Silly? So you think it is not silly to incur a huge debt rather than going to work right away and not getting into debt but instead getting experience, using the same 4 years to gain knowledge at work?
Well, if that's silly, then fine, call it that.
I DID go to university, but I only took 7000 of debt in the first year, found job in the profession in that first year, started working and was working all the way through the 5 years (I took a bit slower). I paid off the 7K in the first year after finishing the studies.
If I had take a house sized mortgage, I would not have gone at all, I would have just found that SAME job that I found in the first year and kept doing the same thing. I was making 12.50 an hour for the first year and a half, then 16 bucks, then 25, then 40.
By the time I finished I had an 80K salary and bonuses. I quit the job and went for contracts, doubling the rate right away.
What's the difference for me, I could have done EXACTLY THE SAME THING without college, except I would had more sleep and fun during those same years.
Print molds for cartridges, they are easy to cast from plastic.
The bullet itself can be made from marbles for example, not very good, but possible. You have a plastic gun, marble or granite bullets, just add Maynard tape primer instead of a percussion cap and catching, you are a terrorist:)
- no, it's trust. NDAs and contracts are nothing without trust. You are talking about exceptions, where people sue each other, and government creates the litigious situation where there are all these lawsuits, because there are so many laws that can be supposedly broken. Litigious society is born out of over-regulated, overtaxed society, not out of free society.
Black markets operate on trust. Fear is secondary, without trust there is no good will, there is no market. If you don't deliver what you promise to deliver, you are out of business first of all, and all other possible consequences are secondary in nature. Sure, there can be violence, but that's not even necessary where if you lose trust of the people you lose your business.
I learned about black markets by helping people... in fact I started learning about black markets in childhood, back in the USSR, where if you really wanted something that wasn't in the stores, that was the only option, and it was often very dangerous, not because of other participants of the black market, but because of government. Government shot and sent enough people to prisons in the former USSR who provided customers with goods they wanted through black markets. I don't think you ran a business, but if you have, mustn't have been a successful one, clearly you don't understand how people have to trust each other to do business.
And I didn't dodge the question, you didn't hear the answer: people cooperate in the free market because that makes most sense. They don't cooperate for nothing, they cooperate due to mutual benefit. So if I want to build a road it means that I have to give you something that will be beneficial to you. And it seems to me that a ROAD is beneficial to people in the first place, otherwise it wouldn't be built. If you don't need a road, you want to have your property completely fenced off, you'll have to have agreements with your neighbors to get to the closest road through their property, that's your business, but it's not very wise. You'd be wiser having an agreement with a business that builds a road and with your neighbors as well. In any case, these types of things are resolved by people where they have to resolve them. People have to get from point A to point B, there is no need for government for them to agree how they are going to get there.
As I said: all property should be private. As I also said: government has no right to restrict your right to travel.
But where exactly does it become: your neighbor MUST provide you with means to travel? Where does it become: government must force your neighbor to provide you with means of travel?
You see, without government people must find their solutions, that's all, they must come to mutually beneficial agreements.
Again, it doesn't seem to me you understand business. People don't need to write a contract to come to an agreement. If you need to carry something from point A to point B, you may ask your neighbor for help and he may help you.
Eventually your neighbor will ask you for help, and you will help him. This is what REAL CREDIT is, not this nonsense government fake credit that comes out of their ass, this is real credit in the real world. Where you don't have to negotiate the upfront price for every single thing. Somebody helps you to carry a piece of wood to your house, and maybe later you'll help them to install a window in theirs, there is no money involved, there is only credit of trust and good faith.
If you don't deliver on that, you'll lose it.
Government wants EVERYTHING to be a monetary transaction though, which is absolutely unnecessary in the real world, but it allows government thugs to tax you.
Sigh indeed. A right is not an allowance for you to do something, a right is your ability not to be abused by government, that's all it is.
A right is a concept that only exists within the context of the relationship between an individual and the collective, where the collective (government) cannot prevent an individual from doing something.
As to nail clippers, the government is not authorized to prevent you from owning or operating nail clippers. It means you can take your nail clippers anywhere you want on you.
