Man, I haven't laughed like that in a while. Thanks. Here are a few of my favorites where I laughed hardest:
...we don't have the deep pockets that our employers do, so we can't afford the politicians.
I could probably fill this post with example after example of how this isn't even a little bit true, but I won't waste anybody's time. I live in California, and I see the unions throwing money around all the time to get their way.
...membership is optional.
But paying dues is not.
However, in these workplaces, the union still represents nonmembers,
Well, they pay dues, so they are required by law to represent them. It has nothing to do with 'solidarity' or some other bullshit.
No, you have it backwards by equating a casino with the stock market.
Um, you were the one that equated a casino with the stock market, not me:
Gambling in the stock market isn't really investing. It's more like a very large casino where the games are rigged in ways you canot perceive.
.
.
ask all those people whose lost half their retirement savings when the market imploded in 2008
And the market has now rebounded and made back all that money. In fact, a smart investor would have made money by investing more when the market was down.
However it's still gambling. Math and history prove this.
I'm pretty sure that every stock market graph shows the market rising over time. But being such an expert in the stock market, you know that.
If I have it 'backwards', are you saying that the longer I stay in a casino, the more likely I am to increase my money? And that the longer I invest in the stock market, the more likely I am to lose all my money? Because math and history show that both of those are wrong.
I'm always amazed out how many people that don't understand the stock market try to compare it to a casino. A casino and a stock market are in fact opposites of each other.
The longer you stay at a casino, the more likely you are to lose all your money.
The longer you stay in the stock market, the more likely you are to increase your money.
...explain what is inherently wrong with ID card...
There is nothing wrong with the ID card itself. It's when you have to start showing it everywhere you go, which becomes a tracking system for citizens. Hell, I now have to show an ID if I want to do something as mundane as get on an airplane or enter certain government buildings.
Except that the people are at the ER because they can't afford to go to a regular doctor. Therefore, they won't be able to pay the ER bill. The reason they go to the ER is because they effectively can't be turned away, but a regular doctor can refuse to see you if they don't think you can pay.
Let them set their prices and operate as they see fit. If they need to charge 75 cents a letter to operate instead of 50 cents a letter, let them charge 75 cents. I could understand controlling costs decades ago when the post office was about the only option, but with fax, email, UPS, Fedex, etc. as alternatives, let them compete!
Cutting money for things like research and Head Start and NiH is just plain dumb.
And therein lies the problem. Everybody thinks that something else should have a reduced rate of increase (it is not a 'cut', so I refuse to use that term), but not the thing(s) that they think are important or personally benefit them.
Sorry, but we need to freeze the budget at whatever it is currently until we no longer have a deficit. Automatically spending more each year is just going to get us deeper into debt. Freeze all government payroll until you are no longer in the red. I know plenty of people in the public sector (myself included) that go years on end without any raise whatsoever, and somehow we manage. Government workers aren't entitled to more than the rest of us.
That's not necessarily true. With the engine engaged coasting downhill, modern cars shut off the flow of fuel. When you shift into neutral, the car has to feed fuel to the engine to keep it idling. But I'll admit I've not heard which way uses less gas.
I'm trying to figure out where the get this number. If the specs say the Nectar can put out around 2.5w max, and the capacity is 55 W-hr... then can't this thing be drained in less than a day?
They have a PDF stating that high power users need around 16 w-hr (per day? It doesn't really say). So even by that metric, the thing will only last around 3-4 days.
If someone sells me a copy of a piece of software they bought off someone else under a license that forbids resale etc I can't then make 10,000 copies of it...
But the duplication of the software is not part of the software itself. With the corn, the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the seeds is to produce more corn (which the farmer is legally entitled to). Monsanto is a stupid company for creating a product that automatically creates more of itself.
The issue here is that now Monsanto is claiming ownership of the grain after the original farmer sold his crop to the grain elevator...
And this goes back to my original point. Monsanto is trying to dictate what is done with the corn. If I buy and eat the corn, I'm OK, but if I plant that same corn, suddenly it belongs to Monsanto? Bullshit.
Here's what I don't get. Monsanto sold the original seeds for the purpose of growing corn. The corn is sold by the farmer. So, apparently the farmer has the right to whatever the seeds produce.
But then they turn around and claim ownership of the same corn, but only because it is used to plant more crops, rather than selling the corn for consumption. This seems ridiculously inconsistent, and I am amazed that ANY court has ruled in favor of Monsanto.
It seems that Monsanto screwed up by selling a self replicating product. Maybe they should have thought of a better business model, or written up some type of contract with the farmers for future crop plantings...
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I haven't laughed like that in a while. Thanks. Here are a few of my favorites where I laughed hardest:
...we don't have the deep pockets that our employers do, so we can't afford the politicians.
I could probably fill this post with example after example of how this isn't even a little bit true, but I won't waste anybody's time. I live in California, and I see the unions throwing money around all the time to get their way.
...membership is optional.
But paying dues is not.
However, in these workplaces, the union still represents nonmembers,
Well, they pay dues, so they are required by law to represent them. It has nothing to do with 'solidarity' or some other bullshit.
No, you have it backwards by equating a casino with the stock market.
