spun (1532) (older than dirt) stregano(1285764) (who the fuck is this newcomer?)
Child, you aren't into humor, period. Everyone else got it. Except for, apparently, you and another window-licker. Do you both ride the same short bus? My original "insult" was phrased in such a way that no one except a fucking moron or someone with an ideological axe to grind could have taken it seriously. I am frankly shocked that someone could be thick enough to miss that. Who calls someone "toffee-nosed" or "malodorous?"
In ancient times it was which? In ancient times, wars weren't even fought primarily by the common man, but by warrior elites. The "common man" was a slave or non-land-owning serf. You don't give a guy like that a weapon. Armies made up of conscript soldiers rather than warrior elites didn't become common (in Europe anyhow) until the renaissance. Peasants didn't fight wars, they sure as hell didn't profit from them.
No, I specifically mean the average citizen of the winning country does not see any price reduction in anything due to war. Why would the elites pass the savings on to you? Wars are almost never fought in the interest of the common man, they are a game of kings and cronies. Only the wealthy, politically connected elite profit from war.
Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing here. Do you think we have plenty of evidence that wars have resulted in cheaper resources for the average guy? I've sure never seen it happen. War profits never go to the man on Main Street, they go to the man on Wall Street.
You do not get cheaper oil by invading unless you are a well-connected oil company executive. Do you really think a nation invades another nation so the average guy on the street can have cheaper resources?
Quoting Cicero, are we? I think he had a bit of advice that would apply to most Slashdot readers: "Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit." Or maybe that's just me and my two left feet. Seriously though, if we are going to apply famous quotes to this story, don't you think someone should mention something about bricks and walls?
Destroying hard drives is nothing like fighting Nazis. The US Federal government is not a tyranny. Fighting government is a bad idea when you live in a free democratic country, it is far less efficient at getting the changes you want implemented without horrific unintended consequences.
Who said anything about a warrantless unconstitutional search? You seem to live in a heroic fantasy novel, where you are the brave hero fighting the world destroying powers of evil. It's a bit egotistical, narcissistic, and juvenile. I'm also guessing you aren't married. You seem to have very little experience with that mainstay of real human relationships: compromise.
Rationing need not be deliberate. Roads are used as a primary example of rationing, from the wiki page on the subject:
Rationing using coupons is only one kind of non-price rationing. For example, scarce products can be rationed using queues. This is seen, for example, at amusement parks, where one pays a price to get in and then need not pay any price to go on the rides. Similarly, in the absence of road pricing, access to roads is rationed in a first come, first served queueing process, leading to congestion.
Of course there are roads in the country that are wide-ope. There isn't enough demand to fill them, they are not a scarce resource. More lanes may not increase the number of intersections, but it does still result in expression of latent demand. Once again, roads are a commonly cited example of latent demand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_demand
Nobody is saying Obama should get a pass on anything, but he should not be blamed for spending money that was actually spent by his predecessor. And according to all recent polls, the majority care more about job creation than the deficit or taxes.
The president doesnt have shit to do with the economy. Period and end of story. The economy is way bigger than the Executive branch.. way bigger than all 3 branches combined. Moving on, the president also doesnt have shit to do with even federal budgets.... 100% of those originate in the House.
The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1.
So who is an idiot, exactly? The people who passed civics class and realize the president sets the budget and congress says yay or nay, or you who obviously failed civics and who thinks the budget originates in the house?
You may not realize it, but the road network is interconnected. Intercity and intracity road networks are highly connected. Reducing utilization in one part of the network will reduce utilization in another.
You know I don't have any alt accounts. I don't mod, I don't meta-mod, I write comments, from one account so everyone will know that the comment came from me. Don't whine just because I am legitimately more popular than an ex-troll with the account name "sexconker." It's unbecoming, princess.
Obama hasn't spent more than Bush by a long shot. You can create jobs because some uses of money create more jobs than other uses of money. Job creation comes from demand and availability of capital. Sustainability comes from using renewable resources, nothing else. "Demand" as a market force comes from three things: desire, ability to pay, and willingness to pay. Specifically, demand is defined as the quantity of a well defined good or service that people are willing to buy during a particular time period, and increases or decreases as the price falls or rises while all other factors remain constant.
Other interesting questions that science has answered: how magnets work, why we have tides, and how the moon got there.
You can only move a limited number of people over a given stretch of transportation infrastructure for a given transportation method. Of course roads and rails are subject to rationing: that's what a traffic jam IS. It's a queue of people waiting to use a scarce resource.
The problem of adding more roads is twofold: first, because roads are not rationed by price, adding more roads simply shifts latent demand to actual demand. People who wouldn't make a given trip because the roads were too crowded now will. Second, and this is the truly insurmountable problem, more roads means more intersections, and intersections are the things that slow down traffic the most.
