So. You're saying that if an Australian company has a patent, or IP claim, against an American company that they are unable to sue and receive compensation from said company?
Pathetic. Capitalism is the economic system where people invest in solutions in order to make money. Try have a socialist, top-down economic structure get Thanksgiving Turkeys to every store in a continent wide country. It will not get done. The attempt to accomplish this will be abandoned as impossible and impractical.
And yet thousands of business coordinate their activities to accomplish just this. Now multiply this throughout the economy.
Abject poverty was the standard throughout the world in 1800 and now, after two centuries of industrialized capitalism we have people declare the economic freedom is evil and the cause of poverty.
Actually it sounds great and I've been promoting this for a while.
You needn't take loans (I didn't. I worked full time and took classes at night.)
Also you only pay if your salary is over a certain amount. That makes a lot of sense.
It will be rejected because no one would pay for people to take Gender Studies. I personally would invest in a fund that promotes STEM students.
You have no student loan and only pay (say) 10% of your salary on anything you make about 2x the national average. Sounds like a great deal to me - and it absolutely is not slavery or indentured servitude.
Of course, we should push for apprenticeship programs as well (graphic design, most coding jobs can all be done via apprenticeship programs.)
Actually the wall worked exactly as intended. Read up on some history.
The planners didn't think that Germany couldn't go around. They thought that if Germany did go through the lowlands that here would be both the time and the WILL to push them back.
The fact that the will was missing doesn't mean that the Maginot Line didn't work. (Oh, and the Maginot Line, was cut short as well. If it had been built the original length then things would have been different.
Education. As a result of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, states are required to provide K-12 public education for students without legal immigrant status.
Health. New York State law requires that hospitals treat everyone who requires emergency care.
Labor. illegal immigrants are eligible for workers' compensation,
Welfare. The short answer appears to be that they are not legally entitled to most benefits, but do in fact receive them.
TL/DR:
Typically, any proof an illegal alien provides as evidence of legal status, regardless of its fraudulent nature, will satisfy social services agencies that determine the person's benefit eligibility because an intake clerk simply cannot make the determination that someone is an illegal alien. Therefore, the law is usually overlooked and illegal aliens manage to qualify for state and local benefits.
I'm a landlord.
The only thing I care about is that you earn enough to pay the rent. Here where I am we ask for paystub and go for 40x rent.
The other is a decent credit score. 625 is the cut off.
Don't care about anything else.
If you see a dystopian future then use and promote cash.
Nah. That hasn't been the case fore years. Not since free market, small government libertarians became lumped in with everyone who is not-left. Anyone who is not left is reee - a Nazi.
They attempted to created it AND STOPPED because it was unpractical.
The only reason it needs to be done on a national scale is because people will migrate to and emigrate from those states - that's the problem with open borders.
Look at the far left in Germany realizing they have to chose between open borders and the welfare state.
California and Vermont started exploring universal health care and stopped. Why do you think? The machinations of a few or because they couldn't get it to work.
Prove to me that UBI and universal health care works in your state before spreading this sh!t around.
And this foolishness really doesn't work with open borders no does it?
Take a look at the German left. They're for closing borders because they were faced with too options - renege on the promise of continuing the existing welfare state OR open borders.
This is absurd. You get paid for the job produced. Do you owe your plumber every time you flush the toilet? No. You pay him to fix the fuking toilet.
Thankfully the company makes money else there would be no company and no jobs.
What you're arguing for is piece meal payment for work rendered. Do you really want that? You work. You get paid. Say you get paid $10,000 for work you did for a month. You say that's bad.
Now you want to get paid when the company makes a profit on your code. When is that? Sometimes there isn't a profit. You've just become a business partner. That's fine if you want it but most employees don't. Know you'll have even more incentive to only work on projects that produce profits NOW.
You really didn't think this one through now did you?
Oh. You want to be paid AND get royalties. OK. How does that work? Figure out a good model and I would gladly work for that company. Right now - I want my money now. No fuking IOUs.
