nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.
- yet the nazis are protected in their speech with the Constitution.
Everybody has the right to be protected from the government under the Constitution regardless of their speech.
You don't have Constitutional protection against your peers, so if you act like a jackass you may and sometimes will end up being punched in the face. That's the risk you take, and the criminal court may find that this was an assault and the person who punched you is punished for it.
Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations
- wrong. Any debt that government gets into is a tax future tax, because government has no money, it must raise taxes to pay back the debts.
So if the government must do something and it has no money, it must raise taxes immediately to cover that expense, and if the taxes cannot be raised for political reason (people don't accept it), then the government must not do it.
Of-course you can talk about war-bonds, those were all domestically bought, but those are equivalent to taxes, so government shouldn't be allowed to get into debt, it must be required to raise taxes.
Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?
- wrong. It's never 'necessary', nor is it authorized.
Government must never issue bills of credit, it's illegal for government to do so. Real money is expression of production, any money that is printed without production behind them is counterfeit money and counterfeiters must be hung by the neck till dead.
According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes"
- that's the 'modern theory' that gives the green light and justification for governments to steal and counterfeit, this is all nonsense. There is no economics but Austrian economics that is sound and will not destroy the economy in the long run.
Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".
- wrong. Tranquility and general welfare have nothing to do with personal welfare and money redistribution (stealing from Peter to give to Paul). Government must not be allowed into insurance, all it does is it creates moral hazards and if it was running a real insurance program, it would the most worthless insurance program. Governments of-course never run insurance programs, only transfer and pyramid schemes.
Of-course SS and health care, just like education loans and and housing loans, etc., it's all pyramid schemes, it's all illegal and immoral. I wrote plenty on it in my journal (someexamples).
Yes. The government runs on money, of course. Income tax is simple
- wrong. US Constitution authorizes taxes, but it took a while to start collecting income taxes instead of import/sales taxes (excise), as they had to create a clever scheme to call excise taxes 'income'. In any case it's definitely not a simple tax, it's the most convoluted tax from every perspective.
You don't need to hire an accountant and lawyers to pay your sales taxes for example, but you do in many cases when you pay income taxes. Income taxes violate your privacy, your liberties and rights against testifying against yourself and illegal searches and seizures and in any case those are the worst taxes to collect from point of view of economy, as they deprive economy from savings and investment, which is the only thing that grows the economy.
There is no such long term concept as 'consumption economy', there
Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences. That's how the character from your comment got into power, that's how people like Hoover and FDR and Obama got into power, they promise things that will deliver short term satisfaction but the long term consequences are always disastrous. What's funny is how many complain that corporations only look at short term gains, but that's not specific to corporations, it's just how people most often behave because they don't normally spend any amount of time thinking for the long term and even when they do, most of the time they lack the capacity to appreciate the real consequences of their choices.
Here are some examples, I am going to post them as questions first:
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution? 2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt? 3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost? 4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)? 5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes? 6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties? 7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?
8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?
---
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.
In a short term answering with a 'yes' often seems like a good idea for unsophisticated voters (and those who don't care or immediately stand to gain from the government power that will immediately provide them with something like a contract or a special privilege).
But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term, they don't have ability and mental capacity to recognize the real consequences and often they have prejudices and ideologies that would guarantee that they will answer those questions the wrong way. That's why people like that come to power.
I think you missed the part where he said the company was thriving.
It means whatever he does is irrelevant, because they are thriving with whatever they have. I think he needs to check if they are really an e-commerce company and not a money laundering operation for some drug dealers, in which case he is set for life.
Hey hey hey, when I say ALL, I do mean ALL that exist.
Just because you misunderstand this to be "ALL that CAN exist" doesn't mean that's what I said.
In any case, as I mentioned earlier here, nothing that he will do will have any effect on the company, because he said it's 'thriving', so if it's thriving, it's not because of whatever their IT dep't is up to.
