What happens to those who aren't good enough to get the more skilled jobs? As you outsource jobs higher and higher up the skill pyramid, more and more people will be un or underemployed. We can't all be the best after all.
"The bigger concern is Tacoma - it's pretty much going to be flattened if the volcano goes and the glacier melt ends up following the valleys as expected."
The only reason Nader gets coverage is because of how well he did in 2000. If the Libs could be perceived as a difference maker, they'd be covered too.
As one who alternates listening to NPR, an independent music station, and my mp3 player, I don't think I'm going to worry about the lack of Howard Stern.
There's one major N/S route (I-5) through Tacoma and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. With mountains to the east and a body of water to the west, this isn't the easiest place to leave.
I remember a few years ago when it was literally impossible to leave the northwest on a freeway for a few days. I-90 was closed through the Cascades and there were mudslides in either southern WA or northern OR.
If you can't even find a third party that agrees with enough of your views to be worth voting for, then you have views that well under 1% of the population shares. The fact that that's not well supported in a democracy isn't that big of a bug.
This is what the day after Thanksgiving will be for me starting with next year. Day off, extra food, no plans for it. Why not watch 13 hours worth of movies?
"With a one person one vote system, a politician could direct a marketing blitz on an urban area like mine, get his votes, and not even bother with the entire state of Wyoming. How is that democratic?"
How is that any different than what's happening now with the blitzing of the 10 or 15 close states?
As long as the "intimidation" is not physically threatening, that's pretty obviously a form of communication that should be protected and couldn't occur elsewhere.
How would you suggest communicating with customers other than this? Everytime I go to the store, I'd see the picket line and it would prevent me from spacing on it if I cared about the issue. Moreover there would be people there that you could discuss the issues with which could be more powerful than just having an ad run somewhere or something.
"As far as public property disappearing, I don't have the impression that much free speech of consequence is dependent on public property. Please give an example."
Strikes. If you can't picket anywhere near a company because the employeer owns the roads and the sidewalks, you can't complain about working conditions in a way that would inform customers.
As we've learned over the past few decades, free speech only applies to public property.
Wrong. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only exist for the purpose of limiting the power of the Federal (and State, theoretically) governments. It makes no other guarantees about the behavior of your fellow citizens and was never meant to.
How is that wrong. I said that issues involving free speech (and I should have said assembly) only affect public property. You're saying that it doesn't affect private property. We agree there.
As a side effect of this, a person is able to throw you off of his property for any reason, including saying things he doesn't like. What are you saying? You shouldn't be able to throw a burglar out of your house if he starts quoting "Mein Kampf", because that would be a violation of his free speech rights? What about the rights of the property owner?
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that people should be able to go into my house and yell at me all night. I agree that private property should be, well, private. Rather I'm saying that if all public property is privatized, do civil rights have any meaning at all?
Do you think that non-compete clauses in contracts should be acceptiable as long as both parties voluntarily agree to them?
If not, what other agreements are people not allowed to engage in?
If so, how do you stop people from hiding them in long, seemingly unrelated contracts in order to create a new class of indentured servants. Is a world where every single agreement you would ever make would have to go through a lawyer to make sure that there isn't some poison pill buried in there really a better and freer place than the one we live in now?
As we've learned over the past few decades, free speech only applies to public property. Private owners can evict anyone they want for whatever reason. If there is no public property, how are free speech rights protected? Would there be any free speech rights at all in a Libertarian world for people who aren't well off enough to buy property?
The downside of removing the safety net is that there will be people who don't have the skills needed to succeed; we can't all be the best at what we do after all. Any system has winners and losers. What is your plan for the losers under your system? Charities only do so much after all.
The latest email virus requires the user to save a file, open it with win zip, use the code provided in the email to open the archive, and then run the program inside it. If people will do that, they'll also type "chmod 755" and then the name of the program.
" To resolve the arc PJ chooses an unrealistic solution, which starts with stupid scene of Pippin accidentally (even though that was his goal anyway) lighting the fire. "
Actually it was not accidental. He accidentally spilled out the water, but to light the fire he grabbed the burning torch thingie and put it on the woodpile.
As for the 5 second delays, I took that to be people kind of spacing out (having the job of watching the next beacon and waiting for it to be lit can get quite boring) so it took them some time to go from being able to see the fire to reacting.
"But when you consider the fact (yes, fact) that this WOULD save many human lives each year, then your arguments against it don't sound very important anymore."
The problem with this argument isn't that it's not true (lives WOULD be saved) but rather that it never stops. Even more lives would be saved if there were no private cars at all. Why do we continue to allow people to drive?
Ever drive in the northern part of the state? One of the worst blizzards I ever drove through was right outside of Santa Fe. Between Santa Fe and Pueblo, Co, there was so much snow and ice that a foot thick layer formed on the underside of my car.
So I'm driving in the snow trying to make a difficult manuver when I suddenly have to take my eyes off of the road, find this hand held device (a photo of one of these interlocks is here), breathe into it, and if I don't the horn will start going off. Explain to me again how this bill promotes safety.
Slashdot Mirror
Your sig answers your own question ;)
What happens to those who aren't good enough to get the more skilled jobs? As you outsource jobs higher and higher up the skill pyramid, more and more people will be un or underemployed. We can't all be the best after all.
"The bigger concern is Tacoma - it's pretty much going to be flattened if the volcano goes and the glacier melt ends up following the valleys as expected."
