Well, as an individual, I think that maintaining IP is, in general, good practice, not just for corporations, but also individuals as well. Making medicines available to poor people when they're invented seems like a good idea (and it is), but instituted poorly, you can end up hurting everyone: poor people, rich people, corporations, etc. If we make medicine X available for free (or cheap) today, then that jeopardises the future existence of medicine X v2, or X v3. Corporations are the ones who hold the budget required to successfully research, and actually create these medicines, but if they can't justify their medicine research budget, then they're going to perpetually pass the buck, which does nobody any favours. A short period where medicines are expensive is a small price to pay for the many subsequent years of their existence as cheap, universally accessible medicines (or even their years of existence, period).
Now, giving medicines to the poor is a great idea, but weakening patents is not. All it does is punish medicine companies. What we should do is raise taxes (for companies as well), and institute a subsidy scheme for distributing these medicines at low cost. That way, the financial burden is shared reasonably fairly amongst everyone. The poor pay little to nothing for this scheme, the middle class pay a small part of their wages, and the rich/corporations pay for the majority of it. Nobody spends more than they can afford, medicines are distributed, unnecessary deaths are reduced, and companies have a reasonable amount of incentive to continue work on X v2.
Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing.
No, it's because the two parties both do a satisfactory job at running the country, and they don't really mind which one gets in.
Think about it. Ideally, votes are used as a tool for actively changing between governments and government policies. Ideally, politicians maintain their beliefs, present their policies, and we choose between them, thus giving us maximum possible choice in how our country is run. This, of course, is not the case. Politicians realised pretty quickly that they get a much better result with compromise, and pre-empting the public with what they want. Suddenly, you have multiple parties aiming for the same target, so they become pretty similar. The point of this target is to satisfy a sizable portion of the population, so a sizable portion of the population is generally satisfied by both parties.
This is democracy working. "Voter apathy" (it's not truly apathy) simply means a job well done.
I doubt it. It's very plausible that the New Testament was influenced by the Old Testament, and the Qur'an was influenced by both. Hell, Jesus was Jewish! It's no surprise that Christianity mimics Judaism.
Evidence that if there were an "afterlife", adopting any given form of Christianity would net you some sort of advantage in such: zero.
That's not quite true; there's the bible. It's a little circumstantial, and not nearly enough to build a body of evidence, but it is evidence. If there were hundreds or thousands of such texts, quoting the same stuff, provably written independently, then they would build a significant body of evidence.
So you agree that it's not "implemented exclusively by the consumers", since those consumers can de influenced.
No, I don't. It is implemented exclusively by consumers, but the distinction "completely unaffected by any external influence" is useless. By that metric, the system is partially implemented by lightbulb manufacturers, since its their lights which control the lighting conditions in which the clothes are seen, and thus which fashions are bought.
Basically, what this comes down to is that the responsibility lies with the consumers, not the industry. This doesn't mean the industry has no effect on consumers' actions. The industry can encourage that behaviour, but again, the final word is given to the person themselves.
Quite the opposite actually, I mentioned "those that don't choose to buy last year's fashion" as an example of people who might be influenced by companies. But after all, even those that choose to buy last year's fashion might choose that because they were influenced...
And those that don't, they all choose to do so out of their own free will, completely unaffected by any external influence?
Since when was free will, on any subject, completely unaffected by any external influence? The point is that it's still their choice, and if they would chose not to buy new fashions when they come out, then no amount of redesigning or marketing will "keep the industry's pockets full". Ultimately, it is up to their customers how much money enters their pockets.
I think it's pretty funny that you pointedly exclude "those that don't", as though they aren't influenced by companies when they buy clothes. I have seen many advertising campaigns for clothes stores centred around the fact that they are not up-market fashion centres. People who don't buy into the latest fashions form their own market, and this market has its own share of influences.
The point of all this is to keep the fashion industry's pockets full.
I don't think so, especially since this system is implemented exclusively by the consumers, not the fashion industry. There's nothing whatsoever preventing people from buying last year's fashion (or fashion from several years ago), and many people do. They choose to make themselves look different every season, and a high price, because that's important to them. The "quality" of the clothes (if you only consider practical utility) is but a minor factor when compared against their need to look different every season.
If you publicly do something socially frowned upon in your private life, you may find that it impacts on other aspects of your life. You may cause tension at work, you may lose some friends/lovers, and doors may close to you. Life isn't segregated into compartments; almost everything you do effects the reactions of those around you. This is the other side of freedom: responsibility. The license to do whatever legal activity you like is a right, but the esteem in which others hold you is not.
That said, this seems a pretty harsh for a drug joke. I think employers should be required to outline in broad terms, from the event of hiring, the circumstances that a person can be fired. If they need to get rid of a person for a reason not on the list that's within the person's control, they should be required to first give the person a warning, at which point it becomes a fire-able offence for the next time.
Not quite. The cause is conservative Americans. There wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't try to prohibit Americans from doing so many things if Americans weren't conservative.
Oh noes! A company wants you to exclusively use their products! And what dastardly scheme have they implemented to encourage you to do that? They're improving their product! That's right, they're improving their product, just so they can appear to be one of those mythical "good companies", who actually improve their products. How evil of them! I would much prefer if they just started openly screwing over the consumer. That way, everybody wins!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as an individual, I think that maintaining IP is, in general, good practice, not just for corporations, but also individuals as well. Making medicines available to poor people when they're invented seems like a good idea (and it is), but instituted poorly, you can end up hurting everyone: poor people, rich people, corporations, etc. If we make medicine X available for free (or cheap) today, then that jeopardises the future existence of medicine X v2, or X v3. Corporations are the ones who hold the budget required to successfully research, and actually create these medicines, but if they can't justify their medicine research budget, then they're going to perpetually pass the buck, which does nobody any favours. A short period where medicines are expensive is a small price to pay for the many subsequent years of their existence as cheap, universally accessible medicines (or even their years of existence, period).
