Why are you annoyed at edx93 instead of the AC he responded to?
That's like being angry because someone shot someone else... and ignoring the part where that someone else assaulted the person who shot them.
Be angry at the instigator. Why does it matter how imperfect the defender is?
It would increase efficiency overall, be a boon to small employers and their employees, and raise the standard of living for the lower 50%.
[citation needed]
The promises of windbags and politicians looking to buy some votes doesn't mean shit. Prove it, first.
The problem will be when able bodied people decide to live only on UBI and nothing else. That's detrimental to society and a mechanism should be put in place to prevent that.
The solution to this problem has been well understood and verified in countless experiments for millennia: you don't work: you don't eat.
Smoking pot in your parents' basement and collecting a check from the government to pay for your weed and doritos is not a valid occupation.
Agreed. So stop making excuses for them; stop accepting policies that make it easier for them.
Maybe it has something to do with the way you've been straight up insulting other people's characters.
I did not insult anyone's character. I only pointed out that the person who insulted me was a hypocrite and was projecting.
The bit about your taxes covering the cost is a little confusing. In order to be consistent with your position on health insurance the costs you would pay in your taxes would have to be very specifically the charges that you personally incurred for police protection. In other words, per-incident charges for every time you make use of the police based on man-hours used, equipment charges, travel time compensation, fuel, dispatch charges, hazard fees, service fees, regulatory compliance recovery fees (although, if they work under absolutely no regulations, I guess they couldn't rightfully charge you those fees, but, since they're not working under any regulations, they can charge you the fees anyway, so it all works out), etc. I have no idea how you would pay for your exact share of policing activities like patrolling under your scheme. How would you envision that being fairly apportioned so that you're not being forced to pay for the protection of others and so that they aren't forced to pay for yours? It seems really tricky. Maybe do it in time slices. While they're driving down the street, the police pay attention to your property for ten seconds and react if a crime is happening. While they're focusing on your house, they ignore all other crime that may be happening unless it's affecting your property and, they ignore all crime affecting your property when they move on to the next house. Sounds like that could work well for billing purposes. A bit problematic if your child is ever kidnapped. There's probably no way you could afford the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars worth of police resources that are often used when a child is kidnapped (sadly, in the real world, the economic bracket of the kidnapped child often does affect how much is spent on rescuing them). Basically, it's hard to see how your scheme, taken to its logical conclusion wouldn't lead to a situation where whoever can afford the most Pinkertons being able to do as they please (up to and including kidnapping your child, if it pleases them)
You're making a lot of sense, and I can see how the logical conclusion that you came to sounds reprehensible. And I agree that such a situation would be reprehensible. But...
1. I think we're already in a situation where the rich people who can buy the most pinkertons are abusing others: just look at how the political elites flout the law-- pen and phone?! Clintons and Bushes getting off scott free? Drones murdering american citizens without a jury trial?! The IRS is abusing political enemies?! We're already there, I think, but the pinkertons are just called "police" these days.
2. I think that it's possible to implement a system which solves the problem of paying for police protection while still maintaining consent on the part of the citizens. For example, police protection could be opt-out. That is, I should have the option to opt-out of any government services that I think I don't need. Risky, to be sure, but I should have the option to do so. In what sense is it right to force someone to accept a gift? Is it really for someone's benefit that I should force anything on them?
No thank you. I know how to use html perfectly well. Slashdot does not have a style guide that I'm aware of, however. I can see that you want me to put book titles in italics, but I'm not sure what you want me to put in bold? In any case, the underscores work perfectly well.
I had assumed that you were unfamiliar with HTML or did not know that/. supports certain tags. I'm sorry.
I'm not implying I would like such things done to you. I'm simply pointing out to you that your ideas about how things should work are naiv
But what if the GP is richer than you (or represents a consortium who have pooled their resources because they just don't like you)? I assume that you're ok with the GP showing up at your house with 5 police officers, politely waiting while you rifle through the couch cushions for the money to hire five police officers of your own, then making a phone call and ordering himself fifteen more officers. Then, I suppose, just to rub it in the GP could just stand around waiting for the money you paid to run out, and for you to desperately call everyone you know for a loan (I don't think organized credit could exist in your world since it's a form of pooled risk sharing too) until your police officers desert you. Then the GP could basically just go ahead and pummel you mercilessly while his police officers stand around taking bets on how many teeth he's going to leave you.
