You could have a point if this market was even remotely free. In this case it is a cooperative. Due to it being a small rural area, it is unlikely that they would have any competition, but they should at least try to provide reasonable costs for all, as it is their raison d'être.
The problem is that they need to contract servers from a big company to connect their subnet to the internet, and this company is likely AT&T or Verizon, and is likely their only option because the government only allows a handful of them to operate at this level. That is heavy regulation, which is the exact opposite of free market.
No, my friend sociopath is the guy who thinks that everybody should be coerced to follow him in his crusade against "inequality" .
The truth is: albeit success is a combination of factors, some within your control and others outside it, in a stable country like US, if you work hard you will get a very reasonable life. You may be unable to become rich because of genetics, lack of luck or whatever, but you won't become miserable if you are ready to work and put effort in your life.
Therefore I couldn't care less if in your vision an Olympic Athlete does not deserve to have more success than Mr John Normal, because he was genetically privileged. Mr John Normal can still have a pretty good life, and a much better life than he would be able to have in countries that tried to enforce your distorted views of "equality".
In the end it is irrelevant if you are better than someone else because of genetics, luck, effort or a combination of those. The fact is that you are better and that is what matters.
If you "deserved" or "earned" this status is subjective, dependent on what you think this words mean and totally irrelevant for any practical purpose.
Only if your definition of "earned" is so warped it has nothing to do with the real meaning of the world. Anybody who provides services, goods or anything people willingly decide to pay for has earned his money, it doesn't really matter if his luck, place of birth, race, beauty or whatever was part of what made it possible for him.
You seem to be interested enough to answer multiple times, but I understand your lack of will to keep discussing about the subject considering your ability to counter my arguments ended a long time ago.
There is no such a thing as "hard" scientists. There are scientists and those clowns, like the one who wrote this article, who think they are scientists because they do something they decided to classify as "human sciences".
What the GP pointed is not about not knowing something it is about not being able to perform well at it after been instructed, which in the case of programming happens to all but a few human beings.
Sure you are. If you say that cops are a risk to people because they can`t shoot straight or decide whom should be their target you are certainly implying that we are better off without them.
Obviously you are wrong in your assumption, statistically bystanders get shot very rarely by cops. Your chances of dying by car accident, heart attack, cancer, self poisoning, from a fall, drown in a pool, and basically any non exotic cause of death are orders of magnitude higher than those of being hit by a cop firing in the wrong target.
And most importantly your chances of being saved by a cop are orders of magnitude higher than your chances of being killed by one, unless you are a criminal.
And lets point that the small consensus that exists put both European and US leftists in the same boat. Leftists believe in big states, in redistribution of income, in welfare programs, and above all that inequality is a problem and the state should solve it or at least attenuate it. Those ideas, which in my opinion are the core of the the leftist doctrine everywhere, are exactly the same for Europeans leftists and US leftists.
Let me rephrase that: you can't say that there is no left in US without showing you are a complete ignorant. And, if I might add, you can't do what you just did without showing how childish you are.
That is bullshit. Right and left are not relative concepts only how extreme you are within one of them. Both ideologies are based on clear sets of beliefs. If you want to make comparisons about how strong are those ideologies you may say that the leftists in US are less extreme than in other countries (which is not true either, by the way) but you can't say there is no left in US.
Reagan was more right wing than 90% of today's republicans, my friend, and that is exactly what made him a great president. He was far from perfect, but was still better by far than anything that came after him.
No, my friend, I have absolutely no burden here. I am not presenting a case in court. You seem to be confusing what you would like me to do with what I need to do.
Slashdot Mirror
You could have a point if this market was even remotely free. In this case it is a cooperative. Due to it being a small rural area, it is unlikely that they would have any competition, but they should at least try to provide reasonable costs for all, as it is their raison d'être.
The problem is that they need to contract servers from a big company to connect their subnet to the internet, and this company is likely AT&T or Verizon, and is likely their only option because the government only allows a handful of them to operate at this level. That is heavy regulation, which is the exact opposite of free market.
No, my friend sociopath is the guy who thinks that everybody should be coerced to follow him in his crusade against "inequality" .
