There may be anti tea-party republicans but there are surely very few, if any, anti-republican tea-partiers.
You claimed that the Tea Party is largely identical to the Republican party, and that's bullshit. Tea Party views represent a minority of the Republican party. A large part of Tea Party supporters are politically independent.
Bullshit. "An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of 647 local Tea Party organizers asked "which national figure best represents your groups?" and got the following responses: no one 34%, Sarah Palin 14%, Glenn Beck 7%, Jim DeMint 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Michele Bachmann 4%.[60]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Incidentally I am not 'blindly partisan', as you falsely assume.... I don't like libertarians either, for that matter, as their party stances lead to an impoverished low class, no middle class and the end of civilization as we know it today.
I assume nothing. You just told us everything we need to know about your political views in your last sentence.
Could you be any less specific and answer, or rather not answer, any more generally?
You don't like what I say and therefore I'm wrong is not a very convincing argument.
By having a local pilot whose not nearly as subject to hacking/jamming as current drones' up- and down-links?
Of course the hacking problems, the not-even-bothering-with-encryption problems, etc. can all be fixed, eventually, but jamming remains impossible to completely prevent with current tech.
Of course one can take measures to reduce susceptibility, but that's just an arms race with the jammers. Unless/until we invent some SF tech like quantum-entangled transceiver pairs or onboard AIs capable of autonomous combat, drones will have jammable communication links, and that disadvantage may or may not outweigh the advantage of high-G maneuverability.
You're assuming a lack of autonomy. Self driving cars today, totally automated fighter jets at some point (no idea when not saying tomorrow).
The tea party is full of rebadged republicans looking for a new angle to come from - marketing, in other words and any damage to it's reputation has been done by it's own members.
And that's bad... how? The Republicans are a mix of Christian conservatives, libertarians, and other groups. Some of those want to distinguish themselves from the rest of the party.
To say that republican politicians consider the tea party to be a threat as they are very much the same people.
Bullshit. There are Tea Party Republicans and anti-Tea Party Republicans. You just refuse to make a distinction because you're blindly partisan.
There may be anti tea-party republicans but there are surely very few, if any, anti-republican tea-partiers. It is not a separate 'party' and it is, fundamentally, no different from right wing conservative republicanism.
Incidentally I am not 'blindly partisan', as you falsely assume. I detest the entire political establishment from top to bottom, democrats, republicans and republicans trying hard to appear not to be republicans. I don't like libertarians either, for that matter, as their party stances lead to an impoverished low class, no middle class and the end of civilization as we know it today.
A better comparison would have been the French revolution. A corrupt overclass that has little regard for the suffering happening beneath them, and actively working against the common good for their own benefit. Of course, that might not have supported his point so well since those guys mostly ended up at the guillotine.
I fail to see how this would be a better comparison, would you be so kind to enlighten me?
Specifically, how are the "technology workers" a "corrupt overclass"? Again, how come working for Google is "working against the common good"?
A bit more: is "working for their own benefit" imoral now? ('cause illegal is not) Like... what?... they don't pay for their groceries enough/at all? Or are they able to avoid sale taxes on those groceries?
Not the tech workers themselves, who are just people working for the 1%.
The 1% who are the majority owners of the corporations that run America today would be the 'corrupt overclass'.
So... on what moral ground are the tech workers being attacked? How is this more likely with the French revolution than it is with Kristallnacht? (what makes the comparison with the French Revolution a better one?)
Where in what I wrote do you see any justification for attacking the tech workers?
"The reason you hate the Tea Party so much is because both Democratic and Republican politicians have seen a threat their ability to hand out vast sums to their cronies in industry and special interest groups, and so they figured that destroying the reputation of the Tea Party would be the best defense. And they were right."
The tea party is full of rebadged republicans looking for a new angle to come from - marketing, in other words and any damage to it's reputation has been done by it's own members.
To say that republican politicians consider the tea party to be a threat as they are very much the same people.
The fact that Sarah Palin is the de facto leader alone is enough to completely destroy any support that I may ever have had for it.
A better comparison would have been the French revolution. A corrupt overclass that has little regard for the suffering happening beneath them, and actively working against the common good for their own benefit. Of course, that might not have supported his point so well since those guys mostly ended up at the guillotine.
I fail to see how this would be a better comparison, would you be so kind to enlighten me?
Specifically, how are the "technology workers" a "corrupt overclass"? Again, how come working for Google is "working against the common good"?
