You forgot to check the post anonymously button, stupid.
There you go resorting to insults and force to get what you want. Lawsuits! What a pox. It's a shame that such threats can be found here. How funny it is that people like you, who think they advocate freedom, would jump up and down on free speech like this. "My truth shall set you free, now shut up or loose all reputability, career and livelyhood!" Do you see the hypocracy here? Do and say what you want, but keep the treats to yourself.
My opinions are my own and have nothing to do with the policy of my employers that I will cary out. My wife and I agreed about our roles BEFORE we were married. We are planning our lives accordingly. The views expressed here have nothing to do with my penis, and are far less misogynist than those who advocate day care.
Day care is an evil institution useful only in enslaving women. My wife has far less interest in her work than she does in our house, health and the future of our children. The only winners of mass female employment are coperations who end up paying less for labor, and the federal government which realizes a temporary boost in GNP. The rest of us loose. Mass employement of women is something that should only be resorted to in war. You are blind to the truth, which is that women should have the choice to work if they please and employers should have the choice to hire them when they please. The present, where 2/3 of women work, is greedy and foolish. It is awful that people sit around an dinegrate mother hood as , "sitting around at home", "issolated " and unambitious.
Reproduction is a right, and it is just as stupid to try to stop it as it is cruel to let children starve. Advocating chastity is good but saying that "some people can't afford to have children" is sick and wrong. What are you going to do about it? Institutionalize all illegitimate children? Good luck. By the same token anyone in this country can afford a stay at home wife and children. The extra food, shelter and clothing is not too expensive. What costs too much is all the crap that no one really needs anyway.
Poverty is the curse of those who don't plan their lives well. Single moms suffer for their stupidity, but their children are inocent. Not having the extras that most people desire, drives single mothers to get married and curse those who recomended promiscuity. They learn their lesson, and don't really need to be preached too.
Men will match women in childrearing when they can give birth and breast feed.
Women will match men in the workforce when they develop uperbody strength equal to men, and do not have to take anytime in childbirth. The first will keep them from being useful manual laborers, the second will keep them from compeeting for positions of real responsibility.
In short, the sexes will be equivalent and interchangable when pigs fly. Stranger thing have happened, but I would not forsee this by 2050.
This opinion has little to do with the detriments of day care, my penis, or "the wrinkled old divorced pr0n queen adulteress".
People are indeed suggesting that daycare is some kind of universal entitlement, and that people who do not aprove of such things pay for it. You can make those cages (cribs) out of wire, tube, wood, or sheet metal, they will not take the place of a mother's arms.
I agree that is a cruel scenario but it is not the reality of the daycare that I use. The person that looks after my baby has only two others in her charge and regularly gives my daughter plenty of one-on-one interaction
That's not daycare, that's a nanny. You are rich enough to do as you chose, and I'm happy for you. Don't confuse that with the what the rest of us are looking at.
I love coding and I work in a great environment with fair compensation. My decision to go back work was a personal one, not based money as much as quality of life for my daughter as well as myself.
You are lucky, but when are you going to start interacting with your children? When will that interaction outweigh the satisfaction you get from coding, and how will you know?
It's wrong to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do with regard to their children or their career.
What's wrong with expressing an opinion?
Don't confuse my advococy of motherhood for force. Force is generally comming from the other direction. As things are, it is going to be difficult for my wife NOT to work. We have to make hard choices between the quality of our children's education (private vrs public) and the amount of involvement we will have with them. All of these supposedly liberated women have helped keep wages down for most of us, as demand always meets supply. In general, society is forcing it's lower class women into "service economy". Worse than that is the prospect of government sponsored day care that would force us to subsidise a life style that we do not aprove of. Every little load is helping to push us out of the middle class and into the lower. My wife is the best nanny I can think of, and the only one that we can afford. This will only last as long as we think we can afford a decent education for our children, then we will be forced to move or use day care.
