The big difference between recent history and the way people have always been is that childhood is a new development. Up until around the turn of the last century, kids at around 5 years old became little adults, going to work, being responsible, etc, with the age of consent being set at 7 years old during the middle ages. This changed with automation reducing the number of jobs being available and kids being removed from the labour force through child labour laws and such and then school being introduced to keep them of the streets. This is an ongoing change as kids are kept in school for longer and longer.
Why do so many people get this backwards? Taxes are ultimately usually paid by businesses and often those businesses are incorporated. Think about it. Where do most individuals get the money to pay taxes? That's right, in a paycheck from a business. So businesses, which are often incorporated, have to charge customers enough to pay their employees enough to not only live on, but also to pay taxes. Raise taxes on individuals, businesses have to pay more in salaries, which means they have to raise their prices to cover the added expense.
Socialist in the sense that the workers own and run the company, capitalist in the sense that the workers raised the capital. There's no reason that socialism means no capital or no market, at that a market is a good way to price stuff and show efficiency, even in a socialist society, though in theory a socialist market shouldn't be so cutthroat.
That's socialism, so obviously won't work. Next you'll find some study that shows co-ops are efficient at infrastructure, more socialist propaganda. Big business in partnership with big government is the true way to have profitable businesses.
Should have added that this was the Canadian Federal election, where our Conservative party was advised by the American Republican party how to change the voting requirements. And no, a social insurance card (which we all have) is not good enough ID to vote. Needed current street address on the couple of acceptable pieces of ID. After experiencing how the Conservatives screwed up the ID laws, I've gone from pro-ID to not. We've needed ID for a long time and it was never a hassle before, you used to be able to sign an affidavit if you didn't have ID and most any ID was good enough if combined with something like a bill with your address on it. Of course having your registered name changed is a screw up no matter how good your ID is. Lots of women use their maiden name.
On the other hand, in the village my wife was born in, common last names include Skead, Skeed, Skede, and Skied. Just like whoever spelt Vermin wrong, they were probably illegitimate and someone phonetically spelt it. This is made even worse with strong accents, which is probably the case with your example considering they used a foreign spelling of mount
What they did to my wife was showed she was still registered in her maiden name that she has used for over a dozen elections and is the name that she has on all her ID and bills and then magically changed it on voting day to her married name. And of course, the marriage license she brought along was not good enough.
Oh fuck off. This is exactly how my son got disenfranchised. Tighten the ID laws, have the place to get ID 50 miles away with no public transit and charge $70 for that ID. My wife, they even got more creative. Tell her she is still registered in the same name that her government ID is in and she has used for at least a dozen elections and then change it so when she shows up to vote, her ID is no good.
You need a data plan or live somewhere where it is easy to leach WiFi. Data is expensive for the poor. My cheap pay as you go plan costs $10 for 60 MBs, you know how fast you can go through 60MBs in this day of the average web site being 5+MBs? Sure I have a cheap cell phone, it's another bill to pay and hardly used. What's scary is the kids who used to hang out at the park now hang out on facebook. It's hard for me to see that as an improvement. I also have a hard time seeing parents needing to check up on their kids continuously as an improvement but maybe we'll raise better people by keeping them sheltered from life.
And when today it is 50%+1 with tomorrow being 50%-1? Or like America where they had to chase a good chunk of the population from the colonies to even get close to a majority?
It's like a divorce. No one says divorce shouldn't be allowed, but they still get messy. How do the assets get split? What about the debt? Dependents like the natives who signed treaties with the Federal government? America is weird too as many (most?) of the States were formed from Federal territory.
Of course the Constitution could be changed pretty quick (either way) if a super majority of States decided to. Personally (and my countries Supreme Court agrees) I think succession is a constitutional level change and should not be decided by 50%+1, but rather a clear super majority (we can argue what super-majority). It's not a decision to take lightly and easily reverse in 4 or so years with another election.
It's an argument which weakens the concept of ownership (right of the owner to know what their property is being used for, vs the user's right to privacy).
Well, why should the the owners rights remove the users rights to privacy. Not being an American, it seems obvious that my right to privacy is more important then the right for someone to remove my privacy. My countries laws reflect this as well, with employers rights to spy on their workers being less then the workers rights to privacy. Probably rooted in America's founding principals such as being able to own people.
