But if you've already subtracted all his overhead and living expenses then isn't that $86.81 per day pure profit that he can save up?
Wouldn't someone working for $8.91 per hour still need to have all his overhead subtracted in order to actually compare apples with apples?
Yes, freedom means that you can make un-worthwhile, or unwise, or even outright stupid decisions with your life.
Part of being an adult is recognizing that and behaving appropriately.
Nobody is fucking with "you".
If you don't like your situation in life then go do something else, go somewhere else, go live some other way, go do something else for a living.
Yes, that might mean you have to farm your own food and live in a hut.
Robbing someone else isn't the answer.
Even if they're selfish, even if they were mean to you, it's still wrong to rob them or assault them.
Then by now he should have figured out how this whole money thing works and what bills are.
Or maybe he has figured it out and is doing what works for him and he isn't a victim.
Nobody is making this guy do anything. He can quit any time he wants and go do something else. Feeling trapped doesn't mean he is trapped (if he even feels bad about his situation at all).
What makes you think they care about changing the computing market, or your interest? You seem to think that the role of companies is to change or improve the world. It isn't. The only reason companies exist is to make money. If IBM is doing that, then it's successful in its mission.
What you say is true.
But the genius of the free market is that in order for IBM to make money they must offer value that someone else wants and will trade for (buy it with money).
So, almost by definition, if IBM or any other company is making money they're also making the world a better place one computer or pot or pan or refrigerator or jet airplane at a time.
Of course there's more to "a better place" than just material goods and wealth. But those aren't issues that the free market system can address because they're issues about human rights, violence, politics, religion etc.
These things are all up to us to figure out-- and almost all of it boils down to the Golden Rule (don't be an asshole) and using the justice system to enforce it (i.e. preventing assholes from being assholes).
Good to know.
The solution, of course, is to not carry out his orders if he does order such things.
But that's a bridge that should be crossed if we ever get to it.
In the mean-time I'm unconcerned.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike Trump and would rather have had someone else, but my guy got beat in the primaries.
I think less of people like you because you watched him equate a woman’s worth to her appearance and got on board.
If your wife or girlfriend isn't fat and ugly then you may be a hypocrite.
If you think Hillary is better on this point-- considering that she enabled her husband's infamous behavior-- then you're a hypocrite.
It is your personal willingness to support racism, sexism, and cruelty.
You sided with a bully when it mattered and that is something I will never forget.
1. He's not.
2. Just because someone directly challenges you or your opinions or ideas doesn't make them a bully. The internet isn't a safe space.
So, no people like you and I won’t be “coming together” to move forward or whatever. Trump disgusts me, but it is the fact that he doesn’t disgust people like you that will stick with me long after this election.
Virtue signal received; we're reading you loud and clear.
For example, maybe the hospital saves my life and then, when they find out who I am they bill me.
Maybe the hospital saves my life, then, when they find out that I have no money, they put a lien on my assets or they can garnish my wages until the debt is repaid.
There are other possibilities here besides forcing me to buy insurance against my will.
And before you straw man me, I'll point out that my argument isn't that I think insurance is always bad and never wise. I'm simply insisting on consent.
Sex without consent is rape.
Taking another's possessions (i.e. money) without consent is theft.
Threatening violence (i.e. a police "visit") in order to make someone to give you something is extortion (a special case of theft).
Having the government do these things on your behalf doesn't make it right.
the insanity that terrorism creates among politicians and the general populace is completely out of proportion to the threat that it actually represents.
Don't you worry about that, citizen. You just keep on voting big brother into office so he can keep you safe.
He compels me to purchase something (health insurance) whether I want it, or need it, or can afford it, or not.
You're not free if someone is making you do things against your will.
And, if I may, I'd like to add tyrannical (especially communist or socialist) regimes to your list of massive killers.