For all practical purposes Donald Trump was a Third Party Candidate running from within a major party. You don't need to be a fan or supporter to see that. His fans wanted to curtail Imperial Washington. In that I support them.
If you think Citizens United is bad then so are International Courts and treaties that degrade constitutional protections.
The closer power is to you - the citizen which is effected the more you have an ability to control it.
States should have more power. The Federal Government should have less and international bureaucracies should be pared back to ohhh (approaching zero).
Trump won the majority of electoral college votes.
You do realize that Hillary did not win the majority of the votes don't you?
And, please keep thinking you have a majority on gun control. The reason you are in error is that everyone is in favor of gun control - we just have different definitions of what constitutes gun control. I as an NRA and GOA member am in favor of gun control but I'm pretty certain that you and I would disagree on many issues.
Garbage is stored in bins on a daily basis. But then the garbage is brought to the street for pickup. On small residential streets people often just bring the bins out but once you get past a three family dwelling it's far easier to simply bring the bags out. Commercial garbage (Stores and restaurants) are set out much later and are picked up in the middle of the night by commercial garbage trucks.
If you're on a street with both residential and commercial garbage it may seem like a lot to someone not used to it.
I really can't think of an alternative that is even remotely cost effective except perhaps that garbage bins (dumpster size) are put where parking spaces are and are then replaced every other day or so.
Most people, I think, would prefer the parking space.
Political thieves of all stripes do this. These thieves cloak themselves in the language of their constituency. But they're still thieves,
No conservative or libertarian or minarchist would follow that recipe. Would thieves under the guise of New Deal Democrats in the 1930s and laissez-faire cost cutters in the 1990s do that? Yes.
But that is not the political philosophy of either New Deal Democrats or laissez-faire Republicans.
It's not a philosophical objection to roads (and certainly not to painting lines on the road).
The question of what tax dollars should be spent on is complicated. Few local areas are willing to pay for their roads. NYC, where I live, depends on state and federal expenditures. NYC could allocate all of the collected gas tax to roads and bridges. It doesn't. It goes into the general fund.
This lack of accountability, this lack of accountability is a major cause of friction.
Have 100% of your gas tax go to roads and bridges and you will see a change in the conversation. The same thing is true with water and sewer taxes. 100% of these funds should go to water and sewage and not be part of the general fund.
If it is part of the general fund then expect generic opposition.
I've never heard of Republicans having a problem with the government building roads. The only times that roads would be mentioned would be when they are done by the government for a business entity (hence corruption) or as a make-work project or if done extremely inefficiently (due to corruption).
I would think that most Democratic Socialists would also have a problem with corporate welfare (building a road specifically to benefit a corporation, or giving cheap electricity - AMAZON) or corruption. Many on the left have little problem with make-work projects but that is another issue.
The poster did not refer to constructing the road only that lines painted upon them were an unnecessary regulation; and that one had the freedom to drive on any part of the road.
Create strawmen and then wonder why you are ineffective and surprised that the "stupid" people aren't convinced by your witticisms.
Republicans don't have a problem with the government building roads. Some anarcho-capitalists and minarchists do, but certainly not the standard Republican.
And no one - not Republican, nor anarcho-capitalist, would say that we have the freedom to drive on any part of the road we choose.
Your foolishness only works within the echo chamber and fails everywhere else.
Garbage is picked up twice a week. The garbage is put out at night and picked up the next morning. This means that the garbage is not on every street on every day.
Slashdot Mirror
So. You're saying that if an Australian company has a patent, or IP claim, against an American company that they are unable to sue and receive compensation from said company?
I call bullsh!t on that.
Pathetic. Capitalism is the economic system where people invest in solutions in order to make money. Try have a socialist, top-down economic structure get Thanksgiving Turkeys to every store in a continent wide country. It will not get done. The attempt to accomplish this will be abandoned as impossible and impractical.
And yet thousands of business coordinate their activities to accomplish just this. Now multiply this throughout the economy.