A bit more: is "working for their own benefit" imoral now? ('cause illegal is not) Like... what?... they don't pay for their groceries enough/at all? Or are they able to avoid sale taxes on those groceries?
Not the tech workers themselves, who are just people working for the 1%.
The 1% who are the majority owners of the corporations that run America today would be the 'corrupt overclass'.
1. I don't agree at all. Men pursue women all the time. Sometimes women accept. Anyway, it takes two to have a relationship. So no I won't accept this generalization unless you have some hard statistics to back it up. 2. A myth that if you can't handle it's your own problem. Women need sex as much as men do. I see three solutions: 1) do without until she needs it so badly she's ready to jump on anything even remotely dick shaped (2) jerk off (so verrrry uncomplicated) and / or (3) get your needs met elsewhere. Anyway - don't bitch about something you can control as easily as she can. 3. Bullshit. Sorry but that's such completely and total rubbish that I have to say no fucking way. I've seen so many more men walk away from situations than women. It's so much easier for us, for whatever reasons. So no. 4. Kept happy. A women kept happy will stay as well. Either person can become unhappy and leave. It happens to men as well as to women.
You're probably the first man I have ever said it's the normal and natural behavior to stay with one woman. Humans are not, by nature, monogamous. Most men that I have known throughout my life have cheated at one point or another, to some degree or another.
Without knowing any of the details of what happened I can only say what I would to anyone - if you're not in a healthy relationship, get out. So in that case, it sounds like yes you should have left her long ago.
We are all animals. To be human is to attempt to rise above that which makes us animals (I'm sure someone famous said this because I can't possibly be the first, but I have no idea who).
In the developed world, most women have no need or desire to resort to sexual entrapment to catch a man.
In the rest of the world, yes - one must be very careful traveling, especially as a man.
Happens both ways, by the way. I was recently in Morocco and a Moroccan guy did his best to convince, enamor and impregnate an Italian girl that I knew there by accidentally (sic) finishing inside and then lying blatantly about the availability of the day after pill (which I then walked across the street and bought at a local pharmacy).
It really goes both ways. I'm truly sorry that you have had bad luck with your ex, and even more unhappy that the legal system adds insult to injury, but I hope that at some point you will lose your negativity of women in general and fine a good woman who wants what you want. (presumably) a calm, happy life together.
Unless you've gone gay, which could be a solution but whatever -
Mantises aren't evil either, they eat the males "for the children". Males should be only so lucky as to be "abandoned". (Telling that this is seen as a such a severe violation, with the same moral indignation directed at men that was once reserved for runaway slaves)
I'm sorry can you try and make some sense so that I can answer you?
Of course the system is amazingly difficult to fix. That doesn't mean that you are right in your assertion that women (or apparently only single mothers which is illogical as any woman can become a single mother) are basically evil. There are many women - and single mothers - who are good people. You didn't choose well - well that's too bad. A lot of women also don't choose well and then end up single mothers.
Abstinence isn't going to happen and if your son is old enough to be having sex then he's going to have to be old enough to live with the consequences. His choice, just as it was your choice to get with the mother of your children. If you've told him and he's chosen to trust her then I guess you're going to have to hope that his judgement is better than yours was. Not knowing the girl I can have no opinion other than a generalization that most young women don't have sex just to trap a man based on my own experience in life.
I'm male and I've had, over the years, a couple of women try and trap me. Over those same years I've also seen women abandoned by the fathers of their children and left to fend for themselves, which is why I take issue with your generalizations.
"If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is."
You would have to expand that to be "If you see a woman, stay the hell away" as if you don't you might end up marrying her, then divorcing her - or just getting her pregnant.
Obviously this is idiotic. Fix the system you live in.
Yeah, because there's exactly no difference between carrying a smartphone in your pocket, and actively pointing it at the screen and recording.
Are you cracked?
And I'll bet people do carry a spare pair of glasses in their car glove box. It's ridiculous to think that this guy can afford a luxury fad device like Glass, and it's also his first and only pair of corrective lenses.
The point is that people aren't going to leave recording devices at home just because they're recording devices which was to address your comment "Everyone knows that taking a video camera into a theater is a very stupid thing to do."
I wore glasses for about thirty years and I never carried a spare around with me, nor did anyone else that I know for that matter, so no, you are incorrect in your assumption.
By the way, you might try posting without the arrogance. It makes you out to be kind of a dick.
Okay, I'll admit regional political constraints may end up affecting Bitcoin - Glenda may ban the usage of Bitcoin in Oz for example.
