> Speeding is a small fine, drunk driving is a larger one and loss of privledges, killing someone while driving drunk is serious jail time.
Now this is something that always troubled me : what's the difference between a drunk driver and a drunk driver that kills someone? The only thing I can come up with is that one is a lucky bastard, and the other is not. Why do we fine the unlucky one more? Skill is not involved and intent as nothing to do with it. Why fine more? I thought that the end didn't justify the means. Why does it justify the fine?.:)
There are a lot of angry people today! You are spreading your stress all over/. Please refrain from doing so:P... What if I like to see movies to escape from work? Am I limited to VCR and DVD ? If you think that someone that gets up once during a movie stresses you, I believe you're the one who should stay home. You'll never be happy. People will move during a movie, if not for a cell phone, then for a bathroom break or simply because they want out! Now if I were to *anwser* the phone *in* the theater, I would certainly agree with you, but there are ways to use a phone while still being considerate to other people (leave quielty -> don't come back -> answer a non-ringing phone OUTSIDE or just plain call back).
Btw, I've never had to use my cell phone during a movie, but it's always on, with sound out and no vibration. But I don't think it's fair to cut off all cell phones just because of a few inconsiderate people.
What if we had a 100$ penalty for people who used the phone during a movie? I bet you'd be the first one to point the usher in the right direction when he comes to see who forgot his phone on:)
Ah! You haven't even read my post. I said that I *don't have that kind of life*. Anyway, that's beside the point. If I were to act that way, I would never anwser a phone during a movie. You can just as well use caller-ID, leave and call them back. That's okay for one call I guess. I would'nt want to be the jerk that keeps leaving his seat and coming back every minute or so. When you have a stressfull job, escaping the daily grind, even for a minute, is still better then nothing. Way better that staying outside waiting for the phone to ring:)
As for leaving my seat, that's also another issue. Is it okay for me to go to the restroom?Maybe we should lock the doors to prevent people from going to the restroom during the presentation. I can hold it in, but some people can't. BAN THEM FROM MOVIES I SAY! Oh, btw, that's why they have popcorn in movie theaters. The salts helps you retain more water in. Just don't guzzle in that giant size coke/pepsi/whatever while you are there:)
You, my anonymous friend, have an issue with people who have cell phones and are jerks. That's just fine. Leave the rest of us alone:p
Who are you to tell people to 'wait untill the movie ends' to see a dying loved one? The problem isn't with people who have cell phones! The problem is with jerks (or forgetfull people) that don't turn off their cell phone in a movie. So, basically, because of a few inconsiderate people, you block everyone else. What if I'm a very busy person, and I'm waiting for an important call in the next.. oh..3 hours. Should my life suddenly stop? no! I would use the vibration mode on my phone and go to a movie to escape from the daily grind... but wait.. I can't do that now can I? Nope, not in a movie, because of *you*.
Btw, I don't live that kind of a life, just playing devil's advocate:)
But I do get annoyed when people talk during movies. Maybe we should mandate duct-taping everyone's yap trap during movies (except for emergencies of course). What's the difference with cell phones?
Actually, it also bulges on the sides, not just on the top or bottom. If you look carefully at the image on this site : http://isbushwired.com/, you can actually see the bulge you're talking about just above the rectangular one. But you need to zoom in to see it:)
This is fun! Just like looking at clouds and trying to see shapes!
A bullet proof vest with a wire that leads to one side of the head ? To me, that looks like an earpiece:) Of course, I'd still have to see the original video instead of pictures taken on the internet, which could have easilly be doctored. And even if it is the original unmodified image, it could be something else. But right now, IMHO *LET ME FINISH!* the evidence points to cheating.
(note: "POINTS TO" != damning evidence)
And for those who said "if he would have cheated, he would have done a better job of it, therefore he was not cheating", your logic is flawed:p
> The fact that they are the only people capable of producing antimatter is pretty cool as well.
Could you elaborate on that ? I mean, as was mentionned in the article, positrons are used daily in the numerous PET clinics all over the world. In fact, I'm using some for an experiment right now (indirectly of course, since I'm using F18, which decays by emitting a positron:) And it was all produced on site! Were you talking about direct production?
