However, some people believe that people won't start giving to others unless they're used to doing so already or pressured into giving, and these learned behaviors, once in place, will degrade without any reinforcement or punishment to make clear the benefits of giving. Most charities don't allow you to directly see the impact your money has on their operation, which means no positive reinforcement. Unless you have personal issues where you feel badly unless you give, there's no negative reinforcement. You won't see what gets added or subtracted from society because the charities fail, which leaves out punishment of all sorts.
So, I wonder, how do you libertarians actually propose that people change and learn new behaviors, if there is no feedback resulting from the vast majority of their actions, and the feedback they do get is completely unclear as to it's source behavior?
You know, they could turn this into awesome PR. "The founder of Facebook agrees with our new privacy controls, and really doesn't mind, so the new controls must be awesome!"
What it isn't ridiculous to claim, however, is that carbon dioxide will, over time, be released from stores underground into the atmosphere. These stores, when they were in the atmosphere millions of years ago, contributed to a warmer climate worldwide. We don't know the level of contribution, but they will eventually, at an indeterminate time, help the climate change if we don't do something about it.
I'm fairly sure this applies only to music bought with DRM before the store moved to all DRM-free music. I'm also fairly sure this had to do with Apple having to pay more in licensing fees to the **AAs because of the removal of DRM.
You're missing a giant point. China definitely has the ability to perform R&D, and if we stop, they can get ahead pretty quickly. Then we won't have the highest -tech, best state-of-the-art planes that also have been used and tested, and we'll be behind easily.
One thing to consider is that by leaving talent at software companies, the software where their products are used is improved, thus still allowing them to improve their users' experiences with Google. This philosophy of leaving talent at other technology companies is essentially a recognition by Google that they're in a symbiotic relationship with other tech companies (namely, OS creators, browser creators, programming language creators and maintainers, hardware creators....), and they're reacting accordingly by not leeching from the companies that allow them to succeed. It really doesn't matter whether Microsoft likes the fact that Google beats them at the internet advertising game, Google enhances Microsoft users' experiences too.
Another angle to look at this whole thing from is that Google doesn't want to take all the talent from other web advertising companies (Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.) because they don't want to kill off every one of their competitors. In the case of these companies, it's a defense mechanism against being caught in antitrust lawsuits and monopoly status
It's actually remarkably smart for Google to point this out, because if their supporters (the non-web companies) realize the nature of the relationship between themselves and Google, things will just become sweeter between them, and make it much easier for them both to succeed since they won't be fighting each other over resources that they help each other acquire.
This road, however, doesn't have hills, has no line-of-sight issues, and no turns. This is a straight, flat road with perfect visibility, and there's no reason for that truck full of logs to slow down.
In Canada, if a small company sues Microsoft for a legitimate infringement, Microsoft can just delay the case until the smaller company has no more money to fight. Then, there's a very cheap company sitting on the stock exchange, which they know about, that has a patent they could use.
Yeah, I'm fairly sure that when you build a road, they sell it as "55MPH capable", and everyone can safely drive 55mph. If the ISP's want to sell a connection as 10/1, why should they be able to say "You can only use it for applications we approve, and only at a utilization of X."? I think that selling 10/1, you should provide 10/1, not "We call it 10/1, but will block you if we think you're using exactly what we sell you."
Uh, have you ever used ZSNES? I'm fairly sure it runs just about every SNES game ever made with the same accuracy that a Wii would, if it had someone tweak every single 'ROM' for the platform as is done for Wii.
....are you implying that, if you zoom out from the solar system, out farther and farther, we actually happen to be on the Joker's chin in the 60's Batman TV show?
Those were also the "good old days" when people (meaning your average person, not our species as a whole) didn't know nearly as much about the dangers of smoking.
Tar residue caked onto unventilated chips and heat sinks means the components will be running hotter, and die quicker. I imagine the damage isn't extensive, but a gradual buildup of tar over the course of a couple years from a heavy smoker almost definitely isn't a negligible increase.
"Marriage" isn't religious. If you don't want to performs same-sex marriages in your church, then don't. There shouldn't be anyone forcing you to marry any given couple that walks in through your doors.
However, the word marriage isn't a religious term. Get over the fact that it's really a legal thing, as there is no real religious basis for marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
Government isn't attacking its own citizens. The citizens are getting caught in the crossfire between government and terrorists.
I eat pussy
[citation needed]
However, some people believe that people won't start giving to others unless they're used to doing so already or pressured into giving, and these learned behaviors, once in place, will degrade without any reinforcement or punishment to make clear the benefits of giving. Most charities don't allow you to directly see the impact your money has on their operation, which means no positive reinforcement. Unless you have personal issues where you feel badly unless you give, there's no negative reinforcement. You won't see what gets added or subtracted from society because the charities fail, which leaves out punishment of all sorts.
