Well, you would have to buy (or organise the sale of) many, many iPhones. It would help if you were, say, the owner of a very large company with a lot of employees, and had most of them buy (and appear to enjoy) their new iPhones. Actually that would explain a lot...
These "imbalances" are not really different from other trade issues. I imagine that the countries will be expected to pick up their game, or face trade sanctions. Eventually, it will be a net gain for the US.
Hmm, and I guess that, since the constitution doesn't expressly allow laws regarding the separation of church and state, it would be unconstitutional to pass such laws.
A group of people helping their fellow man without expectation of pay? Men cooperating with men to fight the dangers that we face in our lives? People paying for their service only when they want to and when they can afford it?
This is nothing but socialism, and should be stamped out at every available opportunity! I am raising a personal militia to take down these socialist bastards!
If that person writes laws, then yes for both cases, and for any other violation of the law (I could give an exception if she was supporting a campaign to repeal the law she violated).
Well, all I can say is that I disagree. The way laws are today, everybody breaks them, including politicians. It's the price of having a legal system largely without loopholes. If a politician is caught, they should be punished, but no worse than the rest of us. The same goes for a fireman or a cop.
It's as I said before in the thread: it's this kind of expectations from public figures that cause them to try to dodge their responsibilities. They know that as soon as they take responsibility for life's little mistakes, their days are numbered. This expectation doesn't cause them to become better people, just more secretive. It causes public institutions to become opaque when transparency is sorely needed. It is, without a doubt in my mind, a bad mentality to have around public figures. It does neither us nor them any favours.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. Clearly what is reasonable to expect from our public figures is a judgement call, and clearly you have a different opinion. I think I've explained just about every angle on this thread.
Hey, he's a pirate. If he wants to continue doing what he's doing, he's going to have to deal with people getting pissed off at him.
And why shouldn't we be pissed? Piracy does no favours for us. It allows the pirate as much entertainment he can get his greedy little hands on, while honest customers have to sweat the higher prices and increasingly invasive copy protection measures. Fuck, it's gotten to the point where the DRM on Assassin's Creed 2 (which I wouldn't mind playing) has made it literally impossible for me to play the game where I'm living right now.
And that's not even mentioning the draconian laws being pushed through at the moment, on the backs of all these pirates.
Well, put it this way: answer these two questions:
a) Should someone lose their job (assuming their job doesn't involve more or more competent driving than other jobs) for driving with their phone? b) Should someone lose their job (same hypotheses) for driving with a bottle of vodka?
If your answer changed from no to yes, or even if b) was more difficult to answer than a), then your argument is hyperbole. The dilemma is a), not b), and thus considering the b) dilemma does not actually help us.
There's absolutely no doubt that her choice was bad, and that it significantly (dramatically might be a stretch) endangered those around her. But my point is that it does not make her a bad politician, or even necessarily a bad person.
My expectation is that if my taxes are funding their salaries that pays them to run the country, then as public figures they should be expected to behave in a "whiter-than-white" manner.
Have you ever thought that perhaps this expectation is unrealistic? Do you know anyone who would be capable of being "whiter-than-white", especially under the pressures of being a politician? Trust me; every politician knows the need to be whiter-than-white and the penalty for not being so. It's not for lack of trying that they get caught.
I'm probably a similar age to Ms. Harman and I, and many other people like me, have managed to get to this age without criminal records because we've always taken responsibility for our actions and considered the ramifications of what we do before we do it - if you've been brought up a moral (and as an agnostic I don't necessarily mean religious) and decent person, it's fairly automatic and not difficult to do.
As you say, many people manage to go their life without a criminal record, but then again, they're not having their every move scrutinised by people who hate them, and who would like nothing more than to see them in trouble with the police. They also only have to worry about legal issues; most people have the luxury of being able to act "immorally" (i.e. in a way less than considerate to others) without it destroying their careers.
While she was driving, the phone would have rung. She chose to pick it up. It wasn't a choice to potentially harm those around her, it was a choice to speak on the phone.