Perhaps we're not looking at the problem from the right perspective : are we consuming too much electricity because of the cheap availability of coal and oil (or water) If the price of clean air is lower efficiency in production of electricity, maybe we need to be more efficient consumers? There is *a lot* that could be done to achieve that! I for one already have those nice neon light-bulb replacement devices.. now that I think of it, I haven't changed a bulb in quite a while:) I still have a long way to go though:(
It's imperative for people to realize that Nuclear Power is not devil incarnate. By stopping Nuclear development, you are slowly killing yourselves with Coal and Oil plants. The number of people killed by nuclear power rate in the dozens (most at Chernobyl). The number of people killed by coal plants rate in the hundreds of thousands. Think about it.
While I do feel that nuclear power is way better than coal or oil plants, I have to point out that the death rates for wind / tidal / solar generation of electricity are probably even lower:)
>>It's obvious that oil, for instance, is a limited resource.
> And why would this be the case? [...] > It's worth it to be skeptical when extraordinary theories are presented.
Can I be skeptical of what you are implying? To my knowledge, there is a limited amount of material on earth (unless you count all that oil that comes from space dinosaurs), therefore, there must be a limited amount of oil on earth. I'm not saying that the article you pointed out is wrong, I haven't had to time to read through it, search for articles from known peer-reviewed systems and all that. I'm just saying that I believe that "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't".
See, now I'll have to work overtime since I answered this slashdot post:p
First of all I do agree with most of what you previously said. But you do highlight part of the problem with improper management (sort of). In the exemple where clients come to you and want things done *now*, you say that you have to do it now (thus work overtime) or else face the possibility of loosing a customer. Because if you don't do it, someone else will. Because your client screwed up their time table, *you* have to pay the price now. Again, it is the people at the bottom of the food chain who pay the price for the incompetence of management/clients. That is what I feel is wrong.
I do agree that you can't hire someone with 5 minutes notice. And it is also true that hire another person won't help you go twice as fast. But, in my perfect happy imaginary world, if *everyone* told the client who missed the deadline that they *missed the deadline*, then things would start to change. The person that screwed up would hopefully get fired or be told to change. How are people ever going to be held accountable if there is always someone willing to take the bullet for other people's mistakes?
As for the live sporting event example, I feel that it is completely justified to be expected to do overtime. You don't just quit because the game lasts 10 minutes more. But that was expected when you signed on. It goes in the "acts-of-god" category:) Not the "acts of pointy-haired-boss" one:)
Btw, I'm not trying to just "get by" like you said. Understand this, I will work my hardest during the time that I'm at work (except now, I'll work it off later:), but I will not cover for the incompetance of others. It is people who do so who drag the rest of us down by shifting the blame away from those who are responsible to those "lazy workers who won't do overtime":) (I'm not saying you said that)
I'm also not saying that overtime is evil, far from it:) But, if all I do in a day is get up, eat, work, get back home, eat, go to sleep, I do feel that I am giving my life away. And unless it is justified logically and compensated, I won't be part of it.
> They don't do it just for the money, they do it because we have drop-dead deadlines and they need to finish things
In my opinion, if people need to work overtime to meet the deadlines, it most probably means that you have bad management (or lazy employees). It is too easy for the upper management to ask the employees to do overtime "for the good of the company". The hard part would be for them to hire as many people as are needed to complete the project on time. That would even create more jobs, but of course, less profit for the shareholders.
Personnally, I will not give up my life (outside of work) because my bosses can't manage projects and employees without asking for overtime. I probably won't be rich, but I'll enjoy life while I can. The only way I'll work overtime is if I was unproductive and the delays in the project were caused by my actions.
> So far as I know you're the _only_ one to use that term, it certainly doesn't show up in Canadian media much.
That's because I listen to Radio-Canada in Quebec (in french). And no it is not used alot, but it is progressing.
> Why should they change to suit some quirck of yours?
Nice straw man argument here. Like I said (read my post), I never asked you to change anything. I just find it very ego-centric of the people from the United States to call themselves americans. Is it a quirk? Sure is. All I have said is that *I* won't call you an "american". Who are *you* to tell me I shouldn't do that? Ahh freedom of speech. Nice double edged sword:)
> Jeez, how would you like it if somebody colonized a planet, called it "Canada" and then demanded you stop calling yourselves Canadians because planets are bigger than countries?
