In short, I believe that Pledges of Allegiance make more sense in places like North Korea, where they shoot you for trying to leave. Why is it so unacceptable to let children make their own decisions about what pledges and oaths they will recite?
The fact is that there's no shortage of "flaming crazies" on either side of the isle.
The only reason children are led in school-sponsored group indoctrination, chanting "one nation, under God" every morning, is because there weren't enough flaming crazies in the 1950s to stop it.
Something tells me your personal brand of flaming craziness is all for it, though. Amirite?
Blah, blah, whatever. I can choose not to do business with a corporation. If I choose not to do business with the government, men with guns come and take me away.
I'll never understand where all the neo-statist rhetoric seen on forums like Slashdot and Reddit these days is coming from. Is there some frustrated poli-sci professor back east who's indoctrinating his students by awarding extra points for posting this tripe?
I've got a better idea. If an economy of trillions of dollars is threatened by something which has not been proven, then those doing the threatening should bear the burden of proof.
(Or, as a famous environmentalist once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.")
Well, neither are wages of CEOs that come out to 100 times the wage of an assembly line worker.
Stay on target, Porkins. This (sub)thread is about the ethics of unionization, not executive pay, which is such a tiny proportion of a corporation's overall financial picture that it's worthless as anything but a wedge issue.
If you don't like it here - why don't you just leave is an ultimatum. Not choice, nor guarantee.
Sure, it's an ultimatum. Why is it less moral in your opinion than "If you don't give us what we demand, we will organize a collective walkout and do everything we can to shut your business down?"
UAW workers are guilty for the fact of trusting their management that they know what the fuck they are doing.
...unionists were parasites who would "eat up" the company and then move on to the next one, instead of workers working FOR the company, creating the profit and thereby being entitled to the part of it - and who would be jobless if they should "ruin the company" by their "crazy" demands
Gee, maybe the UAW should've thought of that.
At the end of the day, the company that is not divided against itself is the one that will prosper. You need only look at the US auto industry ("too big to fail," indeed) for an instance of this.
Apparently you think someone who tightens bolts on an assembly line is worth $40/hour, but history suggests it's not good for you or anyone else to force the company to meet your demands. If you don't like the way you're treated at one company, you can always leave and work for someone else, or start your own. That is the only guarantee you're entitled to.
(Shrug) Capitalism is exactly what happens when you give people the liberty to trade with each other. The only way to stop capitalism is to shoot people for practicing it. Is that what you, personally, advocate?
Yeah, let's see what major game developers think about authoring for 400 ever-so-slightly different, ever-so-slightly incompatible Android platforms with nothing resembling market discipline.
Face it. Apple has out-Nintendoed Nintendo, out-Sonied Sony, and out-Microsofted Microsoft. Everybody else has already gone over the cliff edge, they just haven't looked down yet.
Your point might have some merit if it were common for engineers to study other peoples' patents to see how to implement various features.
However, that never happens, as a rule. Engineers who are faced with similar problems tend to arrive at the same more-or-less obvious solutions. When it becomes apparent that a given solution infringes upon a patent filed by another party who happened to have the same problem first, it invariably comes as a surprise to the "infringing" party.
In fact, engineers tend to be strongly discouraged by their management from doing patent searches at any time, for any reason. Far too many obvious things would lead to triple damages for willful infringement, otherwise.
Patents are not about rewarding innovation -- that's the market's job. They're about raising barriers to entry. It has always been so.
Until somebody bumps into my mirror in a parking lot, and I drive off thinking it's giving me the same view of the adjacent lane that it gave me on the way to the store.
I'll keep a sliver of my car's bodywork visible in the mirror as a reference, thanks.
The law is quite a bit more subtle than your perception of it. For one thing, organizations that proselytize their guests or customers are not eligible for government support, and I suspect these morons will be doing that early and often.
And if the very first few words of the Constitution explicitly prohibited the government from supporting the arts, abortion, etc., you might have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
Computer Library did this circa 1993, and I seriously doubt they were the first.
In short, I believe that Pledges of Allegiance make more sense in places like North Korea, where they shoot you for trying to leave. Why is it so unacceptable to let children make their own decisions about what pledges and oaths they will recite?
The fact is that there's no shortage of "flaming crazies" on either side of the isle.
The only reason children are led in school-sponsored group indoctrination, chanting "one nation, under God" every morning, is because there weren't enough flaming crazies in the 1950s to stop it.
Something tells me your personal brand of flaming craziness is all for it, though. Amirite?
God. Where do these kids come from?
Private interests are every bit as oppressive and corrupt as the Soviet Union
You seriously need to read more history.
there is now 6 idiots, who havent comprehended what they have read and replied to.