However if a private establishment you go to says: you can't have nail clippers on you and use our establishment, that's their right as well, that's their private property. Of-course most private security would not be dumb enough to make such nonsensical requirements, and even if some would, in a free market competitive environment they would feel competitive pressure not to abuse their customers that way or they would lose business.
With government taking over the private functions of airports and air traffic control (which all should be done private, as they are in many parts of the world and not in the supposedly 'free' US of A) there is no competition and so you are subject to the nonsensical rules that are pure bureaucracy and no legitimate value.
Again, same with high speed travel (whatever you mean by that). I travel high speed often enough, be it plane, train or automobile. I drive on autobahn at speeds that I am comfortable with (190-240 km/h) I use high speed trains in Europe and Asia. In USA there should be MORE freedoms not less, compared to these places, but again, yet here we are.
There shouldn't be any public roads of-course, it should be on private basis and people would compete by providing better quality highways and rules wouldn't be the same everywhere, but would depend on the highway operator, but again, government has no authorization to limit your speed.
Yes, all land must be 100% owned and driving a car is a trespass. Correct.
However that's the thing about people: they still need to get from point A to point B, resources are mined in one place and shipped to another, same with energy, same with food, same with every destination, including travel. Thus industrious people agree with each other under certain conditions and roads are built regardless, because everybody wants to go somewhere else.
You probably never ran a business, so let me clue you into something: in business people have to TRUST each other all the time. If people can't trust each other in business, they can't do it. In fact the most quality peole you'll find run businesses, not American style crony banks or whatever. Black markets. The markets where legal contracts cannot be used, where everything is based on trust. That's where you will find quality people and if they are not, they eventually are gone, either just nobody deals with them or worse.
"passing over private land" - in a helicopter on in a car? Car is trespass, helicopter passes through air, and you buy land, not air. I don't know who your 'strict' interpreters are, but I don't see USA Constitution as a "living breathing document" at all, that's just a way for the government to interpret away and thus break the law.
Completely agree with your comment on every point.
I spent enough time trying to convince people to buy my product and it's much harder than actually building the damn thing:) It's very difficult, a good sales person (basically anybody who can sell your stuff) is worth his weight in whatever currency you are most comfortable dealing in.
You are going to have a ton and a half of various AC posters commenting that you are insane and delirious for that quote. You also may have a number of moderators come in at any moment in time and mod it down, then somebody may mod it up, then it will go down again, if you want to be able to keep commenting on/. more than 2 times a day, you better don't keep making comments like that, it's not taken well by the mob nowadays in the Socialist-Fascist States of America and the mob and government cohorts are moderating as well:)
I am not, moved my business and moved myself over 3 years ago now, that's the entire point. People who want to work and be productive and not have their productivity stolen from them have to move, that's why trillions of dollars of capital savings left USA, which means so many of the productive jobs left, did you not notice? The jobs that USA still creates are all unproductive jobs, either government or various service sector jobs that require that more debt is inquired in order to pay for them, so they are a net economic drain on the system, they are increasing the trade deficit, not decreasing it, they eat resources for consumption, they don't allow resources to be saved in order to start production.
AFAIC anybody still starting businesses in USA either has serious government ties and relies on that to help them maintain a monopoly or they are just kidding themselves, they won't make it. Whoever still operates a business in USA better find buyers to whatever they produce somewhere outside of the States, because the dollar will collapse there will be no buyers inside the country, they better figure out how to export their products or services.
Yes, it has been institutionalized to the point where it is absolutely unbearable and forced people with capital to move capital away especially since the 1971 default on the dollar. Any society where the mob armed with the politicians can steal everything that's not nailed down with utter impunity is an absolute shithole to live in at best and doomed to fail at the worst. How many politicians have been prosecuted? If it were up to me they would be dragged out and literally crucified. There are more than enough needs that need to be satisfied, and more can be found on a fairly constant basis; the problem is that the mob does not want to work at all, it wants to use the politicians by giving them unauthorized power they are too happy to take to steal from people who in fact build the economy around these amoeba chimps. Income inequality is lowest level it's been since 1911 and that's because so much capital left and went to be productive in other countries, the thing that is highest in history of human kind is inflation and the number of paper dollars floating around.
