...except the spokesman. This bit seems extraordinarily reasonable to me:
'But at a certain point, a mature, thinking individual stops and says, "I've got to make a cost-benefit analysis [of] what ways it is enriching my life, [and] in what ways it is undermining it."
Even better, make it a condition that while they are under 18, they a) have to be your friend on Facebook and b) have to let you know the password. It's a far simpler solution than monitoring network traffic, as you say.
You appear to believe that Game of Thrones is melodrama (it's drama; if you don't understand this difference, you need to go study up on what each means), it depicts their daily lives (rather than the epic war between factions, with a month or more between some episodes), the characters have no depth or development (although not all are diving depth, that's expected of a character that dies within two episodes of being introduced; John Snow, Tyrion, and many others, have taken a fucking journey already, and have plenty of time to go barring their death), and that there's open ended writing to the books (as yet unwritten, but the author of the books did give the HBO producers the main plot points in case he dies,, indicating there's a fairly well formed ending point; the HBO series' dialogue is lifted DIRECTLY from the books).
Game of Thrones has dialogue that's almost exactly the same as the books; most scenes are directly from the books, and just changed a bit because of the change of medium.
That's a fairly weak argument. A counterexample using the same logic is that the US used to have legalized slavery, so it's ok if the Chinese do it too.
A mathematical majority (half plus one) doesn't mean you can pass a bill in Congress; 50 and 60 are far different in their power in the Senate. If you don't have 60, you're basically unable to pass legislation without someone from the other side helping you.
Any company with an employee (you know, the ones who'd be interviewing potential employees) is almost guaranteed to be registered at a minimum under a LLC - just like the vast majority of small businesses.
Yeah, because the US didn't cause its own problems in the banking sector which hurt the rest of the economy....they may have helped it along a bit by causing a not-insignificant amount of debt fighting a war, but they're not the reason for the current economic situation by a long shot.
If the scope of the Catholic Church child molestation conspiracy is any indication, the estimated size of the global child porn conspiracy is right around correct.
"Income redistribution" - stealing from the rich and giving to the poor - pretty much guarantees that the money will be used unwisely, because that's how the poor became poor in the first place: unwise, unsupervised use of money.
I like how you left out the possibility that they didn't have any money to begin with, which is the reality in the vast majority of cases. The only time it's not true is when someone falls from the upper or middle class into a lower class by their own doing - which isn't the most common way by a long shot...
The problem is that a corporation, unlike a massive grassroots protest, is largely controlled by the wealthy, and will be used in most instances to further the goals of those at the top, rather than the group as a whole. This give the impression that a company's entire workforce (10,000 people) is pushing for something, when in reality it's the C-level executives and the board (30 people) who are the ones benefiting from it. There are sure to be instances where what the 30 are pushing for is a boon to the entire company, but there's also the likelihood that a significant portion of stances taken "as a corporation" will be done in the advancement of only the 30.
GP's point is that they're not just benefiting from the programs, but taking taxpayer dollars to build a plant. Those taxpayer dollars could be going to fund some of the programs, but instead are diverted to Apple's expansion - even though they have billions in cash that they "don't know what to do with".
Forcing everything to use one specific architecture, regardless as to how efficient it is at specific objectives related to the overall product (i.e. efficiency, multimedia processing, scientific calculations, etc..), isn't a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
...except the spokesman. This bit seems extraordinarily reasonable to me:
'But at a certain point, a mature, thinking individual stops and says, "I've got to make a cost-benefit analysis [of] what ways it is enriching my life, [and] in what ways it is undermining it."
Even better, just use both SkyDrive and Dropbox on the same folder. Problem solved.
All taking an Ethics class showed me was that anything can be justified by one of the many lines of reasoning used to create ethical principles...
Even better, make it a condition that while they are under 18, they a) have to be your friend on Facebook and b) have to let you know the password. It's a far simpler solution than monitoring network traffic, as you say.
You appear to believe that Game of Thrones is melodrama (it's drama; if you don't understand this difference, you need to go study up on what each means), it depicts their daily lives (rather than the epic war between factions, with a month or more between some episodes), the characters have no depth or development (although not all are diving depth, that's expected of a character that dies within two episodes of being introduced; John Snow, Tyrion, and many others, have taken a fucking journey already, and have plenty of time to go barring their death), and that there's open ended writing to the books (as yet unwritten, but the author of the books did give the HBO producers the main plot points in case he dies,, indicating there's a fairly well formed ending point; the HBO series' dialogue is lifted DIRECTLY from the books).
Game of Thrones has dialogue that's almost exactly the same as the books; most scenes are directly from the books, and just changed a bit because of the change of medium.
That's a fairly weak argument. A counterexample using the same logic is that the US used to have legalized slavery, so it's ok if the Chinese do it too.
Looks like you failed economics. They're supposed to produce the maximum amount that gives them the best return on their marginal investment.
No, he earned his share in Facebook in the US, and held onto it until now, when he'd have to pay up.
Don't forget that many don't get rich by being in Congress, but by business deals - many of which take place long before their Congressional careers.
A mathematical majority (half plus one) doesn't mean you can pass a bill in Congress; 50 and 60 are far different in their power in the Senate. If you don't have 60, you're basically unable to pass legislation without someone from the other side helping you.
Yeah, but the GP is talking about using the same password everywhere, which is only an issue regarding the password, and not the data behind it.
The court here just ruled in such a way that a browser's cached images alone may not be enough to establish intent.
Depends on what algorithm they use. It's not like they're going to get your password out of MD5.
Any company with an employee (you know, the ones who'd be interviewing potential employees) is almost guaranteed to be registered at a minimum under a LLC - just like the vast majority of small businesses.
That requires that the hacking is not authorized. There's a whole industry of people that get paid to hack.
The best food in the world, tainted by radioactivity? God damnit!
Yeah, because the US didn't cause its own problems in the banking sector which hurt the rest of the economy....they may have helped it along a bit by causing a not-insignificant amount of debt fighting a war, but they're not the reason for the current economic situation by a long shot.
If the scope of the Catholic Church child molestation conspiracy is any indication, the estimated size of the global child porn conspiracy is right around correct.
It's still in the works...
"Income redistribution" - stealing from the rich and giving to the poor - pretty much guarantees that the money will be used unwisely, because that's how the poor became poor in the first place: unwise, unsupervised use of money.
I like how you left out the possibility that they didn't have any money to begin with, which is the reality in the vast majority of cases. The only time it's not true is when someone falls from the upper or middle class into a lower class by their own doing - which isn't the most common way by a long shot...
The problem is that a corporation, unlike a massive grassroots protest, is largely controlled by the wealthy, and will be used in most instances to further the goals of those at the top, rather than the group as a whole. This give the impression that a company's entire workforce (10,000 people) is pushing for something, when in reality it's the C-level executives and the board (30 people) who are the ones benefiting from it. There are sure to be instances where what the 30 are pushing for is a boon to the entire company, but there's also the likelihood that a significant portion of stances taken "as a corporation" will be done in the advancement of only the 30.
GP's point is that they're not just benefiting from the programs, but taking taxpayer dollars to build a plant. Those taxpayer dollars could be going to fund some of the programs, but instead are diverted to Apple's expansion - even though they have billions in cash that they "don't know what to do with".
Good thing you can unlike things as well, otherwise we'd all be screwed...
Forcing everything to use one specific architecture, regardless as to how efficient it is at specific objectives related to the overall product (i.e. efficiency, multimedia processing, scientific calculations, etc..), isn't a bad thing?