You know that you don't have to just add useless and uninteresting words to something that already had substance, right? At least borrow some quotes from Socrates' Dialogues to spice things up: There is admirable truth in that. That is not to be denied. That appears to be true. All this seems to flow necessarily out of our previous admissions. I think that what you say is entirely true. That, replied Cebes, is quite my notion. To that we are quite agreed. By all means. I entirely agree and go along with you in that. I quite understand you. I shall still say that you are the Daedalus who sets arguments in motion; not I, certainly, but you make them move or go round, for they would never have stirred, as far as I am concerned. If you're going to say _nothing_, at least be interesting about it, post anonymously, or risk looking more clueless / foolish. This is why the moderation system is in place, and mods typically don't listen to inanities like "Well said" when deciding on what to spend their points.
1. I'm too busy to sit around thinking up additional words to throw in so I can score "mod" points
2. The people I like on Slashdot are too busy to read a bunch of additional words I only threw in so I can score "mod" points
3. It's not in my nature to waste words, or to waste time
If other posts here on Slashdot are any indication, "Mr. Councilman" is just as likely to lose political points by supporting the poor.
Actually this particular councilman represents an extremely high-rent district--Manhattan's upper east side. I doubt there are many wealthier neighborhoods in the world. He's not doing this to 'score points', he's doing it to do the right thing.
It is my opinion that poverty is partially systemic. Our economic system depends on there being a pool of available workers (unemployed and underemployed). So as long as there is capitalism and a functioning free market, there will always be poor people. That being the case, we have a responsibility to make sure the basic needs of everyone are met. Increasingly in order to succeed in school and in life, Internet access isn't really a luxury.
Well said
Time and again, history has shown a healthy middle class is the best road to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
Let me fix that for you:
Time and again history has shown the way to have a healthy middle class is to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
shutup. just shut the fuck up. you neither know you are talking about, nor have any valid point to make. its not about solving the digital divide any more than the housing thing is about solving poverty. its been widely and clearly shown that there is an increase in opportunity and outcomes between homes with and home without internet access. you're essentially complaining about improving someones potential opportunities to enrich themselves and make their life better and maybe even get out of that housing you mock. but again, you have no valid point, so therefore theres little sense in talking sense, like pointing out to you that without subsidized housing many of these people would be on street, homeless, increasing both crime rates and homeless and deaths among the impoverished. Theoretically we are a civilized nation. But a civilized nation doesnt advocate intentionally making it harder if not impossible for those most disadvantaged to improve themselves, nor advocate for them to die quickly and get out of the way.
Well spoken, bro
You are talking about this case, but i am talking about the larger societal implications of how we treat corporations and people. In terms of the technicalities of the ruling, you're right - to the supreme court, it doesn't matter what kind of business it is, but it should.
The corporate owners as individuals shouldn't be compelled to do anything - the corporation should be. By conflating one with the other we are heading even farther down the same path of ever-growing corporate power and ever-shrinking corporate responsibility. If you are allowed to run the corporation as an extension of yourself, but not required to take full responsibility for the corporation's actions, that is a big fucking problem.
Anyone who cannot separate their personal beliefs from their corporate responsibilities should probably not be running a corporation. Anyone who can should probably be viewed with extreme suspicion.
The individuals retain their religious liberties just as every employee of a business does, but the corporation itself cannot have religious beliefs and therefore should not be able to express religious beliefs through its policies. A private, unincorporated business owner could.
Corporations have more freedom and less responsibility than individuals do - that's fucked up.
If there were "no real difference between the business and its owners" it wouldn't be an incorporated entity - it would just be a business and they would be its owners. When you accept the benefits of incorporation you should also have to accept some of the drawbacks, including slightly more limits on what that business can and cannot do. Any time you take an entity with limited liability and responsibility and give it more freedom you are playing with fire.
Corporations are not people and treating them as such is just fucking stupid. "Corporations' religious beliefs" is a phrase that makes us all dumber every time we are forced to parse it.
At this rate we'd all be better off incorporating ourselves and treating our meat-sacks as employees of our corporate overminds.
There are two separate issues here and people seem to be arguing past each other.
1) Is Ikea right? Yes, they probably do have a case and could win in court.
2) Is Ikea acting like a bunch of assholes. Yes. The right way to do this would be to send IkeaHackers an email opening negotiations without an explicit legal threat. "Hey, we like what you're doing but you're using our trademark and it could be confusing to customers. Please add a trademark disclaimer and more links directly to our site. Here's a suggested disclaimer for use:..."
In playground terms, a C&D is like saying, i'm going to punch you in the face if you don't get off that swing right now.
The summary misses a key point. Yes they scan and store the entire book, but they are _NOT_ making the entire book available to everyone. For the most part they are just making it searchable.
Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."
So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.