What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
- nonsense question.
There shouldn't even be such a legal document as 'bill of rights', because it is completely misunderstood probably by all to mean that those are your rights and nothing else. Not true, the government has no authority to limit any of your rights, by default you have all of your rights intact.
Government can strip you of your rights temporarily or permanently depending on whether the Constitution authorises that power to government for certain situations (like taxing your transactions, it's loss of a right, but at least it's Constitutional).
Saying that there should be an "airplane passenger bill of rights" is like saying that there should be a "bill of rights for blacks" or "bill of rights for gays" or "bill of rights for women" or "bill of rights for employees", none of it makes any sense, you have all of your rights regardless of your group and association, you shouldn't lose your rights for reasons that are outside of the power authorised to the government by the Constitution, yet here we are.
This is totally wrong, I completely agree with the header of this/. story. People don't even have to stand in line and face anybody to get money stolen by government from hard working people and from future generations via debt and inflation to get their 'benefits'?
Of-course there shouldn't be such a concept as government 'benefits' in the first place, but allowing the recipients just to claim this on line without having to come to any specific location, then using various high tech solutions to streamline using of the said benefits, so in USA the food stamps are now known as 'snap' and they are just a credit card, not actual stamps that one would have to take out of their pocket and have everybody in line know that they are being subsidized via government theft........ well, all I can say is that the sooner all of this socialism ends, the better. Why the fuck are the children and the unborn are forced to bear the weight of the economic destruction that their ridiculous ancestors place upon them? Why the fuck does any working individual, who is getting robbed by the mob this way, why is even one of them is still left in these socialist nightmares of countries? It's changing of-course.
It is going to happen, just about every institution will be wiped out and started again. This hopefully will start sooner rather than later, hopefully, because the longer the problem goes on, the more of it accumulates and the worse and longer the recovery period will b. The reason why it will happen will be rising interest rates and the dollar default, which is inevitable at this point. It's a good thing it will happen, the failing institutions need to fail, this includes about 99% of government. It failed, it's time for it to die off and it's time to rethink what it should be.
It should be a universal motto. Nobody should be forced to give up any amount of their income.
Tax transactions, that's where taxation belongs. Tax heads, you can impose a direct (proportioned in USA) tax.
Taxing income, profits, wealth accumulation, savings is: 1. theft of private property, so it's immoral. 2. bad for the economy, as instead of investing more, people are more concerned with ways to avoid taxes.
Eric Schmidt just 10 days ago said that Google pays everything it owes in UK. Of-course there shouldn't be any income taxes in the first place, UK or US or any other country, all of these income tax schemes must be demolished, but hey, that would be real austerity IF the government also was cut in process, not just putting the difference on its credit card or printing it.
Real austerity is cutting all unprofitable spending, all government spending and then allowing the private sector to keep their taxes, because the government spending is reduced to almost nothing. THAT would be austerity.
Instead all these nonsensical countries raise taxes and grow government spending and call that 'austerity' and then complain that austerity doesn't work. Of-course it doesn't work when you don't do it.
Back to Google, they should just bribe a few politicians to get them off their case.
A tripod sprinkler. Seriously, a tripod sprinkler with telescopic legs.
I agree with the patent office worker in this case, maybe the lawyer should try and patent a method of getting a patent application rejected, consisting of plurality of idiotic patent application and an angry letter by the said lawyer to the patent office.
Slashdot Mirror
How about some programmer sets up a contest, where interested companies can compete for that programmer (an auction maybe)?
It's all fun and games until somebody loses a head.
--
But like in any simulation, this one would be far more effective if sometimes a real blade was used....
(same guy, backup account)
Silly? So you think it is not silly to incur a huge debt rather than going to work right away and not getting into debt but instead getting experience, using the same 4 years to gain knowledge at work?
Well, if that's silly, then fine, call it that.
