And statists always forget that the easiest and fastest way to change a corporation is to stop giving it money, which is not possible with the government. It's for this reason that it takes tens of years to change the government, but corporations can be made, broke, and resurrected in better forms in tens of months. The government doesn't have any interest in being good because it's survival based less on being good and more on being unobservable.
Doesn't the person's individual abilities and condition of the road also determine other people's relative safety? I think there are people who can drive safely and talk on the cellphone at the same time.
So what would you propose? A certification process for walking and chewing gum?
Except the bar you raised has nothing to do with driving and talking on the phone, just with technical skills. They are not related. What you would want is people with better 'monkey-brain' reflexes, not specifically technical talent.
Can you blame people for not caring about victimless crimes? You might as well fine people for disregarding the "Wet Floor/Piso Mojado" sign.
Don't get me wrong, if you run over someone because you were texting, you should get assault with a deadly weapon at least and negligent homicide at most (assuming no ill intentions), but nothing should be done until you actually do something wrong and injure another person or destroy someone else's property.
I was referring to the Cosmetics Ban of 1994 and how silly it is to think that if the US government uses categories to skirt the issue and disregard one Amendment, it will likely do the same thing latter on and disregard another.
Then we can blame all the chicken deaths on the meat-bots and then, in turn, hunt down the meat-bots and eat them.
Nope. No possible flaw in that plan...
And don't forget, meat's taste is a combination of what it was fed and subsequently stored in the fat around the meat. That's why those choice cuts are so tasty.
Are you saying Denmark government employees are the same as United State goverment employees?
I have no problem investing in my own future. I put my self through college. Took me 6 years and working 60 hour weeks at a lumberyard in the summers. It took me being an Resident Advisor for 2 of those 6 years. It took scrubbing dishes at the cafe for book money and free dinners before doing homework. What I object to is investing in people who don't care.
I will send my kids to public school if things don't get too much worse, but you can damn well bet they better care about their own education. They better care enough to confront any trouble makers and slap that shit down. They had better care enough to take all the AP they can. They better care enough to put themselves through college, because I'm not going to do it for them. It would be good money after bad, and would be better spend on my own retirement if they simply didn't give a shit. But being my kids, I bet they give a shit. If they don't, I'm not going to force them or help them until they decide to help themselves. So tell me why other people's kids should be treated to more help on my dollar than I will give my own?
Why the hell would we listen to a Russian born in 1965 about this kind of thing?
From the wiki (if it's still accurate):
Kaspersky graduated from the Institute of Cryptography, Telecommunications and Computer Science, an institute co-sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defence and the KGB in 1987.
He may be good at solving individual problems, but I wouldn't trust him to make policy.
I didn't say steal money, I said stole the value. That's what happens when money is created. The people who create the money get to use it at full value, while every one of us is left in the lurch when all that extra money hits the consumers. And this all seems justified to you because it has created "stability in the market"? I don't see this stability. And if the FED was powerful enough to prevent instability, then why didn't it? Oh so it didn't have enough power so it should have more now... I know those aren't your words, but that is what too many people are thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
And statists always forget that the easiest and fastest way to change a corporation is to stop giving it money, which is not possible with the government. It's for this reason that it takes tens of years to change the government, but corporations can be made, broke, and resurrected in better forms in tens of months. The government doesn't have any interest in being good because it's survival based less on being good and more on being unobservable.
I know it's in my sig but I'd like to hear your well thought out rebuttal to this. Then you might be taken seriously.
.... or so the theory goes.
"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." Mohandas Gandhi
Doesn't the person's individual abilities and condition of the road also determine other people's relative safety? I think there are people who can drive safely and talk on the cellphone at the same time.
So what would you propose? A certification process for walking and chewing gum?
I don't think we will like the implications if they say yes.
You deserve a +6 Scientist rating for that one.
Except the bar you raised has nothing to do with driving and talking on the phone, just with technical skills. They are not related. What you would want is people with better 'monkey-brain' reflexes, not specifically technical talent.
Or anything not owned by you. If you can pull it off, no harm no foul I say.
What a modest proposal...
Statist.
Can you blame people for not caring about victimless crimes? You might as well fine people for disregarding the "Wet Floor/Piso Mojado" sign.
Don't get me wrong, if you run over someone because you were texting, you should get assault with a deadly weapon at least and negligent homicide at most (assuming no ill intentions), but nothing should be done until you actually do something wrong and injure another person or destroy someone else's property.
Supreme determinator of US policy? No.
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces that are fighting in a war that was not legally declared? Yes.
I was referring to the Cosmetics Ban of 1994 and how silly it is to think that if the US government uses categories to skirt the issue and disregard one Amendment, it will likely do the same thing latter on and disregard another.
Or a Semi-Auto rifle banned because it look mean...
Nope. No possible flaw in that plan...
And don't forget, meat's taste is a combination of what it was fed and subsequently stored in the fat around the meat. That's why those choice cuts are so tasty.
You forgot one: Global warming occurs regardless of man.
What then?
Are you saying Denmark government employees are the same as United State goverment employees?
I have no problem investing in my own future. I put my self through college. Took me 6 years and working 60 hour weeks at a lumberyard in the summers. It took me being an Resident Advisor for 2 of those 6 years. It took scrubbing dishes at the cafe for book money and free dinners before doing homework. What I object to is investing in people who don't care.
I will send my kids to public school if things don't get too much worse, but you can damn well bet they better care about their own education. They better care enough to confront any trouble makers and slap that shit down. They had better care enough to take all the AP they can. They better care enough to put themselves through college, because I'm not going to do it for them. It would be good money after bad, and would be better spend on my own retirement if they simply didn't give a shit. But being my kids, I bet they give a shit. If they don't, I'm not going to force them or help them until they decide to help themselves. So tell me why other people's kids should be treated to more help on my dollar than I will give my own?
Maybe that says more about the sheer helplessness and apathy towards their own life than you want it too...
It's appalling but understandable when you consider that most teachers are government employees...
bout damn time.
From the wiki (if it's still accurate):
He may be good at solving individual problems, but I wouldn't trust him to make policy.
America has really strong intentions to remove ourselves from all the international conflicts we're engaged
[citation needed]
That would be the trick they are playing on us...
I didn't say steal money, I said stole the value. That's what happens when money is created. The people who create the money get to use it at full value, while every one of us is left in the lurch when all that extra money hits the consumers. And this all seems justified to you because it has created "stability in the market"? I don't see this stability. And if the FED was powerful enough to prevent instability, then why didn't it? Oh so it didn't have enough power so it should have more now... I know those aren't your words, but that is what too many people are thinking.
Here's your source btw.