While driving the decision to pick up or not pick up a phone can be tough, especially if you're concentrating on the road. Also, phones don't ring for very long, so there's some time pressures involved.
Now, I'm not saying she didn't do something wrong, or that she shouldn't be held accountable for her actions. I'm saying she made a mistake; a very understandable, human mistake. The kind of mistake, with the kind of consequences, which shouldn't cost a person their career! It's the kind of mistake which does not a bad politician make. It's the kind of mistake to which only mudslingers would pay attention after the courts are through with you.
I hate these kinds of smear arguments. What do they accomplish? Did she come to conscious decision that she would drive without due care and attention? Does that mean she condones road accidents? She's a human being, and as such, is capable of mistakes, and making bad decisions given in split seconds.
If you think she's a bad politician, why not focus on her politics instead?
Actually, it's kind of funny. According to your article, she was allegedly in an accident and didn't stop to give the details. The primary factor in her decision not to give details would have been considering what mud-slingers such as yourself would say had she been caught and 'fessed up. So, by your twisted logic, you condone people dodging the responsibilities for their actions.
Aren't fake fakes real? Because if they weren't real, they'd be fakes, that is real fakes, and thus they wouldn't be a fake fake; they'd really be a real fake.
Especially if it causes games to be less enjoyable on other hardware platforms. I could see a real problem with this in terms of anti-trust actions.
It won't be. For one, NVIDIA is not a monopoly, and neither are the game publishers, so there are alternatives in both graphics hardware and in games. For two, "they are not allowing the creative process to organically produce the game through voluntary deals" is not the same as "they are causing the games to be worse". You would first need a reason why their offer leaves the developer unable to make their own creative decisions. You would also need to find some specific examples of games that you can prove were degraded by this offer, and have specific information about what the game would have been if NVIDIA hadn't made their offer.
IANAL, but I'm fairly confident that to successively finger NVIDIA in court, you would at least need to address the above issues. There are probably plenty of other requirements to fulfil.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you would have to buy (or organise the sale of) many, many iPhones. It would help if you were, say, the owner of a very large company with a lot of employees, and had most of them buy (and appear to enjoy) their new iPhones. Actually that would explain a lot...
Mods, a hint: it's a joke!
These "imbalances" are not really different from other trade issues. I imagine that the countries will be expected to pick up their game, or face trade sanctions. Eventually, it will be a net gain for the US.
*facepalm*
Hmm, and I guess that, since the constitution doesn't expressly allow laws regarding the separation of church and state, it would be unconstitutional to pass such laws.
What's wrong with Spanish? I think it's a lovely language.
Good advice.
The parent's comment is harsh, but when time comes to look for a job, so is the employer.
A group of people helping their fellow man without expectation of pay?
Men cooperating with men to fight the dangers that we face in our lives?
People paying for their service only when they want to and when they can afford it?
This is nothing but socialism, and should be stamped out at every available opportunity! I am raising a personal militia to take down these socialist bastards!
(Any support will be greatly appreciated.)
I disagree. It's better that the children learn about hip hop now from their school, rather from their "homies" in their "hood". ;-)
Well, all I can say is that I disagree. The way laws are today, everybody breaks them, including politicians. It's the price of having a legal system largely without loopholes. If a politician is caught, they should be punished, but no worse than the rest of us. The same goes for a fireman or a cop.
It's as I said before in the thread: it's this kind of expectations from public figures that cause them to try to dodge their responsibilities. They know that as soon as they take responsibility for life's little mistakes, their days are numbered. This expectation doesn't cause them to become better people, just more secretive. It causes public institutions to become opaque when transparency is sorely needed. It is, without a doubt in my mind, a bad mentality to have around public figures. It does neither us nor them any favours.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. Clearly what is reasonable to expect from our public figures is a judgement call, and clearly you have a different opinion. I think I've explained just about every angle on this thread.
Hey, he's a pirate. If he wants to continue doing what he's doing, he's going to have to deal with people getting pissed off at him.
