It is probably not that outrageous for China and other lenders to request that the US returns the debt with not US dollars but other stuff, raw materials (oil?), food maybe, maybe even by giving China the right to run the collections on US toll roads for the next 400 years.
But seeing him in the majority, we might as well elect Bush.
- this is just retarded. Comparing Harper to Bush is like comparing Einstein to Carrot Top.
However I'll give you this, I just visited Ottawa and saw the difference in the city between now and 8 years ago and I know now where the country's money are going, regardless who is in the office.
Generally speaking any party that has words 'democratic' or 'national' or 'communist' or 'socialist' is puke to me, I was born in the former Soviet Ukraine.
Specifically it looks extremely ridiculous to me that a person who has never had a real job except of being a career politician (from a family of career politicians no less) talks about the underprivileged and the poor of the society. Layton is against a 2tiered health care system yet he used private health care himself.
Layton is a snake who speaks what you want to hear.
Definitely many 'pieces of shit' are making more money. However it is definitely not only the 'rich bastards' who are behind the sub prime meltdown. Actually I was surprised for a very long period of time that such an unstable environment as a stock market actually works at all.
What I find more pathetic though, is what passes around as good politics. For example hiding introduction of one bill inside another, now that is the stuff that lies are made of.
- that's what I call being resourceful and if they got away with it then resourceful and lucky.
does that mean that whomever gains their wealth through theft and fraud are worth more as a human being than someone who works 60 hours a week to feed their family?
- probably yes, at least that is what society accepts to be the case.
why is someone who inherited their wealth while contributing nothing to society worth more than someone who worked for their wealth?
- because their parents were resourceful or because they are lucky. Being lucky is great as well, I'd rather hang out with lucky rich people than with poor unlucky ones.
being wealthy does not mean you aren't a "lazy ass" in fact I suspect that great accumulation of wealth enables someone to be lazy.
- I doubt it. Gates, Buffet, Jobs still work even though they totally don't have to.
Making more money is just a symptom of being more resourceful (or luckier) than the next guy. Being resourceful is a valuable trait and is viewed by the society to be more valuable than being a lazy ass.
Historically most people and any animal I've heard of reproduced as soon as possible, old fart mating doesn't really make sense. People are actually reproducing at an older age(TRUE)...we get autism(*WILD SPECULATION*).
- you are mistaken at least about some animals.
For example elephant females in the wild do not allow young bulls to touch themselves. Only the older elephant bulls reproduce in the wild. This is due to the fact that elephants actually require a long period of survival 'training' that can only be performed by very experienced adults.
In humans and apes the alpha males are older ones, that have survived for longer period of time.
But it is not just as effective. Anyone can make mistakes and GPS monitoring does not prevent someone who is drunk making them either. The system that limits the top speed (and 80mp/h is too high for most people, not just teens) would reduce the fatality rate. By the way, a system like that should also prohibit the car from starting unless the seat-belts are on for all sits that detect people sitting on them.
I retract my previous statement. I just read that this is not 80km/h but 80mp/h. This should be made mandatory for most 'parents' too, not just their kids.
Why haven't people realized that this kind of thing isn't compatible with the way teenagers think?
- teenagers think?
When you restrict them like this, you're basically telling them that they aren't trusted. I don't care whether or not that's true, but that's how it will be interpreted by them.
- parents are not their friends and are not supposed to be. So in that kind of uneven 'slave/master' relationship trust is not the first thing that parents should be worried about. Making sure that the stupid thing survives should be the priority.
They're going to push against the restrictions, especially when so many of their friends don't have to put up with the same limitations.
- so how are they going to do that if the only car they have access to is limited in speed? If they take some other car, like their friends' car then it is the parents obligation to make sure that this doesn't happen again. That friend should be no more.
This is no substitute for teaching teens to be responsible drivers.
- agreed. This is not a substitute but actually a pretty good idea compared to many others.