Do you think that the non-american (read non-US) people colonized the continent *after* the people from the USA arrived ? Go read a history book:) As I recall, the spanish were here first. (after the american-indians of course) A better example would have been, what if aliens invaded canada, changed the country's name to "United People of Earth" and call themselves Earthlings or "representatives of the people of Earth". Would that be correct?
Please remember, I asked nobody to change. I just wanted to know how I should call *you* since I think that the term "americans" is already taken. Am I in a minority ? Sure! Does that change a thing? Nope! Remember, "fifty million smokers can't be wrong!" (or was if five?:) Is it ego-centric? I sure think so. But I'll concede that it represents the US people well./FLAME:p
> Everyone, everywhere in the world knows what someone means when you say 'American' (and yes, it's usually conjures negative connotation).
> I can *absolutely* say that if you're in Mexico and guarantee something with American money, they won't be expecting pesos.
ah! These are two nice examples of the "5 millions smokers can't be wrong" argument. While these statements are most certainly right, they don't change the fact that "americans" applies to all the people of the Americas. I'm not saying that you should stop saying that you are an american, since technically, you are correct:P. Here in Canada we call you "United Staters":) (not everyone, of course, so sue me). Hey, if you can come up with something better, that represents only the people of the good ol' US of A, then I'll use it.
By your reasoning, what should we call the people of the Americas? "Not americans but close?". "Soon to be americans?":) Help me out here!
>... I hear plenty of them joking about how stupid the average person is...
But the real question is, do you know many doctors that treat their patients with anger and frustration whenever they think that the patient is an idiot? Not many huh?
Any admin that gets angry because of 'stupid users' should not be an admin at all. Part of the job is to interact with people, not just computers! If you can't do both, you should be a tech. Remember, there are no stupid questions, just stupid anwsers.
Where I work, we have an agressive admin who just explodes whenever he's ticked off at the "stupid users"... The result? Never got fired. He's too 'important' (give me a break). So now, people just let the problems accumulate untill something positively absolutely breaks down. In the end, that's more work for him, but he doesn't understand that, not with his PhD and all.
I think I should do a web page about users being treated like scum from 'stupid admins':) I bet that this page would have a nice audiance.. if they can find the inter-web-browser thingy that is.
"Also, there is _always_ an economic incentive to invent something better. If I invent a better mouse trap, people will buy it over your old-but-still-patented mousetrap."
I don't think so. You have to milk your old-but-still-patented mousetrap untill the market no longers supports it (or close to that). Otherwise, all the money that you put in your first mousetrap is wasted (more or less). You have to wait untill sales drop or untill a competitor brings a better mousetrap (still inferior to your new design of course).
Of course you could raise the price of your new design and call it "the mouse-trap-gold, for rich people with mouse problems". Then both designs would sell!
Not but it *could* mean that they end up in the environment. They are probably recycled and reused, but to what extent? The toxic chemicals also mean that you could have problems in the case of an accident at the factory...
Anyway, I'm still waiting for soya based memory sticks.
Heheh:) thanks:) I'll put a dictionary right next to the big fat pile of gold that's under my bed for my retirement. I'm sure that it will never lose value!
(Being french, I find that it sounds more like "lause" instead of "looze") But hey, french is weird too:)
I like this:) You tried to show that the value of gold is never stable by comparing it to the almighty american dollar:) These are two "variables":) The question is, can the same amount of 1992 gold buy you the same amount of food (for example) as the 2002 gold ?
While I know that the value of food is not constant, but you needed it in 1992, and you still need it in 2002. So, I propose that you buy now all that you'll need forever. This way, you'll never loose any value!:)
Scientists getting rich.. HA! Now *that's* rich:) Actually, It's already hard enough to get some funds to do any kind of research that some scientists must resort to such practices just to be able to continue their work.
Maybe that guy went a bit quickly to the patent office, but still... scientists don't have hats made of money:)
Also, would you like all your research to come to halt because some other doofus patented your idea? Its a problem with the patent office, not the scientist.
Re : What about social costs ?
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 1
Ha! That's a good one-- you guys have big air scrubbing plants up there that your gas taxes go to in order to clean the air? That's rich. Hell, in BC you don't even have sewage treatement plants-- Victoria and the whole of vancouver island just dumps their raw sewage into the ocean.
Who's paying the cost to clean all that ocean water?
That was part of my point actually. Its the "if used correctly part". By no means I am saying that we are better in Canada. I just wish that the taxes that come from buying gas *should* only go to gas-related clean-up stuff. (in a perfect world, of course).