60 minutes did an economics analysis only. They did not speculate on the bad mental health implications of the comunal baby factory. Nor did they mention some of the other social implications of too many women working. These are:
Day care health problems. A friend of mine put her child in day care. She has hepititis. Her baby was imunized so that she could not contract this through the breast milk she leaves with the day care. How many of the other children were imunized, and how do we know that their keepers can keep the bottles straight? It's a fact that children in daycare suffer more illnesses than those who stay at home. This may be due to greater exposure as well as greater stress.
A society that has lost some of it's coherence. Working women do not have the time to befriend their neighbors, and whole neighborhoods stand empty to be robbed durring daylight hours. Who's that next door? Who knows!? Sure, we can all get along with our work chums, but a traditional support for women has fallen away.
A more frantic, less enjoyable life. What's the point of all this extra work? Well, it has helped us job hop, and we have had some more vacations, cars and other crap. It would have been nicer to earn a decent living in the first place. Time lost persuing other people's profits can not be taken back. My wife and I spend our week nights tired from work and our weekends doing chores that did not get done all week, and we don't have kids yet! When the children come, her work won't make any sense at all. Sorry, Hillary, if GDP and tax income go down, we want our lives to be more enjoyable than this.
You are making an assumption that a person who stays at home with a child literally stays at home.
Nope. You might have to drive to work. Your wife might drive you to work. You might live someplace nice, where your wife can get things on foot and would enjoy spending time outside regardless. If you are really lucky, you live someplace where neither of you has to use a car but you will own one for the occasional convenience.
It strikes me that the solution to the problem might be for the woman to find a
job where she gets paid more than a pittance, and find a daycare where they
don't just pen kids and let 'em suffer, rather than giving up completely on
having her own career. You're writing as if the wife's working was the
husband's decision, and she can't possibly be the family breadwinner.
Besides, I bet you don't always feel "liberated" and "empowered" by work
either. But it sure would beat being isolated at home all day with the kids, and
completely dependent on one person you only see early in the morning and
late at night, don'cha think?
No, I don't feel liberated persuing someone else's bottom line all day. Though I have friends, I feel isolated enough in my cubicle, don't you? My first rewared is that my wife will not have to work. This is something we talked about BEFORE we got married. My second reward is the good feeling I get helping to put 1 gigawatt onto the grid. Life could be worse for me.
Life is worse for those who think they don't have that option. Supply and demand dictate that the women who ignore their children to toil beside me reduce my potential earnings. At some point this is, like you said, starts to feel less like a choice but economic neccesity. I worked hard and got lucky, but my wife and I agree that we would rather be poor than have her chase her career at our children's expense. We were going to have to move to some place with decent public education if things did not go so well for me.
My sister has a different problem. Her career has taken off out of all proportion to her husband's. This is in part because she worked hareder, but also due to the smaller pool of women applicants she had to compete with. There is no way her husband can ever catch up, and he's going to end up Mr. Mom. It's a little irksome to my sister's employers and her. She's got a responsible position that she just can't leave for a month or so, but she will. She is also going to miss out on a lot of things that my wife could not. Mr. Mom is not to broken up about things.
Security is more important for infants. They had more than one group, of course, with coresponding levels of damage. The control group was rased alone with their mothers. The worst group had just a wire cage with a plastic face and a bottle for a mommy. The next group up got some carpet around the cage. There may have been other groups, but memory fails me. All of the groups were later put into normal social situations. The worst group could never accept the company of other monkeys. They were terrified all the time, and cowered in a corner. The other groups had levels of difficulty. Draw your own conclusions about the applicability to people.
A stay at home mom can provide both comfort and peer interaction for infants if the mom has other stay at home friends.
The cheaper the car, the higher the upkeep and the lower the safety. It may cost you more than you like.
Responsible parents raise their children. Daycare falls short in many ways, and the poster was not extreem.
As rhesus monkey experiments show, infants need the security and comfort of a mother, not the "social interaction" of a daycare baby factory. Haven't you seen the films of monkeys raised on wire cages with a bottle as a mom? They grew up sociopaths because the world had never provided them warmth or security. What makes you think some overworked daycare "proffesional" is going to be able to provide any more love? Putting you child into one of these places where they are abandoned in a crib surrounded by the cries of all thier peers is just cruel.