However, it is pretty universal - anyone, anywhere who has access to the internet can get in on the game, local laws aside. And there's lots of places in the world where Bitcoin, even with all its problems, is considerably superior to any other non-cash alternatives. Just try sending money internationally to your dirt-poor relative in an unstable African nation any other way.
The problem being converting the bitcoin(s) into local currency to actually be able to use it - especially in countries with currency controls (ie China)
This may surprise a lot of people here, but in Germany the general rule is, if you get sick on vacation days and have a medical attestation prooving it, your affected (infected?) vacation days go back in your unused vacation.
I like this part of Germany, but I don't like another part. You're required to go to the doctor if you're sick to get a slip of paper saying you're excused. For me, without a car, that means getting on a bus and / or train and spreading my germs and being out in the cold weather at the absolute worst time to be out in it. People get sicker when they are out in the weather. Been there. Done that.
I don't know about Germany, but here in France doctors do house calls as part of their normal work.
He's still an idiot, because I'm sure he had corrective lenses before Google Glass existed, and I'd wager that he still has that set somewhere. Everyone knows that taking a video camera into a theater is a very stupid thing to do. It's about as dumb as "forgetting" that.380 in your belt as you walk into the airport.
So people should leave their mobile phones at home as well, just because they are also video cameras?
No one carries a spare pair of glasses around with them either.
1. That's my point - their infrastructure is sufficient. Whatever their infrastructure is, whatever problems they may or may not (don't underestimate them) be facing, it is sufficient to have taken the manufacturing business away from us due to lower cost.
2. You see that sort of thing everywhere, including the US. Again it has not proved a significant barrier to them taking away the manufacturing and service industries.
3. Argue semantics if you like. Let's say it's not zero. It's probably 1/300th of the cost of what it is in the US though. Let's say it's only 1/10th the cost of what it is in the US - it still might as well be zero.
4. I don't disagree.
5. If you're going to make a statement you should be prepared to back it up.
6. So in one post you say insurance is evil and the next you say it's a good thing. Whatever. The point remains that a single payer system works better than the complete mess in the US.
7. Again, whatever. You don't answer my questions and you generalize to the point of not making valid points, without then being prepared to back them up. I would hazard a guess that you have very little very real experience of the world outside of the US.
Walk away from a discussion with someone that disagrees with you then, as you want. No doubt you will continue to espouse a blind capitalist line, having most probably experienced nothing else in your life to compare it to, as well as against government intervention which would be the only barrier to keeping corporations in check. I can't even say that's a bad idea as the US government is so corrupt as to be worthless with regard to representation of the people it governs.
At some point someone has to clean up the most violent murderers of society. Someone has to be willing to do what others won't in order to protect everyone - including those who would not make the effort to protect society from people like McGuire.
Nobody likes these things. We are not a pack blood thirsty mongrels waiting for another chance to harm someone under the guise of law and order. But at some point someone needs to make sure people like McGuire don't get a chance to practice their craft ever again.
And locking them up for life with no chance of parole doesn't accomplish that how, exactly?
1. As to infrastructure, it all depends. Our distribution grid is actually pretty good. The rate of brownouts for example in the US is pretty good.
The issue is generation capacity which needs to be upgraded in the US. Drop a few nuclear reactors in key parts of the US and we'll be sell positioned.
2. Our legal system is actually much better then most other countries because we still largely have rule of law. The issue is that our system has become too complicated, too expensive, and too slow.
3. Labor is never zero.
4. If machines are made in the US it is harder for a foreign competitor to duplicate them because you haven't been paying them to literally make them in the same factory.
Many US companies have been running into this in china. They make something over there and the exact people they hired to make it start selling a knock off. If you don't teach them how to make it and pay them to gear up then its harder for them to start churning out knock offs.
5. There is positive job growth in those states including manufacturing. Were you correct, that would not be the case. It is the case so you're wrong.
6. I would agree. The real issue is hospital costs. But that is a situation that is enabled by insurance. The problem is that the patient has no incentive to control costs.
When you get medical care you're spending someone else's money on yourself.
To control medical costs, patients must spend THEIR money on themselves. The whole medical industry needs to disclose prices before treatment whenever possible, list prices openly so people can shop for treatment, and generally subject the whole system to market forces.
That said, what I am really talking about here in regards to the topic is aspects of employment that cost a company money yet the employee doesn't see in their pay check.
