Your reply us unfortunately wrong, however.

Given that C++ is turing complete, any 'spell' that the "Great Enchantress" can create well, so can the C++ guru. There is not a single thing the enchantress can do with her compiled spell that the wizard cannot, and that's the fact, jack.

Fact is, the end result for the great Enchantress is exactly the same if they misuse their language constructs or implementation details.

You can argue that you don't like how you have to go about the syntax construction, but fair is fair, they are both equally powerful in EFFECT.

>The people making $17,000 a year are buying cheap, disposable items made by people making $5,000 a year.

So, turtles all the way down?

I think you fail to understand the point. Businesses cannot ONLY EXCLUSIVELY make money off of other businesses.

Now. Who is going to be able to by the high market items that Businesses require (because they charge each other so much)? Or if all businesses charge less, then wages also must decrease, and...

So, what is the equilibrium point of this type of equation? Where do you find employees who are consumers who can buy the required high market goods after this equilibrium is reached?

Prove that they can, using the market economics. I bet you can't. Don't forget the wealth hoarding and ability to leverage that wealth to extract tax form the market by the (really now people! ONE PERCENT??? wtf, it's at most like 100,000 PEOPLE, total in the world who have the $MONEY$. )

Regards.

Free Advertising.

So, spend some serious marketing $$ going to all these forums and letting other businesses know what you exactly have to offer.

Counter their points politely and suggest that other business owners check you out themselves and make up their own mind.

This is only a bad thing if you turn it into one.

But this is nothing like advertising a sale and bait and switch.

To make your analogy correct would be this:
I Advertise a "sale" - free service!
People come and get free service.
I Advertise a price increase.
People either come and pay that price or they don't come.
Those that come still expecting the old price are just SOL.
Even normal retailers work that way - just try to use that 50% off thanksgiving coupon in August, dude.

Where is the bait and switch again? Every time you come to my site there is a new "sale" advertisement and you get that.

If I create a service even if it costs me absolutely zero to continue doing, am I obligated to continue to let you use it for free if I have done so before?

Nope.

I am STILL confused by your statements!

"They CAN, and it would remain legal in Germany, however, they were ordered not to."

Ordered not to...

Perhaps that means that they cannot? What does "ordered not to" mean to you other than the judge is saying they cannot enforce the ban in another country?

So, if you could point me to the contract you signed with Facebook promising you a free service I would appreciate it.

Otherwise, I fail to understand why you believe Facebook promised you anything.

They built something and let you use it. Is that what you refer to as a "promise"?

My engineering tuition at Purdue was approximately $1000/yr more expensive than a liberal arts degree. They called it the "Engineering Differential Fee", and it went to pay for things like good computers in the engineering labs and equipment.

In good conscience, it was really the only choice for who has my best interests at heart.

I would think it would detect odd. It will detect the original person, and a set of reflections for every "level" deep into the mirror until the reflections appear small enough they don't register as people, which I think would happen way before it reached 185.

Perhaps you should sit back down, or at least explain how "right of possession" makes his reasoning flawed.

As far as I can tell his logic is that renting computer "space" in the cloud is equal to tenancy of an apartment and you should obtain all the rights and privileges thereof for your "stuff".

As far as I can tell "right of possession" means it is legal for a person to occupy or use the "stuff" in question.

Looking a bit more closely, you are actually bolstering the parent's argument by claiming 'right of possession'. When a lease is contracted, the lessee gains right of possession to the property.

Given this, your attempt to dispute his points does not really appear to work. Cloud storage seems analogous to renting an apartment (which includes safeguards for those lessees living or storing their stuff there) than some other convoluted analogy with 'right of possession' (which you have not supplied).

Stating "Right of Possession" would mean something only if you can come up with that amazing analogy or show the logic about that "right" that illustrates your point.

Please do.

Regards.

>>The US military is famous for switching job descriptions once people have entered their ranks.

Yes and no.

A contract is a contract. If you sign a Contract for a specific MOS/AFSC (or whatever they call 'em these days) YOU WILL get that OR have the option of declining to remain in the service.

Yes, they might make that hard for you to understand and pressure you to go along with the flow anyways but KNOW YOUR RIGHTS (you still have some!).

In my case I contracted for a specialty position. Even after basic training, even after tech school, if they had decided to pull the rug on that I could have (and would have) walked.

Sure to the uniform dude in front of you this may be incomprehensible, morally suspect, and mean you hate America but to the (big G)Government it is just another set of forms to fill out.

On the other hand if you just sign up without specifics you may as well think of the recruiter as a Marketer. As long as it's not IN THE CONTRACT they are *provably* lying (as they cannot guarantee what is not in contract).

This is where the military gets their reputation having the ability to ignore recruitment promises - most people don't get them written in to the contract.

So my advice is is you WANT to join and have a SPECIFIC goal, get it in writing otherwise the military will put you where IT thinks it will need you.

When environments are artificially sustained, we no longer call them "wild".

Unless this is some twist on humans being considered as just part of nature.

But that kind of removes the utility of the word, no?

At best this is an unbounded zoo in that without maintenance by the zoo keepers the frogs would just die off. Now if they had recreated a sustainable environment and left the frogs there (as opposed to having to continue to induce an environment) then one might be able to say they had been reintroduced 'in the wild'.

I wholeheartedly agree that religion should not interfere with science, but I do not think that religion should be abolished.

When it comes to religion, there is such a diverse spectrum of people and beliefs even in a single denomination, and I have to say that not all of them are incompatible with science. Unfortunately, the more rational people are not the ones that are seen in the news, or trying to infiltrate science classes. In short, there are Christians who do not disagree with the big bang theory, evolution, the age of the planet etc, but simply view the magnificence of it all as divine. For them, science and religion are compatible. You are also correct in that short of a second-coming you will never have data to support faith, it is the antithesis of science.

I am not entirely sure Santa Clause and the like are such a bad thing. My parents never raised me to believe in Santa Clause, but the older I get the more I realize that it seems to be a human trait to want to believe in something bigger than oneself. Humans repeatedly demonstrate that we are not wholly rational beings. I am simply not sure, good or bad, of what a perfectly rational human society would look like. Part of me is afraid that they would be less human in a way.

Summary: I don't have any answers, but I would be very careful about trying to remove all irrational traits of humanity.

I am currently reading Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Sagan does an incredible job at promoting skepticism, fighting ignorance and all while being extremely respectful of religion. While I love Sagan, I just can't stand Dawkins.

So, who should the judge jail, Apple's CEO?