Best advice is not to do anything, romance some sales ladies. It's a good gig he's got going there.
As to advice to the submitter of the story: I'd say never mind reverse engineering the whatever gizmo-thingy in that 'thriving' company, if it was thriving before you got there, nothing will change that, because obviously if it's thriving, it's not because of anything that the IT department is doing there.
Start a romance with somebody in sales, that would take the pressure off.
1. The job has lasted for 1 month so far. 2. The e-commerce company is 'thriving' apparently'. 3. All of the systems have been "reverse engineered" in that 1 month. 4. All of the documents are written in that 1 month. 5. In 1 months there have been: network and phone upgrades and database maintenance with Perl and it all has been 'immensely rewarding'. 6. The entire infrastructure is 'a few problems away from a total meltdown'. 7. Single person IT operation to do everything.
Question: is this for real? What's the size of the company and what's the budget?
what? Libraries? I said liberties, not libraries. Also saying that something that must be given to you by somebody else is a 'right' is what leads to eventual economic and social destruction in every case the destruction happened.
Of-course he wants to stop people from speaking. That's what all people in power want - to make sure that the masses never speak.
That's why individual liberties must be the primary concern of all people and that's why the principles upon which governments get established must put individual liberties ahead of all other concerns.
Nonsense. There can be plenty of tyranny outside of government.
Of-course outside of government tyranny is a 2 way street, only government has legitimacy to force itself upon citizens, supported by the court system and whatever joke of a law that exists, but it is the law.
Nothing that a private person or enterprise does amounts to a law and that's what your small head can't fit into itself apparently.
Nonsense, being self supporting has nothing to do with inflation,
- obviously it does, you moron, as the union wages are tied to inflation adjustments and thus the prices must also be inflation adjusted, if they are not, then the enterprise becomes a money loser.
Of-course USPS has been losing money for a very long time and to deal with it, they've been cutting their costs. They used to deliver 7 days a week, 2 times a day. That ended long ago, obviously they couldn't afford that many employees and shifts. Now they are selling 'forever stamps', which is the only reason they were able to raise 200 million this year - people buying stamps as an inflation hedge. Of-course this will kill USPS later on, as they won't be able to sell more expensive stamps and will have to honor the 'forever' stamp to send the packages around, but they will be bailed out by the Fed, everybody gets bailed out.
Have they tried breaking into coal or hydro plants? Because they can cause huge damage by breaking into those ones as well.
Oh well, hope they shut down all the nuclear plants around the world and go back to oil, coal, gas and hydro, see how well that works out for the environment.
BTW., do you realize that the natural outcome of this 'greenpeace' movement agenda would be further destruction of economy and society? Aren't they acting like people we love to call 'terrorists' here?
I don't know what your position is, my position is that the government that is originally set up on principles of maximum individual liberties must not be allowed to change the laws within the system, because any law change leads away from the principles of maximizing individual liberties.
There should be as little government possible as it takes to run basic function of government - border protection. Everything else should not be authorized to a federal government anyway, and no business or money policy should be authorized to any government.
Government must be weak, because strong government is the kind of government that stole the powers not authorized to it and it's selling those powers to people with money.
Just because capitalism allows people to build up capital savings does not mean capitalism leads to corruption, it's the strong government that leads to corruption, because strong government steals and sells power. People with money then can buy power and there are people with money among capitalists.
Slashdot Mirror
what the hell, here is a good link.
The Unique Candidates of the New Hampshire Primary and only one to restore sanity.
nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.
- yet the nazis are protected in their speech with the Constitution.
Everybody has the right to be protected from the government under the Constitution regardless of their speech.
You don't have Constitutional protection against your peers, so if you act like a jackass you may and sometimes will end up being punched in the face. That's the risk you take, and the criminal court may find that this was an assault and the person who punched you is punished for it.
Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations
- wrong. Any debt that government gets into is a tax future tax, because government has no money, it must raise taxes to pay back the debts.
