universal?
True. The point is that the definition of "theft" is too narrow to include copyright infringement.
OK, if you define morality as "personal interests", then I suppose I'm just as moral as everyone else.
But how in the world is the golden rule based on personal interests? It's based on upholding other people's interests, using what I would feel in that situation as an approximation of those people's interests. It has nothing to do with serving my own. "Serving my own interests" is sociopathy, definitely not the golden rule.
P.S. I am not a sociopath, which is probably genetically determined. I simply wish I were.
Allow me to point out the only two possible scenarios if I like the band and want their music:
1) I like the band and buy their CD for $15. The record label adds this to their Big Pot o'Money. If this Big Pot o'Money is full enough, the artist will produce another CD.
2) I like the band and infringe on their copyright. No money goes to the record label. If their Big Pot o'Money is full enough, the artist will produce another CD.
It's extremely unlikely that my $15 will be the deciding factor. And don't give me the bullshit "if everyone thought that way..." argument that people use to get other people to go vote. It's simply logically ridiculous.
Wrong. Theft: taking what does not belong to you without the permission of the person to whom it belongs.
My interests are defined by whatrever will increase my total happiness over the course of my life. Capping a bunch of people will not, thus, it does not serve my interest.
I wasn't talking about whether it's moral or not. I was talking about whether it's theft or not, which is an entirely different subject. I see no reason to qualify the RIAA as "thieves".
Going out and capping everyone I can find would violate my personal interests, none of which have to do with morality.