Nah. You don't get it. The people buying shares in companies are looking for growth. If there's no growth, they make no profit
No, you don't seem to understand. A company does not have to grow to be profitable on the stock market. They just have to make a profit. And, the people buying shares look for many different qualities, it's called diversification. Along with a potential growth stock, many willalso buy a mature company that isn't growing but pays dividends, to balance out the portfolio.
I'm personally going to disagree with you mainly because I think the type of statement you're making undermines the freedom of speech (and religion) that western society is based on;
How so? They are free to express their offense at seeing computer-generated characters kiss. Others are free to call them bigots for saying that. That's all free speech. It's not like anybody is censoring them. In fact, it's usually that kind of person who wants things like this censored.
it is the type of statement that prevents open (and honest) discussion on any subject
How so? "They are bigots for thinking that" is an honest statement. It would be less honest dialog if you suppressed that. Just like it would be less honest if you suppressed the bigots talking about what "offends" them. I think it's better to have this stuff out in the open. An honest debate is not one where people change their words to appear politically correct.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
Well it could, depending on the will of the electorate and politicians. We are talking hypotheticals here, after all. In a world where corporations weren't afforded legal protections, why would you assume that everything else remains the same?
Actually in many cases regulations make it harder for a new competitor to enter a market to the benefit of already established businesses.
That's true in some cases, but in many cases it has the opposite effect. For example, anti-trust regulation, or government regulations that allowed new players besides Ma Bell to enter the market. So, things aren't as black-and-white as many make them out to be.
I never argued that there weren't regulations that make it more difficult to enter the market. Just that not all of them do.
First of all, neither Texas, nor any other US state would execute anyone over an accidental death
I don't think the grandparent was talking about accidental deaths, but deaths caused by gross negligence. I'm pretty sure you can get big jail time if your child dies due to your negligence. So, why not if an employee dies?
"Competitively" is a good thing - because state help shifts the burden of business' poor planning from this business to the taxpayer. There is also no "middle ground" - either you have help or you don't, you succeed by your own merits or have assistance or gimped opponents.
But what if the State does the opposit of helping - i.e enact regulations that shift the burden from the taxpayer to the private corporation, and make corporations responsible for actions like pollution and product safety? That's not "free" and it's not "helping" - so I guess there must be more than two options, huh?
If you are really a fan of a free market, you'd understand the reality that regulation means that it isn't free. Restrictions mean it isn't free. Taxation means it isn't free. Licensing means it isn't free.
How can the market be free if the government isn't free to participate in it? Are these "free market" people scared of a little competition or something?
Regulations, licensing, taxations, embargoes, tariffs, duties and other "pro-market" structures are "legal" uses of force by the State for one thing and one thing only: to take care of the businesses friendly with the State.
What about regulations that encourage more competition? In many cases, lack of regulation would lead to less competition. So, lack of regulation can also be a way for the state to "help business."
There's no way Wonder Woman's breasts could be that perky. It defies physics! And who but a crackpot would create an invisible aircraft that left the pilot perfectly visible?
The only reason to claim a network is not "fair and balanced" is because it doesn't fit your political agenda.
No, there are many other reasons - for example, when networks refuse to report certain facts. Or when they treat all opinions as "equal" - when the facts show that some of those opinions are actually incorrect.
So, you are denying that Japan has a homogenous culture? That's very difficult to believe. Are you saying there isn't a strong culture of misogyny? I may be wrong on suicide rates, though.
Last I heard we fund public education significantly more than Japan does, yet Japan public education (at least on an elementary level) far outstrips most of what one can find in the United States.
Perhaps by some measures, but Japan is a very homogenous culture. How well do they cope with multiculturalism? There is also extreme stress, and high rates of suicide in Japanese culture. There is little allowance for individualism, and problems like misogyny are rife.
What's the point in being number one in math, if life is so fucked up? An education system has to deal with the real world, and that includes the social and cultural, not just measurements of grades.
I dunno. How is the black-on-white scheme "forced" on you, when you can change the colours to your preference?
Also, having the letters themselves be a light source isn't too good, because you get an after-image of the letters which is very annoying. It's like burn-in on your retina. This doesn't happen so much with white letters, because your eyes adapt to the overall brightness.
I'm not sure why you need a cite for that. It's very widely known:
Walden "Wally" O'Dell, the chairman of the board and chief executive of Diebold. For years, O'Dell has given generously to Republican candidates. Last September, he held a packed $1,000-per-head GOP fundraiser at his 10,800-square-foot mansion. He has been feted as a guest at President Bush's Texas ranch, joining a cadre of "Pioneers and Rangers" who have pledged to raise more than $100,000 for the Bush reelection campaign. Most memorably, O'Dell last fall penned a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."
He's talking about the Republicans suddenly getting interested in voting fraud when leftists might be involved in the machines (Venezuela), but ignoring the problem when their own right-wing stooges are involved (Diebold). You may want to try reading comprehension before you get outraged.
Which raises the question: why have the watch lists in the first place? I think they are more psychological than anything else: they give the impression that there is a continuing threat, they give the impression that the government is doing something,
Ummm, I think you answered your own question there. So, why ask it?
