That was my thought, too. The only way this becomes viable for any significant amount of control is if they're exempted from liability by law, and then some dumb-ass middle manager cuts testing short to get the software into the new 2009's on time, a few families die, and there's no way to punish them for it.
But my main concern is that this only serves to let people use one hand for their cell phone and one for their coffee (I'm sure you can tap their dead man switch with the back of your hand), and then when a kid runs out in the road and the car can't deal with it, everybody's screwed.
As always, no one gives a damn what the minority party does. They're seat fillers. If the democrats ever get any power again, believe me, I'll be right there with you being pissed about their bad behavior, but it's pointless right now. So quit with the conspiracy theories and stop taking it so personally.
It's not security through obscurity, it's security through inconsistent availability. But it only reduces your exposure to 20% or so, so it will just take you around 5 times longer to catch something, and we all know the stats on how long you can be connected with an unpatched system before you're screwed. 5 times that still ain't much.
So yes, it's a good idea to not be connected when you don't need to be connected, but it's a terrible idea to rely on it to protect you.
"The geology of Mesa, Arizona is significant because my family has lived there for several generations"
That could be a problem with the student, but my guess is you asked a gen-ed student, "Why is the geology of Mesa, Arizona significant?" In which case the appropriate answer is, "Oh, my God, I don't care, can I please get back to doing homework for classes in my major?" (Which should not be taken as a dig on geology, only on gen-eds.) The only slightly less correct answer given is very thin code for, "'Charles In Charge' is on and I'm writing this without looking at the paper." For more examples of this, please see the fine work done on the subject of Hustle and Bustle by Strong Bad.
Worst analogy ever. The guys at the soup kitchen can wait thirty seconds. If there were fifty people at a soup kitchen being raped, then you have an analogy.
Planes help destroy boundaries between countries... and help smuggle drugs into those countries.
And what paranoid bit of foresight would have prevented that? You want Wilbur and Orville to stop trying to fly until they can fit a drug sniffing machine on the door? Terroristic intent detectors?
Unless you're prescient, and very few of us are, just worry about the shit on its way toward the fan and not worry about the animals that will make more of it that could possibly eventually be flung into some fan somewhere.
There are things to worry about, but at least wait until you have a specific fear in mind.
We are one fad and a whackload of rich people away from having designer neon dogs and cats for people like Paris Hilton.
No matter how much storage you put in a given system, it will eventually be not enough. I've seen it a million times.
I remember begging my mom to replace our 2MB hard drive with one of the fancy new 20MB ones. "But Mom! That's twenty MILLION letters! You'll NEVER use that much. You don't type that fast."
Then some jerk went and invented graphics. Bastard.
While it doesn't prove anything, Occam would probably tell you that life starting in a place friendly to tons of kinds of life is more likely than it germinating someplace more harsh and then traveling millions of miles to get here. Even given equally good life-starting conditions, life beginning anywhere but Earth and then moving to Earth is less likely than it just popping up here. So, until someone comes up with a reason life is much more likely to begin outside a big gravity-having object with an atmosphere and liquid water, there's reason to have some bias, just not certainty.
Your tire blows out at 80mph and you cause a 150 car pile-up on a major commercial artery. We then calculate the total economic damage you caused by overinflating your tires and send you a bill for more money than you're likely to make before you drop dead.
And when there's an epidemic of pile-ups caused by negligence, that'll be the appropriate thing to do. If people don't start paying attention to their tire pressure after the 10 billionth warning that they'll have to pay up, they deserve it.
"Stop it." "No." "Seriously. You're annoying the fuck out of everyone." "No." "We're going to fine you." "Okay." "Okay, we're going to fine you a lot." "No, you're not." "Are, too. 11 billion dollars. So stop it." "Nuh-uh." (11 billion dollar fine.)
You assume "taking the dough by force" will work. It won't.
I have guns that say it will.
You will either end up in jail yourself
If that happens, I'll be clothed and fed. Step up from where I was, what with my social security checks no longer coming in and all the local work taken by the other people no longer getting the same checks. If it's jail or eating out of the garbage, I'll take jail. Unfortunately, that's going to cost Uncle Sam some cash, but ah well, he's saving all that money on social programs.
or the baker will not repeat the process, and there won't be bread on any store shelves.