The truth is: albeit success is a combination of factors, some within your control and others outside it, in a stable country like US, if you work hard you will get a very reasonable life. You may be unable to become rich because of genetics, lack of luck or whatever, but you won't become miserable if you are ready to work and put effort in your life.
Therefore I couldn't care less if in your vision an Olympic Athlete does not deserve to have more success than Mr John Normal, because he was genetically privileged. Mr John Normal can still have a pretty good life, and a much better life than he would be able to have in countries that tried to enforce your distorted views of "equality".
Because the multibillion dollar organization, averse as it may be to risk, is very hard to bully especially when you are trying to patent troll them.
In the end it is irrelevant if you are better than someone else because of genetics, luck, effort or a combination of those. The fact is that you are better and that is what matters.
If you "deserved" or "earned" this status is subjective, dependent on what you think this words mean and totally irrelevant for any practical purpose.
Only if your definition of "earned" is so warped it has nothing to do with the real meaning of the world. Anybody who provides services, goods or anything people willingly decide to pay for has earned his money, it doesn't really matter if his luck, place of birth, race, beauty or whatever was part of what made it possible for him.
You seem to be interested enough to answer multiple times, but I understand your lack of will to keep discussing about the subject considering your ability to counter my arguments ended a long time ago.
There is no such a thing as "hard" scientists. There are scientists and those clowns, like the one who wrote this article, who think they are scientists because they do something they decided to classify as "human sciences".
What the GP pointed is not about not knowing something it is about not being able to perform well at it after been instructed, which in the case of programming happens to all but a few human beings.
Sure you are. If you say that cops are a risk to people because they can`t shoot straight or decide whom should be their target you are certainly implying that we are better off without them.
Obviously you are wrong in your assumption, statistically bystanders get shot very rarely by cops. Your chances of dying by car accident, heart attack, cancer, self poisoning, from a fall, drown in a pool, and basically any non exotic cause of death are orders of magnitude higher than those of being hit by a cop firing in the wrong target.
And most importantly your chances of being saved by a cop are orders of magnitude higher than your chances of being killed by one, unless you are a criminal.
Sure it does, my friend. Left is all about eliminating inequalities and the only way of doing it is by force, and force requires big governments.
And I hope that despite your absurd beliefs, you have an armed cop nearby when you need one.
Sure, that is why it would be much better just to fire all cops and let people fend for themselves, right?
Your line of reasoning is so absurd that makes me want to puke.
On the contrary. The NSA is just one of many motives that make guns necessary.
Measure someone by what he did, not by what he said...
And lets point that the small consensus that exists put both European and US leftists in the same boat. Leftists believe in big states, in redistribution of income, in welfare programs, and above all that inequality is a problem and the state should solve it or at least attenuate it. Those ideas, which in my opinion are the core of the the leftist doctrine everywhere, are exactly the same for Europeans leftists and US leftists.
Sorry, but when you can't even read what you linked yourself as justification I don't feel the motivation to try.
Then you are interpreting the article you link VERY wrongly.
Let me rephrase that: you can't say that there is no left in US without showing you are a complete ignorant. And, if I might add, you can't do what you just did without showing how childish you are.
That is bullshit. Right and left are not relative concepts only how extreme you are within one of them. Both ideologies are based on clear sets of beliefs. If you want to make comparisons about how strong are those ideologies you may say that the leftists in US are less extreme than in other countries (which is not true either, by the way) but you can't say there is no left in US.
Reagan was more right wing than 90% of today's republicans, my friend, and that is exactly what made him a great president. He was far from perfect, but was still better by far than anything that came after him.
Only if you have absolutely no clue about what is left and what is right.
No, some people are actually against private schools even without any public funding:
http://debatewise.org/debates/134-the-private-education-system-should-be-abolished/
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/private_school_vs_public_school_only_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html
And these people are psychopaths in my humble opinion.
Sorry, but I have no obligation to be "courteous" either, especially by doing what you consider to be required in order to be so.
Nah, the teachers teach the dumb guys. The smart kids are usually bullied or ignored by the dumb guys.
And the smart kids usually lose interest when you force the pace to accommodate for the slower less smart kids.
No, my friend, I have absolutely no burden here. I am not presenting a case in court. You seem to be confusing what you would like me to do with what I need to do.