As I said, an amendment would have been easy to pass. Knowing new things would come up was one of the reasons for an amending formula and it should be used more. Instead there is the crazy situation where the Supreme Court has got in to the habit of extending the Constitution or allowing Congress to. You listed a bunch of departments that have questionable Constitutionality, amendments would at least be clearer and allow debate on these departments. Good to remember that amendments can be amended too, illegalizing alcohol wasn't a good idea, repeal it with another amendment.
Where does the Constitution allow an Air force? The navy having an air corps, yes. Sadly the Air force is a perfect example of over stretch by the federal Government, it would have been so easy to pass an amendment allowing it but they never bothered and everyone thinks it's fine. As you sorta point out, even a standing army was considered a bad idea back in the 18th century, with the Constitution saying that it has to be funded regularly and mentioning militias in a couple of places IIRC. One of the main reasons for the 2nd was to not need a standing army.
You'd still end up with the ones using politics as a jumping off point into big business. Around here, we've had good career politicians and horrible ones who were around for perhaps a decade and then jumped into private business, usually the business they fucked over the people for. Really the first step is removing the money and making elections fair, which many people seem to think as anti-freedom and forget that freedom is a balancing act.
You should check out the history of the discovery of the neutrino, a particle invented to make the maths work given our assumptions. Also very similar to dark matter as it barely interacts with normal matter. Interestingly when Fermi refined the theory giving a neutrino, Nature refused to publish it as too far out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The positron also was theorized first on the basis that Dirac's new theory allowed it. Though at first it wasn't considered as a new particle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good point. I do notice on some developer lists the main developer will put up a release candidate that he built on Linux for Windows and ask for testing and other times ask for help with Windows. These are usually text mode programs but I'd think that it could work the same for graphical programs if there is a demand. Of course demand is the question. There's lots of native windows programs and for people who don't care about propriety software...
Slashdot Mirror
The big difference between recent history and the way people have always been is that childhood is a new development.
Up until around the turn of the last century, kids at around 5 years old became little adults, going to work, being responsible, etc, with the age of consent being set at 7 years old during the middle ages.
This changed with automation reducing the number of jobs being available and kids being removed from the labour force through child labour laws and such and then school being introduced to keep them of the streets. This is an ongoing change as kids are kept in school for longer and longer.
Why do so many people get this backwards? Taxes are ultimately usually paid by businesses and often those businesses are incorporated.
Think about it. Where do most individuals get the money to pay taxes? That's right, in a paycheck from a business. So businesses, which are often incorporated, have to charge customers enough to pay their employees enough to not only live on, but also to pay taxes. Raise taxes on individuals, businesses have to pay more in salaries, which means they have to raise their prices to cover the added expense.
Socialist in the sense that the workers own and run the company, capitalist in the sense that the workers raised the capital.
There's no reason that socialism means no capital or no market, at that a market is a good way to price stuff and show efficiency, even in a socialist society, though in theory a socialist market shouldn't be so cutthroat.
That's socialism, so obviously won't work. Next you'll find some study that shows co-ops are efficient at infrastructure, more socialist propaganda.
Big business in partnership with big government is the true way to have profitable businesses.
Should have added that this was the Canadian Federal election, where our Conservative party was advised by the American Republican party how to change the voting requirements.
And no, a social insurance card (which we all have) is not good enough ID to vote. Needed current street address on the couple of acceptable pieces of ID.
After experiencing how the Conservatives screwed up the ID laws, I've gone from pro-ID to not. We've needed ID for a long time and it was never a hassle before, you used to be able to sign an affidavit if you didn't have ID and most any ID was good enough if combined with something like a bill with your address on it.
Of course having your registered name changed is a screw up no matter how good your ID is. Lots of women use their maiden name.
On the other hand, in the village my wife was born in, common last names include Skead, Skeed, Skede, and Skied. Just like whoever spelt Vermin wrong, they were probably illegitimate and someone phonetically spelt it. This is made even worse with strong accents, which is probably the case with your example considering they used a foreign spelling of mount
What they did to my wife was showed she was still registered in her maiden name that she has used for over a dozen elections and is the name that she has on all her ID and bills and then magically changed it on voting day to her married name. And of course, the marriage license she brought along was not good enough.
Oh fuck off. This is exactly how my son got disenfranchised.