What do you get in return for this abandonment, more money? Huh! If your wife makes less than $25,000 you are loosing money on that second car, day care, and her wardrobe, so quit slaving her.
Very few women I know really like the "liberation" and "empowerment" of work. What double think.
usually excessive amount are fired at cancerous cells. An old technique,
but limited in effectiveness
Try, an old technique and still the most effective on it's own. Radio therapy is still more effective than chemo! Combined they are even better. Radio therapy may not work for all cancers, but where it's appropriate it's your best chance. Look up Mecical Physics some time.
I agree 100% with you about government not being a tool of retribution. Governments are made to get things done, not to punish. Punishment and retribution are the kinds of things Marxists and other bitter people who recomend theft and murder talk about.
At the same time, I'd like to put progressive taxes in a better light for you. Such systems have existed long before Marx perverted Latin to make himself look scientific and learned. In fact the Romans themselves has such a system from the earliest days of their republic. The idea is that those who have more feel compelled to give more and everyone benefits. This only becomes oppresive when it becomes confiscitory or the scale rolls too far down into those who should pay no taxes at all.
Think about it.
Isn't it enough that people at the bottom of the ladder provide conscription service, labor and offspring? Why should the state try to take from them? Instead the state should do what it can to help such people become more productive members of society: education, training, stimulation. Charity for these folks starts and should end at home. I can see the top of this group starting at $100,000/year for a married couple.
From the other end, decent people with real wealth generally want to help their fellow man. By real wealth, I mean people who are no longer dependent on others for income (yes, independently wealthy). Even evil Billy G. wants to give his wealth away. Why else would anyone want to earn so much?
Progressive taxes are supposed to lift up not bring down. Taking from those who are easily ruined is stupid and cruel.
Beware of people who prommis to help you by hurting others. They generally want to enslave you as well as steal from their betters. There's a better way to do things.
Try moving your hand between your eyes and your screen. Where did all those fingers come from?! It's a strobe, and that's what you see when you turn your head from side to side too. You can see the dark/light contrast.
The faster the refersh the more fluid that had motion will be and the less your screen will seem to flash as you look rapidly from one corner of your much too big monitor to the other.
Their service blows alright, but it only cost $10/month to keep it around if you have a cable modem. It's not a bad security blanket. Sure it blows, but the phone line might be there if the cable breaks.
By the way, I'd never use this for a family account. AOL mailboxes fill up with the most disgusting porn spam! I don't care what kind of "filter" they would use to not sell my address to porn merchants, when I have kids old enough to use a computer, AOL is history.
I imagine the stop button does not work, so the user is forced to download whatever AOL wants to push. This would blow in a major way if AOL could not feed it fast enough. Think of walking off for 10 minutes or so to wait it out, then comming back to find that you had been disconnected for inactivity! Ahhhhh!
I also have to worry about them changing the compatibility of their service with other browsers. Older software used to open up a socket that any browser would use, and I used Netscape and never theirs.
It's been about a year since I used AOL, and this gives me pause to think about it. I got cable modem, but still pay AOL $10 a month just in case the cable fails and also because it has been such a stable address. Yep, in the time I'd had AOL, I'd had six physical addresses. I phased out that email address in favor of a pop account on campus over about a year before cable, so mail checks have gotten less and less frequent (too much spam too little mail). The last time I tried to use AOL's service it hung up. I was thinking of putting a newer client on that awful windoze box, but this has me reconsidering. It may be time to shoot that $10/month insurance policy in the head.
True, but it could serve as a seed. The core of all math is practical application. The online documents can be expanded with links and that would be nice. Here's what you need to get this done, and here (different) is why this works.
Think about your next binary windoze install. Not that corrupted binaries were'nt already in circulation, but this adds a whole new dimension to Warez distros, even legit looking boxed software. Got mine from RISE, how about you? Mine comes from St Petersburg... Came in a box with a seal and everything.
Oh well, I have not installed windows on a machine in more than 2 years. Will not be doing it again anyway.
