Excellent to have you explain to us that we know "murder is wrong". Now, for round two, it would be amusing to see you try to define murder in a way that is objectively testable. I presume a redblooded rightwinger isn't going to equate murder with deliberate killing. So please explain how the boundary operates and explain how this boundary is clearly stable and "objective".
That's simply not true. The purpose of trade patents is to *increase* consumer choice over the long term, by ensuring that companies who invest in bringing distinctive new products to market can make a return without free-riders ripping them off. If the protection didn't exist, then the originator companies would stop investing in bringing new products and the flow of innovation into the market would reduce over time. That's the theory, and if you want to take issue with the implementation you're welcome to. But be careful what you wish for: blatant copying is rarely good -- think crappy fake Rolexes etc.
No, it's not toothless. It's not as broad-ranging as the First Amendment, but it's certainly not toothless. It's a qualified right, not an absolute right, ie the judiciary is required to weigh up competing interests when adjudicating a claim. Back in your box, kneejerkmeister.
The microwave thing is a dumb comment. Microwaves are dirt cheap and require only an electric socket to run. Because of this, they are a common substitute for kitchens (ie stove, stovetop) in cheap housing.
Excellent list of strawmen. Poverty is: - not knowing if you'll eat tonight or not - not eating so your kids can eat - getting asthma from living in damp housing next to a freeway because you can't afford anything better etc etc Plenty of Americans are poor in these ways, not your strawmen.
Erm I do live in England (London, to be precise). Yet oddly enough, I've managed to distinguish between "evidence" and "the Daily Mail's latest ravings". That way, I'm able to distinguish between "benefit recipients" as a group and "council house tenants", to highlight but one shining turd among the many that you thought passed for logical argument in your latest little rant. But whatevs, you'll probably be happiest if you carry on spending time stroking your confirmation bias and ignoring facts.
I'm interested to know how living in London enables you to know what poor Londoners spend their benefits money on. Do you live in some special part of the city where you get free access to HMRC, DWP and individual household accounts records? I'm kinda guessing that the answer is: a) no b) you made shit up to support your unpleasant worldview and "thought" this was the same as quoting actual verifiable facts
You're still being naive, projecting your own experience out to the rest of the world. You got lucky -- your bully was not so strong. Others may not be so lucky. Or, as I said, and as you ignored, others may have inescapable physical or mental reasons for why they can't go get martial arts training.... like being a baby or a person with dementia or a person with learning disabilities etc etc.
Why use a pretentious phrase like "Pray tell" if you're going to complete the sentence with really appalling grammar and syntax? It just makes you look like more of a nobber.
I don't think you have ever seen a person who had the grace, courage, and understanding to accept persecution without any kind of emotional reaction. It makes the bully look stupid and embarasses them thoroughly. It creates a contrast between real strength versus the insecurity the bully is trying to cover up by acting tough. Whereas if you fall into the emotional trap laid by the bully, his way works and you look weak while he looks dominant.
If you have never seen this, or better if you have never demonstrated it yourself, you really have no clue how powerful it is. It is not the simple "just take it" and it is not the simple "ignore him hoping he goes away" type of doormat behavior you might be imagining. It's more like being able to walk up to the bully and tell him right to his face how pathetic he is, calmly, and watch him back down with his tail between his legs even if he's much bigger than you.
The bully depends on your reaction to get the energy he needs. Deprive him of that and he's like an engine with no fuel. Believing me on this is not good enough and you'll probably end up in a fistfight if you do it without understanding. You have to see it yourself
You know, sometimes it doesn't work out just quite that positively. Sometimes it results in getting beaten to shit anyway. I think you're being a bit naive. You're also not accounting for what to do about people who are inherently unable to following your prescribed course of action: the very young, the mentally ill, those with significant cognitive deficits, those with physical disabilities who may, for example, be unable even to see their attackers, etc etc. Telling them all to make like Buddha is not wildly helpful advice.
Erm. Normally, the individual committing the crime is *specifically trying to take advantage* of the existence of the social prejudice as a force multiplier for the crime, eg "Hah, not only can I humiliate this person by filming them having sex in the way that anyone would be humiliated in those circumstances, I can also expose them to additional risks of being beaten to a pulp by homophobes".
I can assure you, as a Jew, I don't think hate crime is ridiculous. I think it's bloody terrifying. Hate crimes are worse than non-hate crimes because the ideology is capable of spreading so more of these crimes happen. The same is not true to anything like the same degree for non-hate crimes.
Care to point to some studies that back up your position? You've just reasserted your original statement. Adding extra workers to a factory is typically done because of increasing volumes of output, and that certainly *does* increase maintenance requirements, plus all the suppliers need to make more stuff also, thus adding jobs.
A quick look at the US BEA's website suggests a multiplier of 2.34 for manufacturing vs 1.55 for professional and business services.