Screw that. Why bother? Again, this is a "feature" that offers no benefit for the reader. Why should I have to go back and look at a history to see what changed? Also, how about making sure you have written what you wanted to write in the first place? The ability to edit just makes people lazier in their writing.
I think it has very little to do with paper and ink. It's just the most effective color combination for most purposes. At least in my opinion. Black is too much of a gaping void. Colored backgrounds aren't neutral enough*. I don't think it's about ludditism. Remember that in the early days of the web, they "progressed beyond" the ink-and-paper paradigm, and the majority of websites used colored backgrounds and text. God, that was awful! I don't think it's a coincidence that as the web has matured and evolved, we have gone back to black-on-white.
Of course, things will eventually go full-circle, and we will go beyond the LCD into things like electronic ink and passive displays. White would make the most sense for a passive display, for reading outdoors, or in dim light, etc.
* I was actually kind of fond of the light-blue-on-dark blue color scheme of the Commodore 64. It worked really well with the low-resolution graphics, and poor-quality displays (or TV sets used as displays). White didn't work very well with those displays. But for some reason, the exact same color scheme does not translate well to modern high-resolution monitors. I'm not sure why that is. What looks fine on a C64 looks like utter crap on a modern desktop.
"The "contract" should be agreed upon before the point of sale, which means that there isn't any need to display it at install time."
So, how does that work if you are buying it as a gift for someone else?
You're coming from the standpoint of someone who knows these things even exist. Lots of people don't--they go to the store, buy a piece of software, and plan on installing it. They don't know the provisions of the EULA. Even if they know there is a EULA (despite being standard on software, there is no NEED for one) they don't know what is contained therein. They don't know what they will have to agree to in order to install the software.
Well, if someone isn't going to bother even reading, how is it going to make any difference whether it comes before or after the point-of-sale? If someone's going to ignore it anyway, then it becomes pretty irrelevant, doesn't it?
The EULA should be clearly available on the software package.
Well, I agree that's probably a good idea. Do you think the customer should also have to sign the agreement before using the software? That would remove a lot of ambiguity. However, it would also give the agreement teeth. I guess the benefit to non-read click-through agreements is that it gives the customer some chance to plead ignorance, and I'm not sure on how legally binding they actually are. Have there been any definitive test-cases on whether they are valid contracts?
It would be intereswting if everybody had to sign legally-binding contracts in order to use software. I'm not sure what the results would be. I'm guessing it might be worse than click-through agreements, as people would still not read them, but would be much more tightly bound to the terms of the EULA.
I have no idea how Apple operates in this regard. I do know that Microsoft's EULA isn't printed on the box, and that Best Buy does not have a copy at the registers.
Well, "how Apple operates in this regard" is rather pertinent, don't you think? After all, this story is all about Apple software.
I think at this point, if a prospective software purchaser doesn't know that software has license agreements, they might be deliberately ignorant or too stupid to operate software. I don't think printing them on the box, or having them on the cash register is going to make anybody read them anymore than having them available online. I don't like EULAs, but you know what they say about leading a horse to water.
Uggh. White text on a black background looks horrible. Other colour combinations are equally ineffective. I, for one, am glad we have progressed beyond the days of green text on a black background. Perhaps you have your monitor turned up too bright?
Slashdot Mirror
No, you don't seem to understand. A company does not have to grow to be profitable on the stock market. They just have to make a profit. And, the people buying shares look for many different qualities, it's called diversification. Along with a potential growth stock, many willalso buy a mature company that isn't growing but pays dividends, to balance out the portfolio.
Sketch-Up is made by a different company, not Google.
Those guys tend to be repressed gays. They have a fascination with homosexuality, which is why they feel "disgusted." It's actually latent attraction.
After all, why would a heterosexual guy dislike homosexuality? It means there are more women to go around!
How so? They are free to express their offense at seeing computer-generated characters kiss. Others are free to call them bigots for saying that. That's all free speech. It's not like anybody is censoring them. In fact, it's usually that kind of person who wants things like this censored.
it is the type of statement that prevents open (and honest) discussion on any subject
How so? "They are bigots for thinking that" is an honest statement. It would be less honest dialog if you suppressed that. Just like it would be less honest if you suppressed the bigots talking about what "offends" them. I think it's better to have this stuff out in the open. An honest debate is not one where people change their words to appear politically correct.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
Au contraire, it is the best merger name ever. It made you laugh - how often do you get that kind of value out of company names?
Well it could, depending on the will of the electorate and politicians. We are talking hypotheticals here, after all. In a world where corporations weren't afforded legal protections, why would you assume that everything else remains the same?
That's true in some cases, but in many cases it has the opposite effect. For example, anti-trust regulation, or government regulations that allowed new players besides Ma Bell to enter the market. So, things aren't as black-and-white as many make them out to be.
I never argued that there weren't regulations that make it more difficult to enter the market. Just that not all of them do.
I don't think the grandparent was talking about accidental deaths, but deaths caused by gross negligence. I'm pretty sure you can get big jail time if your child dies due to your negligence. So, why not if an employee dies?