The situation you just described is basically the same as what we call a "government" isn't it?
But regardless of how unhappy I would be in such circumstances (ridiculous and hypothetical as they may be) it would still be wrong of me to force someone to give me money, protection, resources, whatever.
So, are you ok with that? I get the feeling that you love the idea of a world where you could do that to other people,...
Now you're just straight up insulting my character without knowing anything about me-- and nothing I've said so far even implies that I would like to do such things as you describe to other people.
However, you are implying that you would like such things done to me because you're trying to defend a system where a group (i.e. government) with lots of power and resources (i.e. military) would come in and take things from me (i.e. taxes) and force me to do things against my will (i.e. pay for other people's health insurance).
... but just can't even imagine a world where that could happen to you. I think it's basically because you're stuck in some sort of adolescent power fantasy mode. Maybe you're one of the multitudes who read _Atlas Shrugged_ and imagine yourself as one of the producers rather than one of the moochers.
1. Use <i></i>to italicize, <b></b> to bold.
2. Considering that I have a productive job and pay taxes without getting a tax return, and considering that I don't have anyone pay for my lifestyle, yes I do think of myself as a producer and not a moocher.
3. See my response above about how you're making lots of nasty assumptions about my character while revealing what an asshole you are.
Correct. I should pay for the police protection that I enjoy. Presumably the taxes that I pay should cover the cost if I make use of police resources (i.e. man-hours). But more to the point, I have no right to force anyone to give me protection.
1. I didn't call anyone names, but you did. That makes you the asshole.
2. A parent-child relationship is completely different from the relationship that two unrelated citizens have. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
3. My parents willingly gave me resources as I was growing up as long as I obeyed their rules. It's a kind of contract. I could have ended our relationship and left to live on my own, but that would be stupid of me to do so. It was far better to just obey, learn, and remain in my relationship with my parents. So I obeyed their rules and thus our relationship was maintained, consensual, and without animosity for the profit of all involved. I gained a very good upbringing and they gained a successful son. But you seem to want to insult me on a personal level and insinuate things about my relationship with my parents that you know absolutely nothing about: that makes you an asshole.
I don't care about which browser is used as long as it is fully standards compliant. There's only two reasons to do webapps:
1. It runs on literally everything.
2. There's no installation. Just go to the site and start using the app.
If some browser isn't standards compliant then that directly defeats number one.
Nobody tolerates a platform that doesn't have or support a C or C++ compiler-- because that's the foundation of everything.
Nobody should tolerate a standards non-compliant browser.
About 90% of PCs run Windows despite being abused for decades with plenty of perfectly good alternatives available.
Why? Because Windows is where all the legacy programs are. The only thing the windows store lacks is the ability to get legacy programs into it-- so far.
The M$ store will get traction and it will generate sales if M$ has even a tiny shred of competence.
But let's say the M$ store doesn't succeed. It still doesn't matter. M$ can simply start charging a subscription to use their OS or start distributing it for free and tracking everything their users do and renting advertisements on the desktop... oh, wait, they're already doing that aren't they?
If you're still on Windows then you're a cuckold. That's all well and good, just don't complain about the choice that you're making.
Yes, and people need to eat. That's why you go out and poke some seeds into the ground and work for a living. You work for your living and I'll work for mine. If you can't eat then that's your own problem. If I can't eat then that's my problem. If you can't afford a car then that's on you. Healthcare is the same.
You have no right to make someone else pay for your stuff no matter how badly you want or even need it.
FULL STOP.
I think you're talking sense, and I agree with you.
We can agree, right, that it would be far far far more cost effective for NASA to just stick to building and running probes and just buy rides on cheap private rockets?
I agree with you that the parable was used to illustrate salvation. But I also think that the way it illustrates the concept of sticking to the terms of an agreement is still valid and applicable to things like one's relationship with one's employer.
One more thing: Matthew 20:1-16 may shed some light on this situation:
Matthew 20:1-16New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius*. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
Footnotes:
* A denarius was the usual daily wage of a day laborer.
