Who doesn't rob the poor? You know, as does every government since this planetary disc accreted, that they are the EASIEST to steal from. They don't have any resources to fight back with!
You think a government is going to chance its existence over trying to rob someone who has any serious wealth? That's how the US government was partially created -> pissed off, rich, land-owners (George, Benjamin, Thomas...) decided, as did a number of others, that the Crown was taking a little too much, and providing a little too little. Easier to start a revolution when you have the financial backing.
The wealthy are, by and large, a diverse group. To say that 'the wealthy' wanted / needed / used these services is to be so disingenuous that the rest of the argument falls apart right there.
Or, you know, you put money, in a savings account, and just retired. Savings accounts being at their lowest these days, might I add.
See, the Social Security measure was supposed to be like the Welfare program; it was a catchall for the people who got old, who were unlucky in life, and meant primarily as a feel good measure about society. Charity is another name for it, and again, it was supposed to be something only a handful would even consider using; the vast majority of future retirees were supposed to still use a Savings account.
Now it has grown into a monster, with people saying f*ck it, let's not save, we'll just make do with the Social Security we get. And when your entire retirement plan revolves around Social Security, the politicians know they can count on your support.
You're funny. But he is right about Lisp; you either love it, and can't understand why everyone else doesn't, or you despise it, and can't understand why anyone else wouldn't.
F*ck that noise. This isn't about being paid for hard work, this is negotiations over just how badly they can sell the customer.
If a TV network has the option of providing a show, and making $40 million off of it (ad free), or $60 million off of it (with ads), they will always choose the latter. As both the customers, as well as the eyeballs being sold (thanks guys), we have the right to tell them that it's enough. Enough of these ads, enough of the chronically shortened programming, enough of the bullsh*t where you trot out an actor earning $500,000 / episode, and tell the rest of us that the network will go bankrupt if they listened to the viewers for once in their goddamn lives.
And while we are on the topic, bring back Firefly.
And people will find other sources. Many of the great falls in business can be attributed to not realizing the willingness of customers to go somewhere else when sufficiently annoyed. And that's the problem: once you piss of those customers, they stay pissed, for a long time.
Hmm. So that's what I've been doing wrong all these years. I tell people exactly what I want (read: programmer needs), and they think it's the beginning of negotiations, instead of the end of them.
1.) 'Tis not your money (the government answers to the tax-payers). 2.) 'Tis only an illusion of security. People who believe comforting lies can never be safe.
Breaking and entering, in the case of them snarfing your password, is something the FBI loves to prosecute. Contact your friendly FBI today, and ask about our two for one special.
We're working on the those bigger things, but consider the opposition: they think that the human race needs a limiter. As such, they tacitly welcome all those illnesses and deaths, as a means of population control.
If I work for a bank, am trusted with safeguarding the contents of its vault, but open the door to the first thief who comes along, am I complicit with the crime?
The US Air Force is charged with protecting the rights and liberties of the people; they are beholden to the Constitution before they are beholden to the President. As such, if the Air Force is found to, by intent or neglect of duties, allow for its own resources to be used against the people, is it not acting against its sworn duty?
Yes. They were relatively wealthy, had played ambassador / general / insurrectionist recently, and had just finished a particularly horrible war; and their idea of dealing with unfaithful governments was to burn them down to the ground. It's no wonder that they wanted the citizens to never feel threatened by their new government; and as a nice bonus, ensuring the populace was equipped with the latest weaponry, ostensibly purchased by themselves, meant that protecting the country was the responsibility of each of its citizens. Invading a country where the military is located on bases which might as well be painted with bulls-eyes, and the citizenry is defanged, is relatively easy. Invading a country where you have more to fear from the citizenry than the military is an almost impossible venture.
Yes, the effort is great; however, when it comes to court cases, the DA is typically willing to do whatever it takes to convict someone, even if his / her methods might be considered somewhat extra-legal. As such, it's not a bad idea to deal with this problem before it becomes a common occurrence.
Slashdot Mirror
Who doesn't rob the poor? You know, as does every government since this planetary disc accreted, that they are the EASIEST to steal from. They don't have any resources to fight back with!
You think a government is going to chance its existence over trying to rob someone who has any serious wealth? That's how the US government was partially created -> pissed off, rich, land-owners (George, Benjamin, Thomas...) decided, as did a number of others, that the Crown was taking a little too much, and providing a little too little. Easier to start a revolution when you have the financial backing.