Cutting off his nose to spite his face, there, ain't he? He's got lots of customers that don't steal.
You are looking at a static picture of where we as a society are today.
Some of us call that "reality." Or "the present."
The grandparent is really talking... about what led to our present state of affairs.
Stupidly.
There is a great body of libertarian thinking, dating back to the Moses time
Oh, dude, I know. And they had some awesome thoughts on traffic control laws, too. Don't even get me started on how great their $375 minimum fine in a construction zone was.
It is a well documented fact that literacy rates were shockingly higher than today's throughout early American history, and without public education.
And you used to be considered literate if you could spell your name. The numbers are a little skewed. Which is not to say that public school is great. I just think it's better than nothing. Your mileage, I suppose, may vary.
Here's a solution for you that's been suggested by a courageous few and rejected by many a fool for ages of men:
95 guys replying, not one has come up with anything resembling a plan. Ideology is not a plan.
How the hell does the grandparent get modded a troll and the parent's [post] gets modded +5 insightful?
For the record, I don't think the troll mod was very fair. Not very well thought-out, but not a troll.
I don't think it is in any way insightful to slap down someone else observation with an equal dose of pap.
"Arm the poor." If that doesn't set off some kind of bad-idea detector in your head, we're way too different to be able to discuss anything.
You keep asking the same question "how" are you going to do it, and I'm asking you "who" is stopping you from doing it
I'm not worried about me. I'm doing okay.
Thanks for the course on bread making. Already had that down, though. I'm still waiting for a course of action for a government to take.
Now that you've read this, instead of asking "How will I get 'bread' if the government doesn't provide it?", you can go out and make it.
But what if I can't afford dough yet? Step 2, man. Tell me how we get from no dough to dough without relying entirely on being lucky enough to get some charity before we have to take the dough by force.
You assume that government schools are teaching kids literacy and math.
I do. I know it worked in at least one case, as I'm able to read your post. Worked in a bunch of others, too.
You assume that the government is the only institution capable of providing education
I assume it's the only institution capable of doing it on a consistent basis at tiny cost to the people that can't afford it. Unless you know of a few thousand private schools that will take kids for free, we don't have much of an alternative. Homeschooling is the only possible option for people without money, but that counts on the parents being well-educated.
You ignore the terrible social effects public schools have on children (conditioning them to obedience to authority, squeltching individualism and diversity, taking away their privacy, age and skill segregation)
Oh, good heavens!
If that's the point of school, they're really not doing as well as I thought.
We don't all share your absolute faith in government
I have virtually no faith in government. It's inefficient, bloated, and corrupt.
and government is not the only model of social cooperation that we are able to comprehend.
Good for you.
that might be hard for someone to grasp who has been conditioned that the state is everything.
Dick.
[quote]And your constructive solution is then to let thousands and thousands of people either die or turn to crime? Step one, end social security. What's step two? Please answer. If you've got a way to make this work, please tell us. I really, really want to be on your side, because that's a lot of money.[/quote] Once again, your statement has many assumptions
I made no assumptions. I want to know what happens on the second fucking day. Please fill in the gaping holes so we can properly discuss this.
You assume that Medicare is the only social structure capable of providing health care to those that need it. (In fact, there are any number of models of healthcare that we could use,
I'm listening.
You assume that Medicare somehow makes healthcare more available (instead of, say, pumping money in without increasing supply, and thus raising the price of medical care for everyone
You've calculated this in healthcare units? ("Healthies", I like to call them.)
You're thinking economics, I'm thinking child of poor parents breaks his leg.
You assume that Medicare is a sustainable, viable system.
And, for the thousandth time, I'm waiting for the plan.
"You must all send me $10,000...
The only possible response to that is, "You're an idiot." I'm sorry, but if you can't understand that taking the small amount of survivability that people have away from them is going to have negative affects, at least in the short term, you're just not that bright.
Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate and murder rate of any industrialized nation, and have the absolute highest private ownership of firearms in the industrialized world (basicly, nearly all able bodied men have full access to military style weapons).
All able-bodied men have access to military style weapons after 17 weeks of mandatory basic training. Let's not pretend we're all nations of soldiers. And let's not compare the US to Switzerland at all, because we're very, very different.
You need to try to convince us that gun ownership is bad, not call people stupid because they don't have absolute faith in your belief system.
I would never try to convince you that gun ownership is bad because I don't think it is. I think arming the poor to combat violence is profoundly stupid. I don't know what argument you're extending to this one, but please don't assume I meant to say bad things I didn't say.
This conversation got boring a long time ago, so I'll just reiterate by replying to this:
(At least in my scenario...) * 26
You don't have a scenario. You have a pipe dream. Is your entire (I assume secret) plan to stop cutting checks? Tomorrow, no more checks? Because you will immediately cause a massive crime wave. If you do it more slowly, you're still going to need a second step. Interim procedures before your utopia solidifies. So come up with something that counts as a plan and maybe your "radical" idea won't seem so awful.
by forced enslavement of the populace, rather than the populace freely electing representatives to protect thier freedom
Uh-huh. But I vote for the ones I vote for because...
The government is there to 'protect' these freedoms, not bake bread.... it's also there to protect people from violence and from being deprived of property. We give cash to the poor so they won't take it from us by force.
She had concerns and questions very similiar to yours like, "if the government doesn't provide bread, then 'where' will I get it?"
I'm still waiting for step 2. Step 1: End social security (slowly, quickly, however you like). Step 2: ??? And I think we all know how this joke ends.
In a free country, store shelves are filled from top to bottom with loaves, and at every store. This isn't because they are a "rich" nation, it's because they are "free" one.
Yeup. And we've got tons of bread as well as some nannying. I'm not sure where you're going with this. All I'm getting is, "I don't want to pay for it, so just do it and we'll sort this shit out later." Which doesn't make me want to get on board.
Please don't mistake this for me being closed-minded. I'm listening. I'm just waiting for something that counts as an actual plan.
It has abandoned it's principles, and the population shows no sign of concern.
If you're saying that as an American, you're dumb. If you're saying that as an external observer, a huge portion of the population is concerned, and we're working on it. Unfortunately, most of the concerned, like most of the unconcerned, are loud-mouthed, counter-productive jackasses. But give us a minute. We'll work it out.
The notion that people might actually become educated without the government coercing it on everyone
First of all, stop using the word "coerce." Pick up a thesaurus. Second, most parents aren't qualified to even teach fractions, which makes homeschooling on a large scale impossible, and private school is too expensive for the majority. Again, your solution isn't "radical", it's unworkable.
After all, who could ever possibly accept the notion that millions won't die unless the government coerces people to pay for retirement and health care.
Billy doesn't get his check next week, Billy doesn't eat. Shit ain't free. Solve the problem and people will be thrilled to listen to you. And no one said "millions."
I can see now, that my idea was truely too dangerous.
Fortunately your idea is perfectly harmless because there's an epidemic of partial sanity in this country that we just can't seem to cure. That's another problem you can work on while you're handing out weapons to the droves of people whose income you've just removed. I'm sure they'd be extra grateful if you could point the way to the nearest wealthy neighborhood on your way out.
Your idealism is nice, but maybe the reason "your" (in quotes because there isn't a suburban ten-year-old on the planet that hasn't come up with the same one) idea is so "radical" (another word you need to stop using) is because you refuse to adequately explain to people how your plan works. We need steps. "Freedom good" is hard to make into a law. Explain how we go from social security to no social security without social security-dependent families turning to crime, especially considering all their social security-dependent friends will suddenly be looking to fill the 30 available jobs in the area. You still haven't explained step 2. And please keep in mind that I'm making no assumptions, here. I'm just having trouble understanding how you solve the problem where if you remove that money, you're going to need to replace it somehow by providing jobs, either through pork, which saves no money but does have other benefits, or by some free-market magic, which you'll have to explain to me, both short-term ("I don't get a check anymore. I guess I will buy lunch by _____.") and long-term.