So if the government must do something and it has no money, it must raise taxes immediately to cover that expense, and if the taxes cannot be raised for political reason (people don't accept it), then the government must not do it.
Of-course you can talk about war-bonds, those were all domestically bought, but those are equivalent to taxes, so government shouldn't be allowed to get into debt, it must be required to raise taxes.
Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?
- wrong. It's never 'necessary', nor is it authorized.
Government must never issue bills of credit, it's illegal for government to do so. Real money is expression of production, any money that is printed without production behind them is counterfeit money and counterfeiters must be hung by the neck till dead.
According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes"
- that's the 'modern theory' that gives the green light and justification for governments to steal and counterfeit, this is all nonsense. There is no economics but Austrian economics that is sound and will not destroy the economy in the long run.
Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".
- wrong. Tranquility and general welfare have nothing to do with personal welfare and money redistribution (stealing from Peter to give to Paul). Government must not be allowed into insurance, all it does is it creates moral hazards and if it was running a real insurance program, it would the most worthless insurance program. Governments of-course never run insurance programs, only transfer and pyramid schemes.
Of-course SS and health care, just like education loans and and housing loans, etc., it's all pyramid schemes, it's all illegal and immoral. I wrote plenty on it in my journal (some examples).
Yes. The government runs on money, of course. Income tax is simple
- wrong. US Constitution authorizes taxes, but it took a while to start collecting income taxes instead of import/sales taxes (excise), as they had to create a clever scheme to call excise taxes 'income'. In any case it's definitely not a simple tax, it's the most convoluted tax from every perspective.
You don't need to hire an accountant and lawyers to pay your sales taxes for example, but you do in many cases when you pay income taxes. Income taxes violate your privacy, your liberties and rights against testifying against yourself and illegal searches and seizures and in any case those are the worst taxes to collect from point of view of economy, as they deprive economy from savings and investment, which is the only thing that grows the economy.
There is no such long term concept as 'consumption economy', there
the above comment proves my point.
Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences. That's how the character from your comment got into power, that's how people like Hoover and FDR and Obama got into power, they promise things that will deliver short term satisfaction but the long term consequences are always disastrous. What's funny is how many complain that corporations only look at short term gains, but that's not specific to corporations, it's just how people most often behave because they don't normally spend any amount of time thinking for the long term and even when they do, most of the time they lack the capacity to appreciate the real consequences of their choices.
Here are some examples, I am going to post them as questions first:
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?
8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?
---
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.
In a short term answering with a 'yes' often seems like a good idea for unsophisticated voters (and those who don't care or immediately stand to gain from the government power that will immediately provide them with something like a contract or a special privilege).
But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term, they don't have ability and mental capacity to recognize the real consequences and often they have prejudices and ideologies that would guarantee that they will answer those questions the wrong way. That's why people like that come to power.
The real story is this: India Moves TO Censor Social Media ... but it fails in the face of /. dupes./a.
I think you missed the part where he said the company was thriving.
It means whatever he does is irrelevant, because they are thriving with whatever they have. I think he needs to check if they are really an e-commerce company and not a money laundering operation for some drug dealers, in which case he is set for life.
Hey hey hey, when I say ALL, I do mean ALL that exist.
Just because you misunderstand this to be "ALL that CAN exist" doesn't mean that's what I said.
In any case, as I mentioned earlier here, nothing that he will do will have any effect on the company, because he said it's 'thriving', so if it's thriving, it's not because of whatever their IT dep't is up to.
Best advice is not to do anything, romance some sales ladies. It's a good gig he's got going there.
I just googled 'letters to Penthouse' and I don't know why, but I found them about as informative as this story but they are definitely more titillating, and the pics are OK.
As to advice to the submitter of the story: I'd say never mind reverse engineering the whatever gizmo-thingy in that 'thriving' company, if it was thriving before you got there, nothing will change that, because obviously if it's thriving, it's not because of anything that the IT department is doing there.
Start a romance with somebody in sales, that would take the pressure off.
