I'm dead serious. I would like to see whether the amount of people who held a job that could feed a family of 4 went up or down in the past 50 years. I don't know whether it went up or down but I would certainly love to know, because that's essentially what's important.
The 50s celebrated heroes. You just have to look at what movies and TV give you as role models and identification figures. The 50s offered over-the-top (and quite unbelievable, frankly) heroic figures that saved the day time and again.
Today we have, well, socially awkward geeks, broke fools that somehow make ends meet, and a Homer Simpson, the king of all idiots-turned-role-model.
The problem is that these people don't spend their money but send it back home to pay off their dept to their relatives that they had to take upon themselves to pay their traffickers. It's a well documented fact that a lot of money gets pumped towards the countries these people came from.
Then I guess the solution would be to actually give people a reason to have kids. So far all Merkel has accomplished is to make sure that nobody in their right mind could WANT to have kids because having some is a near surefire way to social descent in Germany.
What Merkel wanted was more pressure on people in low qualification wages, to make Germany attractive for companies that would otherwise move towards places where you can work your employees like dogs and throw them away when they are bled dry. Now Germany can become such a place. And the incompatibility with the imported culture also means that she has every justification to up surveillance to keep the masses down.
This woman grew up in the GDR. She knows what she's doing.
I don't give a fuck about companies, what I care about is how it affects me and other users of services. But maybe you can elaborate how I "hijack it with lies", I'd really love to know where I lied.
I know it's a common strategy to derail a conversation with "oh you lie" when you run out of arguments, without bothering to specify what the lie supposedly is, in an attempt to discredit the other side without having to provide any argument (because there essentially is none), but that won't be your tactic here, will it?
Which would raise a few interesting questions, first and foremost why the US would do that. Second, how US citizens would react if FB simply said "Sorry, you're no longer being served, if you don't like it, get a different government".
60 bucks for 788 kbit is harsh. I just recently saw an ad for 300/30mbit (down/up) in Europe for about 70. Including 160 tv channels, half of them in HD.
I give you the same answer I gave you before: Try this and watch Facebook, Twitter et al move abroad where you cannot control them. To them it does not matter where they offer their service, Facebook is just as useful to the average US citizen if it hailed from Iceland or the Philippines instead of the US. An ISP in Norway is kinda useless if you live in Albuquerque.
Also, if I don't like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and so on, I can simply use the internet without even touching them. Now please tell me how to do this without an ISP. Note that most Americans can't simply move to another ISP because their ISP got the de facto monopoly, usually state sponsored.
So please excuse me if I say that these problems are not even remotely comparable.
You're dead. Sure, it might be comforting to know that the legacy you leave behind is one of joy instead of one of misery, but given the choice of leaving a legacy of joy and living a life in misery, or leaving a legacy of misery after living a life of joy, I choose the latter. Because screw you, I got mine.
I already went over that edge. What good is screens with more and more pixels to display actors with less and less talent, scripts with less and less content and stories with more and more pandering to special interest groups than content?
When someone sells you something for "lifetime", it means "for as long as I live". Not you.
Never buy anything "for lifetime" where you're dependent on someone to continue his business. It's usually a good indicator that he won't be doing it for much longer.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm dead serious. I would like to see whether the amount of people who held a job that could feed a family of 4 went up or down in the past 50 years. I don't know whether it went up or down but I would certainly love to know, because that's essentially what's important.
If you could change anything by voting, it would've been outlawed a long time ago.
A more interesting measurement would be how many of those that actually have a job earn enough to feed, cloth and shelter a family of 4.
The 50s celebrated heroes. You just have to look at what movies and TV give you as role models and identification figures. The 50s offered over-the-top (and quite unbelievable, frankly) heroic figures that saved the day time and again.
Today we have, well, socially awkward geeks, broke fools that somehow make ends meet, and a Homer Simpson, the king of all idiots-turned-role-model.
Whether you want to or not...
But hey, New Year's around the corner again, your chances improve considerably, at least in Germany.
The problem is that these people don't spend their money but send it back home to pay off their dept to their relatives that they had to take upon themselves to pay their traffickers. It's a well documented fact that a lot of money gets pumped towards the countries these people came from.
Then I guess the solution would be to actually give people a reason to have kids. So far all Merkel has accomplished is to make sure that nobody in their right mind could WANT to have kids because having some is a near surefire way to social descent in Germany.
What Merkel wanted was more pressure on people in low qualification wages, to make Germany attractive for companies that would otherwise move towards places where you can work your employees like dogs and throw them away when they are bled dry. Now Germany can become such a place. And the incompatibility with the imported culture also means that she has every justification to up surveillance to keep the masses down.
This woman grew up in the GDR. She knows what she's doing.
Oh my, a lot of countries in Europe where pretty much nobody has an imaginary buddy must be a veritable hellhole.
Well, being white, male and rich sure lowered your chances to win said trip.
Having the FCC destroy the internet or let congress do it.
I don't give a fuck about companies, what I care about is how it affects me and other users of services. But maybe you can elaborate how I "hijack it with lies", I'd really love to know where I lied.
I know it's a common strategy to derail a conversation with "oh you lie" when you run out of arguments, without bothering to specify what the lie supposedly is, in an attempt to discredit the other side without having to provide any argument (because there essentially is none), but that won't be your tactic here, will it?
Simpler solution: Stop working when enough money has been accumulated.
Which would raise a few interesting questions, first and foremost why the US would do that. Second, how US citizens would react if FB simply said "Sorry, you're no longer being served, if you don't like it, get a different government".
60 bucks for 788 kbit is harsh. I just recently saw an ad for 300/30mbit (down/up) in Europe for about 70. Including 160 tv channels, half of them in HD.
I give you the same answer I gave you before: Try this and watch Facebook, Twitter et al move abroad where you cannot control them. To them it does not matter where they offer their service, Facebook is just as useful to the average US citizen if it hailed from Iceland or the Philippines instead of the US. An ISP in Norway is kinda useless if you live in Albuquerque.
Also, if I don't like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and so on, I can simply use the internet without even touching them. Now please tell me how to do this without an ISP. Note that most Americans can't simply move to another ISP because their ISP got the de facto monopoly, usually state sponsored.
So please excuse me if I say that these problems are not even remotely comparable.
So... educating poor people leads to Communism?
Give it time. We're working on a scenario again where we create a critical mass of people with nothing to lose.
There's also nothing admirable in being rich.
Moderation is the key. I want just enough money to live comfortably, but never so much that people who could inherit my shit want to see me croak.
What does it matter?
You're dead. Sure, it might be comforting to know that the legacy you leave behind is one of joy instead of one of misery, but given the choice of leaving a legacy of joy and living a life in misery, or leaving a legacy of misery after living a life of joy, I choose the latter. Because screw you, I got mine.
Not everything in the US politics is about Trump, and the GOP ain't Trump alone. Actually, an increasingly large portion of it wishes he wasn't.
What this is about is states and their state governments.
And here I was thinking Apple could at least still design crap. Apparently even that's impossible without the Holy Steve.
I think nobody really cares about that movie anymore.
I already went over that edge. What good is screens with more and more pixels to display actors with less and less talent, scripts with less and less content and stories with more and more pandering to special interest groups than content?
When someone sells you something for "lifetime", it means "for as long as I live". Not you.
Never buy anything "for lifetime" where you're dependent on someone to continue his business. It's usually a good indicator that he won't be doing it for much longer.
Courage!