I DID go to university, but I only took 7000 of debt in the first year, found job in the profession in that first year, started working and was working all the way through the 5 years (I took a bit slower). I paid off the 7K in the first year after finishing the studies.
If I had take a house sized mortgage, I would not have gone at all, I would have just found that SAME job that I found in the first year and kept doing the same thing. I was making 12.50 an hour for the first year and a half, then 16 bucks, then 25, then 40.
By the time I finished I had an 80K salary and bonuses. I quit the job and went for contracts, doubling the rate right away.
What's the difference for me, I could have done EXACTLY THE SAME THING without college, except I would had more sleep and fun during those same years.
Oh, and bullets, how about cartridges?
Print molds for cartridges, they are easy to cast from plastic.
The bullet itself can be made from marbles for example, not very good, but possible. You have a plastic gun, marble or granite bullets, just add Maynard tape primer instead of a percussion cap and catching, you are a terrorist :)
score: 0
40% Troll
30% Funny
30% Overrated
Talk about a humorless crowd.
image of a blind man trying to install debian
- as long as he is not wheezing....
It's not trust, it's NDAs and contracts.
- no, it's trust. NDAs and contracts are nothing without trust. You are talking about exceptions, where people sue each other, and government creates the litigious situation where there are all these lawsuits, because there are so many laws that can be supposedly broken. Litigious society is born out of over-regulated, overtaxed society, not out of free society.
Black markets operate on trust. Fear is secondary, without trust there is no good will, there is no market. If you don't deliver what you promise to deliver, you are out of business first of all, and all other possible consequences are secondary in nature. Sure, there can be violence, but that's not even necessary where if you lose trust of the people you lose your business.
I learned about black markets by helping people... in fact I started learning about black markets in childhood, back in the USSR, where if you really wanted something that wasn't in the stores, that was the only option, and it was often very dangerous, not because of other participants of the black market, but because of government. Government shot and sent enough people to prisons in the former USSR who provided customers with goods they wanted through black markets. I don't think you ran a business, but if you have, mustn't have been a successful one, clearly you don't understand how people have to trust each other to do business.
And I didn't dodge the question, you didn't hear the answer: people cooperate in the free market because that makes most sense. They don't cooperate for nothing, they cooperate due to mutual benefit. So if I want to build a road it means that I have to give you something that will be beneficial to you. And it seems to me that a ROAD is beneficial to people in the first place, otherwise it wouldn't be built. If you don't need a road, you want to have your property completely fenced off, you'll have to have agreements with your neighbors to get to the closest road through their property, that's your business, but it's not very wise. You'd be wiser having an agreement with a business that builds a road and with your neighbors as well. In any case, these types of things are resolved by people where they have to resolve them. People have to get from point A to point B, there is no need for government for them to agree how they are going to get there.
As I said: all property should be private.
As I also said: government has no right to restrict your right to travel.
But where exactly does it become: your neighbor MUST provide you with means to travel? Where does it become: government must force your neighbor to provide you with means of travel?
You see, without government people must find their solutions, that's all, they must come to mutually beneficial agreements.
Again, it doesn't seem to me you understand business. People don't need to write a contract to come to an agreement. If you need to carry something from point A to point B, you may ask your neighbor for help and he may help you.
Eventually your neighbor will ask you for help, and you will help him. This is what REAL CREDIT is, not this nonsense government fake credit that comes out of their ass, this is real credit in the real world. Where you don't have to negotiate the upfront price for every single thing. Somebody helps you to carry a piece of wood to your house, and maybe later you'll help them to install a window in theirs, there is no money involved, there is only credit of trust and good faith.
If you don't deliver on that, you'll lose it.
Government wants EVERYTHING to be a monetary transaction though, which is absolutely unnecessary in the real world, but it allows government thugs to tax you.
Sigh indeed. A right is not an allowance for you to do something, a right is your ability not to be abused by government, that's all it is.
A right is a concept that only exists within the context of the relationship between an individual and the collective, where the collective (government) cannot prevent an individual from doing something.