Ah, the great lie of socialism-- you want free health care, but you don't want the other guy to get it! Which is why victoria is having town meetings trying to keep their doctors from leaving. (Yes, I visited victoria recently.)
Free ? I don't want free health care if I have to pay for people who abuse the system (or themselves). On the other hand, I would gladly pay for people who are born with disabilities and who require frequent care.
One problem with this, of course, is where do we draw the line? When is it abuse and when is it okay? I must agree that this is not an easy question to answer (and I won't pretend I have the answer). In my opinion, we should'nt have to pay for smokers. Smoking is a choice, it gives no benefits, and it can be avoided. I don't want to pay for that. Period.
In other words, this "social care" idea is just a scam to try and force people to live the way you want to -- you take all their money to pay for health care you never deliver, and then take even more if they try to live their lives the way you want.
Okay, maybe we should'nt call it "social care". To me, this social care should be about helping people in need. Again, if someone is born with some disability, and needs to pay 10,000$ per month just to live, should that person (or family) bear that burden alone? With your US insurance method, would that person pay the same price as a healthy person? If not, your system has failed. That person did not choose to be born that way.
On the other hand, if you choose to smoke or eat McFood if is your decision. By what right do you impose your coslty living style (in terms of very possible futur health problems) on me? Free social health care should be a priviledge, not a god given right.
Its none of your business whether I eat a bigmac and you have no moral right to charge me for the privilege of not conforming to YOUR idea of political correctness. That's flat out oppression. you might as well charge an extra black skin tax for black people because they don't conform to the skin color of most people.
Again, I'm not restraining you from doing anything. But I expect you to accept to consequences of your actions. Smoking costs more to society. That's a fact. Is society ready to pay for smokers? That's not my decision to make, but right now, I'm paying for it. Being born with heart disease also costs more to society. *But*, did the baby choose to be born with heart disease? I'm ready to pay for that. Is society? I think so:)
Why aren't you lobbying for a jogging tax? Joggers are far more likely to have serious leg injuries in their old age than non-joggers, why should you have to pay for it? Unless you're a jogger, in which case you're going to lobby for a non-jogger tax because non-joggers are more likely to be overweight.
Hehehe:) Exactly! That's part of the problem that I mentioned earlier : where do you draw the line? Not an easy question to anwser. Does that mean that we should'nt try to answer it?
You wonder why there are fewer companies in canada, and a less robust economy and lots of unemployment? This is why.
Ha! Dang. You just solved our problems! It had nothing to do why the fact that there is a whole lot less of us in Candada:) That last line you wrote merits more discussion, but that's getting off topic:)
Re : What about social costs ?
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 1
From my point of view you are forgetting one thing : social costs.
Then there's the %50 fee on gas, that you never see because its built into the price- but is all tax. A brilliant deception because people all over hate oil companies for charging so much for gas, even though they aren't!
First of all, as a side note, on the gas pumps where I live (Quebec, Canada), you can see the amount of taxes (in %) that the government is taking. Is there a law preventing your gas companies from doing the same ?
That tax is important (if used correctly) because there is a social cost to burning gas. YOU pollute the air, YOU should pay the price to clean it.
And lets not forget cigarettes-- a %50 markup in my state as well. But you don't see this fee because its built into the price. Another hidden tax. And people hate tobacco companies, hmm, noticing a trend.
In Canada, with the free health care system, this tax is particularly important. Why on earth should I pay a dime of my hard earned cash to heal smokers ? I don't smoke and I'm not prepared to pay for them.
Now the scum are starting to propose "vice" fees on fattening foots, so we can expect to pay an extra %50 for the privilege of buying a big mac that big momma government doesn't want you to eat?
How about that Big Mac issue ? Is that kind of food healthy for you ? If I eat only healthy food, I'm likely to pay a lot more money than anyone eating fatty BigMacs all day. Why should I pay more for social care because more and more people are getting sick or out of shape because they eat bad food ? Like it or not, in the long run, there is a social cost to eating unhealthy foods. If you want to do that, fine, but pay up. I sure as hell won't.
Slashdot Mirror
> Speeding is a small fine, drunk driving is a larger one and loss of privledges, killing someone while driving drunk is serious jail time.
