Yes, why do you think police aren't allowed to go on strike and members of the military are expressly forbidden from membership in political groups in many places. These things are neccessary for the smooth operation of a truly free society. When the sons of presidents are becoming presidents, your society is fucked and about half a step away from monarchy.
Rule is very accurate. We may get to decide who rules, but when they rule, they can enact laws which if you don't feel like following will put you up against law enforcement and then the military if that doesn't work out. Yes, they rule. Which is all the more reason to be very careful when choosing those rulers.
I find it interesting how my common sense and perfectly logical gp post was modded into oblivion incidentally, who would have thought that the idea of getting involved in politics would be such a touchy subject.
Add to this a reduction in military spending and interventionism, AND make it illegal for anyone related to an elected official to run for public office, or their children. Break the growth of dynasties, remove the power of families. I don't care if that seems harsh, such is the price of freedom.
Politics is very meaningful. These are the people who rule over us and decide the future of our respective countries. Herp derp politics are boring/corrupt is the call of an idiot child; get involved, vote, make the issues that matter to you political.
It would be pretty inefficient to spray this on fields, you'd need a near constant jetstream to have much of an effect. In big greenhouses and hydroponics installations, that's where you'd pump it into the atmosphere. Also it would be a good idea to do it in a controlled environment for reasons of soil depletion, rapidly growing plants I'd imagine would strip a normal field of nutrients completely. No such thing as a free lunch.
Although one place it could have major benefits would be in setting up self sufficient orbital stations.
That was one big freakin explosion. The cameraman must have been at least a couple of hundred meters away and flaming debris was zipping past him almost instantly. Still it's a fertiliser plant, explosive by its very nature, no reason to think there's any connection between this and Boston. Yet.
The only thing that would cause problems for a terrorist in that list is changing your hair colour. If you immediately show up with a different hairstyle and colour after a terrorist event, people are going to ask questions, much better to shave your head constantly and then wear a wig. The rest is either untraceable or useless even if it is traced. Of course it's barely a start if one really wanted to commit an act of terror, but in and of itself there isn't much wrong with it.
1) develop software for one platform only 2) loudly trumpet that to maintain IP rights and control the product will never be developed for other platforms 3) sit back and let hackers port it for you 4)...? 5) Profit!
It's a tool like any other, and it definetely has its place. What doesn't have a place is people who reject tools for pseudo philosophical reasons rather than utility.
What misanthropic crap. We can survive on this planet just fine, despite this planet's repeated, persistent, and very nearly successful efforts to wipe us out many times throughout history. The realisation of what we were doing to the biosphere has been slow in coming but I'm greatly encouraged by recent developments. Mother nature has done far worse before we humans ever made an appearance, and in case you've forgotten, the fate of the planet and all its glorious diversity WITHOUT humanity is to become cold stellar dust.
We are also the first and perhaps only living beings to have adapted sufficiently to the environment to be able to go into space, and like it or not that makes us special. We do need to take advantage of that.
No, and google and foursquare are making the same mistake. I deal with a lot of small businesses (one to twenty people) and I'll tell you, there's no such thing as the small business sector.
Every small business has its own needs and strengths but more importantly it revolves entirely around the owner. A family run shop thinks and operates differently to one where some guy ploughed his inheritance into it, or someone with a business plan got a loan from the bank, or a place that's been run by the same guy for decades, or whatever.
Further the business might be capable of bouncing along forever even if the owner doesn't really understand the needs and strengths of their business, especially if there isn't much local competition, you can't walk in expecting to be greeted by a logical decision making process. A collection of idiosycracies, is how I'd describe the sector, and the less investment and organisation required to run the business the more idiosyncratic it tends to be. Tradesmen and taxi drivers for example, good luck trying to make any headway into that market.
I'm not trying to belittle small business owners by any stretch, I am one, but if you don't recognise these realities you'll founder on the same rocks as the big boys.
Sales reps cold calling are the best entry to that sector, but even then they aren't likely to part with enough money per successful call to make it worth your time or the rep's time if they're on commission, one sale in ten is what I'd call a decent rate. One sale in five is heady stuff indeed.
The lone self employed contractor, preferably local, will have by far the best success rate among local small businesses.
That's because they ate the fat and the whole animal, often in a poorly cooked fashion, not just the raw muscle. A diet of butter fried steak isn't going to save you from scurvy.
