It shouldn't because the original possessor of the copy still has access to his copy. In principle they are different. Copying is no different morally than speeding.
Sorry, but the copying is not by 'force'. The force part comes in where the government tries to enFORCE copyright. There is no loss when something is copied. There may be no gain, which is different.
it also helps you logically deduce stuff you don't know. I remember that after a while, I could almost guess the names of functions that I didn't really know - that's what having a naming convention and regular syntax do for you
the reason there's a law against it is because men (yes, men!) were stupid enough to allow women to vote in the first place.
and now we have a feminine culture takeover: used to be only sticks and stones would hurt me, now it's words that slay me. Get over the obsession already, this is tiresome! Everyone starts out equal, no one person is inherently better than another - but some people perform more valuable services than others. Men and women are different, hence the chromosomal difference. If these guys want an exclusionary company, let them have it! But you don't have to buy their goods/services.
Birds of a feather flock together - people are almost always going to associate with people they feel more comfortable will - and each individual will decide which character trait they most like to identify with, and will seek out people with like traits.
</rant>
"cannot be spent in a reasonable way by a few individuals" - again with the socialist claptrap - these people earned the money, they should decide what it's best possible use is.
I'm stopping by your place today to raid your refrigerator, and take those clothes you aren't wearing. That good with you? 'cause that's what you're saying.
"the wealthy have more money than they really need" - who are you to decide what the wealthy need? They decide, by how hard (or smart) they are willing to work.
No, our taxes are going to be a lot higher in the future because the government is too busy getting re-elected by redistributing taxes & allowing the printing of new money to be responsible with it's financial commitments. In the end, the powerless will be held responsible, and pay the price.
the words 'put up or shutup' come to mind. There aren't that many people at Buffet & Gates level - they would affect the average if they donated what their conscience tells them to.
I'm with the parent on this one: if you think the govt should tax more, send in your 'extra' money. Don't tell me what I should do with mine, don't say that everyone should pay more taxes. I'm the one that decides what to 'reasonably' do with my money. Perhaps if people acted more as a community, local community charities to distribute money to people. Having the government take your money by force and distribute it to people without your consent does nothing to foster community or cooperation.
I think the term is being used to note that the price is artificially high - supply is virtually limitless once the first copy of the song is created, so the price should approach zero.
I'd say that most companies aren't at the level where they code for this - they buy COTS software for their business, and much of it is still of the 'put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket' mentality. I know it works that way at my place of employment. No matter how much I gnash my teeth and wail, the programmers still haven't caught up to current tech.
you obviously have a very limited view: if you're talking 10 or 20 machines, no problem. If you're talking 1000 or 2000 (or 10 or 20 thousand) then it's a whole different ballgame. Doing this would be career suicide. Imagine Monday morning, and half your upgrades cause people to have to change their way of doing things. Suddenly your HelpDesk is swamped. What do you tell your boss? Start off with a phased approach, IT first (the good IT people), then a couple of groups of power users. Allow them time to get aclimatized to it and you learn the sharp edges. Then gradually roll it out to the rest of your user population. Group policy is for changing all your backgrounds at once. But event then, you risk pissing off people in positions of power.
>>if your labour is only worth $26K this means you're
>>contributing very little of any value to society
>This is way, way wrong. This is a very pervasive error in
>reasoning. Just because someone is only willing to pay X
>amount for your labor, doesn't mean that labor is worth X
>amount to society. When there are a lot of people willing
>to perform said labor, that pushes down the monetary value
>of that labor. This is completely independent of its value
>to society
bzzt, wrong - if you're paid less it means your skill is of less value to society - supply is just a part of the equation. No one wants a cat chef - the skill is worthless to society - even if you are the only one that can fillet a cat.
Your last paragraph is dead-on, though. Societal worth does not equate to moral worth - on a moral scale, all men are equal. On a societal scale, not so much.
I beg to differ: I grew up in a trailer park, with an alcoholic carpenter for a dad. We certainly didn't have the money to send me to prep classes or private school. I did have one thing going for me: a love of books. I read more books than an whole classroom of kids at my school. As a result, my SAT scores were in the top 1%. I make well above the average now, and my family enjoys the type of lifestyle that I could only dream about as a child.
Jesus, dude - that's enough info to start hacking someone's life in that png - be sure to blur the email and last numbers of the account before you use a public link.