Roads are an even bigger waste of time. How many hours per year do you waste sitting in traffic? For me, its a lot, and my commute isn't even that long. Remember, there are two ways to ration a scarce commodity like transportation: wait in line, or make people pay. We could add roads until the whole country was covered in them, and it wouldn't help, it would just raise demand. More roads, more people driving. Another option is to make all roads toll roads. You won't find a lot of support for that. The final, and IMHO only workable option is mass transit. It moves more people over the same infrastructure with less overall waiting. Which do you prefer, traffic jams, expensive toll roads, or mass transit?
And of course the other question is, would you rather spend an hour driving in stressful traffic, or an hour and a half sitting on a comfortable train, doing some work or playing on your laptop?
Obama spent all the money? Nope. Bush spent all the money. Bush started two wars and increased spending while slashing taxes. The bailout was Bush's baby. You might be able to legitimately claim that Obama hasn't done enough to fix the budget problems, but most people would like the government to create jobs during a recession rather than cut them, don't you think?
-He's a narcissistic little attention whore with a Napoleon complex who needs a really good hook to get any action.
Note that Assange may well be a rapist, an attention whore, AND an international freedom fighting hero all at the same time. People are complicated creatures. I'm guessing Assange has sexual issues, and is motivated to achieve fame as a way of achieving sex. He is kind of a scrawny little man. I mean, he isn't ugly, but it doesn't seem out of the question that he may have a bit of a Napoleon complex.
Being seen as a freedom fighter standing up to the most powerful nation in the world obviously gets him laid. "Yeah, baby, I gots to fight the power, you know, the US is trying to destroy me, they want to extradite me, put me in Gitmo, frame me for rape. A man like me, you know, he's got needs and not a lot of time to fill them, if you catch my drift. Now get your pants off before the CIA gets here." True or not, it makes for a great pickup line.
Slashdot Mirror
spun (1532) (older than dirt)
stregano(1285764) (who the fuck is this newcomer?)
Child, you aren't into humor, period. Everyone else got it. Except for, apparently, you and another window-licker. Do you both ride the same short bus? My original "insult" was phrased in such a way that no one except a fucking moron or someone with an ideological axe to grind could have taken it seriously. I am frankly shocked that someone could be thick enough to miss that. Who calls someone "toffee-nosed" or "malodorous?"
So, which are you, a moron or an ideologue?
In ancient times it was which? In ancient times, wars weren't even fought primarily by the common man, but by warrior elites. The "common man" was a slave or non-land-owning serf. You don't give a guy like that a weapon. Armies made up of conscript soldiers rather than warrior elites didn't become common (in Europe anyhow) until the renaissance. Peasants didn't fight wars, they sure as hell didn't profit from them.
No, I specifically mean the average citizen of the winning country does not see any price reduction in anything due to war. Why would the elites pass the savings on to you? Wars are almost never fought in the interest of the common man, they are a game of kings and cronies. Only the wealthy, politically connected elite profit from war.
You fucking retard.
Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor. Stupid git.
And your type really makes me puke.
Raising kids to be emotional nutjobs because they are never taught how to deal with negative feedback.
FAIL.
Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing here. Do you think we have plenty of evidence that wars have resulted in cheaper resources for the average guy? I've sure never seen it happen. War profits never go to the man on Main Street, they go to the man on Wall Street.
You do not get cheaper oil by invading unless you are a well-connected oil company executive. Do you really think a nation invades another nation so the average guy on the street can have cheaper resources?
Oh, no! Someone said mean words to me! For some reason, I absolutely must get offended by this!
Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!
Quoting Cicero, are we? I think he had a bit of advice that would apply to most Slashdot readers: "Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit." Or maybe that's just me and my two left feet. Seriously though, if we are going to apply famous quotes to this story, don't you think someone should mention something about bricks and walls?
Destroying hard drives is nothing like fighting Nazis. The US Federal government is not a tyranny. Fighting government is a bad idea when you live in a free democratic country, it is far less efficient at getting the changes you want implemented without horrific unintended consequences.
Who said anything about a warrantless unconstitutional search? You seem to live in a heroic fantasy novel, where you are the brave hero fighting the world destroying powers of evil. It's a bit egotistical, narcissistic, and juvenile. I'm also guessing you aren't married. You seem to have very little experience with that mainstay of real human relationships: compromise.
You can't really expect a short-bus-riding window licker to use a five syllable word correctly.
Good lord you are a paranoid wingnut. If you think I'm sock-puppeting, show some evidence.