You get paid according to the agreement you had with your employer. If you don't like the terms of your employment then you need to renegotiate-- you have no right to complain about what you agreed to.
You're assuming that "maternity leave" means there's an understanding that you'll come back to the organization. Their understanding of it is that when you have a kid you can go home and raise the kid and the organization will keep sending you paychecks for a certain period and that they also leave the door open for you to come back if you want.
In order to make traction with them you must convince them that the situation is the former (coming back to work is a mandatory part of taking paid maternity leave) rather than the latter (coming back to work is totally optional).
But I think you'd lose because legally there's nothing that reinforces the former or punishes the latter.
So unless they explicitly agreed to the former arrangement (coming back to work is mandatory) then they're absolutely morally correct to do the latter (come back to work if they feel like it or just quit).
Furthermore: isn't it immoral to force someone to work for you if they don't want to? Isn't it immoral to refuse to pay someone money that you said you would; to honor your agreement/contract with them? Why should it be immoral to quit working for someone? Why should it be immoral to take paid leave?
With these considerations I don't see how you can argue that it's immoral to take maternity leave with pay and then quit the job if one so chooses, if those were the terms for their employment, any more than you could argue that it's immoral to quit any job or to take any paid leave.
You're making a pretty strong case that the government (NASA) should get out of this whole space thing all together and leave it to people who can actually get stuff done and get it done cost effectively (i.e. SpaceX)
Slashdot Mirror
But serious people can't get elected to national office in a country where comedians and celebrities are the thought leaders.
Why wasn't this modded up just for this sentence alone?
/. despises Trump but doesn't mod this insightful?!
Wait... you're seriously admitting that you let your political opinion be informed by a comedian?
Why are you annoyed at edx93 instead of the AC he responded to?
That's like being angry because someone shot someone else... and ignoring the part where that someone else assaulted the person who shot them.
Be angry at the instigator. Why does it matter how imperfect the defender is?
It would increase efficiency overall, be a boon to small employers and their employees, and raise the standard of living for the lower 50%.
[citation needed]
The promises of windbags and politicians looking to buy some votes doesn't mean shit. Prove it, first.
The problem will be when able bodied people decide to live only on UBI and nothing else. That's detrimental to society and a mechanism should be put in place to prevent that.
The solution to this problem has been well understood and verified in countless experiments for millennia: you don't work: you don't eat.
Smoking pot in your parents' basement and collecting a check from the government to pay for your weed and doritos is not a valid occupation.
Agreed. So stop making excuses for them; stop accepting policies that make it easier for them.
[citation needed]
Castro did indeed create an amazing medical system for a third world nation and their education system isnt so bad.
Stop
spreading
this
myth.
Just stop.
Just use Google ffs.
Science and truth aren't about "reasonable assumptions".
Maybe it has something to do with the way you've been straight up insulting other people's characters.
I did not insult anyone's character. I only pointed out that the person who insulted me was a hypocrite and was projecting.
The bit about your taxes covering the cost is a little confusing. In order to be consistent with your position on health insurance the costs you would pay in your taxes would have to be very specifically the charges that you personally incurred for police protection. In other words, per-incident charges for every time you make use of the police based on man-hours used, equipment charges, travel time compensation, fuel, dispatch charges, hazard fees, service fees, regulatory compliance recovery fees (although, if they work under absolutely no regulations, I guess they couldn't rightfully charge you those fees, but, since they're not working under any regulations, they can charge you the fees anyway, so it all works out), etc. I have no idea how you would pay for your exact share of policing activities like patrolling under your scheme. How would you envision that being fairly apportioned so that you're not being forced to pay for the protection of others and so that they aren't forced to pay for yours? It seems really tricky. Maybe do it in time slices. While they're driving down the street, the police pay attention to your property for ten seconds and react if a crime is happening. While they're focusing on your house, they ignore all other crime that may be happening unless it's affecting your property and, they ignore all crime affecting your property when they move on to the next house. Sounds like that could work well for billing purposes. A bit problematic if your child is ever kidnapped. There's probably no way you could afford the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars worth of police resources that are often used when a child is kidnapped (sadly, in the real world, the economic bracket of the kidnapped child often does affect how much is spent on rescuing them). Basically, it's hard to see how your scheme, taken to its logical conclusion wouldn't lead to a situation where whoever can afford the most Pinkertons being able to do as they please (up to and including kidnapping your child, if it pleases them)
You're making a lot of sense, and I can see how the logical conclusion that you came to sounds reprehensible. And I agree that such a situation would be reprehensible. But...