You and your peers may be very bright, but can you vouch for everyone? Don't you know anyone dumb enough to have a downloaded screen saver, pointer cartoon program, or any of these other stupid things people pass around and execute without worry? Come on.
I work with bright people too who don't know any better. On an MS box that screen saver runs as root, but most don't know what that means. Someone who does not program and has never been exposed to *nix would not. They have been assured that their data is safe and trust that it is. That's the way it goes.
MS employees might better know their software than people who listen to the MS sales department but, again, can you vouch for everyone? From Bill down to secretaries and janitors on the night shift? I don't think so.
Nothing, open source can't compete on this level unless it
incorporates itself under law, and the pseudo-communistic rantings of gurus like
Stallmann will prevent this from ever happening.
Sorry, greedy little troll, RMS does live within the law and FSF software has noting to fear at all from this BS.
1) People who know criminals are criminals. Sorry, wrong, we all know criminals and most of us want them in jail.
2)The people who broke into MS are criminals. I'm not sure about this either. OK, they did break in and they did copy information, but we don't know much more than that.
3)Judges are stupid. Nope, not always true. I doubt the fact that MS code was "stolen" will make all other programing illegal.
4)MS code is worth copying. I don't need it, or Wine for that matter, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, ichimunki. Why is it that this basic logic elludes so many posters here?
There you go resorting to insults and force to get what you want. Lawsuits! What a pox. It's a shame that such threats can be found here. How funny it is that people like you, who think they advocate freedom, would jump up and down on free speech like this. "My truth shall set you free, now shut up or loose all reputability, career and livelyhood!" Do you see the hypocracy here? Do and say what you want, but keep the treats to yourself.
My opinions are my own and have nothing to do with the policy of my employers that I will cary out. My wife and I agreed about our roles BEFORE we were married. We are planning our lives accordingly. The views expressed here have nothing to do with my penis, and are far less misogynist than those who advocate day care.
Day care is an evil institution useful only in enslaving women. My wife has far less interest in her work than she does in our house, health and the future of our children. The only winners of mass female employment are coperations who end up paying less for labor, and the federal government which realizes a temporary boost in GNP. The rest of us loose. Mass employement of women is something that should only be resorted to in war. You are blind to the truth, which is that women should have the choice to work if they please and employers should have the choice to hire them when they please. The present, where 2/3 of women work, is greedy and foolish. It is awful that people sit around an dinegrate mother hood as , "sitting around at home", "issolated " and unambitious.
Poverty is the curse of those who don't plan their lives well. Single moms suffer for their stupidity, but their children are inocent. Not having the extras that most people desire, drives single mothers to get married and curse those who recomended promiscuity. They learn their lesson, and don't really need to be preached too.
Women will match men in the workforce when they develop uperbody strength equal to men, and do not have to take anytime in childbirth. The first will keep them from being useful manual laborers, the second will keep them from compeeting for positions of real responsibility.
In short, the sexes will be equivalent and interchangable when pigs fly. Stranger thing have happened, but I would not forsee this by 2050.
This opinion has little to do with the detriments of day care, my penis, or "the wrinkled old divorced pr0n queen adulteress".
People are indeed suggesting that daycare is some kind of universal entitlement, and that people who do not aprove of such things pay for it. You can make those cages (cribs) out of wire, tube, wood, or sheet metal, they will not take the place of a mother's arms.
That's not daycare, that's a nanny. You are rich enough to do as you chose, and I'm happy for you. Don't confuse that with the what the rest of us are looking at.
I love coding and I work in a great environment with fair compensation. My decision to go back work was a personal one, not based money as much as quality of life for my daughter as well as myself.
You are lucky, but when are you going to start interacting with your children? When will that interaction outweigh the satisfaction you get from coding, and how will you know? It's wrong to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do with regard to their children or their career.
What's wrong with expressing an opinion?
