Are you going to trust an organization to fairly handle an issue when they charge based on political affiliation?
If people in the US don't believe in something (and, in this case, they don't), it isn't the job of the government to convince them otherwise. I'm not even talking about the (more important) group of people who vote.
You're implicitly saying that unless the government locks *everything* down, companies will find a way to rip off people.
If that's the case then war communism is the only solution.
The internet was working just fine before these unelected guys got out and started trying to run things.
So what if Netflix has a private server somewhere that can deliver content faster? Does that hurt everyone else? Not unless you believe every advantage for someone is a disadvantage for someone else. I'm sorry but eating my cheese sandwich at lunch is not causing some guy somewhere else to starve. Everything is not a zero sum game! We could all be doing gainful work that could cause everyone to have lunch without the government dictating all our options.
Second, even if it was, calling someone a name is a pretty thin argument.
Third, what is wrong with believing homosexuality is immoral? I think it is wrong. Obama thought it was wrong. You've got a lot of work to do if you're going to call all the people names that disagree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
How does passing this test make the show better?
What does having a bare minimum of female interaction teach me about life or being a person?
Will I look back on my life and consider it a success if I watched these shows?
Oh, I see!
We can ask scientists about science and morality.
But we cannot ask preachers about science OR morality.
Good thing we have these pointed, one way rules in place.
Just like the way ethics should be lopsided, pointed, one way, et cetera.
Excuse me, I think some rich people owe me a million dollars.
Greatness in the affairs of state or individuals results from not making a big detail about trivial details.
The broader term for couping effort or resources to priority is economics.
In the USSR, for example, the trains arrived on time, but 6 million Afghans died of starvation in a single summer.
The centralized leadership in the USSR had no sense of economics.
To say it differently: I would never trust a scientist to explain morality to me.
What's to stop a company from relocating to a lower tax country?
Can't get any taxes off that.
The UK gov is trying to push a thread.
The government provides the country?
The citizens make the country. The government just collects money from the people.
Well, hey, why stop there? Didn't US president Barack Obama direct NASA to help reconcile the US with muslim countries?
Lots of government agencies means lots of helping!
It's the government's job to find the truth?
Are you going to trust an organization to fairly handle an issue when they charge based on political affiliation?
If people in the US don't believe in something (and, in this case, they don't), it isn't the job of the government to convince them otherwise. I'm not even talking about the (more important) group of people who vote.
Fair enough! Objection rescinded.
You praise MS for contributing something they aren't monetizing ... but do you choose to work for free?
You're implicitly saying that unless the government locks *everything* down, companies will find a way to rip off people.
If that's the case then war communism is the only solution.
The internet was working just fine before these unelected guys got out and started trying to run things.
So what if Netflix has a private server somewhere that can deliver content faster? Does that hurt everyone else? Not unless you believe every advantage for someone is a disadvantage for someone else. I'm sorry but eating my cheese sandwich at lunch is not causing some guy somewhere else to starve. Everything is not a zero sum game! We could all be doing gainful work that could cause everyone to have lunch without the government dictating all our options.
Nailed it.
It isn't.
... unless, of course, you would want people to reach out to you if you were confused about what meaning your life had.
You might not want that, but I find most folks on \. don't understand what they would want if [insert X].
I'm more interested in value than facticity.
"... to pursue objectivity is to be in error."
Kierkegaard/Climacus
"There are no facts. Just opinions."
Nietchze
Why not ask how stable Marxism is? Do marxist governments last longer or shorter than non-Marxist governments?
Only on slashdot could you mistake ad hominems for a persuasive argument.
By "junk insurance" you mean insurance that doesn't cover drug counseling, coverage of your children living in the basement, etc.?
Not happy about paying for these things I won't be using.
Will the government next coerce me into buying caviar for myself and the poor people who don't want to work?
Emotions do more to dictate orders than anything else.
Free will implies you can create decisions out of nothing (i.e. ex nihilo).
Notice how its the countries with bad economies that are "decades ahead".
Yes, you are right that it means less spent *by the government*.
But your point is moot because no European government spent less money in any year than the previous year during so-called "austerity".
First, that is not clear.
Second, even if it was, calling someone a name is a pretty thin argument.
Third, what is wrong with believing homosexuality is immoral? I think it is wrong. Obama thought it was wrong. You've got a lot of work to do if you're going to call all the people names that disagree with you.
Ad hominem-ing your way through the slashdot echo chamber I see.
The other guy was a lot more daring than you.
People who inherit wealth without skills and discretion lose wealth very fast ... often to the more deserving.
We have no way of knowing what the outcome of austerity is since it hasn't been tried. At least not in Europe, anyway.
Remember: austerity means less money spent than previous years. If that's happened in Europe it's before anyone can remember.
The name "austerity" implies a lot less money spent, but nothing couple be further from the truth.
You've been getting your history from Days of Future Past ... i.e. the revisionists.
The side that wanted to USE the nukes was Cuba. The USSR wasn't comfortable with it.