Rationing need not be deliberate. Roads are used as a primary example of rationing, from the wiki page on the subject:
Rationing using coupons is only one kind of non-price rationing. For example, scarce products can be rationed using queues. This is seen, for example, at amusement parks, where one pays a price to get in and then need not pay any price to go on the rides. Similarly, in the absence of road pricing, access to roads is rationed in a first come, first served queueing process, leading to congestion.
Of course there are roads in the country that are wide-ope. There isn't enough demand to fill them, they are not a scarce resource. More lanes may not increase the number of intersections, but it does still result in expression of latent demand. Once again, roads are a commonly cited example of latent demand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_demand
Nobody is saying Obama should get a pass on anything, but he should not be blamed for spending money that was actually spent by his predecessor. And according to all recent polls, the majority care more about job creation than the deficit or taxes.
The president doesnt have shit to do with the economy. Period and end of story. The economy is way bigger than the Executive branch.. way bigger than all 3 branches combined. Moving on, the president also doesnt have shit to do with even federal budgets.... 100% of those originate in the House.
Where does the budget originate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_federal_budget
The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1.
So who is an idiot, exactly? The people who passed civics class and realize the president sets the budget and congress says yay or nay, or you who obviously failed civics and who thinks the budget originates in the house?
The President proposes the budget for the government to the congress, which can amend it before passing.
Uh, did you fail civics AND fail to read the article?
You know, you could do a better job of supporting your position. Maybe you have some data to back up your opinion?
You may not realize it, but the road network is interconnected. Intercity and intracity road networks are highly connected. Reducing utilization in one part of the network will reduce utilization in another.
You know I don't have any alt accounts. I don't mod, I don't meta-mod, I write comments, from one account so everyone will know that the comment came from me. Don't whine just because I am legitimately more popular than an ex-troll with the account name "sexconker." It's unbecoming, princess.
Obama hasn't spent more than Bush by a long shot. You can create jobs because some uses of money create more jobs than other uses of money. Job creation comes from demand and availability of capital. Sustainability comes from using renewable resources, nothing else. "Demand" as a market force comes from three things: desire, ability to pay, and willingness to pay. Specifically, demand is defined as the quantity of a well defined good or service that people are willing to buy during a particular time period, and increases or decreases as the price falls or rises while all other factors remain constant.
Other interesting questions that science has answered: how magnets work, why we have tides, and how the moon got there.
So, you aren't a civil engineer, are you?
You can only move a limited number of people over a given stretch of transportation infrastructure for a given transportation method. Of course roads and rails are subject to rationing: that's what a traffic jam IS. It's a queue of people waiting to use a scarce resource.
The problem of adding more roads is twofold: first, because roads are not rationed by price, adding more roads simply shifts latent demand to actual demand. People who wouldn't make a given trip because the roads were too crowded now will. Second, and this is the truly insurmountable problem, more roads means more intersections, and intersections are the things that slow down traffic the most.
Please, tell me how Obama increased the budget over what Bush had already done.
Roads are an even bigger waste of time. How many hours per year do you waste sitting in traffic? For me, its a lot, and my commute isn't even that long. Remember, there are two ways to ration a scarce commodity like transportation: wait in line, or make people pay. We could add roads until the whole country was covered in them, and it wouldn't help, it would just raise demand. More roads, more people driving. Another option is to make all roads toll roads. You won't find a lot of support for that. The final, and IMHO only workable option is mass transit. It moves more people over the same infrastructure with less overall waiting. Which do you prefer, traffic jams, expensive toll roads, or mass transit?
And of course the other question is, would you rather spend an hour driving in stressful traffic, or an hour and a half sitting on a comfortable train, doing some work or playing on your laptop?
Obama spent all the money? Nope. Bush spent all the money. Bush started two wars and increased spending while slashing taxes. The bailout was Bush's baby. You might be able to legitimately claim that Obama hasn't done enough to fix the budget problems, but most people would like the government to create jobs during a recession rather than cut them, don't you think?
You forgot one obvious possibility:
-He's a narcissistic little attention whore with a Napoleon complex who needs a really good hook to get any action.
Note that Assange may well be a rapist, an attention whore, AND an international freedom fighting hero all at the same time. People are complicated creatures. I'm guessing Assange has sexual issues, and is motivated to achieve fame as a way of achieving sex. He is kind of a scrawny little man. I mean, he isn't ugly, but it doesn't seem out of the question that he may have a bit of a Napoleon complex.
Being seen as a freedom fighter standing up to the most powerful nation in the world obviously gets him laid. "Yeah, baby, I gots to fight the power, you know, the US is trying to destroy me, they want to extradite me, put me in Gitmo, frame me for rape. A man like me, you know, he's got needs and not a lot of time to fill them, if you catch my drift. Now get your pants off before the CIA gets here." True or not, it makes for a great pickup line.