Sorry, the reality is that I don't put myself or my family in a situation where a cop is likely to kill us. I am at far more risk from people who do things that get themselves killed by cops than I am by the cops. Show me a video of a cop gunning down someone who is calm and following directions and then I will be worried. The reality is that cops don't appear to be just shooting people for no reason at the moment. In fact, I am about as likely to get killed in a high speed pursuit as I am to be purposefully killed by a cop. Oddly enough we are in the 'struck by lightning' sort of percentages here.
Because I can control myself I am pretty sure I am far less likely than the average to be killed by a cop (like a.0001% chance a year). If I just compare that to my chance of being murdered by a bad guy/girl (.004%) than it could be concerning (yes its a fraction but a measurable fraction) but add in other crimes and its not even close (2.9%). Now a cop on the other hand has a much higher chance of getting killed (.014%).
The 'facts' clearly show that if cops suddenly became more aggressive and killed 2x the numbers they currently do and if it reduced just the murder rate by 5% the average person would be better off. Hell, for the most law-abiding citizens even 1% or a.1% change would probably be beneficial.
I agree with his statement but think there is more nuance than you obviously give it credit for. The phrase "All regulations are an affront to individual freedoms and as such they are all bad." is like; All murder is inherently an affront to freedom and as such is bad. It is true, but being bad does not mean that it might not be the best choice in some situations.
Few people believe there should be no government. Few people believe there should be a government that controls all aspects of your life. I would like to believe that his statement is supporting something on the 'less government' side not absolute anarchy. He rightly brings up that all regulations are forcing someone to do something (at the point of a gun being the end result of all government force) and as such are a limitation of personal freedom.
At the complete absurd end imagine a law that stated that everyone must do something that everyone already does. Lets say that the law says that everyone must take one breath every half hour. The current world record is 20 minutes so you would think this law while not doing anything at least would avoid doing harm. This however is not true. Just by existing the law adds legal burdens and compliance costs, restricts people from even attempting some things and adds to the ever increasing list of things you can get prosecuted for that you would never know is illegal.
All regulations start as a negative, the real question is how to you decide which ones have enough positive to outweigh this.
Awesome, so now Biden gets to decide who's traffic goes first... I hope all your emails start with your professed love for the Democrats or its the 10kbps bucket for you.
Why would we want them to get lasting things done? About the only thing that makes those that want to govern tolerable is that they are generally too stupid to get anything done. Nobody who wants to govern should ever be intrusted with any real power. The more they argue about worthless things they less they are able to hurt us.
Ah, so we should all be C-Sections to avoid your truly awesome prophetic abilities? Or not.
In reality for all quintiles of the income spectrum 30-40% of people stay in the same quintile as their parents. For the middle quintiles it appears to be a 20% chance to move to each of the adjacent quintiles. So, while there is a strong association between your parents income and what you will make your own hard work appears to be a huge factor. Better yet, in raw purchasing power approximately 80% of people will make more than their parents did (yep, even losing ground in % race usually still leaves you better off than your parents).
While nothing guarantees success you can (and many do) guarantee their mediocrity.
Free market... In education? In the united states? I have to ask what century you are from as there hasn't been anything even passing for a free market in education in my lifetime, my parent's lifetime or my grandparent's lifetime. Few things are controlled by the government with such glee as education.
(a) Part of why the Jews were persecuted due to their un-due economic and political power. (b) Additionally they were automatically suspect as they tended to cling to their communities and not intermingle (can you say 'bubble'). (c) Jewish hate was widespread and common in the 1920s (and for much of history).
That is not to say that the previous posts arguments were much better. In fact the French Revolution and the rise of Hitler really are closer to each other in cause and effect than they are to modern America. In fact if you were to read Mien Kampf you would find several places where Hitler talks about using the French Revolution as a model for 'social change'.
From what I have read starvation is really what lead to the French Revolution and the rise of Hitler. Fortunately deaths in the USA due to starvation are so rare that they figure anorexia contributes most of them. It takes energy to break social inertia and thought history it appears that flaming hate at a specific group is the easiest way to generate that energy.
As far as I can tell this is just (hopefully) the last vestiges of the 'down with The Man' mentality out on the wacky coast.