And you believe, no doubt, that re-instituting this tax at a higher level will bring back the golden days of yesteryear?
The wealthy are, by and large, a diverse group. To say that 'the wealthy' wanted / needed / used these services is to be so disingenuous that the rest of the argument falls apart right there.
Or, you know, you put money, in a savings account, and just retired. Savings accounts being at their lowest these days, might I add.
See, the Social Security measure was supposed to be like the Welfare program; it was a catchall for the people who got old, who were unlucky in life, and meant primarily as a feel good measure about society. Charity is another name for it, and again, it was supposed to be something only a handful would even consider using; the vast majority of future retirees were supposed to still use a Savings account.
Now it has grown into a monster, with people saying f*ck it, let's not save, we'll just make do with the Social Security we get. And when your entire retirement plan revolves around Social Security, the politicians know they can count on your support.
The only key piece of information you need to know is that they are Cisco routers; that explains everything.
You're funny. But he is right about Lisp; you either love it, and can't understand why everyone else doesn't, or you despise it, and can't understand why anyone else wouldn't.
Says someone who has never used it.
It's better than Java.
The show?
Indeed. Tell them to pull a HBO (paid programming), and to unbundle channels.
F*ck that noise. This isn't about being paid for hard work, this is negotiations over just how badly they can sell the customer.
If a TV network has the option of providing a show, and making $40 million off of it (ad free), or $60 million off of it (with ads), they will always choose the latter. As both the customers, as well as the eyeballs being sold (thanks guys), we have the right to tell them that it's enough. Enough of these ads, enough of the chronically shortened programming, enough of the bullsh*t where you trot out an actor earning $500,000 / episode, and tell the rest of us that the network will go bankrupt if they listened to the viewers for once in their goddamn lives.
And while we are on the topic, bring back Firefly.
10 minutes to download it vs. 1 hour (round-trip) to buy one locally.
And people will find other sources. Many of the great falls in business can be attributed to not realizing the willingness of customers to go somewhere else when sufficiently annoyed. And that's the problem: once you piss of those customers, they stay pissed, for a long time.
Yes, but they don't think of it that way.
Hmm. So that's what I've been doing wrong all these years. I tell people exactly what I want (read: programmer needs), and they think it's the beginning of negotiations, instead of the end of them.
Those are the people without tin-foil hats. ;-)
But honestly, if you think someone is watching you, someone probably is.
"Fight us over our subpoenas? Fine, you have 'Chinese' hackers eating you now."
1.) 'Tis not your money (the government answers to the tax-payers).
2.) 'Tis only an illusion of security. People who believe comforting lies can never be safe.
Breaking and entering, in the case of them snarfing your password, is something the FBI loves to prosecute. Contact your friendly FBI today, and ask about our two for one special.
Can we do a reverse transaction then? I'd like to trade my illusory security for my real freedom.
We're working on the those bigger things, but consider the opposition: they think that the human race needs a limiter. As such, they tacitly welcome all those illnesses and deaths, as a means of population control.
The old ways are the best ways, right?
And according to the Supreme Court Justices, a citizen has the right to privacy in their own home.
If I work for a bank, am trusted with safeguarding the contents of its vault, but open the door to the first thief who comes along, am I complicit with the crime?
The US Air Force is charged with protecting the rights and liberties of the people; they are beholden to the Constitution before they are beholden to the President. As such, if the Air Force is found to, by intent or neglect of duties, allow for its own resources to be used against the people, is it not acting against its sworn duty?
Yes. They were relatively wealthy, had played ambassador / general / insurrectionist recently, and had just finished a particularly horrible war; and their idea of dealing with unfaithful governments was to burn them down to the ground. It's no wonder that they wanted the citizens to never feel threatened by their new government; and as a nice bonus, ensuring the populace was equipped with the latest weaponry, ostensibly purchased by themselves, meant that protecting the country was the responsibility of each of its citizens. Invading a country where the military is located on bases which might as well be painted with bulls-eyes, and the citizenry is defanged, is relatively easy. Invading a country where you have more to fear from the citizenry than the military is an almost impossible venture.
Yes, the effort is great; however, when it comes to court cases, the DA is typically willing to do whatever it takes to convict someone, even if his / her methods might be considered somewhat extra-legal. As such, it's not a bad idea to deal with this problem before it becomes a common occurrence.