You don't want your pay reduced. That is reasonable. The company doesn't actually care where the savings come from so long as when all the numbers are added up they're paying a competitive price. What we need to do, is lower the non-paycheck portion of what the company pays per employee.
1. My point is that the competition's infrastructure is 'good enough' and thus saying that ours is better (whether right or wrong) is irrelevant. 2. The opposition also has rule of law it's just that they are happy to turn a blind eye when western IP is stolen. Again, irrelevant for the discussion at hand. 3. Nothing is ever zero but the cost of labor in southeast Asia compared to the cost of labor in developed countries is so low that it might as well be zero for the purposes of this point - which was to say that administration is less expensive there than it is in developed countries. 4. Not much of anything is made in the US relatively. This is true now for almost all developed countries. Absolutely agree that western companies shoot themselves in the foot when they have product made overseas but this doesn't stop the short term thinking of CEOs (and company) who are paid based on yearly profits and not whether or not the company exists in ten years. This short term thinking is one of the major problems we face at this point in time. 5. Your statements are not clear. Which 'corps', which states, which industries - show me the (factual not guestimate / wishtimate) data. 6. I agree - let's get rid of insurance altogether. Now you have a choice - people paying out of pocket for all medical expenses, which is impossible, or going to a single payer system, which you have no doubt been brainwashed into thinking is 'socialism' or even oh my god 'communism' and therefore is 'just plain evil'. Well I live in a country with the best medical (per dollar spent) in the world and guess what? It's a single payer system. 7. You're dreaming if you think that the non-paycheck portion is going to make any substantial difference.
Try and understand that there are people out there who will do your job 'well enough' and get paid next to nothing for it. On top of that they get no benefits which means no medical at all so I don't know why we're even having that part of the discussion.
Again I'll ask you what you do for work. I'll also ask you how much time you've spent overseas.
We don't need to go that far. There are a lot of things going for the US.
We have superior infrastructure, more secure and reliable legal code, we have proximity to the actual corporate governance which makes administration cheaper, and there are various issues with securing intellectual property that are easier in the US then elsewhere.
The corps are actually hiring in parts of the US. Places like Georgia, the Carolinas, and Texas.
Do that along with making the insurance and medical costs of hiring someone less of a big deal and we'll if anything have an advantage.
Do not underestimate the opposition.
1) Their infrastructure is sufficient to be taking away great swathes of jobs from us and I see no reason for that to change in the near future. America's infrastructure is aging and is not being upgraded / replaced as quickly as the new infrastructure that is being built overseas.
2) Legal schmegal. They're doing whatever they're doing and getting away with it so what does it matter? On top of that our legal infrastructure largely contributes to the insurance and medical costs that you are referring to.
3) Administration is not cheaper due to the cost of labor being comparatively zero.
4) Intellectual property is a restraint that only stops people in developed countries. There is no protection for western IP in the third world.
5) Not sure which corps you're talking about, sorry.
6) Insurance and medical costs are a symptom, not a root cause.
Americans need to open their eyes and see that the competition is very capable and that the "We are the USA so we have nothing to fear from anyone" mentality has to end before there is nothing left to fight back with.
Corporate America is making a very clear statement. They will not hire Americans under these rules and we can't make them.
We need to really do a gut check on a lot of our labor policies, taxes, and regulations that effect labor prices in the US and... then ask ourselves if we'd rather keep the laws as they are and accept high levels of permanent structural unemployment... or if we're willing to compromise to get people into careers.
The whole issue is very politically charged. A gaggle of people might well respond to this post calling me names for suggesting compromise here. But the thing is labor policies are irrelevant to you if you don't have a job and can't get one.
So the labor policies are doing NOTHING for those people. Consider changing the laws so it actually helps them get and keep a job... and we'll actually be moving in a more positive direction.
If you compromise to compete against workers with no rights, you will end up with no rights.
Slashdot Mirror
There may be anti tea-party republicans but there are surely very few, if any, anti-republican tea-partiers.
You claimed that the Tea Party is largely identical to the Republican party, and that's bullshit. Tea Party views represent a minority of the Republican party. A large part of Tea Party supporters are politically independent.
Bullshit.
"An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of 647 local Tea Party organizers asked "which national figure best represents your groups?" and got the following responses: no one 34%, Sarah Palin 14%, Glenn Beck 7%, Jim DeMint 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Michele Bachmann 4%.[60]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Incidentally I am not 'blindly partisan', as you falsely assume. ... I don't like libertarians either, for that matter, as their party stances lead to an impoverished low class, no middle class and the end of civilization as we know it today.