As to nail clippers, the government is not authorized to prevent you from owning or operating nail clippers. It means you can take your nail clippers anywhere you want on you.
However if a private establishment you go to says: you can't have nail clippers on you and use our establishment, that's their right as well, that's their private property. Of-course most private security would not be dumb enough to make such nonsensical requirements, and even if some would, in a free market competitive environment they would feel competitive pressure not to abuse their customers that way or they would lose business.
With government taking over the private functions of airports and air traffic control (which all should be done private, as they are in many parts of the world and not in the supposedly 'free' US of A) there is no competition and so you are subject to the nonsensical rules that are pure bureaucracy and no legitimate value.
Again, same with high speed travel (whatever you mean by that). I travel high speed often enough, be it plane, train or automobile. I drive on autobahn at speeds that I am comfortable with (190-240 km/h) I use high speed trains in Europe and Asia. In USA there should be MORE freedoms not less, compared to these places, but again, yet here we are.
There shouldn't be any public roads of-course, it should be on private basis and people would compete by providing better quality highways and rules wouldn't be the same everywhere, but would depend on the highway operator, but again, government has no authorization to limit your speed.
Yes, all land must be 100% owned and driving a car is a trespass. Correct.
However that's the thing about people: they still need to get from point A to point B, resources are mined in one place and shipped to another, same with energy, same with food, same with every destination, including travel. Thus industrious people agree with each other under certain conditions and roads are built regardless, because everybody wants to go somewhere else.
You probably never ran a business, so let me clue you into something: in business people have to TRUST each other all the time. If people can't trust each other in business, they can't do it. In fact the most quality peole you'll find run businesses, not American style crony banks or whatever. Black markets. The markets where legal contracts cannot be used, where everything is based on trust. That's where you will find quality people and if they are not, they eventually are gone, either just nobody deals with them or worse.
"passing over private land" - in a helicopter on in a car? Car is trespass, helicopter passes through air, and you buy land, not air. I don't know who your 'strict' interpreters are, but I don't see USA Constitution as a "living breathing document" at all, that's just a way for the government to interpret away and thus break the law.
I know perfectly well what that means, here is something for you.
Completely agree with your comment on every point.
I spent enough time trying to convince people to buy my product and it's much harder than actually building the damn thing :) It's very difficult, a good sales person (basically anybody who can sell your stuff) is worth his weight in whatever currency you are most comfortable dealing in.
You are going to have a ton and a half of various AC posters commenting that you are insane and delirious for that quote. You also may have a number of moderators come in at any moment in time and mod it down, then somebody may mod it up, then it will go down again, if you want to be able to keep commenting on /. more than 2 times a day, you better don't keep making comments like that, it's not taken well by the mob nowadays in the Socialist-Fascist States of America and the mob and government cohorts are moderating as well :)
I have no idea where your tongue is and how to be racist against cheeks, I am sure you can fill me in the details.
I am not, moved my business and moved myself over 3 years ago now, that's the entire point. People who want to work and be productive and not have their productivity stolen from them have to move, that's why trillions of dollars of capital savings left USA, which means so many of the productive jobs left, did you not notice? The jobs that USA still creates are all unproductive jobs, either government or various service sector jobs that require that more debt is inquired in order to pay for them, so they are a net economic drain on the system, they are increasing the trade deficit, not decreasing it, they eat resources for consumption, they don't allow resources to be saved in order to start production.
AFAIC anybody still starting businesses in USA either has serious government ties and relies on that to help them maintain a monopoly or they are just kidding themselves, they won't make it. Whoever still operates a business in USA better find buyers to whatever they produce somewhere outside of the States, because the dollar will collapse there will be no buyers inside the country, they better figure out how to export their products or services.
