4merper4mer
-
Posts
21,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 4merper4mer
-
-
http://www.clickorla...it/-/index.html
Prosecution contending that Martin's mental state (pot influence) the night he died doesn't matter. Naw, pot doesn't make you paranoid.
The motion also says the state wants to prevent the defense from using Martin's toxicology report, which showed the level of marijuana in Martin's blood the night he was shot and killed.
You thought all the racial overtones caused craziness in this case, wait until the pot heads get involved. You can't like criticize like pot man or like you're totally not stoked Bud.
Wait until these losers get involved in the protests. Besides probably forgetting what they are protesting and showing up late and at the wrong place, they will make the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's look rational once they arrive.
-
Commie fight.
Professor commies like Holder are now harassing hippy commies like the reporters at the AP. This puts the hippy commies in a bind as they depend on the professor commies to spoon feed them their work. I wonder which hippy commie stepped out of line and how they did. The part I find funny is that the offending hippy commie probably doesn't even remember what he did wrong due to short term memory loss from smoking too much pot.
-
Wow, eight hundred plus saints in one swoop! That kind of makes it hard to choose a saint name, doesn't it? Is there a Saint Larry?
They are all Saint Rollo
-
You know when you'll get to be a Catholic saint?
When your head is rolling down a flight of stairs, that's when
-
Was 9/11 blamed on a youtube video by GWB?
GWB made a youtube video? He doesn't seem smart enough to know about uploading and linking and whatnot.
-
she's a hockey fan...not like an education is gonna do her that much good anyway....
Hockey fan nothing....she's a Canadian. What did she miss that day at school? Drunk 101 and Advanced Brushing your tooth?
-
That's not even an argument... infact, it's just a lazy, ignorant, and otherwise just plain stupid thing to say.
Natural scarcity is a bad thing. However it's an unfortunate reality which nature has bestowed on us. What is absolutely unconscionable is the artificial creation of scarcity for scarcity sake. Technologies which render the scarce abundant should be embraced. If this drives down, or even eliminates some prices, so be it.
I think in Econ 201 you may learn about some new concepts. Between now and September I'll oversimplify it a bit by pointing out that your imaginary machine which doesn't exist but makes you feel better about stealing music and porn cannot innovate new ideas. Anyone who does innovate new ideas will instantly have them stolen so why bother? Instead we can all sit around and get fat in our big houses until something comes along for which we are utterly unprepared. Maybe it is a disease or an asteroid or whatever. All the lazy losers that have been bred will be powerless to deal with it. Congrats.
And no offense but I hope Ferrari sues the crap out of you when you steal their design.
-
I simply walked up to the Ferrari, and replicated it with my replication machine. This replication produces an unlimited supply of Ferraris.
In that case I give the human race about 4 generations before extinction. Good job.
-
-
...
I'll try to dumb this down even further for you:
Let's suppose that I invented a machine that would allow me to replicate perfectly any and all products on the Earth as often as I liked, and I offered this service to everyone in the world for free. A large % of the world took me up on this offer, and I replicated 10 million dollar homes, Ferraris, and an endless supply of whatever these individuals wanted free of any cost; would this be a good thing or a bad thing? Why?
In your scenario did you buy the rights to Ferrari's original design or did you steal them?
-
If you I can't figure out on your my own why the test analogy is bad, I'm not going to act like it should be obvious and call people stupid heads. waste my time explaining it to you.
You also can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that just because a law exists doesn't make it a good, wise, or just law.
I fixed the first part for you.
Regarding the second, you brought up the courts and their supposed skepticism regarding shrink wrap EULAs. You did it sans substantiation of course. Pardon me for thinking you were talking about legality when you brought up the courts. My bad.
Anyway, If you're on this "it is ok to take other people's ideas and use them for myself" morality kick, why not make your case in the courts or the legislative process? Do you have an internship next semester so you can start to get a dose of the real world? -
This is the problem with the internet.
Every moron with an opinion thinks their horseshit needs to be thouroughly disected and comprehensively debunked via peer review before it can be declared invalid.
It appears that one of those morons doesn't realize that a) law /= moral, right or economically beneficial, and b) that shrink-wrap EULA's generally have not been held up in court.
Let's see if I have this straight.
The test analogy is wrong because:
A - I'm a stupid head and
B - You think you're smart because you know the acronym EULA and have attempted to partially address one component of the argument with vague references and qualifiers like generally while ignoring the analogy completely. You have also managed to ignore the fact that not all EULAs are shrink wrap and the fact that patents and copyrights exist. But I forgot point A which is that I'm a stupid head.