You say that like that's a bad thing.
The only reason Nader gets coverage is because of how well he did in 2000. If the Libs could be perceived as a difference maker, they'd be covered too.
Yeah I know, chicken, egg.
As one who alternates listening to NPR, an independent music station, and my mp3 player, I don't think I'm going to worry about the lack of Howard Stern.
Playboy RADIO!?!?
I don't see how that's going to be worth $1.99/month
Heh, yeah right.
There's one major N/S route (I-5) through Tacoma and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. With mountains to the east and a body of water to the west, this isn't the easiest place to leave.
I remember a few years ago when it was literally impossible to leave the northwest on a freeway for a few days. I-90 was closed through the Cascades and there were mudslides in either southern WA or northern OR.
If you can't even find a third party that agrees with enough of your views to be worth voting for, then you have views that well under 1% of the population shares. The fact that that's not well supported in a democracy isn't that big of a bug.
This is what the day after Thanksgiving will be for me starting with next year. Day off, extra food, no plans for it. Why not watch 13 hours worth of movies?
"With a one person one vote system, a politician could direct a marketing blitz on an urban area like mine, get his votes, and not even bother with the entire state of Wyoming. How is that democratic?"
How is that any different than what's happening now with the blitzing of the 10 or 15 close states?
Yeah I wasn't thrilled with his response there.
As long as the "intimidation" is not physically threatening, that's pretty obviously a form of communication that should be protected and couldn't occur elsewhere.
How would you suggest communicating with customers other than this? Everytime I go to the store, I'd see the picket line and it would prevent me from spacing on it if I cared about the issue. Moreover there would be people there that you could discuss the issues with which could be more powerful than just having an ad run somewhere or something.
"As far as public property disappearing, I don't have the impression that much free speech of consequence is dependent on public property. Please give an example."
Strikes. If you can't picket anywhere near a company because the employeer owns the roads and the sidewalks, you can't complain about working conditions in a way that would inform customers.
As we've learned over the past few decades, free speech only applies to public property.
Wrong. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only exist for the purpose of limiting the power of the Federal (and State, theoretically) governments. It makes no other guarantees about the behavior of your fellow citizens and was never meant to.
How is that wrong. I said that issues involving free speech (and I should have said assembly) only affect public property. You're saying that it doesn't affect private property. We agree there.
As a side effect of this, a person is able to throw you off of his property for any reason, including saying things he doesn't like. What are you saying? You shouldn't be able to throw a burglar out of your house if he starts quoting "Mein Kampf", because that would be a violation of his free speech rights? What about the rights of the property owner?
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that people should be able to go into my house and yell at me all night. I agree that private property should be, well, private. Rather I'm saying that if all public property is privatized, do civil rights have any meaning at all?
I think it's an unintended consequence; most Libs I know really think that things will be freer.
This is why I'm asking the question though; I'd like to hear the answer.
Do you think that non-compete clauses in contracts should be acceptiable as long as both parties voluntarily agree to them?
If not, what other agreements are people not allowed to engage in?
If so, how do you stop people from hiding them in long, seemingly unrelated contracts in order to create a new class of indentured servants. Is a world where every single agreement you would ever make would have to go through a lawyer to make sure that there isn't some poison pill buried in there really a better and freer place than the one we live in now?
As we've learned over the past few decades, free speech only applies to public property. Private owners can evict anyone they want for whatever reason. If there is no public property, how are free speech rights protected? Would there be any free speech rights at all in a Libertarian world for people who aren't well off enough to buy property?
The downside of removing the safety net is that there will be people who don't have the skills needed to succeed; we can't all be the best at what we do after all. Any system has winners and losers. What is your plan for the losers under your system? Charities only do so much after all.
Well Dante appeared in J&SBSB so it already would have to be non-canon.
"Besides, the ladies love guys who can do integrals and differentials of non-rational numbers in their head. "
;)
Yeah because the derivative of a constant function is so hard to do in your head.
The latest email virus requires the user to save a file, open it with win zip, use the code provided in the email to open the archive, and then run the program inside it. If people will do that, they'll also type "chmod 755" and then the name of the program.
" To resolve the arc PJ chooses an unrealistic solution, which starts with stupid scene of Pippin accidentally (even though that was his goal anyway) lighting the fire. "
Actually it was not accidental. He accidentally spilled out the water, but to light the fire he grabbed the burning torch thingie and put it on the woodpile.
As for the 5 second delays, I took that to be people kind of spacing out (having the job of watching the next beacon and waiting for it to be lit can get quite boring) so it took them some time to go from being able to see the fire to reacting.
"But when you consider the fact (yes, fact) that this WOULD save many human lives each year, then your arguments against it don't sound very important anymore."
The problem with this argument isn't that it's not true (lives WOULD be saved) but rather that it never stops. Even more lives would be saved if there were no private cars at all. Why do we continue to allow people to drive?
Ever drive in the northern part of the state? One of the worst blizzards I ever drove through was right outside of Santa Fe. Between Santa Fe and Pueblo, Co, there was so much snow and ice that a foot thick layer formed on the underside of my car.
So I'm driving in the snow trying to make a difficult manuver when I suddenly have to take my eyes off of the road, find this hand held device (a photo of one of these interlocks is here), breathe into it, and if I don't the horn will start going off. Explain to me again how this bill promotes safety.