:)
Now this is something that always troubled me : what's the difference between a drunk driver and a drunk driver that kills someone? The only thing I can come up with is that one is a lucky bastard, and the other is not. Why do we fine the unlucky one more? Skill is not involved and intent as nothing to do with it. Why fine more? I thought that the end didn't justify the means. Why does it justify the fine?.
There are a lot of angry people today! You are spreading your stress all over /. Please refrain from doing so :P ... What if I like to see movies to escape from work? Am I limited to VCR and DVD ? If you think that someone that gets up once during a movie stresses you, I believe you're the one who should stay home. You'll never be happy. People will move during a movie, if not for a cell phone, then for a bathroom break or simply because they want out! Now if I were to *anwser* the phone *in* the theater, I would certainly agree with you, but there are ways to use a phone while still being considerate to other people (leave quielty -> don't come back -> answer a non-ringing phone OUTSIDE or just plain call back).
:)
Btw, I've never had to use my cell phone during a movie, but it's always on, with sound out and no vibration. But I don't think it's fair to cut off all cell phones just because of a few inconsiderate people.
What if we had a 100$ penalty for people who used the phone during a movie? I bet you'd be the first one to point the usher in the right direction when he comes to see who forgot his phone on
Ah! You haven't even read my post. I said that I *don't have that kind of life*. Anyway, that's beside the point. If I were to act that way, I would never anwser a phone during a movie. You can just as well use caller-ID, leave and call them back. That's okay for one call I guess. I would'nt want to be the jerk that keeps leaving his seat and coming back every minute or so. When you have a stressfull job, escaping the daily grind, even for a minute, is still better then nothing. Way better that staying outside waiting for the phone to ring :)
:)
:p
As for leaving my seat, that's also another issue. Is it okay for me to go to the restroom?Maybe we should lock the doors to prevent people from going to the restroom during the presentation. I can hold it in, but some people can't. BAN THEM FROM MOVIES I SAY! Oh, btw, that's why they have popcorn in movie theaters. The salts helps you retain more water in. Just don't guzzle in that giant size coke/pepsi/whatever while you are there
You, my anonymous friend, have an issue with people who have cell phones and are jerks. That's just fine. Leave the rest of us alone
Who are you to tell people to 'wait untill the movie ends' to see a dying loved one? The problem isn't with people who have cell phones! The problem is with jerks (or forgetfull people) that don't turn off their cell phone in a movie. So, basically, because of a few inconsiderate people, you block everyone else. What if I'm a very busy person, and I'm waiting for an important call in the next .. oh ..3 hours. Should my life suddenly stop? no! I would use the vibration mode on my phone and go to a movie to escape from the daily grind ... but wait .. I can't do that now can I? Nope, not in a movie, because of *you*.
:)
Btw, I don't live that kind of a life, just playing devil's advocate
But I do get annoyed when people talk during movies. Maybe we should mandate duct-taping everyone's yap trap during movies (except for emergencies of course). What's the difference with cell phones?
Actually, it also bulges on the sides, not just on the top or bottom. If you look carefully at the image on this site : http://isbushwired.com/, you can actually see the bulge you're talking about just above the rectangular one. But you need to zoom in to see it :)
This is fun! Just like looking at clouds and trying to see shapes!
A bullet proof vest with a wire that leads to one side of the head ? To me, that looks like an earpiece :) Of course, I'd still have to see the original video instead of pictures taken on the internet, which could have easilly be doctored. And even if it is the original unmodified image, it could be something else. But right now, IMHO *LET ME FINISH!* the evidence points to cheating.
:p
(note: "POINTS TO" != damning evidence)
And for those who said "if he would have cheated, he would have done a better job of it, therefore he was not cheating", your logic is flawed
> The fact that they are the only people capable of producing antimatter is pretty cool as well.
:) And it was all produced on site! Were you talking about direct production?
:)
Could you elaborate on that ? I mean, as was mentionned in the article, positrons are used daily in the numerous PET clinics all over the world. In fact, I'm using some for an experiment right now (indirectly of course, since I'm using F18, which decays by emitting a positron
I'll have to read more on that I guess
Perhaps we're not looking at the problem from the right perspective : are we consuming too much electricity because of the cheap availability of coal and oil (or water) If the price of clean air is lower efficiency in production of electricity, maybe we need to be more efficient consumers? There is *a lot* that could be done to achieve that! I for one already have those nice neon light-bulb replacement devices .. now that I think of it, I haven't changed a bulb in quite a while :) I still have a long way to go though :(
It's imperative for people to realize that Nuclear Power is not devil incarnate. By stopping Nuclear development, you are slowly killing yourselves with Coal and Oil plants. The number of people killed by nuclear power rate in the dozens (most at Chernobyl). The number of people killed by coal plants rate in the hundreds of thousands. Think about it.
