Even though the average EU resident might not dig certain arts himself, he generally recognizes their value to society and the need for continuing state support.
"What a mindjob!" (referring of course to the average EU resident)
In any event, I am no more averse to freeriding than you are. But for someone who does not recognize copyright as a natural inalienable right (I stumbled upon your post in the EU copyright article) I figured that this stance was based on the primacy of natural inalienable rights, such as the right of a person do as he wishes with his physical property (arranging bits on a hard drive, for example).
In light of this, the fact that you seem OK with at least some people being forced to give up their property to subsidize something they don't care to have is puzzling to me. Does this create cognitive dissonance for you?
"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire."
5. [pure personal intuition] Nowadays, mouth-to-mouth is still the best way to spread Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, and hey, the initial mouths know where to get it, and that won't be Best Buy. And that relates to your comment.
Emphasis is mine.
Either this guy is only telling women about Ubuntu, or I'm glad he didn't tell me about Ubuntu!
I would guess that fgaliegue is a native Spanish speaker. "Word-of-mouth" is "boca a boca" in Spanish, literally "mouth to mouth".
I'm not saying that I never download anything, but 99% of the content I do download is not for sale in my continent and the company who owns the works has refused to offer the content for foreigners (even for a fee,) so I have rationalized the "No Damages" defense. So what's up with that 1%?
Or has science devolved to the point where we just change the definitions to give us the answers we want, rather than looking at the evidence and following it to where it leads?
Yes, (see: species problem, non-linear dynamical systems, HIV-AIDS causality, lipid hypothesis, GLOBAL WARMING,...)
Software chosen by government tends to trickle down to corporations, which tends to trickle down to home users (although to a lesser extent). So if Microsoft software were to be replaced in EU governments it would eventually influence a population that's larger than the US and Canada combined.
The question should be: "Should government be excluded from all purchases?".
By increasing the risk, in aggregate accross thousands of gun owners, there is plenty of 'harm and foul'. The question remains, is the harm that *will* be caused, really less than the harm that is averted? We might as well just go fishing at this point, given the can of worms you just opened up by broaching the notion of (in your argument, "actuarian") causality.:-)
"Agreed. Operative phrase being 'without harming others'.
But then you jump from "without harming others" to "actually increases the risk of harm, especially to others, with no appreciable real increase in their own safety"
"Harming others" is not the same as "risk of harming others". Heck, even attempted murder is not the same as murder.
Merely owning a gun does not harm others; it may increase the risk of that but, no harm, no foul.
I don't know the answer to those questions.
I do know I hear daily about some gun being misused, or accidently fired, or used in a fit of passion... I don't often hear about people who were able to fend off murderer/rapists with their gun. Call it media bias if you want... but until I see a REAL credible study done... well... I have serious doubts that guns will make me safer. I firmly beleive, for my own family, that the odds of the kids having an accident with it, FAR exceed the odds we'll get our home invaded by a murderous/rapist. But that's just me.
Yes, that's just you. You are absolutely entitled to act in a way that you believe serves your best interests, without harming others. So do people who believe that having a gun makes them safer.
Didn't say everything, I said most stuff. Cyanide in moderation is probably pretty bad for you. Sorry about jumping from "most stuff" to "everything", and I do appreciate the wisdom that people try to convey by recommending "moderation". Indeed, I have tried to implement this advice in my own personal quest for "happiness" or "balance".
The problem is that aside from being subjective (a "moderate" amount for one person may be "excessive" for another), such statements always parse to a tautology (A=A).
P.S.: Cyanide: Medical uses
The cyanide compound sodium nitroprusside is occasionally used in emergency medical situations to produce a rapid decrease in blood pressure in humans; it is also used as a vasodilator in vascular research. The molecule of Vitamin B12 usually also contains cyanide.
I occasionally indulge in "moderate" cyanide consumption (in vitamin B12) in order to regain my "balance" after inadvertently imbibing alcohol in "excess".
...you're more inclined to buy something you don't want if you think you're getting a deal or getting away with something. That's because what you really want is getting a deal or getting away with something and you're willing to pay the cost of "putting up with something you don't want" for the privilege.
Old news flash: most stuff is okay as long as you enjoy it in moderation. I'll say it again: statements like "Everything is OK in moderation" or "Anything in excess is harmful" are tautologies and therefore meaningless.
I'm actually impressed with how dead on a lot of the predictions are. Most predictions from the 60s and 70s were outrageous. And it's not even Nov. 18 yet!
