As much as I agree, this is a little different. This is for entertainment (Netflix), not knowledge
I can't see that as a differentiating factor. The use of the material should not matter, and for that matter, there are several documentaries on Netflix that could be considered information.
Trying not to make this too much of an Apple/Microsoft fanboy war, Apple is now a much more valuable company than Microsoft. And Steve Jobs did oversee the development of some of the most popular consumer electronics products of the last 50 years, namely the iPod.
At the same time, that money is a reminder of the shady shit that Microsoft has pulled in the past. It's great that he's trying to use that for the betterment of humanity, but it's still a reminder of the industry bully the company once was.
So it is your position, then, that Democrats favor a smaller government than republicans?
Not at all. It's our position that Republicans are no more in favor of smaller government than Democrats. They just differ on where government should grow.
There could be many reasons for that vote, and I havent kept up on it enough to know what they might be.
And it's still a vote to expand the size of government. You cannot disagree with this.
I honestly cannot fathom what you all are trying to say-- are you honestly asserting that Democrats favor a smaller government than Republicans, because of one vote?
No, we're challenging your claim that Republicans are actually in favor of "Smaller Government". They're not. They just want government bigger in different areas than Democrats do. They want smaller social programs, they want smaller consumer protections, but they definitely want bigger government when it comes to your bedroom and bigger government when it comes to the military.
State-recognized marriage doesnt really seem like an impressive example of "government getting too big", since its something governments have done for the last thousand or so years, and has been regarded for basically all of them as a good thing. Perhaps you disagree with which unions the state recognizes, but that doesnt mean "government is too big"; they would technically have to be bigger to recognize more unions.
By definition, Big Government is government that is more intrusive to you. Deciding who can and cannot get married is intruding on your rights, and so not allowing for gay marriage is allowing Big Government to thrive. Also, you forget the actions of the Federal Government to get in the way of allowing states to legalize gay marriage, what with passing the law which allows states to ignore the "Full Faith and Credit Clause."
An example of "bigger government" would be "We the Fed think that we should handle your retirement savings", or "we will be taking care of health insurance".
Or, "We will be wiretapping your phones to look for terrorists," or "We will be eliminating your right to come together as a group and collectively bargain."
Honestly, trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous. Democrats believe in all sorts of social programs, republicans dont; I didnt think that anyone disputed that.
No, trying to paint Republicans as for "Smaller Government" is disingenuous. Small government where it fits them, maybe, but definitely large expanses in government when they see something they don't like. Such as banning gay marriage, wiretapping phones, controlling what you can and cannot put in your body, and increasing the Military Industrial Complex.
That aside, Republicans believe in a smaller government than the Democrats, and thats a good first step in my eyes.
No they don't. They believe in less for entitlements, and less for making sure that consumers don't get screwed by big business, but the ABSOLUTELY believe in larger government when it comes to deciding who can be married, what you can put into your body, defense spending, and the police state at airports. Remember, it was a Republican who started the "Wiretap everybody" program.
Which is exactly why I wonder why going to an out-of-state (and worse, an out-of-state private) university when there are good public local community colleges and universities (typically nearby unless one lives in the boondocks.). That line of yours right there pretty much validated the POV you were replying to.
Actually, it did quite the opposite. You said out of state schools should be reserved for those pursuing graduate studies. I said that not many people will be pursuing graduate studies, and therefore wouldn't have the opportunity to live elsewhere if they followed your advice. Not everyone wants to stay in the town they grew up in, in fact, most don't. They want to go somewhere to set out on their own.
In the context of saving money and avoiding a 50K-60K loan on a plain vanilla BS/BA degree (which is obviously the context in which that sentence was written - obvious if one applies reading comprehension), yes, it is better.
Again, no it's not. Cost is only one factor in the entire college decision; to pretend that it's the only one that should be taken into account is idiotic.
There is no legitimate reason to get into such debt for an undergraduate degree that most people could reasonable get by a fraction of the cost (or even at 0 cost if one qualifies for a scholarship at a public school.)