I couldn't find any evidence that demonstrated that (a) post-industrial towns with thriving service sectors have higher levels of employment than industrial towns with thriving manufacturing sectors, or (b) that there was a causal link (would be v difficult to show this in any event, given the amount of confounding factors)
What makes you think that manufacturing jobs don't have multiplier effects? You're flat-out wrong. Think about the two specific roles you cited, for a start: tech support and delivery drivers. You don't think there's an analogue to tech support for manufacturing? Trouble-shooting teams? And you don't think that goods need to be transported both to and from manufacturing sites? Manufacturing typically has a *higher* multiplier effect than service jobs. But they're both Good Things.
Are you seriously doubting that there is any historical record of Christians killing in the name of Christianity? My dead ancestors would like to have a word with you, but they can't because they were killed in pogroms by Christians.
Wow, just wow! Have you not noticed that the US has had a period of modest economic growth through a Keynesian set of policies as compared to EU states like Greece, France, Spain and the UK which have had hideous economic prospects driven by a bonkers set of austerity policies?
Do you really believe that thinking in terms of how you balance your checkbook gives you meaningful insight into appropriate macroeconomic policy? If so, for god's sake why?? Scale matters, and a national economy does not work the same way as a household budget. You can indeed spend your way out of recession. You still need to pay down the debt, but the best time to do that is counter-cyclically, ie once growth is established. Sovereign governments can tell bond markets to piss off, and frequently have done in the past -- debt defaults are common and surprisingly effective. Sure, they are painful, but not as painful as austerity. Spanish unemployment is running at 25%.
you've gotta be fucking kidding me. the US knocked out an entire secular governance structure for a state and left a mighty vacuum in its place, into which rushed every power-hungry evil bastard in the country. some of those were religious, but quite a few were not. It was a clusterfuck that lots of people involved in the invasion planning could see coming and were warning about, to absolutely no avail. Compare the planning and management of the occupation of Germany post WWII with that of Iraq and you get a sense of just how appalling the US was in handling the Iraq debacle. It may make it easier for what passes for your mind to blame Islam themselves, but it doesn't make it any truer.
the only slight nuance is that I think the non-religious --- tribal and cultural -- context is a shade more important in afghanistan than comes across in your post. but this is quibbling at the edges.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent to have you explain to us that we know "murder is wrong". Now, for round two, it would be amusing to see you try to define murder in a way that is objectively testable. I presume a redblooded rightwinger isn't going to equate murder with deliberate killing. So please explain how the boundary operates and explain how this boundary is clearly stable and "objective".
That's simply not true. The purpose of trade patents is to *increase* consumer choice over the long term, by ensuring that companies who invest in bringing distinctive new products to market can make a return without free-riders ripping them off. If the protection didn't exist, then the originator companies would stop investing in bringing new products and the flow of innovation into the market would reduce over time. That's the theory, and if you want to take issue with the implementation you're welcome to. But be careful what you wish for: blatant copying is rarely good -- think crappy fake Rolexes etc.
No, it's not toothless. It's not as broad-ranging as the First Amendment, but it's certainly not toothless. It's a qualified right, not an absolute right, ie the judiciary is required to weigh up competing interests when adjudicating a claim. Back in your box, kneejerkmeister.
Walking several miles is unsafe?! Yes, I think you can assume correctly that you've fallen for stranger danger hysteria if you really believe that.
The microwave thing is a dumb comment. Microwaves are dirt cheap and require only an electric socket to run. Because of this, they are a common substitute for kitchens (ie stove, stovetop) in cheap housing.
Excellent list of strawmen. Poverty is:
- not knowing if you'll eat tonight or not
- not eating so your kids can eat
- getting asthma from living in damp housing next to a freeway because you can't afford anything better
etc etc
Plenty of Americans are poor in these ways, not your strawmen.
Happens to me regularly. I wish it didn't.
Erm I do live in England (London, to be precise). Yet oddly enough, I've managed to distinguish between "evidence" and "the Daily Mail's latest ravings". That way, I'm able to distinguish between "benefit recipients" as a group and "council house tenants", to highlight but one shining turd among the many that you thought passed for logical argument in your latest little rant. But whatevs, you'll probably be happiest if you carry on spending time stroking your confirmation bias and ignoring facts.
you should try having to use a blackberry (thanks, work). Fucking battery falls out all the fucking time. very fucking irritating.
I'm interested to know how living in London enables you to know what poor Londoners spend their benefits money on. Do you live in some special part of the city where you get free access to HMRC, DWP and individual household accounts records? I'm kinda guessing that the answer is:
a) no
b) you made shit up to support your unpleasant worldview and "thought" this was the same as quoting actual verifiable facts
Kudos for the first use of scrote on Slashdot
You're a tit, then. People are saying they feel sorry for you, not claiming they were the cause of your woes.
You're still being naive, projecting your own experience out to the rest of the world. You got lucky -- your bully was not so strong. Others may not be so lucky. Or, as I said, and as you ignored, others may have inescapable physical or mental reasons for why they can't go get martial arts training .... like being a baby or a person with dementia or a person with learning disabilities etc etc.