Letting them know that you trust them and allowing them to use their own judgment
- they have to prove they have judgment, this is not innocent until proven guilty, this is the exact reverse. Nobody is born with judgment, but hopefully they learn it.
is a huge step towards them becoming more mature and responsible.
- yeah, if they survive.
Chances are they'll probably have more respect for their parents and the vehicle itself.
- chances are that what you are saying is absolutely wrong. As a parent you will have more respect if you don't actually let them do everything they want and they know it. In Canada (where I live) and in the US most likely it is the same that kids and teens are allowed everything and they are a nightmare and a menace nowadays. They are never punished, they are allowed everything, everywhere.
But yeah, if they screw that trust over this seems like a pretty good punishment.
- what? Allowing your kid still to drive after they screwed up is what you call punishment? Are you a teen? They must not be allowed to touch the steering wheel at all if they screw up. That's punishment and it is correct.
I just hope no parents enable these features on their poor children by default.
- poor children, who expect their parents just to give them everything including their car? You make me sick.
Credit can't disappear, any more than the world can run out of oil. - yeah, tell me about it. The people who think that oil will run out eventually are so stupid. As if the oil fairy doesn't replenish the oil reserves once every 10 years!
I would have taken that information and anonymously contacted the people, to whom the information was related and given/sold it to them. But you have to be either very stupid or very smart about doing such a thing.
Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? - Guns are fun. How about that? In Canada we have a problem - there is no second amendment, however you can still buy guns for hunting after taking courses and passing exams. I, on the other hand, learned how to make my own hand guns and it is a lot of fun.
I am aware of some for profit businesses that are democratic but in a different sense than what you are proposing. For example my apartment building is a corporation, and all stockholders (condo owners) can participate in the way the corporation is ran. However Apple iPhone users are not part of the ownership of Apple corporation, they are consumers who buy the end product, so the only thing they vote with is their money.
So why do you expect a corporation to be a democracy where the consumers (customers / users) of the end product are the decision makers? That is nonsense. Also it is nonsense to say that Apple not allowing some app to be sold in their own store to be a violation of peoples rights, that is one of the most ridiculous notions I have heard. Can you buy food at Home Depot near the power tools? They must be violating your rights!
Can you list the right that is violated by Apple when they decline to sell your app in their store? Please, tell us.
And you know when they throw a champagne bottle at a ship once the ship construction is complete? It's a waste of a perfectly good bottle, the ship doesn't need things to be banged against it like that and the fishes don't really appreciate the glass that much.
Commercial entities want to create a business opportunity selling and maintaining these systems with possibility of further extension of the technology to other aspects of life.
The Government wants to keep track of its citizens, because the Government is scared of its citizens. The government also wants to justify taking more taxes from its citizens to buy these expensive technologies and to create new forms of government for regulation of such tech and the new laws that will come with it.
Nobody cares about 'enforcing laws' and besides, if they wanted to enforce laws they should have started with enforcing of the Constitution first.
ATS likewise is promoting motorist tracking technologies. In a recent proposal to operate 200 speed cameras for the Arizona state police, the company explained that its ticketing cameras could be integrated into a national vehicle tracking database. This would allow a police officer to simply enter a license plate number into a laptop computer and receive an email as soon as a speed camera anywhere in the state recognized that plate.
- in a Freudian slip, I misread this:
cameras for the Arizona state police,
to be this:
cameras for the Arizona police state,
and I am serious, it took me reading the sentence 2 more times to understand that it was written the other way around. And after I read it correctly I thought that the authors must have made a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
It is probably not that outrageous for China and other lenders to request that the US returns the debt with not US dollars but other stuff, raw materials (oil?), food maybe, maybe even by giving China the right to run the collections on US toll roads for the next 400 years.
But seeing him in the majority, we might as well elect Bush.
- this is just retarded. Comparing Harper to Bush is like comparing Einstein to Carrot Top.