1. I think we're already in a situation where the rich people who can buy the most pinkertons are abusing others: just look at how the political elites flout the law-- pen and phone?! Clintons and Bushes getting off scott free? Drones murdering american citizens without a jury trial?! The IRS is abusing political enemies?! We're already there, I think, but the pinkertons are just called "police" these days.
2. I think that it's possible to implement a system which solves the problem of paying for police protection while still maintaining consent on the part of the citizens. For example, police protection could be opt-out. That is, I should have the option to opt-out of any government services that I think I don't need. Risky, to be sure, but I should have the option to do so. In what sense is it right to force someone to accept a gift? Is it really for someone's benefit that I should force anything on them?
No thank you. I know how to use html perfectly well. Slashdot does not have a style guide that I'm aware of, however. I can see that you want me to put book titles in italics, but I'm not sure what you want me to put in bold? In any case, the underscores work perfectly well.
I had assumed that you were unfamiliar with HTML or did not know that /. supports certain tags. I'm sorry.
I'm not implying I would like such things done to you. I'm simply pointing out to you that your ideas about how things should work are naiv
Occam's razor isn't evidence.
Yes, "presumably" means he isn't presenting the part about survivability as fact. You win this one.
Score one for you; your turn.
... it was already there when they evolved INTO mice ...
[citation needed]
... it presumably doesn't reduce their survivability (and even may help on rare occasions) so natural selection hasn't removed it ...
[citation needed]
But what if the GP is richer than you (or represents a consortium who have pooled their resources because they just don't like you)? I assume that you're ok with the GP showing up at your house with 5 police officers, politely waiting while you rifle through the couch cushions for the money to hire five police officers of your own, then making a phone call and ordering himself fifteen more officers. Then, I suppose, just to rub it in the GP could just stand around waiting for the money you paid to run out, and for you to desperately call everyone you know for a loan (I don't think organized credit could exist in your world since it's a form of pooled risk sharing too) until your police officers desert you. Then the GP could basically just go ahead and pummel you mercilessly while his police officers stand around taking bets on how many teeth he's going to leave you.
The situation you just described is basically the same as what we call a "government" isn't it?
But regardless of how unhappy I would be in such circumstances (ridiculous and hypothetical as they may be) it would still be wrong of me to force someone to give me money, protection, resources, whatever.
So, are you ok with that? I get the feeling that you love the idea of a world where you could do that to other people, ...
Now you're just straight up insulting my character without knowing anything about me-- and nothing I've said so far even implies that I would like to do such things as you describe to other people.
However, you are implying that you would like such things done to me because you're trying to defend a system where a group (i.e. government) with lots of power and resources (i.e. military) would come in and take things from me (i.e. taxes) and force me to do things against my will (i.e. pay for other people's health insurance).
... but just can't even imagine a world where that could happen to you. I think it's basically because you're stuck in some sort of adolescent power fantasy mode. Maybe you're one of the multitudes who read _Atlas Shrugged_ and imagine yourself as one of the producers rather than one of the moochers.
1. Use <i></i>to italicize, <b></b> to bold.
2. Considering that I have a productive job and pay taxes without getting a tax return, and considering that I don't have anyone pay for my lifestyle, yes I do think of myself as a producer and not a moocher.
3. See my response above about how you're making lots of nasty assumptions about my character while revealing what an asshole you are.
Correct. I should pay for the police protection that I enjoy. Presumably the taxes that I pay should cover the cost if I make use of police resources (i.e. man-hours). But more to the point, I have no right to force anyone to give me protection.