And why shouldn't we be pissed? Piracy does no favours for us. It allows the pirate as much entertainment he can get his greedy little hands on, while honest customers have to sweat the higher prices and increasingly invasive copy protection measures. Fuck, it's gotten to the point where the DRM on Assassin's Creed 2 (which I wouldn't mind playing) has made it literally impossible for me to play the game where I'm living right now.
And that's not even mentioning the draconian laws being pushed through at the moment, on the backs of all these pirates.
Well, put it this way: answer these two questions:
a) Should someone lose their job (assuming their job doesn't involve more or more competent driving than other jobs) for driving with their phone?
b) Should someone lose their job (same hypotheses) for driving with a bottle of vodka?
If your answer changed from no to yes, or even if b) was more difficult to answer than a), then your argument is hyperbole. The dilemma is a), not b), and thus considering the b) dilemma does not actually help us.
There's absolutely no doubt that her choice was bad, and that it significantly (dramatically might be a stretch) endangered those around her. But my point is that it does not make her a bad politician, or even necessarily a bad person.
Cruel, but ultimately fair.
Great suggestion! Why don't you just email that to upper management, and they'll get right on it!
Actually, for most of us, this is a limitation common to Bluray as well.
Have you ever thought that perhaps this expectation is unrealistic? Do you know anyone who would be capable of being "whiter-than-white", especially under the pressures of being a politician? Trust me; every politician knows the need to be whiter-than-white and the penalty for not being so. It's not for lack of trying that they get caught.
As you say, many people manage to go their life without a criminal record, but then again, they're not having their every move scrutinised by people who hate them, and who would like nothing more than to see them in trouble with the police. They also only have to worry about legal issues; most people have the luxury of being able to act "immorally" (i.e. in a way less than considerate to others) without it destroying their careers.
While she was driving, the phone would have rung. She chose to pick it up. It wasn't a choice to potentially harm those around her, it was a choice to speak on the phone.
While driving the decision to pick up or not pick up a phone can be tough, especially if you're concentrating on the road. Also, phones don't ring for very long, so there's some time pressures involved.
Now, I'm not saying she didn't do something wrong, or that she shouldn't be held accountable for her actions. I'm saying she made a mistake; a very understandable, human mistake. The kind of mistake, with the kind of consequences, which shouldn't cost a person their career! It's the kind of mistake which does not a bad politician make. It's the kind of mistake to which only mudslingers would pay attention after the courts are through with you.
Do you get the point now?
Absolutely. There is absolutely 0 difference between this service and a movie-rental service. None.
I hate these kinds of smear arguments. What do they accomplish? Did she come to conscious decision that she would drive without due care and attention? Does that mean she condones road accidents? She's a human being, and as such, is capable of mistakes, and making bad decisions given in split seconds.
If you think she's a bad politician, why not focus on her politics instead?
Actually, it's kind of funny. According to your article, she was allegedly in an accident and didn't stop to give the details. The primary factor in her decision not to give details would have been considering what mud-slingers such as yourself would say had she been caught and 'fessed up. So, by your twisted logic, you condone people dodging the responsibilities for their actions.
Perhaps the uncensored internet is the fad coming already to a close?
More of a myth than "every politician is an idiot"?
What? How can it do that? Unless wanking creates extreme readings on the accelerometer, I don't see how...
Nuh-uh.
Aren't fake fakes real? Because if they weren't real, they'd be fakes, that is real fakes, and thus they wouldn't be a fake fake; they'd really be a real fake.
It won't be. For one, NVIDIA is not a monopoly, and neither are the game publishers, so there are alternatives in both graphics hardware and in games. For two, "they are not allowing the creative process to organically produce the game through voluntary deals" is not the same as "they are causing the games to be worse". You would first need a reason why their offer leaves the developer unable to make their own creative decisions. You would also need to find some specific examples of games that you can prove were degraded by this offer, and have specific information about what the game would have been if NVIDIA hadn't made their offer.
IANAL, but I'm fairly confident that to successively finger NVIDIA in court, you would at least need to address the above issues. There are probably plenty of other requirements to fulfil.