Why use a pretentious phrase like "Pray tell" if you're going to complete the sentence with really appalling grammar and syntax? It just makes you look like more of a nobber.
Well, yes. Ever heard of the Arab spring?
I don't think you have ever seen a person who had the grace, courage, and understanding to accept persecution without any kind of emotional reaction. It makes the bully look stupid and embarasses them thoroughly. It creates a contrast between real strength versus the insecurity the bully is trying to cover up by acting tough. Whereas if you fall into the emotional trap laid by the bully, his way works and you look weak while he looks dominant.
If you have never seen this, or better if you have never demonstrated it yourself, you really have no clue how powerful it is. It is not the simple "just take it" and it is not the simple "ignore him hoping he goes away" type of doormat behavior you might be imagining. It's more like being able to walk up to the bully and tell him right to his face how pathetic he is, calmly, and watch him back down with his tail between his legs even if he's much bigger than you.
The bully depends on your reaction to get the energy he needs. Deprive him of that and he's like an engine with no fuel. Believing me on this is not good enough and you'll probably end up in a fistfight if you do it without understanding. You have to see it yourself
You know, sometimes it doesn't work out just quite that positively. Sometimes it results in getting beaten to shit anyway. I think you're being a bit naive. You're also not accounting for what to do about people who are inherently unable to following your prescribed course of action: the very young, the mentally ill, those with significant cognitive deficits, those with physical disabilities who may, for example, be unable even to see their attackers, etc etc. Telling them all to make like Buddha is not wildly helpful advice.
Erm. Normally, the individual committing the crime is *specifically trying to take advantage* of the existence of the social prejudice as a force multiplier for the crime, eg "Hah, not only can I humiliate this person by filming them having sex in the way that anyone would be humiliated in those circumstances, I can also expose them to additional risks of being beaten to a pulp by homophobes".
I can assure you, as a Jew, I don't think hate crime is ridiculous. I think it's bloody terrifying. Hate crimes are worse than non-hate crimes because the ideology is capable of spreading so more of these crimes happen. The same is not true to anything like the same degree for non-hate crimes.
Care to point to some studies that back up your position? You've just reasserted your original statement. Adding extra workers to a factory is typically done because of increasing volumes of output, and that certainly *does* increase maintenance requirements, plus all the suppliers need to make more stuff also, thus adding jobs.
A quick look at the US BEA's website suggests a multiplier of 2.34 for manufacturing vs 1.55 for professional and business services.
I couldn't find any evidence that demonstrated that (a) post-industrial towns with thriving service sectors have higher levels of employment than industrial towns with thriving manufacturing sectors, or (b) that there was a causal link (would be v difficult to show this in any event, given the amount of confounding factors)
What makes you think that manufacturing jobs don't have multiplier effects? You're flat-out wrong. Think about the two specific roles you cited, for a start: tech support and delivery drivers. You don't think there's an analogue to tech support for manufacturing? Trouble-shooting teams? And you don't think that goods need to be transported both to and from manufacturing sites? Manufacturing typically has a *higher* multiplier effect than service jobs. But they're both Good Things.
Are you seriously doubting that there is any historical record of Christians killing in the name of Christianity? My dead ancestors would like to have a word with you, but they can't because they were killed in pogroms by Christians.
Wow, just wow! Have you not noticed that the US has had a period of modest economic growth through a Keynesian set of policies as compared to EU states like Greece, France, Spain and the UK which have had hideous economic prospects driven by a bonkers set of austerity policies?
Do you really believe that thinking in terms of how you balance your checkbook gives you meaningful insight into appropriate macroeconomic policy? If so, for god's sake why?? Scale matters, and a national economy does not work the same way as a household budget. You can indeed spend your way out of recession. You still need to pay down the debt, but the best time to do that is counter-cyclically, ie once growth is established. Sovereign governments can tell bond markets to piss off, and frequently have done in the past -- debt defaults are common and surprisingly effective. Sure, they are painful, but not as painful as austerity. Spanish unemployment is running at 25%.
you've gotta be fucking kidding me. the US knocked out an entire secular governance structure for a state and left a mighty vacuum in its place, into which rushed every power-hungry evil bastard in the country. some of those were religious, but quite a few were not. It was a clusterfuck that lots of people involved in the invasion planning could see coming and were warning about, to absolutely no avail. Compare the planning and management of the occupation of Germany post WWII with that of Iraq and you get a sense of just how appalling the US was in handling the Iraq debacle. It may make it easier for what passes for your mind to blame Islam themselves, but it doesn't make it any truer.
seriously, you've not heard of "the kite runner"?
that was really excellent and insightful
the only slight nuance is that I think the non-religious --- tribal and cultural -- context is a shade more important in afghanistan than comes across in your post. but this is quibbling at the edges.