Don't confuse my advococy of motherhood for force. Force is generally comming from the other direction. As things are, it is going to be difficult for my wife NOT to work. We have to make hard choices between the quality of our children's education (private vrs public) and the amount of involvement we will have with them. All of these supposedly liberated women have helped keep wages down for most of us, as demand always meets supply. In general, society is forcing it's lower class women into "service economy". Worse than that is the prospect of government sponsored day care that would force us to subsidise a life style that we do not aprove of. Every little load is helping to push us out of the middle class and into the lower. My wife is the best nanny I can think of, and the only one that we can afford. This will only last as long as we think we can afford a decent education for our children, then we will be forced to move or use day care.
Day care health problems. A friend of mine put her child in day care. She has hepititis. Her baby was imunized so that she could not contract this through the breast milk she leaves with the day care. How many of the other children were imunized, and how do we know that their keepers can keep the bottles straight? It's a fact that children in daycare suffer more illnesses than those who stay at home. This may be due to greater exposure as well as greater stress.
A society that has lost some of it's coherence. Working women do not have the time to befriend their neighbors, and whole neighborhoods stand empty to be robbed durring daylight hours. Who's that next door? Who knows!? Sure, we can all get along with our work chums, but a traditional support for women has fallen away.
A more frantic, less enjoyable life. What's the point of all this extra work? Well, it has helped us job hop, and we have had some more vacations, cars and other crap. It would have been nicer to earn a decent living in the first place. Time lost persuing other people's profits can not be taken back. My wife and I spend our week nights tired from work and our weekends doing chores that did not get done all week, and we don't have kids yet! When the children come, her work won't make any sense at all. Sorry, Hillary, if GDP and tax income go down, we want our lives to be more enjoyable than this.
Nope. You might have to drive to work. Your wife might drive you to work. You might live someplace nice, where your wife can get things on foot and would enjoy spending time outside regardless. If you are really lucky, you live someplace where neither of you has to use a car but you will own one for the occasional convenience.
Your son's manners will be as bad or worse than your own. It's hard to decide if nature or nurture is to blame.
Besides, I bet you don't always feel "liberated" and "empowered" by work either. But it sure would beat being isolated at home all day with the kids, and completely dependent on one person you only see early in the morning and late at night, don'cha think?
No, I don't feel liberated persuing someone else's bottom line all day. Though I have friends, I feel isolated enough in my cubicle, don't you? My first rewared is that my wife will not have to work. This is something we talked about BEFORE we got married. My second reward is the good feeling I get helping to put 1 gigawatt onto the grid. Life could be worse for me.
Life is worse for those who think they don't have that option. Supply and demand dictate that the women who ignore their children to toil beside me reduce my potential earnings. At some point this is, like you said, starts to feel less like a choice but economic neccesity. I worked hard and got lucky, but my wife and I agree that we would rather be poor than have her chase her career at our children's expense. We were going to have to move to some place with decent public education if things did not go so well for me.
My sister has a different problem. Her career has taken off out of all proportion to her husband's. This is in part because she worked hareder, but also due to the smaller pool of women applicants she had to compete with. There is no way her husband can ever catch up, and he's going to end up Mr. Mom. It's a little irksome to my sister's employers and her. She's got a responsible position that she just can't leave for a month or so, but she will. She is also going to miss out on a lot of things that my wife could not. Mr. Mom is not to broken up about things.
A stay at home mom can provide both comfort and peer interaction for infants if the mom has other stay at home friends.
The cheaper the car, the higher the upkeep and the lower the safety. It may cost you more than you like.
As rhesus monkey experiments show, infants need the security and comfort of a mother, not the "social interaction" of a daycare baby factory. Haven't you seen the films of monkeys raised on wire cages with a bottle as a mom? They grew up sociopaths because the world had never provided them warmth or security. What makes you think some overworked daycare "proffesional" is going to be able to provide any more love? Putting you child into one of these places where they are abandoned in a crib surrounded by the cries of all thier peers is just cruel.
What do you get in return for this abandonment, more money? Huh! If your wife makes less than $25,000 you are loosing money on that second car, day care, and her wardrobe, so quit slaving her.
Very few women I know really like the "liberation" and "empowerment" of work. What double think.