Yes, it has been institutionalized to the point where it is absolutely unbearable and forced people with capital to move capital away especially since the 1971 default on the dollar. Any society where the mob armed with the politicians can steal everything that's not nailed down with utter impunity is an absolute shithole to live in at best and doomed to fail at the worst. How many politicians have been prosecuted? If it were up to me they would be dragged out and literally crucified. There are more than enough needs that need to be satisfied, and more can be found on a fairly constant basis; the problem is that the mob does not want to work at all, it wants to use the politicians by giving them unauthorized power they are too happy to take to steal from people who in fact build the economy around these amoeba chimps. Income inequality is lowest level it's been since 1911 and that's because so much capital left and went to be productive in other countries, the thing that is highest in history of human kind is inflation and the number of paper dollars floating around.
are you for real?
Seriously? That's the level of your reading comprehension?
What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
- nonsense question.
There shouldn't even be such a legal document as 'bill of rights', because it is completely misunderstood probably by all to mean that those are your rights and nothing else. Not true, the government has no authority to limit any of your rights, by default you have all of your rights intact.
Government can strip you of your rights temporarily or permanently depending on whether the Constitution authorises that power to government for certain situations (like taxing your transactions, it's loss of a right, but at least it's Constitutional).
Saying that there should be an "airplane passenger bill of rights" is like saying that there should be a "bill of rights for blacks" or "bill of rights for gays" or "bill of rights for women" or "bill of rights for employees", none of it makes any sense, you have all of your rights regardless of your group and association, you shouldn't lose your rights for reasons that are outside of the power authorised to the government by the Constitution, yet here we are.
This is totally wrong, I completely agree with the header of this /. story. People don't even have to stand in line and face anybody to get money stolen by government from hard working people and from future generations via debt and inflation to get their 'benefits'?
Of-course there shouldn't be such a concept as government 'benefits' in the first place, but allowing the recipients just to claim this on line without having to come to any specific location, then using various high tech solutions to streamline using of the said benefits, so in USA the food stamps are now known as 'snap' and they are just a credit card, not actual stamps that one would have to take out of their pocket and have everybody in line know that they are being subsidized via government theft........ well, all I can say is that the sooner all of this socialism ends, the better. Why the fuck are the children and the unborn are forced to bear the weight of the economic destruction that their ridiculous ancestors place upon them? Why the fuck does any working individual, who is getting robbed by the mob this way, why is even one of them is still left in these socialist nightmares of countries? It's changing of-course.
How about a bunch of guys with fully automatic antiaircraft guns, mortars, bazookas and grenade launchers?
It is going to happen, just about every institution will be wiped out and started again. This hopefully will start sooner rather than later, hopefully, because the longer the problem goes on, the more of it accumulates and the worse and longer the recovery period will b. The reason why it will happen will be rising interest rates and the dollar default, which is inevitable at this point. It's a good thing it will happen, the failing institutions need to fail, this includes about 99% of government. It failed, it's time for it to die off and it's time to rethink what it should be.
It should be a universal motto. Nobody should be forced to give up any amount of their income.
Tax transactions, that's where taxation belongs. Tax heads, you can impose a direct (proportioned in USA) tax.
Taxing income, profits, wealth accumulation, savings is:
1. theft of private property, so it's immoral.
2. bad for the economy, as instead of investing more, people are more concerned with ways to avoid taxes.
Eric Schmidt just 10 days ago said that Google pays everything it owes in UK. Of-course there shouldn't be any income taxes in the first place, UK or US or any other country, all of these income tax schemes must be demolished, but hey, that would be real austerity IF the government also was cut in process, not just putting the difference on its credit card or printing it.
Real austerity is cutting all unprofitable spending, all government spending and then allowing the private sector to keep their taxes, because the government spending is reduced to almost nothing. THAT would be austerity.
Instead all these nonsensical countries raise taxes and grow government spending and call that 'austerity' and then complain that austerity doesn't work. Of-course it doesn't work when you don't do it.
Back to Google, they should just bribe a few politicians to get them off their case.
A tripod sprinkler. Seriously, a tripod sprinkler with telescopic legs.
I agree with the patent office worker in this case, maybe the lawyer should try and patent a method of getting a patent application rejected, consisting of plurality of idiotic patent application and an angry letter by the said lawyer to the patent office.
Greenpeace paradise: all the clean empty space and no people to have to protest against.