"The system seems to be working here, sir. It sounds like the problem is on your end."
Blah, blah, whatever. I can choose not to do business with a corporation. If I choose not to do business with the government, men with guns come and take me away.
I'll never understand where all the neo-statist rhetoric seen on forums like Slashdot and Reddit these days is coming from. Is there some frustrated poli-sci professor back east who's indoctrinating his students by awarding extra points for posting this tripe?
The Kansas board of education is hardly hardline Iran. Not even close.
They damned sure would be, if you gave them the necessary political power.
Seriously... do you think the Iranians are somehow genetically different from the rest of us?
Of course, CO2 was not what was obscuring the skyline of LA, but don't let that deflate a good rant.
I've got a better idea. If an economy of trillions of dollars is threatened by something which has not been proven, then those doing the threatening should bear the burden of proof.
(Or, as a famous environmentalist once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.")
Well, neither are wages of CEOs that come out to 100 times the wage of an assembly line worker.
Stay on target, Porkins. This (sub)thread is about the ethics of unionization, not executive pay, which is such a tiny proportion of a corporation's overall financial picture that it's worthless as anything but a wedge issue.
If you don't like it here - why don't you just leave is an ultimatum. Not choice, nor guarantee.
Sure, it's an ultimatum. Why is it less moral in your opinion than "If you don't give us what we demand, we will organize a collective walkout and do everything we can to shut your business down?"
UAW workers are guilty for the fact of trusting their management that they know what the fuck they are doing.
Stop. You're killing me.
...unionists were parasites who would "eat up" the company and then move on to the next one, instead of workers working FOR the company, creating the profit and thereby being entitled to the part of it - and who would be jobless if they should "ruin the company" by their "crazy" demands
Gee, maybe the UAW should've thought of that.
At the end of the day, the company that is not divided against itself is the one that will prosper. You need only look at the US auto industry ("too big to fail," indeed) for an instance of this.
Apparently you think someone who tightens bolts on an assembly line is worth $40/hour, but history suggests it's not good for you or anyone else to force the company to meet your demands. If you don't like the way you're treated at one company, you can always leave and work for someone else, or start your own. That is the only guarantee you're entitled to.
(Shrug) Capitalism is exactly what happens when you give people the liberty to trade with each other. The only way to stop capitalism is to shoot people for practicing it. Is that what you, personally, advocate?
And threatening to gang up on the company's owner to extort unjustified pay raises and unsustainable benefits isn't blackmail?
Oh, right; it's not blackmail, it's extortion.
Before unions can occupy the moral high ground, they first need to take it.
Yeah, let's see what major game developers think about authoring for 400 ever-so-slightly different, ever-so-slightly incompatible Android platforms with nothing resembling market discipline.
Face it. Apple has out-Nintendoed Nintendo, out-Sonied Sony, and out-Microsofted Microsoft. Everybody else has already gone over the cliff edge, they just haven't looked down yet.
And I'm not saying this is a good thing.
Too lazy to go looking for SCOTUS decisions, but: http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obama_Halts_Sermons_during_Soup_Kitchen_Meals_101126
Same idea.
Your point might have some merit if it were common for engineers to study other peoples' patents to see how to implement various features.
However, that never happens, as a rule. Engineers who are faced with similar problems tend to arrive at the same more-or-less obvious solutions. When it becomes apparent that a given solution infringes upon a patent filed by another party who happened to have the same problem first, it invariably comes as a surprise to the "infringing" party.
In fact, engineers tend to be strongly discouraged by their management from doing patent searches at any time, for any reason. Far too many obvious things would lead to triple damages for willful infringement, otherwise.
Patents are not about rewarding innovation -- that's the market's job. They're about raising barriers to entry. It has always been so.
Careful, you wouldn't want to get arrested for using unapproved language on the Internet.
Honestly, I can't for the life of me see why theists think that religion brings peace and comfort
Religion brings money and political power. If you can't derive peace and comfort from those, there's no hope for you!
Until somebody bumps into my mirror in a parking lot, and I drive off thinking it's giving me the same view of the adjacent lane that it gave me on the way to the store.
I'll keep a sliver of my car's bodywork visible in the mirror as a reference, thanks.
The law is quite a bit more subtle than your perception of it. For one thing, organizations that proselytize their guests or customers are not eligible for government support, and I suspect these morons will be doing that early and often.
We'll see what the courts think.
Fourteenth Amendment. It works, bitches.
And if the very first few words of the Constitution explicitly prohibited the government from supporting the arts, abortion, etc., you might have a point.