If I was making $2/hr and working full time, my obligation should be scaled to match. Paying enough to show an honest effort should keep me from being arrested or having my driver's license suspended. If I opt not to work, they very well may toss me in jail.
But if he's an adult working full time at the most sophisticated job that he's able to do, he should make enough for food, shelter, and health care.
You seem to think this is a right that everyone is inherently born with...?
If you're an American working as productively as you're capable of, you deserve food, shelter, and health care. I didn't say it was a "right"; it's just the right thing to do. Some people are born simple and will never make it beyond "burger flipper." They shouldn't be left hungry or have to splint their own broken arm. Like I said, this support doesn't have to be 100% borne by the employer. Leaving the weak to die isn't something a civilized society should do.
Furthermore, you cannot force employers to pay you more than your labor is worth.
Yes you absolutely can. If the position is "worth" less than minimum wage, that's the employer's problem, not the employee's. The employer's not forced to maintain or staff that position, but if the position exists compensation isn't capped at "worth".
Each job should pay what it is worth. Do you think a burger flipper should make the same as a highly skilled computer programmer?
No. But if he's an adult working full time at the most sophisticated job that he's able to do, he should make enough for food, shelter, and health care. I'm not married to forcing his employer to bear that whole burden.
HMm...I guess I must have missed it in the article, that this was the ONLY job in town for everyone.
Obviously these folks have a wide range of employment immediately available and choose the lowest paying option. They're just ignoring the better paying alternatives because they enjoy this line of work so much. I'm sure that's what's happening.
I applied a label that is popularly claimed, 'Creationist', to a subset of my own definition. That was unfair, inadequately clarified, and confusing.
When I said that the emergence of Man wasn't spontaneous, what I meant was that we're pretty sure it was gradual.
In any case, the argument is the same. The "emergence of Man" is a fact that science cannot prove. It can propose theories, but there is no way to prove which one is right, if any.
TFS correctly reflected TFA and gave us some unsound math. The mistake wasn't hard to spot, but you didn't misread TFS or TFA. Whoever wrote TFA made a mistake pulling information from MoviePass. Your only misreading was of the posts correcting you.
Creationism deals with something that can never be proven. It isn't supposed to be the same as "evolution", but many evolutionists confuse evolution with "how life began". Evolution as "changes over time" have been observed; there is little doubt it exists. How life originated cannot be observed.
When I hear "Creationist", I infer the emergence of Man, not the emergence of life. Many Creationists believe that the two are equivalent. No argument from me that the origin of life is a mystery. But the origin of Man was a different event and we have pretty good observable evidence that it wasn't spontaneous.
Annual Plan — Pay $89.95 today — $6.95 a month for twelve months, plus a $6.55 processing fee. Once your year is up, your plan will convert back into your $9.95 a month. Offer valid until it’s not. Limit two per household.
Or by surprising subscribers with a price hike while removing coverage for certain types of movies. Also, if you had a trip to the movies planned before signing up, MoviePass does not have to cover that title during your first year of membership. If you see too many movies during a single lifetime, they'll have the option of capping your usage and removing you from the service.
Some people will abuse this service but many more will see a movie or two for the first few weekends...
How is seeing as many movies as you want when you've subscribed to a service that exists specifically for that purpose "abuse"? If I'm at an all-you-can-eat buffet I don't feel guilty for eating more than their projected average customer.
No. I didn't mean to imply that it was, but I can certainly see how it came across that way. I was just giving a general alternative to "...if at first you don't succeed: give up and quit trying.".
Get out and meet a creationist and learn something about the world you live in.
Like Jane Goodall?
Who knows, maybe you will find they arnt just simple stupid people like you think and they may find that you arnt the spawn of Satan like they think.
Not all Creationists are stupid; I'm convinced that intelligent people existed even before Darwin. And there is a wide range of specific beliefs among people who call themselves Creationists. But that doesn't stop me from lumping them in with the people who say the earth isn't heating up or that vaccines cause autism. Some intelligent people believe some stupid shit.
Why would you want the inconvenience of having to schedule car time with 3 other owners? My start-up is different. I'm creating a pay-per-use model where you rent one car out of a fleet. They'll be delivered directly to your location and will come with a driver to take your car to its destination. Ready to head back? Rent another on demand! All I need is a name.
...if you are dumb enough to accept a whole home burglary to prevent e-mailing a Amazon customer service rep...
It's not accepting a break-in. It's accepting a chance of a burglary. Guess what? There's already a chance that your house might be burgled. This (might) slightly increase that risk.
It's not: (Cost of home burglary) > (Cost of porch burglary) It's: (Change in chance of home burglary)*(Cost of home burglary) ? (Chance of porch burglary)*(Cost of porch burglary)
Everyone in the West agrees The Daily Stormer had to be taken down.
If everyone agreed that it should be taken down, it would have been abandoned for lack of traffic. Not even everyone who hated it thought it should be taken down.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're a human being working as productively as you're capable of...
Agree 100%, but it's harder to enforce beyond our borders.
I'm legally obligated to pay my child support.
You can't do that on a $2/hr job.
If I was making $2/hr and working full time, my obligation should be scaled to match. Paying enough to show an honest effort should keep me from being arrested or having my driver's license suspended. If I opt not to work, they very well may toss me in jail.
You seem to think this is a right that everyone is inherently born with...?