Re:That's the inconvenient truth of "the simple li
on
Iceman Had Bad Teeth
·
· Score: 1
Farming is actually a pretty healthy lifestyle. Lots of outdoor physical work, not cramped in with thousands of other people in cities, good rest periods after the harvest, plenty of food unless the crops fail, oh yes you could do worse than being a farmer.
There's always that, but your descriptions of the "typical unemployed" were either inaccurate, or too dismissive of serious problems.
If you've got 96% employment, you don't have serious problems.
I can tell you that in the US long term unemployment is a major problem, and it's not because most of these people are unemployable (unless you believe that millions of people who were highly employable a few years ago are suddenly incapable of working productively). As I said originally, any reasonably prudent person should be able to take a few months of unemployment, so high unemployment where everybody takes a turn in the barrel doesn't bother me as much as long term unemployment.
My original comment was in response to "This is another consequence of the neoliberal strategy of keeping a persistent pool of unemployed people". The current situation in many countries is a very different issue. The only persistent pool of unemployed people are the long term unemployed, which in a properly functioning economy shouldn't be those qualified and capable of work. We're not in a good place right now.
It's not a reserve labour force, it's the natural churn of people moving around, which is the normal result of companies going bust, people getting bored, all sorts of things. The people in this category very rarely stay in there for long, they find or make new jobs for themselves and other people replace them. It's perfectly normal that not everyone capable of being employed is employed 100% of the time.
Aside from the other stuff, full employment is typically seen as 95% employment or so. Of the remainder,.5 to 1% are the long term unemployed (and usually unemployable), the rest are graduates, students and teachers working summer jobs, people between jobs, that sort of thing. Much more than 96% employment is bad for an economy since there are no workers to help start new businesses or expand existing ones. So it's not a neoliberal conspiracy as such, just forward thinking economic manangement.
96% employment is plenty, usually, unless unemployment is concentrated in youth sectors or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, why do you think police aren't allowed to go on strike and members of the military are expressly forbidden from membership in political groups in many places. These things are neccessary for the smooth operation of a truly free society. When the sons of presidents are becoming presidents, your society is fucked and about half a step away from monarchy.
Rule is very accurate. We may get to decide who rules, but when they rule, they can enact laws which if you don't feel like following will put you up against law enforcement and then the military if that doesn't work out. Yes, they rule. Which is all the more reason to be very careful when choosing those rulers.
I find it interesting how my common sense and perfectly logical gp post was modded into oblivion incidentally, who would have thought that the idea of getting involved in politics would be such a touchy subject.
Ditch them.
Drugs, legalise them or at least the softer stuff and decriminalise the harder stuff.
Add to this a reduction in military spending and interventionism, AND make it illegal for anyone related to an elected official to run for public office, or their children. Break the growth of dynasties, remove the power of families. I don't care if that seems harsh, such is the price of freedom.
No, it gives undue weight to local issues. A party list system for the national elections, and PR for local elections.
Politics is very meaningful. These are the people who rule over us and decide the future of our respective countries. Herp derp politics are boring/corrupt is the call of an idiot child; get involved, vote, make the issues that matter to you political.
Look on the bright side - cyberpunk is cool and now we get to live in it! Mirrorshades and mullets baby.
That's almost certainly why they don't want you reselling it.
They can stick their glass up their ass.
It would be pretty inefficient to spray this on fields, you'd need a near constant jetstream to have much of an effect. In big greenhouses and hydroponics installations, that's where you'd pump it into the atmosphere. Also it would be a good idea to do it in a controlled environment for reasons of soil depletion, rapidly growing plants I'd imagine would strip a normal field of nutrients completely. No such thing as a free lunch.
Although one place it could have major benefits would be in setting up self sufficient orbital stations.
That was one big freakin explosion. The cameraman must have been at least a couple of hundred meters away and flaming debris was zipping past him almost instantly. Still it's a fertiliser plant, explosive by its very nature, no reason to think there's any connection between this and Boston. Yet.
The only thing that would cause problems for a terrorist in that list is changing your hair colour. If you immediately show up with a different hairstyle and colour after a terrorist event, people are going to ask questions, much better to shave your head constantly and then wear a wig. The rest is either untraceable or useless even if it is traced. Of course it's barely a start if one really wanted to commit an act of terror, but in and of itself there isn't much wrong with it.
1) develop software for one platform only ...?