Perhaps you should just mod me to minus infinity now to save society from the terror that such an outlandish notion would inflict.
It's always nice when someone new walks into a process that's been going on for hundreds of years and gets angry that no one sees his simple solution, even though that's where we started and we've been fixing the problems with it ever since.
In public education - everyone talks about what kind of education the kids need, and noone talks about the financial freedom lost in paying for it, or the very influence that such has on the kids.
They're too busy talking about the financial freedom lost when you have a work force of illiterates who can't add.
In social security and medicade/ medical care - everyones worried about how will we take care of the needy and elderly and noone talks about the people that need to be financially coerced to make these systems work.
And your constructive solution is then to let thousands and thousands of people either die or turn to crime? Step one, end social security. What's step two? Please answer. If you've got a way to make this work, please tell us. I really, really want to be on your side, because that's a lot of money.
In the genocide of the poor - noone would even dare mention that the best solution would be to arm them and seciure their right to bear arms first.
Genius! How could that possibly go bad? Combine this with your no-free-schooling idea and we've got ourselves a plan that just might solve everybody's problem.
As anyone who has ever tried to read a CD-key over the phone knows, "v" is one of the most problematic letters to annunciate. There is no way to naturally go from "v" to "l" without either pausing or accidentally saying "fl". The two combined make "vlog" possibly the most unpronouncable word ever. If this is going to be popular, can we please make it "vidlog" or "vog" so I don't have to constantly be saying, "No, not 'flog.' Not 'blog.' 'Vvvuh-log.'"
Slashdot Mirror
That was my thought, too. The only way this becomes viable for any significant amount of control is if they're exempted from liability by law, and then some dumb-ass middle manager cuts testing short to get the software into the new 2009's on time, a few families die, and there's no way to punish them for it.
But my main concern is that this only serves to let people use one hand for their cell phone and one for their coffee (I'm sure you can tap their dead man switch with the back of your hand), and then when a kid runs out in the road and the car can't deal with it, everybody's screwed.
He said GOOD men.
As always, no one gives a damn what the minority party does. They're seat fillers. If the democrats ever get any power again, believe me, I'll be right there with you being pissed about their bad behavior, but it's pointless right now. So quit with the conspiracy theories and stop taking it so personally.
It's not security through obscurity, it's security through inconsistent availability. But it only reduces your exposure to 20% or so, so it will just take you around 5 times longer to catch something, and we all know the stats on how long you can be connected with an unpatched system before you're screwed. 5 times that still ain't much.
So yes, it's a good idea to not be connected when you don't need to be connected, but it's a terrible idea to rely on it to protect you.
"The geology of Mesa, Arizona is significant because my family has lived there for several generations"
That could be a problem with the student, but my guess is you asked a gen-ed student, "Why is the geology of Mesa, Arizona significant?" In which case the appropriate answer is, "Oh, my God, I don't care, can I please get back to doing homework for classes in my major?" (Which should not be taken as a dig on geology, only on gen-eds.) The only slightly less correct answer given is very thin code for, "'Charles In Charge' is on and I'm writing this without looking at the paper." For more examples of this, please see the fine work done on the subject of Hustle and Bustle by Strong Bad.
Push old people down the stairs, just like every day.
Worst analogy ever. The guys at the soup kitchen can wait thirty seconds. If there were fifty people at a soup kitchen being raped, then you have an analogy.
Planes help destroy boundaries between countries ... and help smuggle drugs into those countries.
And what paranoid bit of foresight would have prevented that? You want Wilbur and Orville to stop trying to fly until they can fit a drug sniffing machine on the door? Terroristic intent detectors?
Unless you're prescient, and very few of us are, just worry about the shit on its way toward the fan and not worry about the animals that will make more of it that could possibly eventually be flung into some fan somewhere.
There are things to worry about, but at least wait until you have a specific fear in mind.
We are one fad and a whackload of rich people away from having designer neon dogs and cats for people like Paris Hilton.
Neat.
Nuclear power does release very little radioactive material. It's the blowing up part that's a problem.