First, presuming you are living in the 2000s and not a time traveler recent data suggests the average working woman makes 23% less than the average man. This DOES NOT try to control for any factors. When you control for factors even AAUW can only find at best a 7% difference. Some reports show the difference as low as 4.3%. Is there a detectable difference in pay between the sexes? Yes, but just barely. Obviously, as people have a hard time understanding these numbers, "Math is hard" is probably a real thing.
Second, the rest of your argument is not a complete lie so I have no problem with it. The argument, and studies, about how much is nature and how much is nurture have been going on for a really long time so there is probably substantial truth in both positions. That being said in the US the 'Tom Boy' description is a great example of how your 'freak if they don't conform to the pink unicorn princess culture' is a bit over exaggerated. (As a side note did you know that pink used to be a masculine color it wasn't till the early 1900s that it was considered feminine).
Chance to die in a car accident in a year (last 5 year average):.01%
Lets say you come up with a magic technology that can reduce that to 0 deaths and in this ridiculous future the average life expectancy is 100 years. Presuming an even age distribution of deaths you should see about 1% of people die with an average of 50 years wasted. Lets presume that all of this is quality life and lets use the high end estimates on a value of a life ($100k/year). Each person saved should be worth on average about $5m. The average saved across the entire USA would be $50,000 per person per LIFETIME. Yep that would make it about $500 per year (again assuming 100 year average lives).
So, yes I can look at the numbers and put a price on safety. Given the difference between the cost of my used car and the cost of a new one is several multiples of this statistical savings I would have to say this is a suckers bet.
Problem isn't that they are sexist, the problem is that they are smart/engaged enough to notice and not socially "adjusted" enough to no longer say the truth. On the other side I would agree that in my observations most woman prefer the happy lie to the truth so they tend not to fit in with logical pursuits...
Just because someone says something is a rhetorical question doesn't mean it shouldn't be answered. The labeling it as rhetorical question just shows that their mind is closed and they are trying to avoid debate, isn't that your intent? Oh don't bother responding that was a rhetorical question as the answer is obvious...
In this case you have a postulate hiding inside a rhetorical question. They do this, as you have so clearly shown, in order to try and keep people from remarking on the postulate itself. In order to be nice, as I try not to be a raving jack...hint leaver..., I started with the easy joke that the answer was obvious and went in a different direction. Now obviously my comment, or comments in this case as I would include this one, are not for the commenter but instead are for the others reading as I have already deduced a curtain closed mindedness on the writers part. As a side note it is very easy to spot these rhetorical blunders as they usually are unsupported. This is done intentionally as if there was something outside of the rhetorical question and answer then there would be something to respond to or talk about and we have already figured out is not their purpose.
I mean other than calling a corporation a "person" is a shorthand for a long and involved set of rulings that that don't make it a person but instead say that inherits some of the rights of those who own it?
Even if it really meant that a corporation was a real "person" why would a chimp be a better candidate? From a biological perspective a corporation is made up of member people so it is way closer to a human than a chimp can ever be. From an intellectual perspective a corporation is, usually, made up of relatively intelligent adults while a chimp is at best in the 3-4 year old category. From a law, or understanding of it at least, perspective most corporations far exceed even human standards, think of all the compliance, accountants and HR drones.
Ah, but like most rhetorical questions the answer is easy.
To put it in simple terms... Just because some people decide to deal together as a group does not magically take away their rights so some rights of the individuals are exercisable by the corporation. Just because a chimp can recognize an apple does not mean that it can understand and enter into our social contract.
I would suggest this article if you actually care what "personhood" they are talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood "Generally speaking, corporations may invoke rights that groups of individual may invoke, such as the right to petition, to speech, to enter into contracts and to hold property, to sue and to be sued. However, they may not exercise rights which are exclusive to individuals and cannot be exercised by other associations of individuals, including the right to vote and the right against self incrimination." - above link
I would put it in two 'rates' as there really are two goals in my mind for this question.
In my mind there is no reason for the total of ALL forms of the government to confiscate more than 25% of the total economy for whatever moronic purposes they wish to put it to (yes, this is about what the Feds are on track to spend this year but this should cover ALL levels of government). This should be more than enough to run a reasonable defense and provide some basic social services.
