I'm sorry, maybe I misread what you said. Did you just say terrorists are imaginary? Because if you did you'd have to be pretty much the biggest moron I've ever seen on slashdot, and that's some heavy competition right there.
>We liberals haven't figured out a nice way to say you didn't build it, but you know what? You didn't.
Yeah because only poor people pay taxes. Corporations don't, and successful business people don't. (Or do I, by some chance, have that backward?)
"It" was built by the taxes paid by people who actually made money. And the teeming millions who also pay taxes get to pay them because of the efforts and risktaking of entrepreneurs who employ them. Really it's not a difficult concept, and the reason "you liberals" can't figure out a nice way to claim otherwise is that otherwise is false.
>We liberals haven't figured out a nice way to say you didn't build it, but you know what? You didn't.
Yeah because only poor people pay taxes. Corporations don't, and successful business people don't. (Or do I, by some chance, have that backward?)
"It" was built by the taxes paid by people who actually made money. And the teeming millions who also pay taxes get to pay them because of the efforts and risktaking of entrepreneurs who employ them. Really it's not a difficult concept, and the reason "you liberals" can't figure out a nice way to claim otherwise is that otherwise is false.
Then they shouldn't say "We can well afford to pay our current taxes, and we can afford to pay even more." They should make it clear that they also want to take from other people who have not signed on to their cause. But they never do. It's always this altruistic "Oh, we can pay more."
So yeah, your answer goes in the "non-responsive to the actual situation" bucket.
^that. I don't know why these stories never read as "millionaires have used existing mechanisms to voluntarily pay more in taxes". Somehow it never quite reads like that.
Do kids not take Home Ec anymore? I took it. I still cook and sew to this day. But by all means, shoot down programming for everyone. The rest of the world is leaving the US behind. Let's help them do it faster.
Money is a scarce resource, and it strikes me as idiotic in the extreme to think that we should spend money on the brainless notion that "everyone" should be a programmer.
And if you're really worried about the world "leaving the US behind", one area in which they are certainly doing so is in not being fat. Maybe if people learned to cook, instead of consuming Happy Meals, we could compete on that front, eh?
At it's simplest, the moment Hillary handed her attorney the flash drive containing the 55,000 pages of emails, some of which contained classified information, she committed a crime.
Sometimes, Ken, I have thought only I understood this. It's nice to know there are at least two of us.
Articles about organizations ought to be of interest to people outside of the organization.
Oh come on. If, from those "Random" links above, the band "1997," of whom maybe five people have heard, rates a Wikipedia page, surely an actual functioning school does.
>>If Bradley Manning is convicted of aiding the enemy, the introduction of a capital offense into the mix would dramatically elevate the threat to whistleblowers.
I'm missing how this is a negative thing. Treason, death penalty, I'm cool with that.
"If you plan to do something and act in a way proving you know it's not permitted, cause harm and then continue anyway - yes, you fully deserve to get hauled into court and held accountable. If you can't do the time, don't do the fucking crime. Don't physically trespass, don't steal resources, don't harm system that don't belong to you, don't prevent others from accessing services they paid for, etc."
Some things are so true, the most you can do is quote them. If you don't DO the thing, you don't get prosecuted. Simple, really. Then your state of depressiveness is irrelevant.
Oh, and I'll add . . . gosh golly gee whiz Buffalo Bob, he was an "activist". Well that certainly justifies lawbreaking, doesn't it?
Oh gee, guess what, you're wrong again. Following through the HuffPo link to the actual study, page E86, we find that the leading cause of death among ages 15-24 is, yes, Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash. Not suicide.
Seriously, you need to try reading before posting.
I know this is difficult, but try to stick with me . . . slowly now . . . when you cite an age range for a stat, and you think you're providing a citation that backs you up, the citation has to use the age range also! See how that works? I also couldn't help noticing that your citation mentions dramatic rises in suicide in non-US countries; kinda detracts from your America-bashing, doesn't it? But don't let a few facts get in the way of your BS.
As to your overall US suicide citation, do you think it adds to or detracts from your credibility when you cite an article that say right at its top "This article's factual accuracy is disputed"?
Now remind me who's right again, and who has stomped whom?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, maybe I misread what you said. Did you just say terrorists are imaginary? Because if you did you'd have to be pretty much the biggest moron I've ever seen on slashdot, and that's some heavy competition right there.
You lost me when you tried to argue that interest on a loan could be construed as a tax just because the loan was made by the federal government.
>We liberals haven't figured out a nice way to say you didn't build it, but you know what? You didn't.
Yeah because only poor people pay taxes. Corporations don't, and successful business people don't. (Or do I, by some chance, have that backward?) "It" was built by the taxes paid by people who actually made money. And the teeming millions who also pay taxes get to pay them because of the efforts and risktaking of entrepreneurs who employ them. Really it's not a difficult concept, and the reason "you liberals" can't figure out a nice way to claim otherwise is that otherwise is false.