So according to you, even if one were to qualify to get into Stanford or MIT, some of the top Computer Science/Engineering schools in the nation, they should skip it and go to the local community college instead. Because it's "Good Enough."
There is no evidence to suggest staying a couple more years with one parents' is going to negatively affect one's development into adulthood. In fact, it is typically quite the opposite (if one pays attention how Japanese and Koreans and Indians, for example, do this, and in general turn out to be good, full functioning adults.)
They also have incredibly high rates of teen suicides, and their parents are generally categorized as overbearing, pushing their children to pursue courses of study that will be honorable, like medicine, as opposed to letting the child decide where their career path should go.
A 23-year old person with a 4-year degree and little to no debt (perhaps no more than say $15K-20K) will always, always, always, always be in a far better position towards true adult independence that someone with the same stats but buried by a $50K-60K debt or more - not to mention the cost of getting sick while in school with little to no insurance coverage, in a freaking dorm far away from anyone that cares, right in the middle of finals. Yeah.
Because moving away means that you have to be removed from your parent's health insurance? Remember, you can stay on that now til you're 27, and previously it was around 24. And I highly disagree with your claim that someone who went to local community college will be in a better position than someone who went off somewhere else. I left my hometown to get an engineering degree, something which wasn't offered in my hometown. According to you, I'm an idiot. But my only real options in my hometown were a teaching degree or a business degree, both things I have ZERO interest in.
Again, no it doesn't. How about studying abroad in a foreign country for a year? That's something that's quite expensive, yet conventional wisdom would say that experiencing other cultures is a good thing.
Youd almost think that those retarded Republicans thought the founding principle of the country was a small, limited federal government, or something...
Nothing the Republican Party has done in the past 50 years has illustrated that they actually believe this.
A lot of states also have reciprocity agreements with other states, meaning that the citizens of the states in the agreement can go to each other's state universities for the in-state price, or something much lower than the pure out of state price.
I get it: the appeal of exploring and learning far away and crap like that. There is no denying that some of the top (and expensive) public and private universities. But that is far more important at the graduate level.
Not many students will be pursuing graduate studies.
It is always better to stay with one's parents (and pay some rent to them, and save as much as possible), than to blow thousands and thousands in dorms that aren't really that good for living as a student anyways, not getting anything but loans in return.
No, it's not. It might be "cheaper", but that is in no way the sole arbiter of what's "Better".
I haven't read the review, but if they are all just commenting on the policy, then I don't see any reason why Yelp should take them down unless he reverses it.
Sorry, but there are far too many stories about how you can buy reviews, both good and bad, and Yelp can't catch them all. I can see why Doctors are concerned.
That's their problem, not mine. You don't get to solve your problem by placing restrictions on me.
Or like many other people on Yelp, you're a douchebag with an axe to grind because something wouldn't go your way.
You know what? Taking away my right to criticize your services on a public form DOES give me an axe to grind. Fuck you for even thinking about doing such things.
Technically, they're not saying you can't make the comment. They're saying that, if you do write a comment, you have to transfer ownership of the copyright of the comment to them, so that they can do whatever they want with it. Including taking it down. Still completely outrageous, but not technically signing away a right. Which is why the Libertarians will be ok with this.
That will only happen if you accept that most of the currently free apps will then go to being paid apps. Ads were seen as a compromise between helping the developer generate revenue so they could eat, and having to pay for apps. Removing that ability means that we're gonna go back to horribly crippled free versions, and expensive paid for versions.
Slashdot Mirror
But for an online service, you could have multiple people concurrently using the single-user service.
They explicitly allow this. Hell, watch their commercials, they tout this as a feature of the service.
My roommate and I share one Netflix account. We routinely both watch it on different devices at the same time.
As much as I agree, this is a little different. This is for entertainment (Netflix), not knowledge
I can't see that as a differentiating factor. The use of the material should not matter, and for that matter, there are several documentaries on Netflix that could be considered information.