As for individual rates I would have to set both a min and a max. No person should send less than 5% of his income (or equivalent time) to the many levels of government and no person should be coerced to send more than 50% (or equivalent time) to the many levels of government. If unable to give at least 5% you should be considered chattel and treated as such. At more than 50% you should be considered a slave and we should do the honest thing and just call you that.
In my mind any distribution that meets this would be fair. Now if you are asking what an ideal state would be I believe having the total tax burden in the 10%-15% range would be much better for us as a whole.
You imply what we have now is "modest restraints". I have heard that just the federal regulations reached 175,000 pages this year. As long as we have a system so complex that even the brightest among us find it impossible to understand you will have abuses. I think we have spent the last 100 years proving the piling more and more regulations on people leads to nothing good.
As for the shouting down bit, what a joke. Try this type "conservatives shouting down" in Google and see what you get, now try "liberals shouting down". Kind of odd that both end up returning articles about liberals misbehaving isn't it? Personally, I would find some other phrase to peddle your ideology as this one is just humorous.
1. Their business is not based on and promoted for the explicit purpose of infringement. 2. They have a system to try and detect and deal with infringement. 3. They deal with DMCA take down notices appropriately.
Of course it was. I am not saying I agree at all with piracy, just saying I disagree with what our laws say and how many laws we have.
Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
Gah, I can't tell if you are trying to be intentionally dull as sarcasm or if you really don't fully comprehend what you are saying here.
Tenure is part of the Seniority System used in academia supposedly to protect teaches from being fired for teaching and researching unpopular topics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_(academic) . After you reach some seniority level one of the perks you gain is that the only way to be fired is via a horrendous process that is nearly impossible to finish. See: http://www.teachersunionsexposed.com/protecting.cfm and http://reason.com/assets/db/12639308918768.pdf.
The complaints you have are a direct result of this Seniority System in general and tenure in specific. If they are unable to fire the bad teachers there is little chance that they will have room to bring on good teachers. The yearly layoff notices are just a way to get around the moronic rules on how long you have to notify a tenured teacher before they are part of a layoff. See: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/edu/teacher-layoffs/teacher-layoffs-032212.aspx
The best part of your post is where you say your friends are leaving the state to find more stability else where. I have several acquaintances who are teachers as well and this is a common thing among them. Instead of realizing this system is complete junk because tenure (and seniority in general) causes these problems most teachers want to move to where they can get more seniority and don't want to change it, they just want to be one of ones protected.
You can't clean house at a school until the good teachers quick protecting the bad ones.
Translation: I wants what I wants when I wants it, and its none of your business.
Which is true, right up until you have these morons saying its a necessity of life. At that point they are usually trying to get me to pay for it in some indirect way or to commiserate with them over spending their money on silly things.
Its not that people are better if they don't have cell phones or watch TV. Its that people who can identify wants versus needs will end up better, all things being equal. We tend to save for the future instead of spending everything right now. We tend to save up for things instead of buying them on credit, giving us more money. We tend to strive to be happy with what we have not be unhappy with what we don't have.
Given the average cable bill is almost $70 and the average bill for a cell phone is $47 a person we can see on these two WANTS alone a family of 4 would spend $258 a month or $3,096 a year. With a median income of $45k (in the US) it seems to some of us very odd that someone would pay 7% of their net income on a phone and an idiot box.
Obviously someone has very little idea how business works so let me help you. The only $6.71B in the link you made is called Gross Profit. This is not profitability if you want that you can simply look at the Profit Margin (30.08%) and know how silly what you said is. Any technology company is going to look similar as the CoGS is so low and the cost of all the other parts (Like Payroll and Taxes) are so high.
In fact as a general rule of thumb I expect a company like this to be a 3x'er. - 1/3 revenue goes to profit - 1/3 revenue goes to payroll - 1/3 revenue goes to everything else
Anyone who has had a chance to see one of the credit card clearing houses would know that a lot is spent on processing credit cards (not even counting statment processing). This is not to say that there isn't room for a hungy young company to come in and clean up. As with all large corporations there is plenty of room to do the job better. However, unless you can find some group that would want cards that only work in some places (say walmart cards or something like that) you would have to be accepted in so many places that it would be nearly impossible to start out. Add to that the billion and one regulations that get added every day and I doubt that a new credit card company could start that wasn't virtually a shell for of one of the current ones. A high barrier to entry doesnt even being to cover it.