:)
While I do feel that nuclear power is way better than coal or oil plants, I have to point out that the death rates for wind / tidal / solar generation of electricity are probably even lower
>>It's obvious that oil, for instance, is a limited resource.
:p
> And why would this be the case? [...]
> It's worth it to be skeptical when extraordinary theories are presented.
Can I be skeptical of what you are implying? To my knowledge, there is a limited amount of material on earth (unless you count all that oil that comes from space dinosaurs), therefore, there must be a limited amount of oil on earth. I'm not saying that the article you pointed out is wrong, I haven't had to time to read through it, search for articles from known peer-reviewed systems and all that. I'm just saying that I believe that "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't".
Unlimited oil supply? I'm skeptical
See, now I'll have to work overtime since I answered this slashdot post :p
:) Not the "acts of pointy-haired-boss" one :)
:), but I will not cover for the incompetance of others. It is people who do so who drag the rest of us down by shifting the blame away from those who are responsible to those "lazy workers who won't do overtime" :) (I'm not saying you said that)
:) But, if all I do in a day is get up, eat, work, get back home, eat, go to sleep, I do feel that I am giving my life away. And unless it is justified logically and compensated, I won't be part of it.
First of all I do agree with most of what you previously said. But you do highlight part of the problem with improper management (sort of). In the exemple where clients come to you and want things done *now*, you say that you have to do it now (thus work overtime) or else face the possibility of loosing a customer. Because if you don't do it, someone else will. Because your client screwed up their time table, *you* have to pay the price now. Again, it is the people at the bottom of the food chain who pay the price for the incompetence of management/clients. That is what I feel is wrong.
I do agree that you can't hire someone with 5 minutes notice. And it is also true that hire another person won't help you go twice as fast. But, in my perfect happy imaginary world, if *everyone* told the client who missed the deadline that they *missed the deadline*, then things would start to change. The person that screwed up would hopefully get fired or be told to change. How are people ever going to be held accountable if there is always someone willing to take the bullet for other people's mistakes?
As for the live sporting event example, I feel that it is completely justified to be expected to do overtime. You don't just quit because the game lasts 10 minutes more. But that was expected when you signed on. It goes in the "acts-of-god" category
Btw, I'm not trying to just "get by" like you said. Understand this, I will work my hardest during the time that I'm at work (except now, I'll work it off later
I'm also not saying that overtime is evil, far from it
> They don't do it just for the money, they do it because we have drop-dead deadlines and they need to finish things
In my opinion, if people need to work overtime to meet the deadlines, it most probably means that you have bad management (or lazy employees). It is too easy for the upper management to ask the employees to do overtime "for the good of the company". The hard part would be for them to hire as many people as are needed to complete the project on time. That would even create more jobs, but of course, less profit for the shareholders.
Personnally, I will not give up my life (outside of work) because my bosses can't manage projects and employees without asking for overtime. I probably won't be rich, but I'll enjoy life while I can. The only way I'll work overtime is if I was unproductive and the delays in the project were caused by my actions.
> So far as I know you're the _only_ one to use that term, it certainly doesn't show up in Canadian media much.
:)
:) As I recall, the spanish were here first. (after the american-indians of course) A better example would have been, what if aliens invaded canada, changed the country's name to "United People of Earth" and call themselves Earthlings or "representatives of the people of Earth". Would that be correct?
:) Is it ego-centric? I sure think so. But I'll concede that it represents the US people well. /FLAME :p
That's because I listen to Radio-Canada in Quebec (in french). And no it is not used alot, but it is progressing.
> Why should they change to suit some quirck of yours?
Nice straw man argument here. Like I said (read my post), I never asked you to change anything. I just find it very ego-centric of the people from the United States to call themselves americans. Is it a quirk? Sure is. All I have said is that *I* won't call you an "american". Who are *you* to tell me I shouldn't do that? Ahh freedom of speech. Nice double edged sword
> Jeez, how would you like it if somebody colonized a planet, called it "Canada" and then demanded you stop calling yourselves Canadians because planets are bigger than countries?