And I hope we all remember the remedy for tyranny and the relative risk of a mass shooting vs. industrialized murder by regime next time a mass shooting occurs and everyone shouts for more gun control (pure virtue signalling).
Some math to back up my reasoning:
Cho killed 33.
Hitler killed 12 million in his death camps (6 million jews + about 6 million others).
At that rate we could have a Cho every day for almost a thousand years (12,000,000 / 33 = 363,636 people / 365 days = 996 yrs of Cho) before matching Hitler.
And that's just Hitler. We're not even talking about Stalin, Mao, North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, anywhere in Africa, and ISIS.
But to go further, even if you implement gun control it's still not effective. Mexico bans civilians from owning guns... and the cartels are murdering people by the hundreds. Or just look at the murder rates in Chicago or New York City where gun laws are strict yet murder rates are high.
The point is, as the parent post says, preservation of our freedom and our rights is vastly more important than some ineffectual feel-good measures the government might take.
Let's have some sanity and perspective about the proper role of our government: 1. To preserve our liberty as a country so others don't invade and take over.
2. To preserve our liberty as individuals so we can live our own lives as long as we don't harm others.
All those who want the government to make me live a certain way or do a thing or not do a thing just to suit them are the enemy. The entire rest of the world is full of busybodies and holier-than-thou jerks trying to control other people. If you're one of those control freaks then get out of my country. Go be a tyrant somewhere else.
I want freedom back in this country and I also want personal responsibility restored as a general principle. They go together very well. And when separated tyranny results.
And I don't need big brother spying on everything I do.
Your reason for rejecting my idea can be boiled down to "because it's a non-zero amount of effort" so perhaps you disagree with the idea of making anything better.
Such as? No, I can't google it myself because I'm asking for your opinion on what their good work is. I can't google for your opinion.
Their policy papers on renewable energy are quite influential with governments, at least in Europe.
1. The fact that some governments listen to what Greenpeace has to say doesn't prove anything to me one way or the other.
2. Can you provide some links to these policy papers you mentioned?
There is a lot of good science and research that goes into them.
Please provide links to these policy papers you mentioned so that I can evaluate for myself whether there's a lot of good science and research in them.
That's partly why people try to smear them so much.
Can you please provide links so that I can evaluate them for myself?
That and the strange myth that environmentalism is trying to make Americans poor.
1. Greenpeace != environmentalism.
2. I'm not convinced that it's a myth with absolutely no merit to it.
3. It does make sense to me that people would be upset that their taxes are being increased to pay for projects that they disagree with.
4. It makes sense to me that spending money on environmental projects that won't actually prevent global warming would anger people who would rather spend that money on something that they consider more vital.
5. It makes sense to me that someone who relies upon, say, a coal mine for his living would be upset if that coal mine was shutdown for no other reason than some hippies from California complaining about it loudly (that's the way the coal miner sees it).
Slashdot Mirror
from the ./ summary:
total 96K ./ ../ .cache/ .config/ .local/ .npm/ .bash_history .bashrc .gitconfig .mysql_history .nano_history .nanorc .profile
drwxr-xr-x 6 4.0K Jan 24 13:42
drwxr-xr-x 8 4.0K Jul 28 14:34
drwx------ 3 4.0K May 27 2016
drwxrwxr-x 4 4.0K Jun 28 2016
drwxrwxr-x 3 4.0K May 27 2016
drwxrwxr-x 808 32K Jun 28 2016
-rw------- 1 4.4K Jul 13 2016
-rw-r--r-- 1 3.5K May 17 2016
-rw-rw-r-- 1 51 May 17 2016
-rw------- 1 51 Jun 28 2016
-rw------- 1 8 Jul 12 2016
-rw-r--r-- 1 8.5K May 17 2016
-rw-r--r-- 1 675 May 17 2016
You mean it's appier?
But if you've already subtracted all his overhead and living expenses then isn't that $86.81 per day pure profit that he can save up?