I assume nothing. You just told us everything we need to know about your political views in your last sentence.
Could you be any less specific and answer, or rather not answer, any more generally?
You don't like what I say and therefore I'm wrong is not a very convincing argument.
By having a local pilot whose not nearly as subject to hacking/jamming as current drones' up- and down-links?
Of course the hacking problems, the not-even-bothering-with-encryption problems, etc. can all be fixed, eventually, but jamming remains impossible to completely prevent with current tech.
Of course one can take measures to reduce susceptibility, but that's just an arms race with the jammers. Unless/until we invent some SF tech like quantum-entangled transceiver pairs or onboard AIs capable of autonomous combat, drones will have jammable communication links, and that disadvantage may or may not outweigh the advantage of high-G maneuverability.
You're assuming a lack of autonomy. Self driving cars today, totally automated fighter jets at some point (no idea when not saying tomorrow).
How can airplanes that require human pilots remain competitive against (future) drone fighter jets that do not have human limitations of G forces?
And that's bad... how? The Republicans are a mix of Christian conservatives, libertarians, and other groups. Some of those want to distinguish themselves from the rest of the party.
Bullshit. There are Tea Party Republicans and anti-Tea Party Republicans. You just refuse to make a distinction because you're blindly partisan.
There may be anti tea-party republicans but there are surely very few, if any, anti-republican tea-partiers. It is not a separate 'party' and it is, fundamentally, no different from right wing conservative republicanism.
Incidentally I am not 'blindly partisan', as you falsely assume. I detest the entire political establishment from top to bottom, democrats, republicans and republicans trying hard to appear not to be republicans. I don't like libertarians either, for that matter, as their party stances lead to an impoverished low class, no middle class and the end of civilization as we know it today.
that would be the pension funds then :-)
No it wouldn't. The pension funds are what gets emptied when the (real as in have stock with votes) owners of companies fuck up and need investment.
A better comparison would have been the French revolution. A corrupt overclass that has little regard for the suffering happening beneath them, and actively working against the common good for their own benefit. Of course, that might not have supported his point so well since those guys mostly ended up at the guillotine.
I fail to see how this would be a better comparison, would you be so kind to enlighten me?
Specifically, how are the "technology workers" a "corrupt overclass"? Again, how come working for Google is "working against the common good"?
A bit more: is "working for their own benefit" imoral now? ('cause illegal is not)
Like... what?... they don't pay for their groceries enough/at all? Or are they able to avoid sale taxes on those groceries?
Not the tech workers themselves, who are just people working for the 1%.
The 1% who are the majority owners of the corporations that run America today would be the 'corrupt overclass'.
So... on what moral ground are the tech workers being attacked? How is this more likely with the French revolution than it is with Kristallnacht? (what makes the comparison with the French Revolution a better one?)
Where in what I wrote do you see any justification for attacking the tech workers?
"The reason you hate the Tea Party so much is because both Democratic and Republican politicians have seen a threat their ability to hand out vast sums to their cronies in industry and special interest groups, and so they figured that destroying the reputation of the Tea Party would be the best defense. And they were right."
The tea party is full of rebadged republicans looking for a new angle to come from - marketing, in other words and any damage to it's reputation has been done by it's own members.
To say that republican politicians consider the tea party to be a threat as they are very much the same people.
The fact that Sarah Palin is the de facto leader alone is enough to completely destroy any support that I may ever have had for it.
Is 2 credits enough to make any kind of a real world difference?
A better comparison would have been the French revolution. A corrupt overclass that has little regard for the suffering happening beneath them, and actively working against the common good for their own benefit. Of course, that might not have supported his point so well since those guys mostly ended up at the guillotine.
I fail to see how this would be a better comparison, would you be so kind to enlighten me?
Specifically, how are the "technology workers" a "corrupt overclass"? Again, how come working for Google is "working against the common good"?
A bit more: is "working for their own benefit" imoral now? ('cause illegal is not)
Like... what?... they don't pay for their groceries enough/at all? Or are they able to avoid sale taxes on those groceries?
Not the tech workers themselves, who are just people working for the 1%.
The 1% who are the majority owners of the corporations that run America today would be the 'corrupt overclass'.
1. I don't agree at all. Men pursue women all the time. Sometimes women accept. Anyway, it takes two to have a relationship. So no I won't accept this generalization unless you have some hard statistics to back it up.