Do you think that the non-american (read non-US) people colonized the continent *after* the people from the USA arrived ? Go read a history book
Please remember, I asked nobody to change. I just wanted to know how I should call *you* since I think that the term "americans" is already taken. Am I in a minority ? Sure! Does that change a thing? Nope! Remember, "fifty million smokers can't be wrong!" (or was if five?
> Everyone, everywhere in the world knows what someone means when you say 'American' (and yes, it's usually conjures negative connotation).
:P. Here in Canada we call you "United Staters" :) (not everyone, of course, so sue me). Hey, if you can come up with something better, that represents only the people of the good ol' US of A, then I'll use it.
:) Help me out here!
> I can *absolutely* say that if you're in Mexico and guarantee something with American money, they won't be expecting pesos.
ah! These are two nice examples of the "5 millions smokers can't be wrong" argument. While these statements are most certainly right, they don't change the fact that "americans" applies to all the people of the Americas. I'm not saying that you should stop saying that you are an american, since technically, you are correct
By your reasoning, what should we call the people of the Americas? "Not americans but close?". "Soon to be americans?"
> ... I hear plenty of them joking about how stupid the average person is ...
:) I bet that this page would have a nice audiance.. if they can find the inter-web-browser thingy that is.
But the real question is, do you know many doctors that treat their patients with anger and frustration whenever they think that the patient is an idiot? Not many huh?
Any admin that gets angry because of 'stupid users' should not be an admin at all. Part of the job is to interact with people, not just computers! If you can't do both, you should be a tech. Remember, there are no stupid questions, just stupid anwsers.
Where I work, we have an agressive admin who just explodes whenever he's ticked off at the "stupid users"... The result? Never got fired. He's too 'important' (give me a break). So now, people just let the problems accumulate untill something positively absolutely breaks down. In the end, that's more work for him, but he doesn't understand that, not with his PhD and all.
I think I should do a web page about users being treated like scum from 'stupid admins'
But shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater will only result in a stampeed if people *make the choice* to trample people on their way out.
But I still agree with you.
"Also, there is _always_ an economic incentive to invent something better. If I invent a better mouse trap, people will buy it over your old-but-still-patented mousetrap."
I don't think so. You have to milk your old-but-still-patented mousetrap untill the market no longers supports it (or close to that). Otherwise, all the money that you put in your first mousetrap is wasted (more or less). You have to wait untill sales drop or untill a competitor brings a better mousetrap (still inferior to your new design of course).
Of course you could raise the price of your new design and call it "the mouse-trap-gold, for rich people with mouse problems". Then both designs would sell!
It's better then preemptively bombing all countries that have open relays :p
Not but it *could* mean that they end up in the environment. They are probably recycled and reused, but to what extent? The toxic chemicals also mean that you could have problems in the case of an accident at the factory...
Anyway, I'm still waiting for soya based memory sticks.
Heheh :) thanks :) I'll put a dictionary right next to the big fat pile of gold that's under my bed for my retirement. I'm sure that it will never lose value!
:)
(Being french, I find that it sounds more like "lause" instead of "looze") But hey, french is weird too
I like this :) You tried to show that the value of gold is never stable by comparing it to the almighty american dollar :) These are two "variables" :) The question is, can the same amount of 1992 gold buy you the same amount of food (for example) as the 2002 gold ?
:)
While I know that the value of food is not constant, but you needed it in 1992, and you still need it in 2002. So, I propose that you buy now all that you'll need forever. This way, you'll never loose any value!
Scientists getting rich.. HA! Now *that's* rich :) Actually, It's already hard enough to get some funds to do any kind of research that some scientists must resort to such practices just to be able to continue their work.
:)
Also, would you like all your research to come to halt because some other doofus patented your idea? Its a problem with the patent office, not the scientist.
Maybe that guy went a bit quickly to the patent office, but still... scientists don't have hats made of money
Ha! That's a good one-- you guys have big air scrubbing plants up there that your gas taxes go to in order to clean the air? That's rich. Hell, in BC you don't even have sewage treatement plants-- Victoria and the whole of vancouver island just dumps their raw sewage into the ocean. Who's paying the cost to clean all that ocean water?