First, everyone has an ideology they are like accents you may have the prevailing one for your area but that doesn't mean its any less there. I mean seriously look at your original post "silly ideology", "culture of me" and "anti-intellectualism" are not what anyone should consider neutral terms. It's fine, probably even important, to have an ideology as it means your standing for something. You say there is little polarization of ideology where you are but is this real or just because of those you associate with? I find it interesting to look at polls for areas I am in (city/state/country) to see how many people believe what. Always interesting to find out that a large portion of the population believes something and I can find nobody in my friends and family that agrees with them.
Second, again our ideologies are so far apart it is hard to even understand where you are coming from. How are free things an example of life being good? I mean this implies that at some level your ultimate state of "good" is to basically do nothing and have everything provided to you. How is this not parasitic? Also, what would be excess money? It seems to me that if you are having to go on the dole when you are out of work you failed to plan/save good enough while you were working.
Anything outside of fair consensual trade is a form of slavery/parasitism from what I can tell. Helping others is not slavery if I person does it of his own free will but is if it is done because the government forces him.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, the reality is that I don't put myself or my family in a situation where a cop is likely to kill us. I am at far more risk from people who do things that get themselves killed by cops than I am by the cops. Show me a video of a cop gunning down someone who is calm and following directions and then I will be worried. The reality is that cops don't appear to be just shooting people for no reason at the moment. In fact, I am about as likely to get killed in a high speed pursuit as I am to be purposefully killed by a cop. Oddly enough we are in the 'struck by lightning' sort of percentages here.
Because I can control myself I am pretty sure I am far less likely than the average to be killed by a cop (like a .0001% chance a year). If I just compare that to my chance of being murdered by a bad guy/girl (.004%) than it could be concerning (yes its a fraction but a measurable fraction) but add in other crimes and its not even close (2.9%). Now a cop on the other hand has a much higher chance of getting killed (.014%).
The 'facts' clearly show that if cops suddenly became more aggressive and killed 2x the numbers they currently do and if it reduced just the murder rate by 5% the average person would be better off. Hell, for the most law-abiding citizens even 1% or a .1% change would probably be beneficial.
I agree with his statement but think there is more nuance than you obviously give it credit for. The phrase "All regulations are an affront to individual freedoms and as such they are all bad." is like; All murder is inherently an affront to freedom and as such is bad. It is true, but being bad does not mean that it might not be the best choice in some situations.
Few people believe there should be no government. Few people believe there should be a government that controls all aspects of your life. I would like to believe that his statement is supporting something on the 'less government' side not absolute anarchy. He rightly brings up that all regulations are forcing someone to do something (at the point of a gun being the end result of all government force) and as such are a limitation of personal freedom.
At the complete absurd end imagine a law that stated that everyone must do something that everyone already does. Lets say that the law says that everyone must take one breath every half hour. The current world record is 20 minutes so you would think this law while not doing anything at least would avoid doing harm. This however is not true. Just by existing the law adds legal burdens and compliance costs, restricts people from even attempting some things and adds to the ever increasing list of things you can get prosecuted for that you would never know is illegal.
All regulations start as a negative, the real question is how to you decide which ones have enough positive to outweigh this.
Awesome, so now Biden gets to decide who's traffic goes first... I hope all your emails start with your professed love for the Democrats or its the 10kbps bucket for you.
Oh my, that is probably the best use of that quote I have seen in ages.
--Thanks!
Why would we want them to get lasting things done? About the only thing that makes those that want to govern tolerable is that they are generally too stupid to get anything done. Nobody who wants to govern should ever be intrusted with any real power. The more they argue about worthless things they less they are able to hurt us.
Ah, so we should all be C-Sections to avoid your truly awesome prophetic abilities? Or not.