Abject poverty was the standard throughout the world in 1800 and now, after two centuries of industrialized capitalism we have people declare the economic freedom is evil and the cause of poverty.
Actually it sounds great and I've been promoting this for a while. You needn't take loans (I didn't. I worked full time and took classes at night.)
Also you only pay if your salary is over a certain amount. That makes a lot of sense.
It will be rejected because no one would pay for people to take Gender Studies. I personally would invest in a fund that promotes STEM students.
You have no student loan and only pay (say) 10% of your salary on anything you make about 2x the national average. Sounds like a great deal to me - and it absolutely is not slavery or indentured servitude.
Of course, we should push for apprenticeship programs as well (graphic design, most coding jobs can all be done via apprenticeship programs.)
Actually the wall worked exactly as intended. Read up on some history.
The planners didn't think that Germany couldn't go around. They thought that if Germany did go through the lowlands that here would be both the time and the WILL to push them back.
The fact that the will was missing doesn't mean that the Maginot Line didn't work. (Oh, and the Maginot Line, was cut short as well. If it had been built the original length then things would have been different.
But don't let fact get in the way of your spin.
From: https://www.nysenate.gov/newsr... All text below comes directly from NYSenate.gov
Education. As a result of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, states are required to provide K-12 public education for students without legal immigrant status.
Health. New York State law requires that hospitals treat everyone who requires emergency care.
Labor. illegal immigrants are eligible for workers' compensation,
Welfare. The short answer appears to be that they are not legally entitled to most benefits, but do in fact receive them.
TL/DR: Typically, any proof an illegal alien provides as evidence of legal status, regardless of its fraudulent nature, will satisfy social services agencies that determine the person's benefit eligibility because an intake clerk simply cannot make the determination that someone is an illegal alien. Therefore, the law is usually overlooked and illegal aliens manage to qualify for state and local benefits.
Ha. Ha. Someone on a tech site who thinks the DNC was hacked? Riight.
I'm a landlord. The only thing I care about is that you earn enough to pay the rent. Here where I am we ask for paystub and go for 40x rent. The other is a decent credit score. 625 is the cut off. Don't care about anything else. If you see a dystopian future then use and promote cash.
Nah. That hasn't been the case fore years. Not since free market, small government libertarians became lumped in with everyone who is not-left. Anyone who is not left is reee - a Nazi.
They attempted to created it AND STOPPED because it was unpractical.
The only reason it needs to be done on a national scale is because people will migrate to and emigrate from those states - that's the problem with open borders.
Look at the far left in Germany realizing they have to chose between open borders and the welfare state.
A small section? No. A large section.
California and Vermont started exploring universal health care and stopped. Why do you think? The machinations of a few or because they couldn't get it to work.
Prove to me that UBI and universal health care works in your state before spreading this sh!t around.
And this foolishness really doesn't work with open borders no does it?
Take a look at the German left. They're for closing borders because they were faced with too options - renege on the promise of continuing the existing welfare state OR open borders.
This is not UBI.
UBI, as a concept, is to provide for an individuals basic needs. And to go further saves society money by removing existing bureaucracies.
This is a profit sharing system. The oil belongs to the people and the profits are shared by the people.
Well. We all know that there are 86,400 seconds in a day. So it's roughly 1 1/7 days.
Duh
This is absurd. You get paid for the job produced. Do you owe your plumber every time you flush the toilet? No. You pay him to fix the fuking toilet.
Thankfully the company makes money else there would be no company and no jobs.
What you're arguing for is piece meal payment for work rendered. Do you really want that? You work. You get paid. Say you get paid $10,000 for work you did for a month. You say that's bad.
Now you want to get paid when the company makes a profit on your code. When is that? Sometimes there isn't a profit. You've just become a business partner. That's fine if you want it but most employees don't. Know you'll have even more incentive to only work on projects that produce profits NOW.
You really didn't think this one through now did you?