2. A myth that if you can't handle it's your own problem. Women need sex as much as men do. I see three solutions: 1) do without until she needs it so badly she's ready to jump on anything even remotely dick shaped (2) jerk off (so verrrry uncomplicated) and / or (3) get your needs met elsewhere. Anyway - don't bitch about something you can control as easily as she can.
3. Bullshit. Sorry but that's such completely and total rubbish that I have to say no fucking way. I've seen so many more men walk away from situations than women. It's so much easier for us, for whatever reasons. So no.
4. Kept happy. A women kept happy will stay as well. Either person can become unhappy and leave. It happens to men as well as to women.
You're probably the first man I have ever said it's the normal and natural behavior to stay with one woman. Humans are not, by nature, monogamous. Most men that I have known throughout my life have cheated at one point or another, to some degree or another.
Without knowing any of the details of what happened I can only say what I would to anyone - if you're not in a healthy relationship, get out. So in that case, it sounds like yes you should have left her long ago.
We are all animals. To be human is to attempt to rise above that which makes us animals (I'm sure someone famous said this because I can't possibly be the first, but I have no idea who).
In the developed world, most women have no need or desire to resort to sexual entrapment to catch a man.
In the rest of the world, yes - one must be very careful traveling, especially as a man.
Happens both ways, by the way. I was recently in Morocco and a Moroccan guy did his best to convince, enamor and impregnate an Italian girl that I knew there by accidentally (sic) finishing inside and then lying blatantly about the availability of the day after pill (which I then walked across the street and bought at a local pharmacy).
It really goes both ways. I'm truly sorry that you have had bad luck with your ex, and even more unhappy that the legal system adds insult to injury, but I hope that at some point you will lose your negativity of women in general and fine a good woman who wants what you want. (presumably) a calm, happy life together.
Unless you've gone gay, which could be a solution but whatever -
Mantises aren't evil either, they eat the males "for the children". Males should be only so lucky as to be "abandoned". (Telling that this is seen as a such a severe violation, with the same moral indignation directed at men that was once reserved for runaway slaves)
I'm sorry can you try and make some sense so that I can answer you?
Of course the system is amazingly difficult to fix. That doesn't mean that you are right in your assertion that women (or apparently only single mothers which is illogical as any woman can become a single mother) are basically evil. There are many women - and single mothers - who are good people. You didn't choose well - well that's too bad. A lot of women also don't choose well and then end up single mothers.
Abstinence isn't going to happen and if your son is old enough to be having sex then he's going to have to be old enough to live with the consequences. His choice, just as it was your choice to get with the mother of your children. If you've told him and he's chosen to trust her then I guess you're going to have to hope that his judgement is better than yours was. Not knowing the girl I can have no opinion other than a generalization that most young women don't have sex just to trap a man based on my own experience in life.
I'm male and I've had, over the years, a couple of women try and trap me. Over those same years I've also seen women abandoned by the fathers of their children and left to fend for themselves, which is why I take issue with your generalizations.
"If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is."
You would have to expand that to be "If you see a woman, stay the hell away" as if you don't you might end up marrying her, then divorcing her - or just getting her pregnant.
Obviously this is idiotic. Fix the system you live in.
Yeah, because there's exactly no difference between carrying a smartphone in your pocket, and actively pointing it at the screen and recording.
Are you cracked?
And I'll bet people do carry a spare pair of glasses in their car glove box. It's ridiculous to think that this guy can afford a luxury fad device like Glass, and it's also his first and only pair of corrective lenses.
The point is that people aren't going to leave recording devices at home just because they're recording devices which was to address your comment "Everyone knows that taking a video camera into a theater is a very stupid thing to do."
I wore glasses for about thirty years and I never carried a spare around with me, nor did anyone else that I know for that matter, so no, you are incorrect in your assumption.
By the way, you might try posting without the arrogance. It makes you out to be kind of a dick.
Okay, I'll admit regional political constraints may end up affecting Bitcoin - Glenda may ban the usage of Bitcoin in Oz for example.
However, it is pretty universal - anyone, anywhere who has access to the internet can get in on the game, local laws aside. And there's lots of places in the world where Bitcoin, even with all its problems, is considerably superior to any other non-cash alternatives. Just try sending money internationally to your dirt-poor relative in an unstable African nation any other way.