In reality for all quintiles of the income spectrum 30-40% of people stay in the same quintile as their parents. For the middle quintiles it appears to be a 20% chance to move to each of the adjacent quintiles. So, while there is a strong association between your parents income and what you will make your own hard work appears to be a huge factor. Better yet, in raw purchasing power approximately 80% of people will make more than their parents did (yep, even losing ground in % race usually still leaves you better off than your parents).
While nothing guarantees success you can (and many do) guarantee their mediocrity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Meddlesome, myopic and melodramatic.
Yep, basically the same shtick with new words.
Free market... In education? In the united states? I have to ask what century you are from as there hasn't been anything even passing for a free market in education in my lifetime, my parent's lifetime or my grandparent's lifetime. Few things are controlled by the government with such glee as education.
Ok sorry your points are silly.
(a) Part of why the Jews were persecuted due to their un-due economic and political power.
(b) Additionally they were automatically suspect as they tended to cling to their communities and not intermingle (can you say 'bubble').
(c) Jewish hate was widespread and common in the 1920s (and for much of history).
That is not to say that the previous posts arguments were much better. In fact the French Revolution and the rise of Hitler really are closer to each other in cause and effect than they are to modern America. In fact if you were to read Mien Kampf you would find several places where Hitler talks about using the French Revolution as a model for 'social change'.
From what I have read starvation is really what lead to the French Revolution and the rise of Hitler. Fortunately deaths in the USA due to starvation are so rare that they figure anorexia contributes most of them. It takes energy to break social inertia and thought history it appears that flaming hate at a specific group is the easiest way to generate that energy.
As far as I can tell this is just (hopefully) the last vestiges of the 'down with The Man' mentality out on the wacky coast.
http://ww2history.com/experts/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Sorry, but someone has to call BS so here we go.
First, presuming you are living in the 2000s and not a time traveler recent data suggests the average working woman makes 23% less than the average man. This DOES NOT try to control for any factors. When you control for factors even AAUW can only find at best a 7% difference. Some reports show the difference as low as 4.3%. Is there a detectable difference in pay between the sexes? Yes, but just barely. Obviously, as people have a hard time understanding these numbers, "Math is hard" is probably a real thing.
Second, the rest of your argument is not a complete lie so I have no problem with it. The argument, and studies, about how much is nature and how much is nurture have been going on for a really long time so there is probably substantial truth in both positions. That being said in the US the 'Tom Boy' description is a great example of how your 'freak if they don't conform to the pink unicorn princess culture' is a bit over exaggerated. (As a side note did you know that pink used to be a masculine color it wasn't till the early 1900s that it was considered feminine).
And here are some things to read if you wish to educate yourself.
http://freakonomics.com/2010/01/28/superfreakonomics-book-club-goldin-and-katz-on-the-male-female-wage-gap/
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap
http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/public-policy/aauw-issues/gender-pay-gap/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
Chance to die in a car accident in a year (last 5 year average): .01%
Lets say you come up with a magic technology that can reduce that to 0 deaths and in this ridiculous future the average life expectancy is 100 years. Presuming an even age distribution of deaths you should see about 1% of people die with an average of 50 years wasted. Lets presume that all of this is quality life and lets use the high end estimates on a value of a life ($100k/year). Each person saved should be worth on average about $5m. The average saved across the entire USA would be $50,000 per person per LIFETIME. Yep that would make it about $500 per year (again assuming 100 year average lives).
So, yes I can look at the numbers and put a price on safety. Given the difference between the cost of my used car and the cost of a new one is several multiples of this statistical savings I would have to say this is a suckers bet.
Most of the guys in my CS classes were ugly...
Problem isn't that they are sexist, the problem is that they are smart/engaged enough to notice and not socially "adjusted" enough to no longer say the truth. On the other side I would agree that in my observations most woman prefer the happy lie to the truth so they tend not to fit in with logical pursuits...
Er, so your trying to take the right to vote away from those pregnant? I think you would need a very compelling argument for anyone to agree with you.
Just because someone says something is a rhetorical question doesn't mean it shouldn't be answered. The labeling it as rhetorical question just shows that their mind is closed and they are trying to avoid debate, isn't that your intent? Oh don't bother responding that was a rhetorical question as the answer is obvious...