2) loudly trumpet that to maintain IP rights and control the product will never be developed for other platforms
3) sit back and let hackers port it for you
4)
5) Profit!
It's a tool like any other, and it definetely has its place. What doesn't have a place is people who reject tools for pseudo philosophical reasons rather than utility.
http://www.maglaunch.com/
Gravity isn't hard to simulate, and space has no shortage of either energy or raw materials if we want to cultivate foodstuffs.
What misanthropic crap. We can survive on this planet just fine, despite this planet's repeated, persistent, and very nearly successful efforts to wipe us out many times throughout history. The realisation of what we were doing to the biosphere has been slow in coming but I'm greatly encouraged by recent developments. Mother nature has done far worse before we humans ever made an appearance, and in case you've forgotten, the fate of the planet and all its glorious diversity WITHOUT humanity is to become cold stellar dust.
We are also the first and perhaps only living beings to have adapted sufficiently to the environment to be able to go into space, and like it or not that makes us special. We do need to take advantage of that.
No, and google and foursquare are making the same mistake. I deal with a lot of small businesses (one to twenty people) and I'll tell you, there's no such thing as the small business sector.
Every small business has its own needs and strengths but more importantly it revolves entirely around the owner. A family run shop thinks and operates differently to one where some guy ploughed his inheritance into it, or someone with a business plan got a loan from the bank, or a place that's been run by the same guy for decades, or whatever.
Further the business might be capable of bouncing along forever even if the owner doesn't really understand the needs and strengths of their business, especially if there isn't much local competition, you can't walk in expecting to be greeted by a logical decision making process. A collection of idiosycracies, is how I'd describe the sector, and the less investment and organisation required to run the business the more idiosyncratic it tends to be. Tradesmen and taxi drivers for example, good luck trying to make any headway into that market.
I'm not trying to belittle small business owners by any stretch, I am one, but if you don't recognise these realities you'll founder on the same rocks as the big boys.
Sales reps cold calling are the best entry to that sector, but even then they aren't likely to part with enough money per successful call to make it worth your time or the rep's time if they're on commission, one sale in ten is what I'd call a decent rate. One sale in five is heady stuff indeed.
The lone self employed contractor, preferably local, will have by far the best success rate among local small businesses.
Nice, the Whoosh Law: "You can't be so sarcastic that someone won't think you're being serious".
That's because they ate the fat and the whole animal, often in a poorly cooked fashion, not just the raw muscle. A diet of butter fried steak isn't going to save you from scurvy.
Farming is actually a pretty healthy lifestyle. Lots of outdoor physical work, not cramped in with thousands of other people in cities, good rest periods after the harvest, plenty of food unless the crops fail, oh yes you could do worse than being a farmer.
Fuck yeah.
There's always that, but your descriptions of the "typical unemployed" were either inaccurate, or too dismissive of serious problems.
If you've got 96% employment, you don't have serious problems.
I can tell you that in the US long term unemployment is a major problem, and it's not because most of these people are unemployable (unless you believe that millions of people who were highly employable a few years ago are suddenly incapable of working productively). As I said originally, any reasonably prudent person should be able to take a few months of unemployment, so high unemployment where everybody takes a turn in the barrel doesn't bother me as much as long term unemployment.
My original comment was in response to "This is another consequence of the neoliberal strategy of keeping a persistent pool of unemployed people". The current situation in many countries is a very different issue. The only persistent pool of unemployed people are the long term unemployed, which in a properly functioning economy shouldn't be those qualified and capable of work. We're not in a good place right now.
I suspect that's the only reason it has been allowed to persist as long as it has.
Ah, the "reserve labor force" fallacy.
It's not a reserve labour force, it's the natural churn of people moving around, which is the normal result of companies going bust, people getting bored, all sorts of things. The people in this category very rarely stay in there for long, they find or make new jobs for themselves and other people replace them. It's perfectly normal that not everyone capable of being employed is employed 100% of the time.
Aside from the other stuff, full employment is typically seen as 95% employment or so. Of the remainder, .5 to 1% are the long term unemployed (and usually unemployable), the rest are graduates, students and teachers working summer jobs, people between jobs, that sort of thing. Much more than 96% employment is bad for an economy since there are no workers to help start new businesses or expand existing ones. So it's not a neoliberal conspiracy as such, just forward thinking economic manangement.
96% employment is plenty, usually, unless unemployment is concentrated in youth sectors or something.