What would you do?
Well NOW they are.
>>160342941
i love kushitda now.
>>160342941
you can't lift off fingerprints from fabric.
>>160342941
Mating press her because she's going to say I did anyway.
>>160342941
Mating press
>>160342941
squeeze
>>160343674
It probably isn't going to end well for her.
>>160342941
Take responsibility
>>160342941
Tell her that fingerprints can't obtain from fabric so I need to touch somewhere else.
"Fuck off, just take your phone and I'll be on my way"
>>160342941
leave semen sample
>>160343694
http://newatlas.com/forensic-scientists-successfully-recover-fingerprints-from-clothing/17763/
>>160342941
Why is this so hot?
>>160342941
"Finger prints doesn't matter anymore. Use your body if you want me to shut up."
Kiss her since now it's free.
Wait for a week for her to wash the uniform and tell everyone.
>>160342941
Rape her if she is gona do it anyways.
>>160342941
Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the emotional argument and the economic argument.
The emotional argument goes like this: “I put my sweat, my heart, my soul into this program. It comes from me, it's mine!”
This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; it is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast, consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist was not important. What mattered was that the work was done—and the purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of years.
The economic argument goes like this: “I want to get rich (usually described inaccurately as ‘making a living’), and if you don't allow me to get rich by programming, then I won't program. Everyone else is like me, so nobody will ever program. And then you'll be stuck with no programs at all!” This threat is usually veiled as friendly advice from the wise.
I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another formulation of the argument.
This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and should be encouraged. The fallacy here is in comparing only two outcomes—proprietary software versus no software—and assuming there are no other possibilities.