-
You can keep talking complete nonsense, taking things wildly out of context, and acting like a fool; but it won't change the poor construction of your argument, or the fact that you're wrong. Your failure to address what property rights are, the need for them, real vs. artificial scarcity, and monopoly is telling.
It also won't change the license agreement on the outside of CDs describing how the "intangibles" they contain may and may not be used, nor the licenses signed and violated for source software nor the "monopolistic" patent laws that are laws nonetheless. If you want to debunk the analogy of the taking of intangible test material go ahead and debunk it.
Hint: "You're a big stupid head" is not a good argument.
-
That's... that's not only a terrible and invalid comparison, but it's also quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.
b) You can't take someone else's book, or cd, or dvd without commiting a crime. Those are tangible goods. Making use of the intangible, however, is no crime at all.It's not the fault of the consumer that the purveyors of art media have a poor distribution method which leads to direct competition in their markets. It falls to them to create better distribution methods to secure their content, if that's what they desire.
It's not the fault of the test taker that the purveyors of tests have a poor distribution method which leads to direct competition in their markets. It falls to them to create better distribution methods to secure their content, if that's what they desire.
-
...
Natural scarcity is the single condition that led to the rise of, and continues to nessecitate, property rights. That scarcity is the thing that determines a natural market value.
What you describe is articicially created scarcity for the purpose of price fixing without competition. Or, a monopoly.
You sound like a college kid reading from a book and repeating it.
Why should a teacher have a monopoly on the test material he or she thought up? That is an unfair monopoly. The teacher attempts to create scarcity by using an artificial monopoly to hold the information until test day. Taking the material from the teacher's computer is merely righting a wrong. Thus everyone gets 100 on every test, gets free music, software and medicine and we are all happy every day and we can join Mensa too because we're geniuses because we got 100 every time.
-
This douche bag is now an "expert" on world politics in addition to being so smart that he knows there is no God? Lolololol. How does he explain GvG?
His hubrosity knows no bounds. If he is so damn smart why can't he invent a voice synthesizer that doesn't sound like a character on Lost in Space? I'll tell you why. Because this robot voice of his has been getting him laid for years.
-
Says the guy lauding an artificial, government imposed monopoly on production.
Production? Nice.
And not allowing kids to steal tests is artificially inhibiting their ability to be the valedictorian right?
-
Quite the opposite, actually. Open-source, and free-to-use shells with fee for additional service is the future. Markets respond quickly.
Actually, the current model is why we have long-term treatment solutions being developed rather than cures. It incentivizes keeping people sick in order to turn a perpetual profit on the maintenence of their medical issues. Revove that incentive, and you'll see a shift in business models.
From each according to their software writing medicine developing abilities....to each according to good f'in luck.
-
...
LINUX doesn't exist.
OK so you have demonstrated you know nothing about software. Congrats.
In your world, why would someone experiment with chemicals in hopes of finding a medicine they could sell? Let's say the R&D costs a billion or so but that once discovered the medicine is cheap to produce. Like, say cutting and pasting 10,000 lines of software code. Who would be sucker enough to put in the billions?
-
Incorrect.
Regardless, that's inconsequential. You cannot own, police, and charge for the use of thought.
In your world why would anyone in their right mind spend man years developing software and then license the source code?
-
Intelectual property is a sham.
Theft implies that I have deprived you of the use and ownership of your prior owned property against your will.
Possible future sales are not a tangible asset, and have I deprived you of anything by deciding not to make a purchase from you.
In your world only an idiot would make a movie, sing a song or write software and think they could make money.
-
we should still draft Manziel if possible.
They liked Manuel and that is why they picked him over chancing it in the courts with Manziel. I think they are sold on Manuel and one year down the road they will stick with him.
-
Because it is Vermont Poojer would first cover her with Cherry Garcia, Chunky Monkey and various other flavors but the answer is the same as always.
-
And who knows - perhaps Edwards would've been the second coming of Montana had he been drafted into a Walsh run team?
And if my aunt had.....oh never mind.
Walsh was also a notorious practical joker and he went back years with Marv. Glove Wearing Mary was his coup de grace practical joke on Marv. It would have been funny if it was any other team.
Maybe not the brightest idea?
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
I thought nothing could surprise me any more.
After reading through this thread I stand corrected I learned that someone actually likes Junior Mints. Those things are grosser than Celine Dion on a stripper pole.
:sick: 