In this case you have a postulate hiding inside a rhetorical question. They do this, as you have so clearly shown, in order to try and keep people from remarking on the postulate itself. In order to be nice, as I try not to be a raving jack ...hint leaver..., I started with the easy joke that the answer was obvious and went in a different direction. Now obviously my comment, or comments in this case as I would include this one, are not for the commenter but instead are for the others reading as I have already deduced a curtain closed mindedness on the writers part. As a side note it is very easy to spot these rhetorical blunders as they usually are unsupported. This is done intentionally as if there was something outside of the rhetorical question and answer then there would be something to respond to or talk about and we have already figured out is not their purpose.
Why?
I mean other than calling a corporation a "person" is a shorthand for a long and involved set of rulings that that don't make it a person but instead say that inherits some of the rights of those who own it?
Even if it really meant that a corporation was a real "person" why would a chimp be a better candidate? From a biological perspective a corporation is made up of member people so it is way closer to a human than a chimp can ever be. From an intellectual perspective a corporation is, usually, made up of relatively intelligent adults while a chimp is at best in the 3-4 year old category. From a law, or understanding of it at least, perspective most corporations far exceed even human standards, think of all the compliance, accountants and HR drones.
Ah, but like most rhetorical questions the answer is easy.
To put it in simple terms...
Just because some people decide to deal together as a group does not magically take away their rights so some rights of the individuals are exercisable by the corporation. Just because a chimp can recognize an apple does not mean that it can understand and enter into our social contract.
I would suggest this article if you are interested in the concept of the social contract: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Presuming the US here is a article on Locke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
And just to be complete here is one about how the social contract is wrong (which I would disagree with): http://www.animalethics.org.uk/contractarianism.html
I would suggest this article if you actually care what "personhood" they are talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
"Generally speaking, corporations may invoke rights that groups of individual may invoke, such as the right to petition, to speech, to enter into contracts and to hold property, to sue and to be sued. However, they may not exercise rights which are exclusive to individuals and cannot be exercised by other associations of individuals, including the right to vote and the right against self incrimination." - above link
I would put it in two 'rates' as there really are two goals in my mind for this question.
In my mind there is no reason for the total of ALL forms of the government to confiscate more than 25% of the total economy for whatever moronic purposes they wish to put it to (yes, this is about what the Feds are on track to spend this year but this should cover ALL levels of government). This should be more than enough to run a reasonable defense and provide some basic social services.
As for individual rates I would have to set both a min and a max. No person should send less than 5% of his income (or equivalent time) to the many levels of government and no person should be coerced to send more than 50% (or equivalent time) to the many levels of government. If unable to give at least 5% you should be considered chattel and treated as such. At more than 50% you should be considered a slave and we should do the honest thing and just call you that.
In my mind any distribution that meets this would be fair. Now if you are asking what an ideal state would be I believe having the total tax burden in the 10%-15% range would be much better for us as a whole.
You imply what we have now is "modest restraints". I have heard that just the federal regulations reached 175,000 pages this year. As long as we have a system so complex that even the brightest among us find it impossible to understand you will have abuses. I think we have spent the last 100 years proving the piling more and more regulations on people leads to nothing good.
As for the shouting down bit, what a joke. Try this type "conservatives shouting down" in Google and see what you get, now try "liberals shouting down". Kind of odd that both end up returning articles about liberals misbehaving isn't it? Personally, I would find some other phrase to peddle your ideology as this one is just humorous.
God, I wish I had mod points right now. Best post I have seen today. Sad you had to do it as an AC but I understand why.
Read the opinion.
1. Their business is not based on and promoted for the explicit purpose of infringement.
2. They have a system to try and detect and deal with infringement.
3. They deal with DMCA take down notices appropriately.
I am pretty sure they are ok.
Of course it was. I am not saying I agree at all with piracy, just saying I disagree with what our laws say and how many laws we have.
Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
Gah, I can't tell if you are trying to be intentionally dull as sarcasm or if you really don't fully comprehend what you are saying here.