Creative beat Apple to market with the media player
And it was crap. Apple was the first to make a truly usable media player.
So there's no innovation in taking something that exists, and making it able to be used by regular people?
Trying not to make this too much of an Apple/Microsoft fanboy war, Apple is now a much more valuable company than Microsoft. And Steve Jobs did oversee the development of some of the most popular consumer electronics products of the last 50 years, namely the iPod.
At the same time, that money is a reminder of the shady shit that Microsoft has pulled in the past. It's great that he's trying to use that for the betterment of humanity, but it's still a reminder of the industry bully the company once was.
So it is your position, then, that Democrats favor a smaller government than republicans?
Not at all. It's our position that Republicans are no more in favor of smaller government than Democrats. They just differ on where government should grow.
There could be many reasons for that vote, and I havent kept up on it enough to know what they might be.
And it's still a vote to expand the size of government. You cannot disagree with this.
I honestly cannot fathom what you all are trying to say-- are you honestly asserting that Democrats favor a smaller government than Republicans, because of one vote?
No, we're challenging your claim that Republicans are actually in favor of "Smaller Government". They're not. They just want government bigger in different areas than Democrats do. They want smaller social programs, they want smaller consumer protections, but they definitely want bigger government when it comes to your bedroom and bigger government when it comes to the military.
State-recognized marriage doesnt really seem like an impressive example of "government getting too big", since its something governments have done for the last thousand or so years, and has been regarded for basically all of them as a good thing. Perhaps you disagree with which unions the state recognizes, but that doesnt mean "government is too big"; they would technically have to be bigger to recognize more unions.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG.
By definition, Big Government is government that is more intrusive to you. Deciding who can and cannot get married is intruding on your rights, and so not allowing for gay marriage is allowing Big Government to thrive. Also, you forget the actions of the Federal Government to get in the way of allowing states to legalize gay marriage, what with passing the law which allows states to ignore the "Full Faith and Credit Clause."
An example of "bigger government" would be "We the Fed think that we should handle your retirement savings", or "we will be taking care of health insurance".
Or, "We will be wiretapping your phones to look for terrorists," or "We will be eliminating your right to come together as a group and collectively bargain."
Honestly, trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous. Democrats believe in all sorts of social programs, republicans dont; I didnt think that anyone disputed that.
No, trying to paint Republicans as for "Smaller Government" is disingenuous. Small government where it fits them, maybe, but definitely large expanses in government when they see something they don't like. Such as banning gay marriage, wiretapping phones, controlling what you can and cannot put in your body, and increasing the Military Industrial Complex.
That aside, Republicans believe in a smaller government than the Democrats, and thats a good first step in my eyes.
No they don't. They believe in less for entitlements, and less for making sure that consumers don't get screwed by big business, but the ABSOLUTELY believe in larger government when it comes to deciding who can be married, what you can put into your body, defense spending, and the police state at airports. Remember, it was a Republican who started the "Wiretap everybody" program.
Who believes in smaller government now?
Which is exactly why I wonder why going to an out-of-state (and worse, an out-of-state private) university when there are good public local community colleges and universities (typically nearby unless one lives in the boondocks.). That line of yours right there pretty much validated the POV you were replying to.
Actually, it did quite the opposite. You said out of state schools should be reserved for those pursuing graduate studies. I said that not many people will be pursuing graduate studies, and therefore wouldn't have the opportunity to live elsewhere if they followed your advice. Not everyone wants to stay in the town they grew up in, in fact, most don't. They want to go somewhere to set out on their own.
In the context of saving money and avoiding a 50K-60K loan on a plain vanilla BS/BA degree (which is obviously the context in which that sentence was written - obvious if one applies reading comprehension), yes, it is better.
Again, no it's not. Cost is only one factor in the entire college decision; to pretend that it's the only one that should be taken into account is idiotic.
There is no legitimate reason to get into such debt for an undergraduate degree that most people could reasonable get by a fraction of the cost (or even at 0 cost if one qualifies for a scholarship at a public school.)