But there are current designs that have no chance of melting down. 20 years makes a lot of difference.
No matter how much storage you put in a given system, it will eventually be not enough. I've seen it a million times.
I remember begging my mom to replace our 2MB hard drive with one of the fancy new 20MB ones. "But Mom! That's twenty MILLION letters! You'll NEVER use that much. You don't type that fast."
Then some jerk went and invented graphics. Bastard.
While it doesn't prove anything, Occam would probably tell you that life starting in a place friendly to tons of kinds of life is more likely than it germinating someplace more harsh and then traveling millions of miles to get here. Even given equally good life-starting conditions, life beginning anywhere but Earth and then moving to Earth is less likely than it just popping up here. So, until someone comes up with a reason life is much more likely to begin outside a big gravity-having object with an atmosphere and liquid water, there's reason to have some bias, just not certainty.
Your tire blows out at 80mph and you cause a 150 car pile-up on a major commercial artery. We then calculate the total economic damage you caused by overinflating your tires and send you a bill for more money than you're likely to make before you drop dead.
And when there's an epidemic of pile-ups caused by negligence, that'll be the appropriate thing to do. If people don't start paying attention to their tire pressure after the 10 billionth warning that they'll have to pay up, they deserve it.
"Stop it."
"No."
"Seriously. You're annoying the fuck out of everyone."
"No."
"We're going to fine you."
"Okay."
"Okay, we're going to fine you a lot."
"No, you're not."
"Are, too. 11 billion dollars. So stop it."
"Nuh-uh."
(11 billion dollar fine.)
I'm not sure where the problem with that is.
"Wah, that meanie baker controls 90% of the bread he makes, I guess I'll have to steal it as there's no rice or other foods I could cook."
Ah. "Let them eat cake." Last time they tried that, a lot of people got their heads chopped off a few days later.
You assume "taking the dough by force" will work. It won't.
I have guns that say it will.
You will either end up in jail yourself
If that happens, I'll be clothed and fed. Step up from where I was, what with my social security checks no longer coming in and all the local work taken by the other people no longer getting the same checks. If it's jail or eating out of the garbage, I'll take jail. Unfortunately, that's going to cost Uncle Sam some cash, but ah well, he's saving all that money on social programs.
or the baker will not repeat the process, and there won't be bread on any store shelves.
Cutting off his nose to spite his face, there, ain't he? He's got lots of customers that don't steal.
You are looking at a static picture of where we as a society are today.
... about what led to our present state of affairs.
Some of us call that "reality." Or "the present."
The grandparent is really talking
Stupidly.
There is a great body of libertarian thinking, dating back to the Moses time
Oh, dude, I know. And they had some awesome thoughts on traffic control laws, too. Don't even get me started on how great their $375 minimum fine in a construction zone was.
It is a well documented fact that literacy rates were shockingly higher than today's throughout early American history, and without public education.
And you used to be considered literate if you could spell your name. The numbers are a little skewed. Which is not to say that public school is great. I just think it's better than nothing. Your mileage, I suppose, may vary.
Here's a solution for you that's been suggested by a courageous few and rejected by many a fool for ages of men:
95 guys replying, not one has come up with anything resembling a plan. Ideology is not a plan.
How the hell does the grandparent get modded a troll and the parent's [post] gets modded +5 insightful?
For the record, I don't think the troll mod was very fair. Not very well thought-out, but not a troll.
I don't think it is in any way insightful to slap down someone else observation with an equal dose of pap.
"Arm the poor." If that doesn't set off some kind of bad-idea detector in your head, we're way too different to be able to discuss anything.
You keep asking the same question "how" are you going to do it, and I'm asking you "who" is stopping you from doing it
I'm not worried about me. I'm doing okay.
Thanks for the course on bread making. Already had that down, though. I'm still waiting for a course of action for a government to take.
Now that you've read this, instead of asking "How will I get 'bread' if the government doesn't provide it?", you can go out and make it.
But what if I can't afford dough yet? Step 2, man. Tell me how we get from no dough to dough without relying entirely on being lucky enough to get some charity before we have to take the dough by force.