However I'll give you this, I just visited Ottawa and saw the difference in the city between now and 8 years ago and I know now where the country's money are going, regardless who is in the office.
You misunderstood me. I would have Harper over Dion any day of the week. Whether it is minority of majority I don't care.
Generally speaking any party that has words 'democratic' or 'national' or 'communist' or 'socialist' is puke to me, I was born in the former Soviet Ukraine.
Specifically it looks extremely ridiculous to me that a person who has never had a real job except of being a career politician (from a family of career politicians no less) talks about the underprivileged and the poor of the society. Layton is against a 2tiered health care system yet he used private health care himself.
Layton is a snake who speaks what you want to hear.
If liberals or ndp gets their candidate to be a PM, then I am moving to the Moon.
Definitely many 'pieces of shit' are making more money. However it is definitely not only the 'rich bastards' who are behind the sub prime meltdown. Actually I was surprised for a very long period of time that such an unstable environment as a stock market actually works at all.
What I find more pathetic though, is what passes around as good politics. For example hiding introduction of one bill inside another, now that is the stuff that lies are made of.
theft and fraud can make you rich too
- that's what I call being resourceful and if they got away with it then resourceful and lucky.
does that mean that whomever gains their wealth through theft and fraud are worth more as a human being than someone who works 60 hours a week to feed their family?
- probably yes, at least that is what society accepts to be the case.
why is someone who inherited their wealth while contributing nothing to society worth more than someone who worked for their wealth?
- because their parents were resourceful or because they are lucky. Being lucky is great as well, I'd rather hang out with lucky rich people than with poor unlucky ones.
being wealthy does not mean you aren't a "lazy ass" in fact I suspect that great accumulation of wealth enables someone to be lazy.
- I doubt it. Gates, Buffet, Jobs still work even though they totally don't have to.
Making more money is just a symptom of being more resourceful (or luckier) than the next guy. Being resourceful is a valuable trait and is viewed by the society to be more valuable than being a lazy ass.
Historically most people and any animal I've heard of reproduced as soon as possible, old fart mating doesn't really make sense. People are actually reproducing at an older age(TRUE)...we get autism(*WILD SPECULATION*).
- you are mistaken at least about some animals.
For example elephant females in the wild do not allow young bulls to touch themselves. Only the older elephant bulls reproduce in the wild. This is due to the fact that elephants actually require a long period of survival 'training' that can only be performed by very experienced adults.
In humans and apes the alpha males are older ones, that have survived for longer period of time.
But it is not just as effective. Anyone can make mistakes and GPS monitoring does not prevent someone who is drunk making them either. The system that limits the top speed (and 80mp/h is too high for most people, not just teens) would reduce the fatality rate. By the way, a system like that should also prohibit the car from starting unless the seat-belts are on for all sits that detect people sitting on them.
I retract my previous statement. I just read that this is not 80km/h but 80mp/h. This should be made mandatory for most 'parents' too, not just their kids.
Why haven't people realized that this kind of thing isn't compatible with the way teenagers think?
- teenagers think?
When you restrict them like this, you're basically telling them that they aren't trusted. I don't care whether or not that's true, but that's how it will be interpreted by them.
- parents are not their friends and are not supposed to be. So in that kind of uneven 'slave/master' relationship trust is not the first thing that parents should be worried about. Making sure that the stupid thing survives should be the priority.
They're going to push against the restrictions, especially when so many of their friends don't have to put up with the same limitations.
- so how are they going to do that if the only car they have access to is limited in speed? If they take some other car, like their friends' car then it is the parents obligation to make sure that this doesn't happen again. That friend should be no more.
This is no substitute for teaching teens to be responsible drivers.
- agreed. This is not a substitute but actually a pretty good idea compared to many others.
Letting them know that you trust them and allowing them to use their own judgment
- they have to prove they have judgment, this is not innocent until proven guilty, this is the exact reverse. Nobody is born with judgment, but hopefully they learn it.
is a huge step towards them becoming more mature and responsible.