Try, an old technique and still the most effective on it's own. Radio therapy is still more effective than chemo! Combined they are even better. Radio therapy may not work for all cancers, but where it's appropriate it's your best chance. Look up Mecical Physics some time.
Now that is an Open System.
At the same time, I'd like to put progressive taxes in a better light for you. Such systems have existed long before Marx perverted Latin to make himself look scientific and learned. In fact the Romans themselves has such a system from the earliest days of their republic. The idea is that those who have more feel compelled to give more and everyone benefits. This only becomes oppresive when it becomes confiscitory or the scale rolls too far down into those who should pay no taxes at all.
Think about it.
Isn't it enough that people at the bottom of the ladder provide conscription service, labor and offspring? Why should the state try to take from them? Instead the state should do what it can to help such people become more productive members of society: education, training, stimulation. Charity for these folks starts and should end at home. I can see the top of this group starting at $100,000/year for a married couple.
From the other end, decent people with real wealth generally want to help their fellow man. By real wealth, I mean people who are no longer dependent on others for income (yes, independently wealthy). Even evil Billy G. wants to give his wealth away. Why else would anyone want to earn so much?
Progressive taxes are supposed to lift up not bring down. Taking from those who are easily ruined is stupid and cruel.
Beware of people who prommis to help you by hurting others. They generally want to enslave you as well as steal from their betters. There's a better way to do things.
Try moving your hand between your eyes and your screen. Where did all those fingers come from?! It's a strobe, and that's what you see when you turn your head from side to side too. You can see the dark/light contrast.
The faster the refersh the more fluid that had motion will be and the less your screen will seem to flash as you look rapidly from one corner of your much too big monitor to the other.
200 FPS may really be better.
Poster does not play games.
By the way, I'd never use this for a family account. AOL mailboxes fill up with the most disgusting porn spam! I don't care what kind of "filter" they would use to not sell my address to porn merchants, when I have kids old enough to use a computer, AOL is history.
I also have to worry about them changing the compatibility of their service with other browsers. Older software used to open up a socket that any browser would use, and I used Netscape and never theirs.
It's been about a year since I used AOL, and this gives me pause to think about it. I got cable modem, but still pay AOL $10 a month just in case the cable fails and also because it has been such a stable address. Yep, in the time I'd had AOL, I'd had six physical addresses. I phased out that email address in favor of a pop account on campus over about a year before cable, so mail checks have gotten less and less frequent (too much spam too little mail). The last time I tried to use AOL's service it hung up. I was thinking of putting a newer client on that awful windoze box, but this has me reconsidering. It may be time to shoot that $10/month insurance policy in the head.
TOTAL=3449.95
PERIOD = 1
DO 10 WHILE (MICROSOFT:SUCKS)
- crash(hairLoss,sleepLoss,faceLoss)
10 CONTINUEupgrade TOTAL=TOTAL + (1+interest*PERIOD)*TOTAL
wait (PERIOD)
Evil indeed. Just thought you would appreciate another perspective as much as I did, oh child of SATAN.
Are there any other alternatives?
Oh well, I have not installed windows on a machine in more than 2 years. Will not be doing it again anyway.
It would be great if what you say is true, but something makes me think that cable franchises will be as free as comerical radio in the end.
I work with bright people too who don't know any better. On an MS box that screen saver runs as root, but most don't know what that means. Someone who does not program and has never been exposed to *nix would not. They have been assured that their data is safe and trust that it is. That's the way it goes.
MS employees might better know their software than people who listen to the MS sales department but, again, can you vouch for everyone? From Bill down to secretaries and janitors on the night shift? I don't think so.
Sorry, greedy little troll, RMS does live within the law and FSF software has noting to fear at all from this BS.
2)The people who broke into MS are criminals. I'm not sure about this either. OK, they did break in and they did copy information, but we don't know much more than that.
3)Judges are stupid. Nope, not always true. I doubt the fact that MS code was "stolen" will make all other programing illegal.
4)MS code is worth copying. I don't need it, or Wine for that matter, do you?
So, does this make MS open source?
Still, unlike the movies, automobiles rarely explode. Mostly they burn if your luck is really bad.