1. I didn't call anyone names, but you did. That makes you the asshole.
2. A parent-child relationship is completely different from the relationship that two unrelated citizens have. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
3. My parents willingly gave me resources as I was growing up as long as I obeyed their rules. It's a kind of contract. I could have ended our relationship and left to live on my own, but that would be stupid of me to do so. It was far better to just obey, learn, and remain in my relationship with my parents. So I obeyed their rules and thus our relationship was maintained, consensual, and without animosity for the profit of all involved. I gained a very good upbringing and they gained a successful son. But you seem to want to insult me on a personal level and insinuate things about my relationship with my parents that you know absolutely nothing about: that makes you an asshole.
disclaimer: I'm a web developer.
I don't care about which browser is used as long as it is fully standards compliant. There's only two reasons to do webapps:
1. It runs on literally everything.
2. There's no installation. Just go to the site and start using the app.
If some browser isn't standards compliant then that directly defeats number one.
Nobody tolerates a platform that doesn't have or support a C or C++ compiler-- because that's the foundation of everything.
Nobody should tolerate a standards non-compliant browser.
About 90% of PCs run Windows despite being abused for decades with plenty of perfectly good alternatives available.
Why? Because Windows is where all the legacy programs are. The only thing the windows store lacks is the ability to get legacy programs into it-- so far.
The M$ store will get traction and it will generate sales if M$ has even a tiny shred of competence.
But let's say the M$ store doesn't succeed. It still doesn't matter. M$ can simply start charging a subscription to use their OS or start distributing it for free and tracking everything their users do and renting advertisements on the desktop... oh, wait, they're already doing that aren't they?
If you're still on Windows then you're a cuckold. That's all well and good, just don't complain about the choice that you're making.
Yes, and people need to eat. That's why you go out and poke some seeds into the ground and work for a living. You work for your living and I'll work for mine. If you can't eat then that's your own problem. If I can't eat then that's my problem. If you can't afford a car then that's on you. Healthcare is the same.
You have no right to make someone else pay for your stuff no matter how badly you want or even need it.
FULL STOP.
It also counts as a laptop since it's permanently attached to your mother's base.
I think you're talking sense, and I agree with you.
We can agree, right, that it would be far far far more cost effective for NASA to just stick to building and running probes and just buy rides on cheap private rockets?
I agree with you that the parable was used to illustrate salvation. But I also think that the way it illustrates the concept of sticking to the terms of an agreement is still valid and applicable to things like one's relationship with one's employer.
Isn't that the same as being more tolerant of being mistreated?
But you're correct to point out that "mistreatment" is subjective.
Matthew 20:1-16New International Version (NIV) The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard 20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard. 3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went. “He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’ 7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered. “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’ 8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’ 9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius*. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ 13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Footnotes: * A denarius was the usual daily wage of a day laborer.
You get paid according to the agreement you had with your employer. If you don't like the terms of your employment then you need to renegotiate-- you have no right to complain about what you agreed to.
You're assuming that "maternity leave" means there's an understanding that you'll come back to the organization. Their understanding of it is that when you have a kid you can go home and raise the kid and the organization will keep sending you paychecks for a certain period and that they also leave the door open for you to come back if you want.
In order to make traction with them you must convince them that the situation is the former (coming back to work is a mandatory part of taking paid maternity leave) rather than the latter (coming back to work is totally optional).
But I think you'd lose because legally there's nothing that reinforces the former or punishes the latter.
So unless they explicitly agreed to the former arrangement (coming back to work is mandatory) then they're absolutely morally correct to do the latter (come back to work if they feel like it or just quit).
Furthermore: isn't it immoral to force someone to work for you if they don't want to? Isn't it immoral to refuse to pay someone money that you said you would; to honor your agreement/contract with them? Why should it be immoral to quit working for someone? Why should it be immoral to take paid leave?
With these considerations I don't see how you can argue that it's immoral to take maternity leave with pay and then quit the job if one so chooses, if those were the terms for their employment, any more than you could argue that it's immoral to quit any job or to take any paid leave.
You're making a pretty strong case that the government (NASA) should get out of this whole space thing all together and leave it to people who can actually get stuff done and get it done cost effectively (i.e. SpaceX)
Advocating that other people be killed so that you can get control of their money... hmmm...
Way to take the moral high ground.
they will probably make you take your head off
This is the UK, not France. Geez, didn't you even read the summary?