I think it's more like this, Obama was thrown off a cliff at the start of his presidency and that no big names want to take over is probably indicative that we haven't hit the bottom yet. Neither the US nor Europe has recovered from the financial crisis yet (look at the employment-population ratio, not the unemployment rate) and my guess is that Europe will end up giving the world economy another kick in the balls very soon.
So Sony should deliver the same hardware with the same Android OS as everybody else? Yeah, like that's differentiation. Sony has as far as I know never competed with TSMC, Intel, AMD etc. and why should they start now? They've been into producing consumer products, and there's plenty opportunity to pick components and make solid, well intgrated, price efficient combinations of good build quality and turn a good profit on that. My iPhone4 didn't even come with a flashlight function, though there's a dozen apps for that. Unless Sony really screws up the basic functions, why should people care? There's an app for that. But there's no app that would say give you a better camera, or better battery lifetime, or better resolution/color/contrast on your screen. Your hardware choice is once, your software is replaceable. You probably can't muck too far into the Android internals without too much cost for a fork, and nobody's buying a phone because it has some Sony branded apps.
bestiality: consent not possible, and an animal, like a corpse, isn't a sock.
Of course animals aren't asked to consent to anything, we breed them, we castrate them, we kill them, we keep them in cages and on leashes, if you're going to use human standards pretty much all animal owners would be put away for life on kidnapping, rape and murder charges. Pretty much the only rule that governs them is that they should not be maltreated, which obviously includes anything causing disease or injury. But if someone's idea of a good time is to suck a horse dick, well I can't really come up with a good reason why that should be illegal other than that it's unnatural, creepy sure but nobody objects to a vet artificially inseminating a cow sticking things in its private parts - and the cow gets pregnant.too.
So if I round up a lynch mob and we hang you from a tree, that's just a different justice not better or worse justice. Surely you're tolerant of alternative justice systems?
I mean the fact that a washout like Mitt Romney is leading just lets you know how awful the Republican candidates are.
How many troll points do I get for pointing out that despite that, Ron Paul is still fourth behind Romney, Santorum and Gingrich? I'll go put on the popcorn...
Should we maybe move to a more British model, like in the London riots, which I might point out, I had the unfortunate pleasure of living there when it happened. People still get knifed quite regularly, and yet England is completely disarmed, both in weapons and in spirit. In fact, during the riots, our local neighbourhood antique dealers got knifed because he wouldn't hand over his phone to a pack of thugs. He was airlifted and barely survived, and these blokes are now on the street again. So since idiots with guns don't kill people, idiots with knives kill people. Before you laugh at a cliche, actually think about it for 30 seconds.
Yes, but idiots with knives kill less. Take for example the assassination attempt on Giffords, unless she's high enough in the system that she has an iron ring around her all the time like the POTUS you probably could have walked right up to her and stabbed her, it's certainly true for 99.999% of the population. But it's a helluva lot less likely that he'd kill six others and injure thirteen, including accidentally stabbing a 9yo in the head. Someone waving a knife around isn't a fraction of the threat of someone waving a gun around, I perfectly understand police officers who'll shoot anyone doing that. This isn't Lucky Luke where you wait to see if he wants to point it at you and fire or not, unless the knife is at somebody's throat it's not the same.
Take any cases where you'd like to disengage, like surprising a thief during a break-in or such. It's pretty easy to flee a knife fight if not pursued - and a fair chance if pursued, it's pretty hard to escape a bullet. And while I'd rather not meet someone having a psychotic episode and a knife, I'd much rather not meet someone with a gun. Nor the crazy ex-employee who wants to shoot me because I happen to work in the same company, even though I had no part in his firing. In short, if you want to murder you can murder. But guns turn what didn't have to be murder into a situation where people feel forced to shoot and they turn murders into massacres.
Of course you can say that if you ban guns, only one side will have guns. But any gunman that gives you the chance to pull your own gun is an idiot, and any person that comes in guns blazing will have emptied at least one clip before anyone else gets to react. People aren't going to go around like they're soldiers on patrol duty in Afghanistan, and even if they did I couldn't stop the guy behind me in line at the grocery store from killing me ten different ways before I'd notice. All I can hope for is that I'm nobody's intended victim and don't end up being someone's random or accidental victim or even die from "friendly fire". And on the last three counts I'd take knifes over guns, in the first one I'm probably dead either way.
Tell me, is a picture of a little girl biting a banana considered as "Child Porn" ?
I think you completely failed to understand his point, that is to resolve ambiguities not unfairness. Everybody that drafts a contract does so in the way that is most favorable to themselves, so if your employer created the employment contract it will be favorable towards employers. Contract law is a really long rope to hang yourself with, there's a few exceptions of unconscionable terms but for the most part you're permitted to make and will be held to contracts that are very shitty for yourself. It's usually a bad idea to assume you can wiggle your way out of it in a court of law anyway.
Maybe it's easier to understand in a business to business setting, where there's a lot more negotiation. I'm sure your company lawyer could give you lots of examples of a supplier-friendly and a customer-friendly contract for delivery of the exact same item or service. They like to give you the impression that this is the standard terms of delivery, either you sign it or you're gone. Same with employee agreements, but in reality it's negotiable. Trust me, they have systems to deal with individual contracts...
And before all the ID-10-Ts start whinging about "non-exempt" - forget it - there is NOTHING an ermployer can do except fire you,
And sue you and get injunctions to prevent you making money from it. So now you're out of work, paying lawyer fees burning through the nest egg you were supposed to start a business with.
They cannot claim your off-the-clock work, since you were neither hired to do it, nor paid to do it.
They will find some bullshit way to say your work is tainted by some IP you've used or seen at your job, and you will be forced to defend against that. The cost of proving that you work is clean and only using general methods and skills is enough that even if you win, you lose.
But what exactly is the positive benefit to the producer that you're taking away? They say once it's out on the Internet, it's there forever and people are still sharing things made in the 70s but there's nobody collecting royalties on it. It's not like a producer can go to the courts and sue for copyright infringement either, it is essentially like a society with no copyright. Isn't it the artificial scarcity, the control of reproduction and distribution that gives it value? For the drug kingpin, ever drug user will trickle through a system of dealers into demand, the drugs can't just appear out of thin air. But another copy of the same pictures can appear out of thin air, every time it's shared around. What's the trickle-through effect? None.
Don't get me wrong, in small circles I see how producers can make money, but I don't see how driving them underground helps. Instead of one big P2P network you get hundreds or thousands of closed little circles, each producing their own material. Perhaps it's the theory that if was spread to more people, more people would get induced into doing something in real life. But for those looking to turn a profit, rarity is a help not a hindrance. It's pretty damn hard to make people pay for something you can download for free on the Internet, particularly when you know money is infinitely more traceable than bits and bytes.
It also doesn't help that parts of the US has completely lost perspective, I think the worst states are up to 10 years/count. So you could either download 10 pictures off the Internet, or you can go out and kidnap/rape/kill a kid. Either way you're spending the rest of your life in prison if you get caught, it might end up being somewhat shorter in a death penalty state but you've lost all incentive to just sit in front of your PC jacking off which is ultimately rather harmless. It's like pretending there would be no such thing as horny teenagers if Playboy didn't exist, you can take away the porn but it's not like people stop having sexual desires all the same.
"How do I love thee? My accumulator overflows."