> My (former) stepmother and I tried to get help for a severely mentally ill man who had none of the above, and were turned away because "we have to make sure he's not defrauding the system."
Holy shit, I might be able to get this thread back on topic!
Well, if the homeless person in question is accounted for in this tracking system that the article is about, it would be much easier to verify his personal information without him knowing all of it. So therefore, this could actually help him. How about that.
> and there's a bum on the street who needs some money. maybe a beer, b/c life kicked the shit out of him. which one's the SCAM?
And what about me? I've been shit on & kicked around my whole fucking life, but I worked my ass off to find a job. Hell, I'm not even as mentally stable as a lot of homeless. Where's MY fucking beer? I don't deserve the free beer because I worked my ass off in the face of adversity, while someone sitting on a street with a tin cup does?
The world's not fair; I shouldn't have to give away more & more of my money to pay for things that have nothing to do with me. But I do, because that's the law.
> Do you believe any government can run a program that discerns which are deserving and which are merely lazy?
Yes, offer them low/zero-skill jobs that any person can do, mentallay challenged or not, and pay them with food, etc. If they refuse to work, they're in it for the free ride, shoot them. Well, for you Californians out there, maybe just shoo them away nicely with an invitation to come back & accept the offer when they feel like it.
> stating that since your father-in-law is trying to scam the system, then every homeless person is trying to scam the system?
How is his F-I-L "scamming" the system? There is no law he's breaking. If he wants to live in the tallest tree in the ocean, more power to him (good luck, though). He doesn't want a job? Fine, doesn't want to pay taxes? Fine, as long as he isn't avoiding any taxes he's supposed to pay. From the description, he hasn't broken any laws I know of, so what's the scam? Collecting Social Security? I'm sure he's not a bum for that sweet-ass check from the government he'll eventually get. Although, it WOULD help pay for his pot.
Experiencing homelessness? How fucking passive can you get!?!? They aren't "experiencing homelessness," they're fucking homeless. What sort of PC bullshit is this? I thought the worst of this crap-thought was flushed out after the nineties.
> Maybe someone could come up with a brilliant plan to not use land for windmills
Hey, waitasec... I must be brilliant then.
How about we use these windmills under water to harness the power of the tides! Whales? Dolphins? Fuck 'em if they can't swim around the spinning blades of progress!:)
(I'd like to point out that this is a joke, not a troll)
> Check out how close I am to Philadelphia and New York City. > And I have never seen what you are describing.
(to start out, I am on "your side" of this argument, just wanted to point out a flaw)
The reason you don't see it is because the pollution emitted in gaseous form usually goes up (due to the heat & updrafts, I guess) quite a ways before coming down again. Most weather moves in an eastern (and northern) direction, so the pollution would be moving away from you. There's a very large area in the middle of the country that doesn't have huge populations, so the pollution getting to your city/town that is visible & dense is very little.
California, OTOH, has the Rockies blocking the way, so the wind is blowing east, but the cold ocean air makes the pollutants cool faster & drop faster, they get blocked by the mountains & collect in the valleys (Chile has terrible problems with this IIRC, because they have HUGE valleys).
Oh, and the Appalachians don't count as mountains, (I live in WV; I know) they aren't big enough to block anything too serious.
> Because we all know the only reason anyone does anything is to turn a profit.
Did I say everyone? No, I generalized, I did not say that everyone would be greedy bastards. Not everyone is greedy now. It is a part of human nature. Yes, there are those that do things for the betterment of society, and some even to the detriment of themselves. They are very few.
Also, not profit, anyway. Things. Money isn't a necessary variable. If everyone is "equal," yet some can acquire things that others want, they still aren't equal enough for this spoken-of "utopia" to exist. And part of my point was that there will always be inequality in some form or another (why's he attractive & I look like a lump of fly shit?), which means there will always be those who are jealous & greedy.
Argue, if you will, about how people can be transformed into a happy mass where less than 1% (and I'm being generous, that's far from utopia) is unhappy, but until then, I will take my personal observations of people over your good-natured hope of the goodness of people. Although I hate to lose an argument, this is one where I would love to be able to truly accept defeat.:)
> This entails abolition of both private property and the state
If you abolish private property, there's no incentive. Without a human mutation of the brain (or reprogramming or a hardware addon:), there would be no incentive to do work. This would require either robots or slaves (the latter of which is, of course, unacceptable) to be able to do EVERYTHING with no assistance. But until automaton can make automaton better than themselves (is that even possible?) there is no hope of progress. We would also have to reach a point where we can live comfortably and get anything we want with no work whatsoever. Think Americans are lazy? (I don't, that's not the point) Wait until the whole world has 0 work to do. What then? What is left for humanity to do?
To put it into market terms, until supply is infinite & demand is zero, someone will always havwe something that someone else wants. Even then, an attractive woman is going to be fought over, and if one is killed so the other can have her? Who's supposed to stop him? There's no state, therefore there's no police... No recourse to unlawful... anything. Because then, everything is "lawful." That would be awful.