You assume that government schools are teaching kids literacy and math.
I do. I know it worked in at least one case, as I'm able to read your post. Worked in a bunch of others, too.
You assume that the government is the only institution capable of providing education
I assume it's the only institution capable of doing it on a consistent basis at tiny cost to the people that can't afford it. Unless you know of a few thousand private schools that will take kids for free, we don't have much of an alternative. Homeschooling is the only possible option for people without money, but that counts on the parents being well-educated.
You ignore the terrible social effects public schools have on children (conditioning them to obedience to authority, squeltching individualism and diversity, taking away their privacy, age and skill segregation)
Oh, good heavens!
If that's the point of school, they're really not doing as well as I thought.
We don't all share your absolute faith in government
I have virtually no faith in government. It's inefficient, bloated, and corrupt.
and government is not the only model of social cooperation that we are able to comprehend.
Good for you.
that might be hard for someone to grasp who has been conditioned that the state is everything.
Dick.
[quote]And your constructive solution is then to let thousands and thousands of people either die or turn to crime? Step one, end social security. What's step two? Please answer. If you've got a way to make this work, please tell us. I really, really want to be on your side, because that's a lot of money.[/quote]
Once again, your statement has many assumptions
I made no assumptions. I want to know what happens on the second fucking day. Please fill in the gaping holes so we can properly discuss this.
You assume that Medicare is the only social structure capable of providing health care to those that need it. (In fact, there are any number of models of healthcare that we could use,
I'm listening.
You assume that Medicare somehow makes healthcare more available (instead of, say, pumping money in without increasing supply, and thus raising the price of medical care for everyone
You've calculated this in healthcare units? ("Healthies", I like to call them.)
You're thinking economics, I'm thinking child of poor parents breaks his leg.
You assume that Medicare is a sustainable, viable system.
And, for the thousandth time, I'm waiting for the plan.
"You must all send me $10,000...
The only possible response to that is, "You're an idiot." I'm sorry, but if you can't understand that taking the small amount of survivability that people have away from them is going to have negative affects, at least in the short term, you're just not that bright.
Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate and murder rate of any industrialized nation, and have the absolute highest private ownership of firearms in the industrialized world (basicly, nearly all able bodied men have full access to military style weapons).
All able-bodied men have access to military style weapons after 17 weeks of mandatory basic training. Let's not pretend we're all nations of soldiers. And let's not compare the US to Switzerland at all, because we're very, very different.
You need to try to convince us that gun ownership is bad, not call people stupid because they don't have absolute faith in your belief system.
I would never try to convince you that gun ownership is bad because I don't think it is. I think arming the poor to combat violence is profoundly stupid. I don't know what argument you're extending to this one, but please don't assume I meant to say bad things I didn't say.
This conversation got boring a long time ago, so I'll just reiterate by replying to this:
(At least in my scenario...) * 26
You don't have a scenario. You have a pipe dream. Is your entire (I assume secret) plan to stop cutting checks? Tomorrow, no more checks? Because you will immediately cause a massive crime wave. If you do it more slowly, you're still going to need a second step. Interim procedures before your utopia solidifies. So come up with something that counts as a plan and maybe your "radical" idea won't seem so awful.
by forced enslavement of the populace, rather than the populace freely electing representatives to protect thier freedom
... it's also there to protect people from violence and from being deprived of property. We give cash to the poor so they won't take it from us by force.
Uh-huh. But I vote for the ones I vote for because...
The government is there to 'protect' these freedoms, not bake bread.
She had concerns and questions very similiar to yours like, "if the government doesn't provide bread, then 'where' will I get it?"
I'm still waiting for step 2. Step 1: End social security (slowly, quickly, however you like). Step 2: ??? And I think we all know how this joke ends.
In a free country, store shelves are filled from top to bottom with loaves, and at every store. This isn't because they are a "rich" nation, it's because they are "free" one.
Yeup. And we've got tons of bread as well as some nannying. I'm not sure where you're going with this. All I'm getting is, "I don't want to pay for it, so just do it and we'll sort this shit out later." Which doesn't make me want to get on board.