So, I wonder, how do you libertarians actually propose that people change and learn new behaviors, if there is no feedback resulting from the vast majority of their actions, and the feedback they do get is completely unclear as to it's source behavior?
You know, they could turn this into awesome PR. "The founder of Facebook agrees with our new privacy controls, and really doesn't mind, so the new controls must be awesome!"
What it isn't ridiculous to claim, however, is that carbon dioxide will, over time, be released from stores underground into the atmosphere. These stores, when they were in the atmosphere millions of years ago, contributed to a warmer climate worldwide. We don't know the level of contribution, but they will eventually, at an indeterminate time, help the climate change if we don't do something about it.
I'm fairly sure this applies only to music bought with DRM before the store moved to all DRM-free music. I'm also fairly sure this had to do with Apple having to pay more in licensing fees to the **AAs because of the removal of DRM.
If you're going to make that parallel, might I point out how amazingly well AOL has been doing since then.
Spending 41.5% of the total world military budget is very, very close to outspending the rest of the world combined. We're only 8.5% away.
You're missing a giant point. China definitely has the ability to perform R&D, and if we stop, they can get ahead pretty quickly. Then we won't have the highest -tech, best state-of-the-art planes that also have been used and tested, and we'll be behind easily.
One thing to consider is that by leaving talent at software companies, the software where their products are used is improved, thus still allowing them to improve their users' experiences with Google. This philosophy of leaving talent at other technology companies is essentially a recognition by Google that they're in a symbiotic relationship with other tech companies (namely, OS creators, browser creators, programming language creators and maintainers, hardware creators....), and they're reacting accordingly by not leeching from the companies that allow them to succeed. It really doesn't matter whether Microsoft likes the fact that Google beats them at the internet advertising game, Google enhances Microsoft users' experiences too.
Another angle to look at this whole thing from is that Google doesn't want to take all the talent from other web advertising companies (Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.) because they don't want to kill off every one of their competitors. In the case of these companies, it's a defense mechanism against being caught in antitrust lawsuits and monopoly status
It's actually remarkably smart for Google to point this out, because if their supporters (the non-web companies) realize the nature of the relationship between themselves and Google, things will just become sweeter between them, and make it much easier for them both to succeed since they won't be fighting each other over resources that they help each other acquire.
This road, however, doesn't have hills, has no line-of-sight issues, and no turns. This is a straight, flat road with perfect visibility, and there's no reason for that truck full of logs to slow down.
Odds are, they are a part of the audience of American Idol.
In Canada, if a small company sues Microsoft for a legitimate infringement, Microsoft can just delay the case until the smaller company has no more money to fight. Then, there's a very cheap company sitting on the stock exchange, which they know about, that has a patent they could use.
Yeah, I'm fairly sure that when you build a road, they sell it as "55MPH capable", and everyone can safely drive 55mph. If the ISP's want to sell a connection as 10/1, why should they be able to say "You can only use it for applications we approve, and only at a utilization of X."? I think that selling 10/1, you should provide 10/1, not "We call it 10/1, but will block you if we think you're using exactly what we sell you."
I'm fairly sure the article mentions that the school board required that the computers be running 24/7.
Uh, have you ever used ZSNES? I'm fairly sure it runs just about every SNES game ever made with the same accuracy that a Wii would, if it had someone tweak every single 'ROM' for the platform as is done for Wii.
No one expects the musical inquisition!
We'll likely look back on ECT and wonder why the doctor didn't just break a 2x4 over the patient's head.
I'm pretty sure this already happened, before they made it a very specific-case treatment, and did alot of fine-tuning to the process.
....are you implying that, if you zoom out from the solar system, out farther and farther, we actually happen to be on the Joker's chin in the 60's Batman TV show?
I love how this got tagged interesting and not funny. Watch the feed for about 30 seconds.
I'm not quite sure about that. 81% of our population resides in urban areas as of 2005 Source: Wikipedia
Those were also the "good old days" when people (meaning your average person, not our species as a whole) didn't know nearly as much about the dangers of smoking.
Tar residue caked onto unventilated chips and heat sinks means the components will be running hotter, and die quicker. I imagine the damage isn't extensive, but a gradual buildup of tar over the course of a couple years from a heavy smoker almost definitely isn't a negligible increase.
"Marriage" isn't religious. If you don't want to performs same-sex marriages in your church, then don't. There shouldn't be anyone forcing you to marry any given couple that walks in through your doors.
However, the word marriage isn't a religious term. Get over the fact that it's really a legal thing, as there is no real religious basis for marriage.
If you half the sales of all their OSes, you end up with the same ratios.