I know you said it won't be easy, etc., but I would venture to say it won't be possible.
> So the rich theives subvert the legal process and the poor theives go to jail
Whereas, in a real socialist system, the even fewer rich run the country. And they get to control how much money they get in an even more direct way than they do now. The rich theives get not even the threat of jail because there's no one to enforce anything on them (they run the police & the military, of course). The poor criminals, OTOH, get killed, all their meager possessions taken (as well as their family's possessions). Or jailed with no chance of ever getting out, assuming they know what they are in jail for.
What? That's not a reasonable picture of socialism? Sure it is. Almost every single political system is great from an outsider view, but as soon as humans are inserted into the equation, it goes all to hell.
Capitalism is just much more complicated, so that it's harder to take advantage of. Now that we are producing MBAs by the million, there are more people who know how to massage the system and take advantage. THAT is why the rich stay rich -- they pass off this important information to their kids who then take advantage.
The poorer people don't even know the system is that complicated, nor do they know there exists a way to work it. They don't have this information to pass on, therefore, their family line stays poor. Jumping classes is NOT that hard, if you can find out how to gain the proper information. Sometimes it doesn't even take that.
Socialism just ensures that the massive majority is equally poor. Just because we are "born equal" (yeah right) doesn't mean we have equal possessions.
Slashdot Mirror
> What they should do is stop making shity movies!
Redundant, my ass! I didn't see anyone say anything about shity movies. Shitty movies, perhaps, but...
> the underground railroad certainly hurt the slave labor industries
:)
I normally hate long-stretch analogies like this one, but since I am also a hypocrite; bravo, good one
> "Will I like this?". My answer was always, "how the fuck should I know you hag"
Wow, that's almost exactly the same as my typical helpdesk answer!
> "A consumer must be exposed to a stimulus at least 7 times
> This likely indicates the number of brian cells left in the average consumer
Yeah, but how, exactly, does one go about getting 1/7th of a brain cell to function?
> The Medallion advertising has been SO much that I don't think I've EVER seen a movie advertised this much on TV
Really? Must be regional, because I have seen two commercials for The Medallion, while about 50 for Freddy vs. J-Lo.
> They tell us Ars Gratis Atis and give us Ars Gratis Arcum
For those of you not from Latin America or Latinistan, those phrases translate to "Great piece of ass" and "Great pain in the ass."
Hey, Look over there! A joke! Haha, you're so gullible, there's no such thing as jokes...
> My (former) stepmother and I tried to get help for a severely mentally ill man who had none of the above, and were turned away because "we have to make sure he's not defrauding the system."
Holy shit, I might be able to get this thread back on topic!
Well, if the homeless person in question is accounted for in this tracking system that the article is about, it would be much easier to verify his personal information without him knowing all of it. So therefore, this could actually help him. How about that.
> and there's a bum on the street who needs some money. maybe a beer, b/c life kicked the shit out of him. which one's the SCAM?
And what about me? I've been shit on & kicked around my whole fucking life, but I worked my ass off to find a job. Hell, I'm not even as mentally stable as a lot of homeless. Where's MY fucking beer? I don't deserve the free beer because I worked my ass off in the face of adversity, while someone sitting on a street with a tin cup does?
The world's not fair; I shouldn't have to give away more & more of my money to pay for things that have nothing to do with me. But I do, because that's the law.
> Do you believe any government can run a program that discerns which are deserving and which are merely lazy?
Yes, offer them low/zero-skill jobs that any person can do, mentallay challenged or not, and pay them with food, etc. If they refuse to work, they're in it for the free ride, shoot them. Well, for you Californians out there, maybe just shoo them away nicely with an invitation to come back & accept the offer when they feel like it.
> stating that since your father-in-law is trying to scam the system, then every homeless person is trying to scam the system?
How is his F-I-L "scamming" the system? There is no law he's breaking. If he wants to live in the tallest tree in the ocean, more power to him (good luck, though). He doesn't want a job? Fine, doesn't want to pay taxes? Fine, as long as he isn't avoiding any taxes he's supposed to pay. From the description, he hasn't broken any laws I know of, so what's the scam? Collecting Social Security? I'm sure he's not a bum for that sweet-ass check from the government he'll eventually get. Although, it WOULD help pay for his pot.
> services for people experiencing homelessness.
Experiencing homelessness? How fucking passive can you get!?!? They aren't "experiencing homelessness," they're fucking homeless. What sort of PC bullshit is this? I thought the worst of this crap-thought was flushed out after the nineties.
> what the fuck is so funny about the above statement?
The part where he said "That's a lot of food stamps." Click here to understand why.
> get to know what life is really like for 90% of the world. Babies without food.
BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT. Come on, if you're going to troll, at leas make it look like you have a single fucking clue, you dimwitted twit.
> which is why I want to Bill O'reilly in his fat skull.
That's the first time I've seen "Bill O'Reilly" used as a verb. Whose fat skull are you talking about anyway?