Please don't mistake this for me being closed-minded. I'm listening. I'm just waiting for something that counts as an actual plan.
It has abandoned it's principles, and the population shows no sign of concern.
If you're saying that as an American, you're dumb. If you're saying that as an external observer, a huge portion of the population is concerned, and we're working on it. Unfortunately, most of the concerned, like most of the unconcerned, are loud-mouthed, counter-productive jackasses. But give us a minute. We'll work it out.
The notion that people might actually become educated without the government coercing it on everyone
First of all, stop using the word "coerce." Pick up a thesaurus. Second, most parents aren't qualified to even teach fractions, which makes homeschooling on a large scale impossible, and private school is too expensive for the majority. Again, your solution isn't "radical", it's unworkable.
After all, who could ever possibly accept the notion that millions won't die unless the government coerces people to pay for retirement and health care.
Billy doesn't get his check next week, Billy doesn't eat. Shit ain't free. Solve the problem and people will be thrilled to listen to you. And no one said "millions."
I can see now, that my idea was truely too dangerous.
Fortunately your idea is perfectly harmless because there's an epidemic of partial sanity in this country that we just can't seem to cure. That's another problem you can work on while you're handing out weapons to the droves of people whose income you've just removed. I'm sure they'd be extra grateful if you could point the way to the nearest wealthy neighborhood on your way out.
Your idealism is nice, but maybe the reason "your" (in quotes because there isn't a suburban ten-year-old on the planet that hasn't come up with the same one) idea is so "radical" (another word you need to stop using) is because you refuse to adequately explain to people how your plan works. We need steps. "Freedom good" is hard to make into a law. Explain how we go from social security to no social security without social security-dependent families turning to crime, especially considering all their social security-dependent friends will suddenly be looking to fill the 30 available jobs in the area. You still haven't explained step 2. And please keep in mind that I'm making no assumptions, here. I'm just having trouble understanding how you solve the problem where if you remove that money, you're going to need to replace it somehow by providing jobs, either through pork, which saves no money but does have other benefits, or by some free-market magic, which you'll have to explain to me, both short-term ("I don't get a check anymore. I guess I will buy lunch by _____.") and long-term.
Perhaps you should just mod me to minus infinity now to save society from the terror that such an outlandish notion would inflict.
It's always nice when someone new walks into a process that's been going on for hundreds of years and gets angry that no one sees his simple solution, even though that's where we started and we've been fixing the problems with it ever since.
In public education - everyone talks about what kind of education the kids need, and noone talks about the financial freedom lost in paying for it, or the very influence that such has on the kids.
They're too busy talking about the financial freedom lost when you have a work force of illiterates who can't add.
In social security and medicade/ medical care - everyones worried about how will we take care of the needy and elderly and noone talks about the people that need to be financially coerced to make these systems work.
And your constructive solution is then to let thousands and thousands of people either die or turn to crime? Step one, end social security. What's step two? Please answer. If you've got a way to make this work, please tell us. I really, really want to be on your side, because that's a lot of money.
In the genocide of the poor - noone would even dare mention that the best solution would be to arm them and seciure their right to bear arms first.
Genius! How could that possibly go bad? Combine this with your no-free-schooling idea and we've got ourselves a plan that just might solve everybody's problem.
Exactly. No one should be able to get a job until they've had a job. That'll fix everything.
As anyone who has ever tried to read a CD-key over the phone knows, "v" is one of the most problematic letters to annunciate. There is no way to naturally go from "v" to "l" without either pausing or accidentally saying "fl". The two combined make "vlog" possibly the most unpronouncable word ever. If this is going to be popular, can we please make it "vidlog" or "vog" so I don't have to constantly be saying, "No, not 'flog.' Not 'blog.' 'Vvvuh-log.'"
MAssive Compact Halo Objects ... Isn't it so neat that we have two natural acronyms here
A natural acronym would be MCHO (pronounced "mikko", or "macho" if you absolutely must), and MCHO would then be replaced by MCHO2.
But I guess if they were going for the joke the first time around, it's not so bad.