Now, giving medicines to the poor is a great idea, but weakening patents is not. All it does is punish medicine companies. What we should do is raise taxes (for companies as well), and institute a subsidy scheme for distributing these medicines at low cost. That way, the financial burden is shared reasonably fairly amongst everyone. The poor pay little to nothing for this scheme, the middle class pay a small part of their wages, and the rich/corporations pay for the majority of it. Nobody spends more than they can afford, medicines are distributed, unnecessary deaths are reduced, and companies have a reasonable amount of incentive to continue work on X v2.
No, it's because the two parties both do a satisfactory job at running the country, and they don't really mind which one gets in.
Think about it. Ideally, votes are used as a tool for actively changing between governments and government policies. Ideally, politicians maintain their beliefs, present their policies, and we choose between them, thus giving us maximum possible choice in how our country is run. This, of course, is not the case. Politicians realised pretty quickly that they get a much better result with compromise, and pre-empting the public with what they want. Suddenly, you have multiple parties aiming for the same target, so they become pretty similar. The point of this target is to satisfy a sizable portion of the population, so a sizable portion of the population is generally satisfied by both parties.
This is democracy working. "Voter apathy" (it's not truly apathy) simply means a job well done.
Heaven forfend the government initiate any kind of scheme to listen to its electorate, because then they might have to talk!
So what's the US's excuse?
(Hint: they don't need one. Culture "infects" itself naturally.)
FTFS:
I don't think it's just the leaders who are pushing for this (assuming the leaders are pushing for this at all).
That's probably because you aren't empathetic. From Wikipedia:
So, when you say that you don't feel sorry for people who do stupid things, that's the tell-tale sign that you are not empathetic.
I do, however, empathise with your view. ;-)
I doubt it. It's very plausible that the New Testament was influenced by the Old Testament, and the Qur'an was influenced by both. Hell, Jesus was Jewish! It's no surprise that Christianity mimics Judaism.
That was a book of fiction. Stoker never claimed otherwise.
That's not quite true; there's the bible. It's a little circumstantial, and not nearly enough to build a body of evidence, but it is evidence. If there were hundreds or thousands of such texts, quoting the same stuff, provably written independently, then they would build a significant body of evidence.
That's the one inspired by that Uwe Boll film, right?
I have the opposite problem with the naked ladies in my dreams.
Bahahaha! Hahahahaha!
I'm not even trying to troll you; I literally laughed out loud when I read your comment.
Agreed.
Certainly the latter is more clear, but, as you can see, that's what I was trying to say all along.
It sounds like you're not the only one. :-)
(Why I marked you foe, is beyond me)
No, I don't. It is implemented exclusively by consumers, but the distinction "completely unaffected by any external influence" is useless. By that metric, the system is partially implemented by lightbulb manufacturers, since its their lights which control the lighting conditions in which the clothes are seen, and thus which fashions are bought.
Basically, what this comes down to is that the responsibility lies with the consumers, not the industry. This doesn't mean the industry has no effect on consumers' actions. The industry can encourage that behaviour, but again, the final word is given to the person themselves.
Oh. Well, sorry. :-)
Since when was free will, on any subject, completely unaffected by any external influence? The point is that it's still their choice, and if they would chose not to buy new fashions when they come out, then no amount of redesigning or marketing will "keep the industry's pockets full". Ultimately, it is up to their customers how much money enters their pockets.
I think it's pretty funny that you pointedly exclude "those that don't", as though they aren't influenced by companies when they buy clothes. I have seen many advertising campaigns for clothes stores centred around the fact that they are not up-market fashion centres. People who don't buy into the latest fashions form their own market, and this market has its own share of influences.
It's not the FCC, it's taste and morality. Taste and morality are really that inconsistent and irrational, simply because they are subjective.
Thanks for the tip. We will do exactly that. Insincerely,
Parents Television Council
I don't think so, especially since this system is implemented exclusively by the consumers, not the fashion industry. There's nothing whatsoever preventing people from buying last year's fashion (or fashion from several years ago), and many people do. They choose to make themselves look different every season, and a high price, because that's important to them. The "quality" of the clothes (if you only consider practical utility) is but a minor factor when compared against their need to look different every season.
He gave them yours. ;-)
If you publicly do something socially frowned upon in your private life, you may find that it impacts on other aspects of your life. You may cause tension at work, you may lose some friends/lovers, and doors may close to you. Life isn't segregated into compartments; almost everything you do effects the reactions of those around you. This is the other side of freedom: responsibility. The license to do whatever legal activity you like is a right, but the esteem in which others hold you is not.
That said, this seems a pretty harsh for a drug joke. I think employers should be required to outline in broad terms, from the event of hiring, the circumstances that a person can be fired. If they need to get rid of a person for a reason not on the list that's within the person's control, they should be required to first give the person a warning, at which point it becomes a fire-able offence for the next time.
Not quite. The cause is conservative Americans. There wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't try to prohibit Americans from doing so many things if Americans weren't conservative.
Ah yes, the good old "set up a strawman then burn it down" argument.
Let's slash your salary by 90%. You're still being paid. What's the problem?
The train would have to apply some brakes, and people would be a little late?
Oh noes! A company wants you to exclusively use their products! And what dastardly scheme have they implemented to encourage you to do that? They're improving their product! That's right, they're improving their product, just so they can appear to be one of those mythical "good companies", who actually improve their products. How evil of them! I would much prefer if they just started openly screwing over the consumer. That way, everybody wins!