What? There is an article?
I see dead people.
I am not mocking him, I am just wondering if it's not another one of those 'sixth sense' situations? Is he sure he is alive?
Facts:
1. The job has lasted for 1 month so far.
2. The e-commerce company is 'thriving' apparently'.
3. All of the systems have been "reverse engineered" in that 1 month.
4. All of the documents are written in that 1 month.
5. In 1 months there have been: network and phone upgrades and database maintenance with Perl and it all has been 'immensely rewarding'.
6. The entire infrastructure is 'a few problems away from a total meltdown'.
7. Single person IT operation to do everything.
Question: is this for real? What's the size of the company and what's the budget?
FYI I don't wear knickers, you clumsy clown!
it dosn't matter libraries or liberties.. the bastard and his government has taken care of that all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Literacy_in_India_1901_-_2011.PNG
Brandon Harris? That bearded bastard! How did he get into Indian government?
That's the dumbest attempt at a troll ever. What kind of a stupid 'troll' is that? The 'confuser' troll?
what? Libraries? I said liberties, not libraries. Also saying that something that must be given to you by somebody else is a 'right' is what leads to eventual economic and social destruction in every case the destruction happened.
Of-course he wants to stop people from speaking. That's what all people in power want - to make sure that the masses never speak.
That's why individual liberties must be the primary concern of all people and that's why the principles upon which governments get established must put individual liberties ahead of all other concerns.
Whatever you do in a hydro plant, you CANNOT flood an entire region
ok.
Nonsense. There can be plenty of tyranny outside of government.
Of-course outside of government tyranny is a 2 way street, only government has legitimacy to force itself upon citizens, supported by the court system and whatever joke of a law that exists, but it is the law.
Nothing that a private person or enterprise does amounts to a law and that's what your small head can't fit into itself apparently.
Everything you say is a knee jerk, so you should know. There is no reason to have a 'discussion' with somebody like you.
Don't you have something to do, like disperse poison in some Jonestown?
Fuck off you idiot.
, no, you are the idiot who should 'fuck off'.
Nonsense, being self supporting has nothing to do with inflation,
- obviously it does, you moron, as the union wages are tied to inflation adjustments and thus the prices must also be inflation adjusted, if they are not, then the enterprise becomes a money loser.
Of-course USPS has been losing money for a very long time and to deal with it, they've been cutting their costs. They used to deliver 7 days a week, 2 times a day. That ended long ago, obviously they couldn't afford that many employees and shifts. Now they are selling 'forever stamps', which is the only reason they were able to raise 200 million this year - people buying stamps as an inflation hedge. Of-course this will kill USPS later on, as they won't be able to sell more expensive stamps and will have to honor the 'forever' stamp to send the packages around, but they will be bailed out by the Fed, everybody gets bailed out.
But what would you know, dumb ass?
so what's their plan to shut down the Sun?
Have they tried breaking into coal or hydro plants? Because they can cause huge damage by breaking into those ones as well.
Oh well, hope they shut down all the nuclear plants around the world and go back to oil, coal, gas and hydro, see how well that works out for the environment.
BTW., do you realize that the natural outcome of this 'greenpeace' movement agenda would be further destruction of economy and society? Aren't they acting like people we love to call 'terrorists' here?
I'd like to take his face ........ off!
I don't know what your position is, my position is that the government that is originally set up on principles of maximum individual liberties must not be allowed to change the laws within the system, because any law change leads away from the principles of maximizing individual liberties.
There should be as little government possible as it takes to run basic function of government - border protection. Everything else should not be authorized to a federal government anyway, and no business or money policy should be authorized to any government.
Government must be weak, because strong government is the kind of government that stole the powers not authorized to it and it's selling those powers to people with money.
Just because capitalism allows people to build up capital savings does not mean capitalism leads to corruption, it's the strong government that leads to corruption, because strong government steals and sells power. People with money then can buy power and there are people with money among capitalists.