The problem being converting the bitcoin(s) into local currency to actually be able to use it - especially in countries with currency controls (ie China)
This may surprise a lot of people here, but in Germany the general rule is, if you get sick on vacation days and have a medical attestation prooving it, your affected (infected?) vacation days go back in your unused vacation.
I like this part of Germany, but I don't like another part. You're required to go to the doctor if you're sick to get a slip of paper saying you're excused. For me, without a car, that means getting on a bus and / or train and spreading my germs and being out in the cold weather at the absolute worst time to be out in it. People get sicker when they are out in the weather. Been there. Done that.
I don't know about Germany, but here in France doctors do house calls as part of their normal work.
He's still an idiot, because I'm sure he had corrective lenses before Google Glass existed, and I'd wager that he still has that set somewhere. Everyone knows that taking a video camera into a theater is a very stupid thing to do. It's about as dumb as "forgetting" that .380 in your belt as you walk into the airport.
So people should leave their mobile phones at home as well, just because they are also video cameras?
No one carries a spare pair of glasses around with them either.
It was never meant to actually work.
It was meant to fail spectacularly in order to clear the way for British-NIH-style single-payer healthcare.
"Jacob Hacker, The Architect of ObamaCare and the Public Option in making his case, admits that this idea is a covert route to a Single Payer System."
http://youtu.be/3sTfZJBYo1I
Just watch. After sufficient public frustration, desperation, & outrage have developed, single-payer will be rolled out as the "fix".
There's a "fix" alright, just that it was "in" before this crapfest was even passed.
Of course, those in Congress and friends of the administration like labor unions won't have to deal with any of this. It's good to be the king, eh?
Strat
Your misquoting of the source is amazing. He says nothing like what you attribute to him.
People - watch the video for yourself and ignore the poster's nonsense.
somehow I don't think that a group of people looking for government subsidies for their healthcare represent the best targets for identity fraud.
The wealthy often benefit from subsidies.
For example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07...
etc...
Can't be the only one here wondering...For $1850, just exactly what in the fuck are you getting then...
Fucked?
1. That's my point - their infrastructure is sufficient. Whatever their infrastructure is, whatever problems they may or may not (don't underestimate them) be facing, it is sufficient to have taken the manufacturing business away from us due to lower cost.
2. You see that sort of thing everywhere, including the US. Again it has not proved a significant barrier to them taking away the manufacturing and service industries.
3. Argue semantics if you like. Let's say it's not zero. It's probably 1/300th of the cost of what it is in the US though. Let's say it's only 1/10th the cost of what it is in the US - it still might as well be zero.
4. I don't disagree.
5. If you're going to make a statement you should be prepared to back it up.
6. So in one post you say insurance is evil and the next you say it's a good thing. Whatever. The point remains that a single payer system works better than the complete mess in the US.
7. Again, whatever. You don't answer my questions and you generalize to the point of not making valid points, without then being prepared to back them up. I would hazard a guess that you have very little very real experience of the world outside of the US.
Walk away from a discussion with someone that disagrees with you then, as you want. No doubt you will continue to espouse a blind capitalist line, having most probably experienced nothing else in your life to compare it to, as well as against government intervention which would be the only barrier to keeping corporations in check. I can't even say that's a bad idea as the US government is so corrupt as to be worthless with regard to representation of the people it governs.
So sure, whatever - bye
Of course. He isn't worse than you after all.
At some point someone has to clean up the most violent murderers of society. Someone has to be willing to do what others won't in order to protect everyone - including those who would not make the effort to protect society from people like McGuire.
Nobody likes these things. We are not a pack blood thirsty mongrels waiting for another chance to harm someone under the guise of law and order. But at some point someone needs to make sure people like McGuire don't get a chance to practice their craft ever again.
And locking them up for life with no chance of parole doesn't accomplish that how, exactly?
1. As to infrastructure, it all depends. Our distribution grid is actually pretty good. The rate of brownouts for example in the US is pretty good.
The issue is generation capacity which needs to be upgraded in the US. Drop a few nuclear reactors in key parts of the US and we'll be sell positioned.
2. Our legal system is actually much better then most other countries because we still largely have rule of law. The issue is that our system has become too complicated, too expensive, and too slow.
3. Labor is never zero.
4. If machines are made in the US it is harder for a foreign competitor to duplicate them because you haven't been paying them to literally make them in the same factory.
Many US companies have been running into this in china. They make something over there and the exact people they hired to make it start selling a knock off. If you don't teach them how to make it and pay them to gear up then its harder for them to start churning out knock offs.