>We liberals haven't figured out a nice way to say you didn't build it, but you know what? You didn't. Yeah because only poor people pay taxes. Corporations don't, and successful business people don't. (Or do I, by some chance, have that backward?) "It" was built by the taxes paid by people who actually made money. And the teeming millions who also pay taxes get to pay them because of the efforts and risktaking of entrepreneurs who employ them. Really it's not a difficult concept, and the reason "you liberals" can't figure out a nice way to claim otherwise is that otherwise is false.
Really. Then please subtract some money from your bank account and add it to mine, since it "does nothing".
Um, all of taxation is that . . .
Then they shouldn't say "We can well afford to pay our current taxes, and we can afford to pay even more." They should make it clear that they also want to take from other people who have not signed on to their cause. But they never do. It's always this altruistic "Oh, we can pay more." So yeah, your answer goes in the "non-responsive to the actual situation" bucket.
^that. I don't know why these stories never read as "millionaires have used existing mechanisms to voluntarily pay more in taxes". Somehow it never quite reads like that.
Money is anything but a scarce resource, it is an imaginary construct.
Then please send me all of yours, then you can dream up some more for yourself.
Do kids not take Home Ec anymore? I took it. I still cook and sew to this day. But by all means, shoot down programming for everyone. The rest of the world is leaving the US behind. Let's help them do it faster.
Money is a scarce resource, and it strikes me as idiotic in the extreme to think that we should spend money on the brainless notion that "everyone" should be a programmer. And if you're really worried about the world "leaving the US behind", one area in which they are certainly doing so is in not being fat. Maybe if people learned to cook, instead of consuming Happy Meals, we could compete on that front, eh?
Why not "Programming for All"?
After all, everybody uses computers. Not everyone is a chef.
Ya moron.
Uses = programs? Gosh, who knew?
At it's simplest, the moment Hillary handed her attorney the flash drive containing the 55,000 pages of emails, some of which contained classified information, she committed a crime.
Sometimes, Ken, I have thought only I understood this. It's nice to know there are at least two of us.
After all, everybody eats. Not everyone is a programmer.
Articles about organizations ought to be of interest to people outside of the organization.
Oh come on. If, from those "Random" links above, the band "1997," of whom maybe five people have heard, rates a Wikipedia page, surely an actual functioning school does.
Non-DRM games are immune to this.
Oh please.
Don't get me started on "automated null routing" which got non-infringing servers of mine turned off on a regular basis. It ain't perfect.
Politicians knowingly telling lies should quite simply be prosecuted under electoral laws for attempting to be elected based upon lies.
Against the admittedly stiff competition on this site, you win the prize for dumbest statement of the day. What laws, exactly, would those be?
You may think there is logic to the sequence "A says X happened, Y did happen, X is somewhat like Y, therefore X happened". I do not.
Save for the Python, how are you enjoying 1982?
I don't believe that story for a second.
>>If Bradley Manning is convicted of aiding the enemy, the introduction of a capital offense into the mix would dramatically elevate the threat to whistleblowers.
I'm missing how this is a negative thing. Treason, death penalty, I'm cool with that.
I totally agree, and someone ought to mention Lattice C as important early software, so I will.
"If you plan to do something and act in a way proving you know it's not permitted, cause harm and then continue anyway - yes, you fully deserve to get hauled into court and held accountable. If you can't do the time, don't do the fucking crime. Don't physically trespass, don't steal resources, don't harm system that don't belong to you, don't prevent others from accessing services they paid for, etc."
Some things are so true, the most you can do is quote them. If you don't DO the thing, you don't get prosecuted. Simple, really. Then your state of depressiveness is irrelevant.
Oh, and I'll add . . . gosh golly gee whiz Buffalo Bob, he was an "activist". Well that certainly justifies lawbreaking, doesn't it?
Oh gee, guess what, you're wrong again. Following through the HuffPo link to the actual study, page E86, we find that the leading cause of death among ages 15-24 is, yes, Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash. Not suicide.
Seriously, you need to try reading before posting.
I know this is difficult, but try to stick with me . . . slowly now . . . when you cite an age range for a stat, and you think you're providing a citation that backs you up, the citation has to use the age range also! See how that works? I also couldn't help noticing that your citation mentions dramatic rises in suicide in non-US countries; kinda detracts from your America-bashing, doesn't it? But don't let a few facts get in the way of your BS.
Here's my citation for ages 15-24.
As to your overall US suicide citation, do you think it adds to or detracts from your credibility when you cite an article that say right at its top "This article's factual accuracy is disputed"?
Now remind me who's right again, and who has stomped whom?