Horseshit. What's to stop a company creating barriers to entry without government help?
In a free market, competition ALWAYS appears, even if the cost to enter the market is high.
Got any evidence of that? Have you got numbers from studying a 100% free market for eternity?
But what if the State does the opposit of helping - i.e enact regulations that shift the burden from the taxpayer to the private corporation, and make corporations responsible for actions like pollution and product safety? That's not "free" and it's not "helping" - so I guess there must be more than two options, huh?
How can the market be free if the government isn't free to participate in it? Are these "free market" people scared of a little competition or something?
Regulations, licensing, taxations, embargoes, tariffs, duties and other "pro-market" structures are "legal" uses of force by the State for one thing and one thing only: to take care of the businesses friendly with the State.
What about regulations that encourage more competition? In many cases, lack of regulation would lead to less competition. So, lack of regulation can also be a way for the state to "help business."
There's no way Wonder Woman's breasts could be that perky. It defies physics! And who but a crackpot would create an invisible aircraft that left the pilot perfectly visible?
No, there are many other reasons - for example, when networks refuse to report certain facts. Or when they treat all opinions as "equal" - when the facts show that some of those opinions are actually incorrect.
So, you are denying that Japan has a homogenous culture? That's very difficult to believe. Are you saying there isn't a strong culture of misogyny? I may be wrong on suicide rates, though.
Perhaps by some measures, but Japan is a very homogenous culture. How well do they cope with multiculturalism? There is also extreme stress, and high rates of suicide in Japanese culture. There is little allowance for individualism, and problems like misogyny are rife.
What's the point in being number one in math, if life is so fucked up? An education system has to deal with the real world, and that includes the social and cultural, not just measurements of grades.
Also, having the letters themselves be a light source isn't too good, because you get an after-image of the letters which is very annoying. It's like burn-in on your retina. This doesn't happen so much with white letters, because your eyes adapt to the overall brightness.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/20 04/03/03_200.html
Many, many more details at that link.
He's talking about the Republicans suddenly getting interested in voting fraud when leftists might be involved in the machines (Venezuela), but ignoring the problem when their own right-wing stooges are involved (Diebold). You may want to try reading comprehension before you get outraged.
Ummm, I think you answered your own question there. So, why ask it?
I don't think "parent" is one of the mod options.
Screw that. Why bother? Again, this is a "feature" that offers no benefit for the reader. Why should I have to go back and look at a history to see what changed? Also, how about making sure you have written what you wanted to write in the first place? The ability to edit just makes people lazier in their writing.
Of course, things will eventually go full-circle, and we will go beyond the LCD into things like electronic ink and passive displays. White would make the most sense for a passive display, for reading outdoors, or in dim light, etc.
* I was actually kind of fond of the light-blue-on-dark blue color scheme of the Commodore 64. It worked really well with the low-resolution graphics, and poor-quality displays (or TV sets used as displays). White didn't work very well with those displays. But for some reason, the exact same color scheme does not translate well to modern high-resolution monitors. I'm not sure why that is. What looks fine on a C64 looks like utter crap on a modern desktop.
So, how does that work if you are buying it as a gift for someone else?
You're coming from the standpoint of someone who knows these things even exist. Lots of people don't--they go to the store, buy a piece of software, and plan on installing it. They don't know the provisions of the EULA. Even if they know there is a EULA (despite being standard on software, there is no NEED for one) they don't know what is contained therein. They don't know what they will have to agree to in order to install the software.
Well, if someone isn't going to bother even reading, how is it going to make any difference whether it comes before or after the point-of-sale? If someone's going to ignore it anyway, then it becomes pretty irrelevant, doesn't it?
The EULA should be clearly available on the software package.
Well, I agree that's probably a good idea. Do you think the customer should also have to sign the agreement before using the software? That would remove a lot of ambiguity. However, it would also give the agreement teeth. I guess the benefit to non-read click-through agreements is that it gives the customer some chance to plead ignorance, and I'm not sure on how legally binding they actually are. Have there been any definitive test-cases on whether they are valid contracts?
It would be intereswting if everybody had to sign legally-binding contracts in order to use software. I'm not sure what the results would be. I'm guessing it might be worse than click-through agreements, as people would still not read them, but would be much more tightly bound to the terms of the EULA.
I have no idea how Apple operates in this regard. I do know that Microsoft's EULA isn't printed on the box, and that Best Buy does not have a copy at the registers.
Well, "how Apple operates in this regard" is rather pertinent, don't you think? After all, this story is all about Apple software.
I think at this point, if a prospective software purchaser doesn't know that software has license agreements, they might be deliberately ignorant or too stupid to operate software. I don't think printing them on the box, or having them on the cash register is going to make anybody read them anymore than having them available online. I don't like EULAs, but you know what they say about leading a horse to water.
Uggh. White text on a black background looks horrible. Other colour combinations are equally ineffective. I, for one, am glad we have progressed beyond the days of green text on a black background. Perhaps you have your monitor turned up too bright?
Dude, the sky is red. At least some of the time.