5. There is positive job growth in those states including manufacturing. Were you correct, that would not be the case. It is the case so you're wrong.
6. I would agree. The real issue is hospital costs. But that is a situation that is enabled by insurance. The problem is that the patient has no incentive to control costs.
When you get medical care you're spending someone else's money on yourself.
To control medical costs, patients must spend THEIR money on themselves. The whole medical industry needs to disclose prices before treatment whenever possible, list prices openly so people can shop for treatment, and generally subject the whole system to market forces.
That said, what I am really talking about here in regards to the topic is aspects of employment that cost a company money yet the employee doesn't see in their pay check.
You don't want your pay reduced. That is reasonable. The company doesn't actually care where the savings come from so long as when all the numbers are added up they're paying a competitive price. What we need to do, is lower the non-paycheck portion of what the company pays per employee.
1. My point is that the competition's infrastructure is 'good enough' and thus saying that ours is better (whether right or wrong) is irrelevant.
2. The opposition also has rule of law it's just that they are happy to turn a blind eye when western IP is stolen. Again, irrelevant for the discussion at hand.
3. Nothing is ever zero but the cost of labor in southeast Asia compared to the cost of labor in developed countries is so low that it might as well be zero for the purposes of this point - which was to say that administration is less expensive there than it is in developed countries.
4. Not much of anything is made in the US relatively. This is true now for almost all developed countries. Absolutely agree that western companies shoot themselves in the foot when they have product made overseas but this doesn't stop the short term thinking of CEOs (and company) who are paid based on yearly profits and not whether or not the company exists in ten years. This short term thinking is one of the major problems we face at this point in time.
5. Your statements are not clear. Which 'corps', which states, which industries - show me the (factual not guestimate / wishtimate) data.
6. I agree - let's get rid of insurance altogether. Now you have a choice - people paying out of pocket for all medical expenses, which is impossible, or going to a single payer system, which you have no doubt been brainwashed into thinking is 'socialism' or even oh my god 'communism' and therefore is 'just plain evil'. Well I live in a country with the best medical (per dollar spent) in the world and guess what? It's a single payer system.
7. You're dreaming if you think that the non-paycheck portion is going to make any substantial difference.
Try and understand that there are people out there who will do your job 'well enough' and get paid next to nothing for it. On top of that they get no benefits which means no medical at all so I don't know why we're even having that part of the discussion.
Again I'll ask you what you do for work.
I'll also ask you how much time you've spent overseas.
We don't need to go that far. There are a lot of things going for the US.
We have superior infrastructure, more secure and reliable legal code, we have proximity to the actual corporate governance which makes administration cheaper, and there are various issues with securing intellectual property that are easier in the US then elsewhere.
The corps are actually hiring in parts of the US. Places like Georgia, the Carolinas, and Texas.
Do that along with making the insurance and medical costs of hiring someone less of a big deal and we'll if anything have an advantage.
Do not underestimate the opposition.
1) Their infrastructure is sufficient to be taking away great swathes of jobs from us and I see no reason for that to change in the near future. America's infrastructure is aging and is not being upgraded / replaced as quickly as the new infrastructure that is being built overseas.
2) Legal schmegal. They're doing whatever they're doing and getting away with it so what does it matter? On top of that our legal infrastructure largely contributes to the insurance and medical costs that you are referring to.
3) Administration is not cheaper due to the cost of labor being comparatively zero.
4) Intellectual property is a restraint that only stops people in developed countries. There is no protection for western IP in the third world.
5) Not sure which corps you're talking about, sorry.
6) Insurance and medical costs are a symptom, not a root cause.
Americans need to open their eyes and see that the competition is very capable and that the "We are the USA so we have nothing to fear from anyone" mentality has to end before there is nothing left to fight back with.
Corporate America is making a very clear statement. They will not hire Americans under these rules and we can't make them.
We need to really do a gut check on a lot of our labor policies, taxes, and regulations that effect labor prices in the US and... then ask ourselves if we'd rather keep the laws as they are and accept high levels of permanent structural unemployment... or if we're willing to compromise to get people into careers.
The whole issue is very politically charged. A gaggle of people might well respond to this post calling me names for suggesting compromise here. But the thing is labor policies are irrelevant to you if you don't have a job and can't get one.
So the labor policies are doing NOTHING for those people. Consider changing the laws so it actually helps them get and keep a job... and we'll actually be moving in a more positive direction.
If you compromise to compete against workers with no rights, you will end up with no rights.