Um, you were the one that equated a casino with the stock market, not me:
Gambling in the stock market isn't really investing. It's more like a very large casino where the games are rigged in ways you canot perceive.
.
ask all those people whose lost half their retirement savings when the market imploded in 2008
And the market has now rebounded and made back all that money. In fact, a smart investor would have made money by investing more when the market was down.
However it's still gambling. Math and history prove this.
I'm pretty sure that every stock market graph shows the market rising over time. But being such an expert in the stock market, you know that.
I'm afraid you have it backwards again.
If I have it 'backwards', are you saying that the longer I stay in a casino, the more likely I am to increase my money? And that the longer I invest in the stock market, the more likely I am to lose all my money? Because math and history show that both of those are wrong.
I'm always amazed out how many people that don't understand the stock market try to compare it to a casino. A casino and a stock market are in fact opposites of each other.
The longer you stay at a casino, the more likely you are to lose all your money.
The longer you stay in the stock market, the more likely you are to increase your money.
...explain what is inherently wrong with ID card...
There is nothing wrong with the ID card itself. It's when you have to start showing it everywhere you go, which becomes a tracking system for citizens. Hell, I now have to show an ID if I want to do something as mundane as get on an airplane or enter certain government buildings.
Investors get paid back when things go to shit? Sweet! Where do I go to get back all of the money I lost investing in Bank of America?
In Soviet Russia, jokes make YOU!
Except that the people are at the ER because they can't afford to go to a regular doctor. Therefore, they won't be able to pay the ER bill. The reason they go to the ER is because they effectively can't be turned away, but a regular doctor can refuse to see you if they don't think you can pay.
...it's the fault of your severely litigious country, not the government.
Who do you think allows all of this litigation?
Let them set their prices and operate as they see fit. If they need to charge 75 cents a letter to operate instead of 50 cents a letter, let them charge 75 cents. I could understand controlling costs decades ago when the post office was about the only option, but with fax, email, UPS, Fedex, etc. as alternatives, let them compete!
Cutting money for things like research and Head Start and NiH is just plain dumb.
And therein lies the problem. Everybody thinks that something else should have a reduced rate of increase (it is not a 'cut', so I refuse to use that term), but not the thing(s) that they think are important or personally benefit them.
Sorry, but we need to freeze the budget at whatever it is currently until we no longer have a deficit. Automatically spending more each year is just going to get us deeper into debt. Freeze all government payroll until you are no longer in the red. I know plenty of people in the public sector (myself included) that go years on end without any raise whatsoever, and somehow we manage. Government workers aren't entitled to more than the rest of us.
WHAT?!?!
That's not necessarily true. With the engine engaged coasting downhill, modern cars shut off the flow of fuel. When you shift into neutral, the car has to feed fuel to the engine to keep it idling. But I'll admit I've not heard which way uses less gas.
I'm trying to figure out where the get this number. If the specs say the Nectar can put out around 2.5w max, and the capacity is 55 W-hr... then can't this thing be drained in less than a day?
They have a PDF stating that high power users need around 16 w-hr (per day? It doesn't really say). So even by that metric, the thing will only last around 3-4 days.
http://www.nectarpower.com/assets/Uploads/Powering-the-Wireless-World.pdf
...because they cannot find anything else legal, that can give them the money they need to survive.
Sooooo... wouldn't a ban on porn effectively kill them? How is this better?
So unless you are arguing that we should no longer have legally enforceable contracts, the rest of your statements make no sense.
Yeah, I sort of covered that in my post:
...or written up some type of contract with the farmers for future crop plantings...
If someone sells me a copy of a piece of software they bought off someone else under a license that forbids resale etc I can't then make 10,000 copies of it...
But the duplication of the software is not part of the software itself. With the corn, the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the seeds is to produce more corn (which the farmer is legally entitled to). Monsanto is a stupid company for creating a product that automatically creates more of itself.
The issue here is that now Monsanto is claiming ownership of the grain after the original farmer sold his crop to the grain elevator...
And this goes back to my original point. Monsanto is trying to dictate what is done with the corn. If I buy and eat the corn, I'm OK, but if I plant that same corn, suddenly it belongs to Monsanto? Bullshit.
The Japanese are keeping them all for themselves. Wouldn't you?
Here's what I don't get. Monsanto sold the original seeds for the purpose of growing corn. The corn is sold by the farmer. So, apparently the farmer has the right to whatever the seeds produce.
But then they turn around and claim ownership of the same corn, but only because it is used to plant more crops, rather than selling the corn for consumption. This seems ridiculously inconsistent, and I am amazed that ANY court has ruled in favor of Monsanto.
It seems that Monsanto screwed up by selling a self replicating product. Maybe they should have thought of a better business model, or written up some type of contract with the farmers for future crop plantings...
But then priest won't have any more interest in you...
I said GOOD DAY!
...That is why we need comprehensive immigration reform."
Does anybody REALLY believe that this is why Obama want's 'comprehensive immigration reform' (translated: amnesty)?
Or do we think that he wants to pass reform so that he'll have a few million illegal aliens granted citizenship so that they can vote for his party?
...I bought it on new years eve 2008.
Another crazy night of partying brought to you by /.
Why would the carrier care if you unlock your phone? As long as I pay the bill (as required by the contract) each month, why would they give a flip?