- yeah, if they survive.
Chances are they'll probably have more respect for their parents and the vehicle itself.
- chances are that what you are saying is absolutely wrong. As a parent you will have more respect if you don't actually let them do everything they want and they know it. In Canada (where I live) and in the US most likely it is the same that kids and teens are allowed everything and they are a nightmare and a menace nowadays. They are never punished, they are allowed everything, everywhere.
But yeah, if they screw that trust over this seems like a pretty good punishment.
- what? Allowing your kid still to drive after they screwed up is what you call punishment? Are you a teen? They must not be allowed to touch the steering wheel at all if they screw up. That's punishment and it is correct.
I just hope no parents enable these features on their poor children by default.
- poor children, who expect their parents just to give them everything including their car? You make me sick.
Everyone must stop paying taxes now. At least everyone who is against this bailout.
No more taxes to the fed. No more taxes to the state. No more taxes to the city.
No more taxes. Let the system crash, it's overdue for a complete overhaul.
Credit can't disappear, any more than the world can run out of oil. - yeah, tell me about it. The people who think that oil will run out eventually are so stupid. As if the oil fairy doesn't replenish the oil reserves once every 10 years!
Yep, this was the picture.
I would have taken that information and anonymously contacted the people, to whom the information was related and given/sold it to them. But you have to be either very stupid or very smart about doing such a thing.
Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? - Guns are fun. How about that? In Canada we have a problem - there is no second amendment, however you can still buy guns for hunting after taking courses and passing exams. I, on the other hand, learned how to make my own hand guns and it is a lot of fun.
I am aware of some for profit businesses that are democratic but in a different sense than what you are proposing. For example my apartment building is a corporation, and all stockholders (condo owners) can participate in the way the corporation is ran. However Apple iPhone users are not part of the ownership of Apple corporation, they are consumers who buy the end product, so the only thing they vote with is their money.
So why do you expect a corporation to be a democracy where the consumers (customers / users) of the end product are the decision makers? That is nonsense. Also it is nonsense to say that Apple not allowing some app to be sold in their own store to be a violation of peoples rights, that is one of the most ridiculous notions I have heard. Can you buy food at Home Depot near the power tools? They must be violating your rights!
Can you list the right that is violated by Apple when they decline to sell your app in their store? Please, tell us.
Obviously they stole the idea from Dr. Dr. Emmett Brown
And you know when they throw a champagne bottle at a ship once the ship construction is complete? It's a waste of a perfectly good bottle, the ship doesn't need things to be banged against it like that and the fishes don't really appreciate the glass that much.
Actually, user 36140, I am certain that since that time your IQ hasn't increased dramatically.
I just watched that silly commercial, I liked Seinfield at the end:
Bill, what's next? Amoeba with a blog?
, but don't they have it already? I mean WSJ?
I know what it's about. It's called sarcasm.
They don' really want to enforce laws.
Commercial entities want to create a business opportunity selling and maintaining these systems with possibility of further extension of the technology to other aspects of life.
The Government wants to keep track of its citizens, because the Government is scared of its citizens. The government also wants to justify taking more taxes from its citizens to buy these expensive technologies and to create new forms of government for regulation of such tech and the new laws that will come with it.
Nobody cares about 'enforcing laws' and besides, if they wanted to enforce laws they should have started with enforcing of the Constitution first.
ATS likewise is promoting motorist tracking technologies. In a recent proposal to operate 200 speed cameras for the Arizona state police, the company explained that its ticketing cameras could be integrated into a national vehicle tracking database. This would allow a police officer to simply enter a license plate number into a laptop computer and receive an email as soon as a speed camera anywhere in the state recognized that plate.
- in a Freudian slip, I misread this:
cameras for the Arizona state police,
to be this:
cameras for the Arizona police state,
and I am serious, it took me reading the sentence 2 more times to understand that it was written the other way around. And after I read it correctly I thought that the authors must have made a mistake.