Tenure is part of the Seniority System used in academia supposedly to protect teaches from being fired for teaching and researching unpopular topics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_(academic) . After you reach some seniority level one of the perks you gain is that the only way to be fired is via a horrendous process that is nearly impossible to finish. See: http://www.teachersunionsexposed.com/protecting.cfm and http://reason.com/assets/db/12639308918768.pdf.
The complaints you have are a direct result of this Seniority System in general and tenure in specific. If they are unable to fire the bad teachers there is little chance that they will have room to bring on good teachers. The yearly layoff notices are just a way to get around the moronic rules on how long you have to notify a tenured teacher before they are part of a layoff. See: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/edu/teacher-layoffs/teacher-layoffs-032212.aspx
The best part of your post is where you say your friends are leaving the state to find more stability else where. I have several acquaintances who are teachers as well and this is a common thing among them. Instead of realizing this system is complete junk because tenure (and seniority in general) causes these problems most teachers want to move to where they can get more seniority and don't want to change it, they just want to be one of ones protected.
You can't clean house at a school until the good teachers quick protecting the bad ones.
Translation: I wants what I wants when I wants it, and its none of your business.
Which is true, right up until you have these morons saying its a necessity of life. At that point they are usually trying to get me to pay for it in some indirect way or to commiserate with them over spending their money on silly things.
Its not that people are better if they don't have cell phones or watch TV. Its that people who can identify wants versus needs will end up better, all things being equal. We tend to save for the future instead of spending everything right now. We tend to save up for things instead of buying them on credit, giving us more money. We tend to strive to be happy with what we have not be unhappy with what we don't have.
Given the average cable bill is almost $70 and the average bill for a cell phone is $47 a person we can see on these two WANTS alone a family of 4 would spend $258 a month or $3,096 a year. With a median income of $45k (in the US) it seems to some of us very odd that someone would pay 7% of their net income on a phone and an idiot box.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/19/15219831-newest-family-budget-killer-its-the-300-cellphone-bill-readers-say?lite
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2012/02/your-guide-to-cutting-the-cord-to-cable-tv-updated-2012-edition052.html
Obviously someone has very little idea how business works so let me help you. The only $6.71B in the link you made is called Gross Profit. This is not profitability if you want that you can simply look at the Profit Margin (30.08%) and know how silly what you said is. Any technology company is going to look similar as the CoGS is so low and the cost of all the other parts (Like Payroll and Taxes) are so high.
In fact as a general rule of thumb I expect a company like this to be a 3x'er.
- 1/3 revenue goes to profit
- 1/3 revenue goes to payroll
- 1/3 revenue goes to everything else
Anyone who has had a chance to see one of the credit card clearing houses would know that a lot is spent on processing credit cards (not even counting statment processing). This is not to say that there isn't room for a hungy young company to come in and clean up. As with all large corporations there is plenty of room to do the job better. However, unless you can find some group that would want cards that only work in some places (say walmart cards or something like that) you would have to be accepted in so many places that it would be nearly impossible to start out. Add to that the billion and one regulations that get added every day and I doubt that a new credit card company could start that wasn't virtually a shell for of one of the current ones. A high barrier to entry doesnt even being to cover it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_profit
First, everyone has an ideology they are like accents you may have the prevailing one for your area but that doesn't mean its any less there. I mean seriously look at your original post "silly ideology", "culture of me" and "anti-intellectualism" are not what anyone should consider neutral terms. It's fine, probably even important, to have an ideology as it means your standing for something. You say there is little polarization of ideology where you are but is this real or just because of those you associate with? I find it interesting to look at polls for areas I am in (city/state/country) to see how many people believe what. Always interesting to find out that a large portion of the population believes something and I can find nobody in my friends and family that agrees with them.
Second, again our ideologies are so far apart it is hard to even understand where you are coming from. How are free things an example of life being good? I mean this implies that at some level your ultimate state of "good" is to basically do nothing and have everything provided to you. How is this not parasitic? Also, what would be excess money? It seems to me that if you are having to go on the dole when you are out of work you failed to plan/save good enough while you were working.
Anything outside of fair consensual trade is a form of slavery/parasitism from what I can tell. Helping others is not slavery if I person does it of his own free will but is if it is done because the government forces him.
Sorry, would write more but work calls,