Wouldn't someone working for $8.91 per hour still need to have all his overhead subtracted in order to actually compare apples with apples?
Yes, freedom means that you can make un-worthwhile, or unwise, or even outright stupid decisions with your life.
Part of being an adult is recognizing that and behaving appropriately.
Nobody is fucking with "you".
If you don't like your situation in life then go do something else, go somewhere else, go live some other way, go do something else for a living.
Yes, that might mean you have to farm your own food and live in a hut.
Robbing someone else isn't the answer.
Even if they're selfish, even if they were mean to you, it's still wrong to rob them or assault them.
Then by now he should have figured out how this whole money thing works and what bills are.
Or maybe he has figured it out and is doing what works for him and he isn't a victim.
Nobody is making this guy do anything. He can quit any time he wants and go do something else.
Feeling trapped doesn't mean he is trapped (if he even feels bad about his situation at all).
Nobody who works full time should live in poverty. Period.
NOBODY IS FORCING THEM TO DO ANYTHING. Get it through your head.
What makes you think they care about changing the computing market, or your interest? You seem to think that the role of companies is to change or improve the world. It isn't. The only reason companies exist is to make money. If IBM is doing that, then it's successful in its mission.
What you say is true.
But the genius of the free market is that in order for IBM to make money they must offer value that someone else wants and will trade for (buy it with money).
So, almost by definition, if IBM or any other company is making money they're also making the world a better place one computer or pot or pan or refrigerator or jet airplane at a time.
Of course there's more to "a better place" than just material goods and wealth. But those aren't issues that the free market system can address because they're issues about human rights, violence, politics, religion etc.
These things are all up to us to figure out-- and almost all of it boils down to the Golden Rule (don't be an asshole) and using the justice system to enforce it (i.e. preventing assholes from being assholes).
Good to know.
The solution, of course, is to not carry out his orders if he does order such things.
But that's a bridge that should be crossed if we ever get to it.
In the mean-time I'm unconcerned.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike Trump and would rather have had someone else, but my guy got beat in the primaries.
Citation, please.
I think less of people like you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him.
I don't believe you.
I think less of you because you saw a man spouting clear racism and backed him.
1. [citation needed]
2. Islam isn't a race.
3. Illegal immigrants do not have a right to be in this country... by definition.
I think less of you because you listened to him advocate for war crimes, and still thought he should run this country.
If you mean that he would waterboard ISIS then I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for ISIS.
I think less of people like you because you watched him equate a woman’s worth to her appearance and got on board.
If your wife or girlfriend isn't fat and ugly then you may be a hypocrite.
If you think Hillary is better on this point-- considering that she enabled her husband's infamous behavior-- then you're a hypocrite.
It is your personal willingness to support racism, sexism, and cruelty.
1. [citation needed]
2. argumentum ad nauseam
You sided with a bully when it mattered and that is something I will never forget.
1. He's not.
2. Just because someone directly challenges you or your opinions or ideas doesn't make them a bully. The internet isn't a safe space.
So, no people like you and I won’t be “coming together” to move forward or whatever. Trump disgusts me, but it is the fact that he doesn’t disgust people like you that will stick with me long after this election.
Virtue signal received; we're reading you loud and clear.
...even when in the right...
That's precisely the question under consideration though, isn't it?
Waking up old, however, awaits us all...
Actually, not waking up at all is what awaits us.
Why are you using sudo for this?
I'm very glad to have voted for it.
I think I have a compromise for you both:
Let those who do want the rail pay for the rail.
Let those who don't want the rail not pay for it.
Um, that's called "Life in society" dude.
Was that your reaction when women, blacks, and gays sought civil rights? "That's just the way things are; so just suck it up."
Fallacy.
For example, maybe the hospital saves my life and then, when they find out who I am they bill me.
Maybe the hospital saves my life, then, when they find out that I have no money, they put a lien on my assets or they can garnish my wages until the debt is repaid.