Women in Denmark have larger breasts than women in Canada. There are more moose in Canada than in Denmark. So more moose means smaller breasts. That's only because moose (Alces alces) are called elk in Europe.
I wonder the same thing whenever I hear some addiction being defined as "excessive (insert activity here)." Who gets to define excessive? What's excessive for me may not be for you. What is even more bothersome than the subjectivity of assertions such as "Everything should be done in moderation" or "Too much (or too little) of anything is bad for you" is the fact that they are tautologies, and therefore, meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
Know the answer to that question you should...
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
There, fixed!
Even though the average EU resident might not dig certain arts himself, he generally recognizes their value to society and the need for continuing state support.
"What a mindjob!" (referring of course to the average EU resident)
In any event, I am no more averse to freeriding than you are. But for someone who does not recognize copyright as a natural inalienable right (I stumbled upon your post in the EU copyright article) I figured that this stance was based on the primacy of natural inalienable rights, such as the right of a person do as he wishes with his physical property (arranging bits on a hard drive, for example).
In light of this, the fact that you seem OK with at least some people being forced to give up their property to subsidize something they don't care to have is puzzling to me. Does this create cognitive dissonance for you?
So let me get this straight.
1. You enjoy the "quality" service.
2. It needs to be subsidized because there are not enough people like you to make it commercially viable.
3. So essentially, everybody else is paying for something they don't want for the enjoyment of the select few like you.
Sounds like a sweet deal.
The guy (or gal) was etching those stones using a friggin' lightning bolt from his cloud in the sky... that's pretty damned impressive.
So it was "flash" memory after all?
No, more like Matthew 18:8.
"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire."
Hmm, +5 Insightful. A lot of mods must agree with you.
Oh just leave the gal alone. So she made some stupid pop hits in the 80s and then tried to revive her career by posing for Playboy.
Comment works for Debbie Gibson too. Just fix the link!
5. [pure personal intuition] Nowadays, mouth-to-mouth is still the best way to spread Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, and hey, the initial mouths know where to get it, and that won't be Best Buy. And that relates to your comment.
Emphasis is mine.
Either this guy is only telling women about Ubuntu, or I'm glad he didn't tell me about Ubuntu!
I would guess that fgaliegue is a native Spanish speaker. "Word-of-mouth" is "boca a boca" in Spanish, literally "mouth to mouth".
The "Premier" was the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, ya know, Stalin, Krushchev, etc.
When I first heard about the name change, this was the immediate association that came to mind.
Or has science devolved to the point where we just change the definitions to give us the answers we want, rather than looking at the evidence and following it to where it leads?
Yes, (see: species problem, non-linear dynamical systems, HIV-AIDS causality, lipid hypothesis, GLOBAL WARMING,...)The question should be: "Should government be excluded from all purchases?".
Lyle: I'm gonna get a NAD T-770 digital decoder with a seventy-watt amp and and Burr Brown D.A.C.'s.
Hansome Rob: [at a loss] Yeah...
Lyle: It's a big stereo. Speakers so loud, they blow women's clothes off.
Handsome Rob: Now you're talking!
Oblig. Wiki primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
"Agreed. Operative phrase being 'without harming others'.
But then you jump from "without harming others" to "actually increases the risk of harm, especially to others, with no appreciable real increase in their own safety"
"Harming others" is not the same as "risk of harming others". Heck, even attempted murder is not the same as murder.
Merely owning a gun does not harm others; it may increase the risk of that but, no harm, no foul.
Yes, that's just you. You are absolutely entitled to act in a way that you believe serves your best interests, without harming others. So do people who believe that having a gun makes them safer.
The problem is that aside from being subjective (a "moderate" amount for one person may be "excessive" for another), such statements always parse to a tautology (A=A).
P.S.: Cyanide: Medical uses The cyanide compound sodium nitroprusside is occasionally used in emergency medical situations to produce a rapid decrease in blood pressure in humans; it is also used as a vasodilator in vascular research. The molecule of Vitamin B12 usually also contains cyanide.
I occasionally indulge in "moderate" cyanide consumption (in vitamin B12) in order to regain my "balance" after inadvertently imbibing alcohol in "excess".
Cheers.
...you're more inclined to buy something you don't want if you think you're getting a deal or getting away with something. That's because what you really want is getting a deal or getting away with something and you're willing to pay the cost of "putting up with something you don't want" for the privilege.Sorry, but parent should be modded -1 Redundant
It's simpler than that--since the "extinguish" part is already accomplished, no need to "embrace" or "extend"!
That's only because moose (Alces alces) are called elk in Europe.