:)
:) Exactly! That's part of the problem that I mentioned earlier : where do you draw the line? Not an easy question to anwser. Does that mean that we should'nt try to answer it?
:) That last line you wrote merits more discussion, but that's getting off topic :)
That was part of my point actually. Its the "if used correctly part". By no means I am saying that we are better in Canada. I just wish that the taxes that come from buying gas *should* only go to gas-related clean-up stuff. (in a perfect world, of course).
Ah, the great lie of socialism-- you want free health care, but you don't want the other guy to get it! Which is why victoria is having town meetings trying to keep their doctors from leaving. (Yes, I visited victoria recently.)
Free ? I don't want free health care if I have to pay for people who abuse the system (or themselves). On the other hand, I would gladly pay for people who are born with disabilities and who require frequent care.
One problem with this, of course, is where do we draw the line? When is it abuse and when is it okay? I must agree that this is not an easy question to answer (and I won't pretend I have the answer). In my opinion, we should'nt have to pay for smokers. Smoking is a choice, it gives no benefits, and it can be avoided. I don't want to pay for that. Period.
In other words, this "social care" idea is just a scam to try and force people to live the way you want to -- you take all their money to pay for health care you never deliver, and then take even more if they try to live their lives the way you want.
Okay, maybe we should'nt call it "social care". To me, this social care should be about helping people in need. Again, if someone is born with some disability, and needs to pay 10,000$ per month just to live, should that person (or family) bear that burden alone? With your US insurance method, would that person pay the same price as a healthy person? If not, your system has failed. That person did not choose to be born that way.
On the other hand, if you choose to smoke or eat McFood if is your decision. By what right do you impose your coslty living style (in terms of very possible futur health problems) on me? Free social health care should be a priviledge, not a god given right.
Its none of your business whether I eat a bigmac and you have no moral right to charge me for the privilege of not conforming to YOUR idea of political correctness. That's flat out oppression. you might as well charge an extra black skin tax for black people because they don't conform to the skin color of most people.
Again, I'm not restraining you from doing anything. But I expect you to accept to consequences of your actions. Smoking costs more to society. That's a fact. Is society ready to pay for smokers? That's not my decision to make, but right now, I'm paying for it. Being born with heart disease also costs more to society. *But*, did the baby choose to be born with heart disease? I'm ready to pay for that. Is society? I think so
Why aren't you lobbying for a jogging tax? Joggers are far more likely to have serious leg injuries in their old age than non-joggers, why should you have to pay for it? Unless you're a jogger, in which case you're going to lobby for a non-jogger tax because non-joggers are more likely to be overweight.
Hehehe
You wonder why there are fewer companies in canada, and a less robust economy and lots of unemployment? This is why.
Ha! Dang. You just solved our problems! It had nothing to do why the fact that there is a whole lot less of us in Candada
From my point of view you are forgetting one thing : social costs.
Then there's the %50 fee on gas, that you never see because its built into the price- but is all tax. A brilliant deception because people all over hate oil companies for charging so much for gas, even though they aren't!
First of all, as a side note, on the gas pumps where I live (Quebec, Canada), you can see the amount of taxes (in %) that the government is taking. Is there a law preventing your gas companies from doing the same ?
That tax is important (if used correctly) because there is a social cost to burning gas. YOU pollute the air, YOU should pay the price to clean it.
And lets not forget cigarettes-- a %50 markup in my state as well. But you don't see this fee because its built into the price. Another hidden tax. And people hate tobacco companies, hmm, noticing a trend.
In Canada, with the free health care system, this tax is particularly important. Why on earth should I pay a dime of my hard earned cash to heal smokers ? I don't smoke and I'm not prepared to pay for them.
Now the scum are starting to propose "vice" fees on fattening foots, so we can expect to pay an extra %50 for the privilege of buying a big mac that big momma government doesn't want you to eat?
How about that Big Mac issue ? Is that kind of food healthy for you ? If I eat only healthy food, I'm likely to pay a lot more money than anyone eating fatty BigMacs all day. Why should I pay more for social care because more and more people are getting sick or out of shape because they eat bad food ? Like it or not, in the long run, there is a social cost to eating unhealthy foods. If you want to do that, fine, but pay up. I sure as hell won't.
Weird. The firts thing I though about when I saw that story is the Vegetable song from the arrogant worms :)
Carrot Juice Is Murder
Dying souls indead!