There are other possibilities here besides forcing me to buy insurance against my will.
And before you straw man me, I'll point out that my argument isn't that I think insurance is always bad and never wise. I'm simply insisting on consent.
Sex without consent is rape.
Taking another's possessions (i.e. money) without consent is theft.
Threatening violence (i.e. a police "visit") in order to make someone to give you something is extortion (a special case of theft).
Having the government do these things on your behalf doesn't make it right.
the insanity that terrorism creates among politicians and the general populace is completely out of proportion to the threat that it actually represents.
Don't you worry about that, citizen. You just keep on voting big brother into office so he can keep you safe.
He compels me to purchase something (health insurance) whether I want it, or need it, or can afford it, or not.
You're not free if someone is making you do things against your will.
I agree with you 100%.
And, if I may, I'd like to add tyrannical (especially communist or socialist) regimes to your list of massive killers.
And I hope we all remember the remedy for tyranny and the relative risk of a mass shooting vs. industrialized murder by regime next time a mass shooting occurs and everyone shouts for more gun control (pure virtue signalling).
Some math to back up my reasoning:
Cho killed 33.
Hitler killed 12 million in his death camps (6 million jews + about 6 million others).
At that rate we could have a Cho every day for almost a thousand years (12,000,000 / 33 = 363,636 people / 365 days = 996 yrs of Cho) before matching Hitler.
And that's just Hitler. We're not even talking about Stalin, Mao, North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, anywhere in Africa, and ISIS.
But to go further, even if you implement gun control it's still not effective. Mexico bans civilians from owning guns... and the cartels are murdering people by the hundreds. Or just look at the murder rates in Chicago or New York City where gun laws are strict yet murder rates are high.
The point is, as the parent post says, preservation of our freedom and our rights is vastly more important than some ineffectual feel-good measures the government might take.
Let's have some sanity and perspective about the proper role of our government:
1. To preserve our liberty as a country so others don't invade and take over.
2. To preserve our liberty as individuals so we can live our own lives as long as we don't harm others.
All those who want the government to make me live a certain way or do a thing or not do a thing just to suit them are the enemy. The entire rest of the world is full of busybodies and holier-than-thou jerks trying to control other people. If you're one of those control freaks then get out of my country. Go be a tyrant somewhere else.
I want freedom back in this country and I also want personal responsibility restored as a general principle. They go together very well. And when separated tyranny results.
And I don't need big brother spying on everything I do.
Your reason for rejecting my idea can be boiled down to "because it's a non-zero amount of effort" so perhaps you disagree with the idea of making anything better.
Greenpeace do a lot of good work.
Such as? No, I can't google it myself because I'm asking for your opinion on what their good work is. I can't google for your opinion.
Their policy papers on renewable energy are quite influential with governments, at least in Europe.
1. The fact that some governments listen to what Greenpeace has to say doesn't prove anything to me one way or the other.
2. Can you provide some links to these policy papers you mentioned?
There is a lot of good science and research that goes into them.
Please provide links to these policy papers you mentioned so that I can evaluate for myself whether there's a lot of good science and research in them.
That's partly why people try to smear them so much.
Can you please provide links so that I can evaluate them for myself?
That and the strange myth that environmentalism is trying to make Americans poor.
1. Greenpeace != environmentalism.
2. I'm not convinced that it's a myth with absolutely no merit to it.
3. It does make sense to me that people would be upset that their taxes are being increased to pay for projects that they disagree with.
4. It makes sense to me that spending money on environmental projects that won't actually prevent global warming would anger people who would rather spend that money on something that they consider more vital.
5. It makes sense to me that someone who relies upon, say, a coal mine for his living would be upset if that coal mine was shutdown for no other reason than some hippies from California complaining about it loudly (that's the way the coal miner sees it).
How dare you bring some perspective to this matter, you fucking heretic!?
That can be modified.
Walmart has automatic doors.
Why can't hospitals?