> what was that one fortune 500 company which paid up to SCO
Is HP fortune 500? They bought a "license."
> Interestingly though "mistkaes" means something like dung cheese in German
:)
It would be mist Kase, "kaes" doesn't mean anything
> Maybe someone could come up with a brilliant plan to not use land for windmills
:)
Hey, waitasec... I must be brilliant then.
How about we use these windmills under water to harness the power of the tides! Whales? Dolphins? Fuck 'em if they can't swim around the spinning blades of progress!
(I'd like to point out that this is a joke, not a troll)
> Check out how close I am to Philadelphia and New York City.
> And I have never seen what you are describing.
(to start out, I am on "your side" of this argument, just wanted to point out a flaw)
The reason you don't see it is because the pollution emitted in gaseous form usually goes up (due to the heat & updrafts, I guess) quite a ways before coming down again. Most weather moves in an eastern (and northern) direction, so the pollution would be moving away from you. There's a very large area in the middle of the country that doesn't have huge populations, so the pollution getting to your city/town that is visible & dense is very little.
California, OTOH, has the Rockies blocking the way, so the wind is blowing east, but the cold ocean air makes the pollutants cool faster & drop faster, they get blocked by the mountains & collect in the valleys (Chile has terrible problems with this IIRC, because they have HUGE valleys).
Oh, and the Appalachians don't count as mountains, (I live in WV; I know) they aren't big enough to block anything too serious.
> The new site will feature one or two normal Slashdot stories, followed by ten daily articles about , and SCO related information.
So, how does that differ from Slashdot now? I don't get it.
Damn! I was so happy when I saw the headline -- I figured "Hey, that's a GREAT way to dispose of the bodies."
Figures it's just corn & veggies.
> there is a difference between laughing at something and condoning it.
Mod parent up, very well stated.
> Because we all know the only reason anyone does anything is to turn a profit.
:)
Did I say everyone? No, I generalized, I did not say that everyone would be greedy bastards. Not everyone is greedy now. It is a part of human nature. Yes, there are those that do things for the betterment of society, and some even to the detriment of themselves. They are very few.
Also, not profit, anyway. Things. Money isn't a necessary variable. If everyone is "equal," yet some can acquire things that others want, they still aren't equal enough for this spoken-of "utopia" to exist. And part of my point was that there will always be inequality in some form or another (why's he attractive & I look like a lump of fly shit?), which means there will always be those who are jealous & greedy.
Argue, if you will, about how people can be transformed into a happy mass where less than 1% (and I'm being generous, that's far from utopia) is unhappy, but until then, I will take my personal observations of people over your good-natured hope of the goodness of people. Although I hate to lose an argument, this is one where I would love to be able to truly accept defeat.
> This entails abolition of both private property and the state
:), there would be no incentive to do work. This would require either robots or slaves (the latter of which is, of course, unacceptable) to be able to do EVERYTHING with no assistance. But until automaton can make automaton better than themselves (is that even possible?) there is no hope of progress. We would also have to reach a point where we can live comfortably and get anything we want with no work whatsoever. Think Americans are lazy? (I don't, that's not the point) Wait until the whole world has 0 work to do. What then? What is left for humanity to do?
If you abolish private property, there's no incentive. Without a human mutation of the brain (or reprogramming or a hardware addon
To put it into market terms, until supply is infinite & demand is zero, someone will always havwe something that someone else wants. Even then, an attractive woman is going to be fought over, and if one is killed so the other can have her? Who's supposed to stop him? There's no state, therefore there's no police... No recourse to unlawful... anything. Because then, everything is "lawful." That would be awful.
I know you said it won't be easy, etc., but I would venture to say it won't be possible.
> So the rich theives subvert the legal process and the poor theives go to jail
Whereas, in a real socialist system, the even fewer rich run the country. And they get to control how much money they get in an even more direct way than they do now. The rich theives get not even the threat of jail because there's no one to enforce anything on them (they run the police & the military, of course). The poor criminals, OTOH, get killed, all their meager possessions taken (as well as their family's possessions). Or jailed with no chance of ever getting out, assuming they know what they are in jail for.
What? That's not a reasonable picture of socialism? Sure it is. Almost every single political system is great from an outsider view, but as soon as humans are inserted into the equation, it goes all to hell.
Capitalism is just much more complicated, so that it's harder to take advantage of. Now that we are producing MBAs by the million, there are more people who know how to massage the system and take advantage. THAT is why the rich stay rich -- they pass off this important information to their kids who then take advantage.
The poorer people don't even know the system is that complicated, nor do they know there exists a way to work it. They don't have this information to pass on, therefore, their family line stays poor. Jumping classes is NOT that hard, if you can find out how to gain the proper information. Sometimes it doesn't even take that.
Socialism just ensures that the massive majority is equally poor. Just because we are "born equal" (yeah right) doesn't mean we have equal possessions.
> United States looks brighter from space than North Korea
With the lights out, almost EVERY country is brighter than N. Korea.