So according to you, even if one were to qualify to get into Stanford or MIT, some of the top Computer Science/Engineering schools in the nation, they should skip it and go to the local community college instead. Because it's "Good Enough."
There is no evidence to suggest staying a couple more years with one parents' is going to negatively affect one's development into adulthood. In fact, it is typically quite the opposite (if one pays attention how Japanese and Koreans and Indians, for example, do this, and in general turn out to be good, full functioning adults.)
They also have incredibly high rates of teen suicides, and their parents are generally categorized as overbearing, pushing their children to pursue courses of study that will be honorable, like medicine, as opposed to letting the child decide where their career path should go.
A 23-year old person with a 4-year degree and little to no debt (perhaps no more than say $15K-20K) will always, always, always, always be in a far better position towards true adult independence that someone with the same stats but buried by a $50K-60K debt or more - not to mention the cost of getting sick while in school with little to no insurance coverage, in a freaking dorm far away from anyone that cares, right in the middle of finals. Yeah.
Because moving away means that you have to be removed from your parent's health insurance? Remember, you can stay on that now til you're 27, and previously it was around 24. And I highly disagree with your claim that someone who went to local community college will be in a better position than someone who went off somewhere else. I left my hometown to get an engineering degree, something which wasn't offered in my hometown. According to you, I'm an idiot. But my only real options in my hometown were a teaching degree or a business degree, both things I have ZERO interest in.
Again, no it doesn't. How about studying abroad in a foreign country for a year? That's something that's quite expensive, yet conventional wisdom would say that experiencing other cultures is a good thing.
You realize, of course, that incurring $100k worth of student loan debt, and going to college out of state are not related, right?
Youd almost think that those retarded Republicans thought the founding principle of the country was a small, limited federal government, or something...
Nothing the Republican Party has done in the past 50 years has illustrated that they actually believe this.
A lot of states also have reciprocity agreements with other states, meaning that the citizens of the states in the agreement can go to each other's state universities for the in-state price, or something much lower than the pure out of state price.
I get it: the appeal of exploring and learning far away and crap like that. There is no denying that some of the top (and expensive) public and private universities. But that is far more important at the graduate level.
Not many students will be pursuing graduate studies.
It is always better to stay with one's parents (and pay some rent to them, and save as much as possible), than to blow thousands and thousands in dorms that aren't really that good for living as a student anyways, not getting anything but loans in return.
No, it's not. It might be "cheaper", but that is in no way the sole arbiter of what's "Better".
Actually, I think he had a pretty common experience.
Well, one of the attractive things about the "college experience" is the chance to go experience somewhere new. Getting out of your parent's basement.
I paid nowhere near half that for my 5 years in school.
Wrong. You can file a DMCA counter-notice. After which, the doctor is the one who has to either drop it or sue.
I haven't read the review, but if they are all just commenting on the policy, then I don't see any reason why Yelp should take them down unless he reverses it.
Sorry, but there are far too many stories about how you can buy reviews, both good and bad, and Yelp can't catch them all. I can see why Doctors are concerned.
That's their problem, not mine. You don't get to solve your problem by placing restrictions on me.
Or like many other people on Yelp, you're a douchebag with an axe to grind because something wouldn't go your way.
You know what? Taking away my right to criticize your services on a public form DOES give me an axe to grind. Fuck you for even thinking about doing such things.
Technically, they're not saying you can't make the comment. They're saying that, if you do write a comment, you have to transfer ownership of the copyright of the comment to them, so that they can do whatever they want with it. Including taking it down. Still completely outrageous, but not technically signing away a right. Which is why the Libertarians will be ok with this.
That will only happen if you accept that most of the currently free apps will then go to being paid apps. Ads were seen as a compromise between helping the developer generate revenue so they could eat, and having to pay for apps. Removing that ability means that we're gonna go back to horribly crippled free versions, and expensive paid for versions.