Oh. You want to be paid AND get royalties. OK. How does that work? Figure out a good model and I would gladly work for that company. Right now - I want my money now. No fuking IOUs.
For all practical purposes Donald Trump was a Third Party Candidate running from within a major party. You don't need to be a fan or supporter to see that. His fans wanted to curtail Imperial Washington. In that I support them.
If you think Citizens United is bad then so are International Courts and treaties that degrade constitutional protections.
The closer power is to you - the citizen which is effected the more you have an ability to control it.
States should have more power. The Federal Government should have less and international bureaucracies should be pared back to ohhh (approaching zero).
Or the BernieBitches who think that Socialism is the answer.
Except it hasn't. (Fun fact - the Scandinavian countries are not socialist.)
Ignorant arguments.
Trump won the majority of electoral college votes.
You do realize that Hillary did not win the majority of the votes don't you?
And, please keep thinking you have a majority on gun control. The reason you are in error is that everyone is in favor of gun control - we just have different definitions of what constitutes gun control. I as an NRA and GOA member am in favor of gun control but I'm pretty certain that you and I would disagree on many issues.
Garbage is stored in bins on a daily basis. But then the garbage is brought to the street for pickup. On small residential streets people often just bring the bins out but once you get past a three family dwelling it's far easier to simply bring the bags out. Commercial garbage (Stores and restaurants) are set out much later and are picked up in the middle of the night by commercial garbage trucks.
If you're on a street with both residential and commercial garbage it may seem like a lot to someone not used to it.
I really can't think of an alternative that is even remotely cost effective except perhaps that garbage bins (dumpster size) are put where parking spaces are and are then replaced every other day or so.
Most people, I think, would prefer the parking space.
Political thieves of all stripes do this. These thieves cloak themselves in the language of their constituency. But they're still thieves,
No conservative or libertarian or minarchist would follow that recipe. Would thieves under the guise of New Deal Democrats in the 1930s and laissez-faire cost cutters in the 1990s do that? Yes.
But that is not the political philosophy of either New Deal Democrats or laissez-faire Republicans.
Thx. Intelligent as always.
Wow. A Trump supporter on Slashdot.
Nice populist message.
It's not a philosophical objection to roads (and certainly not to painting lines on the road).
The question of what tax dollars should be spent on is complicated. Few local areas are willing to pay for their roads. NYC, where I live, depends on state and federal expenditures. NYC could allocate all of the collected gas tax to roads and bridges. It doesn't. It goes into the general fund.
This lack of accountability, this lack of accountability is a major cause of friction.
Have 100% of your gas tax go to roads and bridges and you will see a change in the conversation. The same thing is true with water and sewer taxes. 100% of these funds should go to water and sewage and not be part of the general fund.
If it is part of the general fund then expect generic opposition.
I've never heard of Republicans having a problem with the government building roads. The only times that roads would be mentioned would be when they are done by the government for a business entity (hence corruption) or as a make-work project or if done extremely inefficiently (due to corruption).
I would think that most Democratic Socialists would also have a problem with corporate welfare (building a road specifically to benefit a corporation, or giving cheap electricity - AMAZON) or corruption. Many on the left have little problem with make-work projects but that is another issue.
The poster did not refer to constructing the road only that lines painted upon them were an unnecessary regulation; and that one had the freedom to drive on any part of the road.
Create strawmen and then wonder why you are ineffective and surprised that the "stupid" people aren't convinced by your witticisms.
Republicans don't have a problem with the government building roads. Some anarcho-capitalists and minarchists do, but certainly not the standard Republican.
And no one - not Republican, nor anarcho-capitalist, would say that we have the freedom to drive on any part of the road we choose.
Your foolishness only works within the echo chamber and fails everywhere else.
yah. murder people who disagree with you. that's the way to accomplish things.
war will solve all our problems. yay you.
Garbage is picked up twice a week. The garbage is put out at night and picked up the next morning. This means that the garbage is not on every street on every day.
How else would you do it?