If you're an American working as productively as you're capable of, you deserve food, shelter, and health care. I didn't say it was a "right"; it's just the right thing to do. Some people are born simple and will never make it beyond "burger flipper." They shouldn't be left hungry or have to splint their own broken arm. Like I said, this support doesn't have to be 100% borne by the employer. Leaving the weak to die isn't something a civilized society should do.
...where's the legal compulsion to work if you don't think the pay is high enough?
I'm legally obligated to pay my child support. If I decide not to work, it puts me on the losing side of that equation.
Furthermore, you cannot force employers to pay you more than your labor is worth.
Yes you absolutely can. If the position is "worth" less than minimum wage, that's the employer's problem, not the employee's. The employer's not forced to maintain or staff that position, but if the position exists compensation isn't capped at "worth".
Each job should pay what it is worth. Do you think a burger flipper should make the same as a highly skilled computer programmer?
No. But if he's an adult working full time at the most sophisticated job that he's able to do, he should make enough for food, shelter, and health care. I'm not married to forcing his employer to bear that whole burden.
HMm...I guess I must have missed it in the article, that this was the ONLY job in town for everyone.
Obviously these folks have a wide range of employment immediately available and choose the lowest paying option. They're just ignoring the better paying alternatives because they enjoy this line of work so much. I'm sure that's what's happening.
Bill G is a very generous man. He's going to pay me $.25 every time I forward the email I just got from him.
I applied a label that is popularly claimed, 'Creationist', to a subset of my own definition. That was unfair, inadequately clarified, and confusing.
When I said that the emergence of Man wasn't spontaneous, what I meant was that we're pretty sure it was gradual.
In any case, the argument is the same. The "emergence of Man" is a fact that science cannot prove. It can propose theories, but there is no way to prove which one is right, if any.
We can make a pretty damned good guess.
George Washington was a lawyer prior to being drafted into the Navy.
It's fun facts like this that keep me coming back to /. . Always learning something new.
Agreed. But it beats the hell out of the phone companies' shenanigans.
TFS correctly reflected TFA and gave us some unsound math. The mistake wasn't hard to spot, but you didn't misread TFS or TFA. Whoever wrote TFA made a mistake pulling information from MoviePass. Your only misreading was of the posts correcting you.
Creationism deals with something that can never be proven. It isn't supposed to be the same as "evolution", but many evolutionists confuse evolution with "how life began". Evolution as "changes over time" have been observed; there is little doubt it exists. How life originated cannot be observed.
When I hear "Creationist", I infer the emergence of Man, not the emergence of life. Many Creationists believe that the two are equivalent. No argument from me that the origin of life is a mystery. But the origin of Man was a different event and we have pretty good observable evidence that it wasn't spontaneous.
No. No you did not read that correctly. I feel silly quoting it again when it's right there but:
Pay $89.95 today — $6.95 a month for twelve months, plus a $6.55 processing fee
$6.95 * 12 + $6.55 = $89.95. Not "89.95 plus 6.55".
Check the source.
Annual Plan — Pay $89.95 today — $6.95 a month for twelve months, plus a $6.55 processing fee. Once your year is up, your plan will convert back into your $9.95 a month. Offer valid until it’s not. Limit two per household.
Or by surprising subscribers with a price hike while removing coverage for certain types of movies. Also, if you had a trip to the movies planned before signing up, MoviePass does not have to cover that title during your first year of membership. If you see too many movies during a single lifetime, they'll have the option of capping your usage and removing you from the service.
Some people will abuse this service but many more will see a movie or two for the first few weekends...
How is seeing as many movies as you want when you've subscribed to a service that exists specifically for that purpose "abuse"? If I'm at an all-you-can-eat buffet I don't feel guilty for eating more than their projected average customer.
Is it doing the same thing?
No. I didn't mean to imply that it was, but I can certainly see how it came across that way. I was just giving a general alternative to "...if at first you don't succeed: give up and quit trying.".
$6.95 * 12 + $6.55 = $89.95
More like 'Children of the Corn' than 'Lord of the Flies'. Who could have guessed that 'He who walks behind the rows' would be digital?
Get out and meet a creationist and learn something about the world you live in.
Like Jane Goodall?
Who knows, maybe you will find they arnt just simple stupid people like you think and they may find that you arnt the spawn of Satan like they think.
Not all Creationists are stupid; I'm convinced that intelligent people existed even before Darwin. And there is a wide range of specific beliefs among people who call themselves Creationists. But that doesn't stop me from lumping them in with the people who say the earth isn't heating up or that vaccines cause autism. Some intelligent people believe some stupid shit.
Why would you want the inconvenience of having to schedule car time with 3 other owners? My start-up is different. I'm creating a pay-per-use model where you rent one car out of a fleet. They'll be delivered directly to your location and will come with a driver to take your car to its destination. Ready to head back? Rent another on demand! All I need is a name.
That's right, if at first you don't succeed: give up and quit trying.
Or do the same thing again and expect a different response. Either/or.
...if you are dumb enough to accept a whole home burglary to prevent e-mailing a Amazon customer service rep...
It's not accepting a break-in. It's accepting a chance of a burglary. Guess what? There's already a chance that your house might be burgled. This (might) slightly increase that risk.
It's not:
(Cost of home burglary) > (Cost of porch burglary)
It's:
(Change in chance of home burglary)*(Cost of home burglary) ? (Chance of porch burglary)*(Cost of porch burglary)
Everyone in the West agrees The Daily Stormer had to be taken down.
If everyone agreed that it should be taken down, it would have been abandoned for lack of traffic. Not even everyone who hated it thought it should be taken down.