That only works with reductions, i.e. you cannot have more than a 100% reduction in something, which takes it to 0. Except when you might be talking about an initial level which can be dropped below, although that's straining it.
Gosh, maths is hard. :) Better not comment until you've learned some!
Ironically, as a total non-beer drinker (I've never liked the taste), Labatt's Blue was the only one I found drinkable. Says a lot, I guess? Also a pain, when it's only normally found in Canada and I live in the UK...
It should only be illegal to reproduce it as a bottle, not to photograph - that would be fair use - it's transformative (ever tried drinking Coke from a photograph?)
It should only be illegal to reproduce it as a bottle, not to photograph - that would be fair use - it's transformative (ever tried drinking Coke from a photograph?)
Only if you live in a one-way world, where paternalistic corps feed the lazy masses their bread and circuses. In the real world, we are all part of the community, the 'public'. And yes, as the people who are supposed to be 'rewarded' with works entering the public domain, the 'public' (who include consumers - and even the coporate overlords are consumers) very much has a stake in what is happening. If the 'public' is irrelevant, then so are the gatekeepers: anyone want to buy a shiny new buggy whip?
After all, just like no-one 'forces' you to buy a house, no-one 'forces' anyone to create art, let alone share it. So no-one should be 'forced' to pay for it in perpetuity - that would be like the bank allowing infinite defaulting on a loan.
I don't think genetics work like that. And the 'average 100 IQ' is a baseline - if you bred a bunch of lobotomised 'humans' (look at any Southern US hillbilly state :) then yes, the average IQ *would* go down.
The Americans have never forgiven the French for helping them win the War of Independence, or distracting the British subsequently. They are also aware that it took them 3 years in WW1 and 2 years in WW2 to bother to come to France's aid in return.
I pay an annual road tax to be able to use the public roads. So driving on the roads for me is 'free' after that. Does that mean that taxi drivers are 'freeloading' on this 'free' resource?
You were doing so well until your own logic fell apart with the duck analogy. And I don't see a creationist/fundamentalist arguing for *more* human rights, especially not for gays, so another fail there. Besides, no-one is legislating that by quacking like a duck you're breaking the law. Feel free to do so, you might make more sense. Try looking around your hobby horse before spouting.
Whether or not *marriage* is a fundamental human right is one argument. Separately, that it should apply equally to everyone is another principle - but there should be as little discrimination as possible, within the bounds of reason. The main baseline reasons given, that consent cannot be given, either in practice (objects, animals) or legally (minors), stops a marriage from happening, should not, per se, stop gay marriage - or even really polygamy, although polygamy is rather harder to practically manage.
Just because X (gays, blacks, mixed couples) get married doesn't harm you, nor any marriage of your own. What matters is does it harm anyone involved. Minors, yes. Objects - it's a little irrelevant. A polygamous set-up - possibly. Gays - no, no more than people from wildly different social or educational backgrounds, or mixed race couples.
Try to keep the conversation on track, and try and deal with each element separately.
Whether or not marriage is a fundamental human right (and it probably should be), everyone should be treated equally under the law.
On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites
Re:
On the post: Fan-Made Movie Edits: Another Cultural Loss At The Hands Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sprint Changes 'Unlimited' Broadband To 5 Gigs... While Still Advertising Unlimited Broadband
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slightly inaccurate
(Well, it works for aerials/remote DVR...)
On the post: Germany Increases 'You Are All Pirates' Tax On Solid State Media By 2000%
Re: WTH
Gosh, maths is hard. :) Better not comment until you've learned some!
On the post: Labatt Threatens To Sue Newspaper For Showing Photo of Suspected Killer Holding Its Beer
Re:
On the post: Labatt Threatens To Sue Newspaper For Showing Photo of Suspected Killer Holding Its Beer
Re: Re:
On the post: Labatt Threatens To Sue Newspaper For Showing Photo of Suspected Killer Holding Its Beer
Re:
On the post: Labatt Threatens To Sue Newspaper For Showing Photo of Suspected Killer Holding Its Beer
Re:
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re:
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re: Re: Basic balance sheet
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re: Re: Not only the public...
Besides, that's just petty.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re: Some Game of Thrones spoilers...
On the post: French Film Exec Insists That Anti-Piracy Efforts Made Sure No French Films Were Downloaded For 7 Months
Re: Re: We May Have Proof of Something Else Here
On the post: French Film Exec Insists That Anti-Piracy Efforts Made Sure No French Films Were Downloaded For 7 Months
Re: Re: We May Have Proof of Something Else Here
Consequently guilt drives a lot of nastiness. :)
On the post: Chamber Of Commerce Lies Again: Attributes Millions Of Jobs To IP Laws Based On Flimsy Correlation
Re:
On the post: French Film Exec Insists That Anti-Piracy Efforts Made Sure No French Films Were Downloaded For 7 Months
Re:
On the post: TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal
Re:
On the post: Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether or not *marriage* is a fundamental human right is one argument. Separately, that it should apply equally to everyone is another principle - but there should be as little discrimination as possible, within the bounds of reason. The main baseline reasons given, that consent cannot be given, either in practice (objects, animals) or legally (minors), stops a marriage from happening, should not, per se, stop gay marriage - or even really polygamy, although polygamy is rather harder to practically manage.
Just because X (gays, blacks, mixed couples) get married doesn't harm you, nor any marriage of your own. What matters is does it harm anyone involved. Minors, yes. Objects - it's a little irrelevant. A polygamous set-up - possibly. Gays - no, no more than people from wildly different social or educational backgrounds, or mixed race couples.
Try to keep the conversation on track, and try and deal with each element separately.
Whether or not marriage is a fundamental human right (and it probably should be), everyone should be treated equally under the law.
On the post: Latest Humble Bundle Of Pay-What-You-Want Indie Games Raises $1-Million In Five Hours
Re: Re:
Next >>