Tighten the ID laws, have the place to get ID 50 miles away with no public transit and charge $70 for that ID.
My wife, they even got more creative. Tell her she is still registered in the same name that her government ID is in and she has used for at least a dozen elections and then change it so when she shows up to vote, her ID is no good.
You need a data plan or live somewhere where it is easy to leach WiFi. Data is expensive for the poor. My cheap pay as you go plan costs $10 for 60 MBs, you know how fast you can go through 60MBs in this day of the average web site being 5+MBs?
Sure I have a cheap cell phone, it's another bill to pay and hardly used.
What's scary is the kids who used to hang out at the park now hang out on facebook. It's hard for me to see that as an improvement. I also have a hard time seeing parents needing to check up on their kids continuously as an improvement but maybe we'll raise better people by keeping them sheltered from life.
And when today it is 50%+1 with tomorrow being 50%-1? Or like America where they had to chase a good chunk of the population from the colonies to even get close to a majority?
It's like a divorce. No one says divorce shouldn't be allowed, but they still get messy. How do the assets get split? What about the debt? Dependents like the natives who signed treaties with the Federal government?
America is weird too as many (most?) of the States were formed from Federal territory.
Of course the Constitution could be changed pretty quick (either way) if a super majority of States decided to.
Personally (and my countries Supreme Court agrees) I think succession is a constitutional level change and should not be decided by 50%+1, but rather a clear super majority (we can argue what super-majority). It's not a decision to take lightly and easily reverse in 4 or so years with another election.
Don't like Hillary? Vote for her good buddy, the Hollywood elite maybe billionaire because he's different.
It's an argument which weakens the concept of ownership (right of the owner to know what their property is being used for, vs the user's right to privacy).
Well, why should the the owners rights remove the users rights to privacy. Not being an American, it seems obvious that my right to privacy is more important then the right for someone to remove my privacy. My countries laws reflect this as well, with employers rights to spy on their workers being less then the workers rights to privacy.
Probably rooted in America's founding principals such as being able to own people.
Some say that an armed society is a more polite one.. I'm inclined to agree...
Yet Canadians are considered much more polite then Americans.
The summary qualified it, to quote
A bit later in the year then Sept.
As I said, an amendment would have been easy to pass. Knowing new things would come up was one of the reasons for an amending formula and it should be used more.
Instead there is the crazy situation where the Supreme Court has got in to the habit of extending the Constitution or allowing Congress to. You listed a bunch of departments that have questionable Constitutionality, amendments would at least be clearer and allow debate on these departments. Good to remember that amendments can be amended too, illegalizing alcohol wasn't a good idea, repeal it with another amendment.
Where does the Constitution allow an Air force? The navy having an air corps, yes.
Sadly the Air force is a perfect example of over stretch by the federal Government, it would have been so easy to pass an amendment allowing it but they never bothered and everyone thinks it's fine. As you sorta point out, even a standing army was considered a bad idea back in the 18th century, with the Constitution saying that it has to be funded regularly and mentioning militias in a couple of places IIRC. One of the main reasons for the 2nd was to not need a standing army.
You'd still end up with the ones using politics as a jumping off point into big business.
Around here, we've had good career politicians and horrible ones who were around for perhaps a decade and then jumped into private business, usually the business they fucked over the people for.
Really the first step is removing the money and making elections fair, which many people seem to think as anti-freedom and forget that freedom is a balancing act.
Sure, every time they're the minority party.
Yep, each State can put their power plants on the border of the downwind State and make the pollution someone elses problem.
Ah, like the neutrino then, some type of matter that was postulated to make the numbers balance.
The ignorance of the average slashdot poster. I thought everyone knew that paperclips are embryo wire clothes hangers.
You should check out the history of the discovery of the neutrino, a particle invented to make the maths work given our assumptions. Also very similar to dark matter as it barely interacts with normal matter.
Interestingly when Fermi refined the theory giving a neutrino, Nature refused to publish it as too far out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The positron also was theorized first on the basis that Dirac's new theory allowed it. Though at first it wasn't considered as a new particle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good point. I do notice on some developer lists the main developer will put up a release candidate that he built on Linux for Windows and ask for testing and other times ask for help with Windows. These are usually text mode programs but I'd think that it could work the same for graphical programs if there is a demand.
Of course demand is the question. There's lots of native windows programs and for people who don't care about propriety software...