There is always an exception to a blanket statement and in this case its altruism. That being said people in those positions are usually volunteers not getting paid or are working for someplace like the pace corps. That has its own form of reward and I would never say someone doing what they love or helping others is inferior to me. Also, I know plenty of people in that boat as teachers and social workers, none of which make minimum wage.
However, I doubt the guy flipping burgers at that fast food joint is doing it for altruistic reasons. Now what is it that entitles that burger flipper to a two bedroom house in the burbs, a cell phone, internet, healthcare, gourmet food and alcohol, a retirement plan, and to top it off a chunk of my paycheck every year?
No one is entitled to anything. A fair argument can be made for this.
People who contribute more to society are entitled to a better standard of living afforded by that society than those who don't contribute.
I am ok with either of these really. The one that is harder to make an argument for is people who don't contribute to society get a better standard of living than those who work.
I have not met anyone making minimum wage that was not lazy. Period. When I joined the work force at 15, I didn't make minimum wage. It was a typical fast food job, but when they hired me on, I immediately told them I wanted more than the minimum and I got it (not much but it was still higher).
On the flip side, one person I know has worked at minimum wage for 5 years at 39 hours a week. 5 years! In that time she didn't look for another job, ask for a raise or ask to be full time. Any one of those simple three things would have moved her further out of poverty. I don't know what you call it, but I call it lazy.
That being said, there are people that cant work and people that cant do anything higher than menial labor (more specifically the mentally disabled). We can included safety nets for these people, but what entitles them to a life better than poverty?
Interestingly, autonomous vehicles follow that same rule. They will break the speed limit when the flow of traffic is. So in theory if you go to pass a bunch of them, they would speed up to account for your disproportionate speed. Sounds like a fun experiment: can you govern a flock of autonomous cars by altering your speed? Program them to go north in the summer and crap on other cars and we have the AI equivalent of birds.
All available sources for collecting data should be used to help enforce safety.
Brilliant! Lets turn the entire country into Camden NJ. Not to beat a great quote to death: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Your whole post really shows a naivety of power, corruption and human nature.
Traffic authorities? As autonomous vehicles increase, traffic cops will decrease.
Besides if we let the government collect all autonomous vehicle data, we are in for some serious trouble. If they use that power to enforce something as frivolous as traffic violations then we have really f***ed ourselves over.
Racist or not, there is a valid question brought up by Chas: at what point do we end AA? Is it when we get a black president? Is it when 40% of CEO's and small business owners are minorities? Or when 50% of Ivy League enrollment is minorities? Where is the line drawn where we can say success?
Sadly, AA isn't about equality. By its very definition, it is racist. If you want races to be treated equally, you need to start dismantlement legislation that treats them differently. We've legally re-segregated races in this country. We need to get rid of programs like AA and tackle the real issues of poverty and income equality.
Even worse, because of this sentiment, I'll probably be labeled as a racist by some people on here.
But imagine driving after all the idiots who ride in the fast lane, going 10 under the speed limit, swerving because they are texting, are off the road in self driving cars. It will be some time before self driving cars are mandatory. I'll relish in those years where I can drive like a mad man and all those self driving cars will part like the red sea.
The same can be said of all of the problems arising from religious disputes, it is a blemish on the ethics and morals (lack thereof) of the men involved.
A downward slope would just be non-normalized data. If there are a lot of bad ones, bad just becomes the mean. Programming talent, like most things, probably falls neatly into a bell curve.
The U curve the article is referring to is a bimodel distribution, which is rare even in nature. It occurs for something like a disease that effects immune compromised people. Thus the age distribution of infected would be the very old and very young.
Well just to state the obvious, the benefit of less federal government and the power reverting to the states is that you, the voter, have more power to influence elections.
You're really grasping at straws there. You clearly have strong world views and are using selective evidence to support them. I'm not here to convince you to change your mind, just point out the logical fallacies apparent in your bold claims.
People aren't afraid of change. Not only do people expect change, but they embrace it.
Disproven by product adoption models, showing most people are hesitant to jump on new technology right away. They may not fear it, but most certainly don't embrace it. Those are only the early adopters.
Businesses are afraid of change, people are not.
This just doesn't make sense. Apart from the business having feelings thing, how do you explain new companies coming into the market place or existing companies coming out with cool new innovative products.
I agree parents should have the final say, however, unvaccinated children should not be allowed in public schools. Parents should also be held liable if their unvaccinated kid (by choice) is involved in an outbreak that harms others. Yes, the decision is yours but you also need to accept the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
There is always an exception to a blanket statement and in this case its altruism. That being said people in those positions are usually volunteers not getting paid or are working for someplace like the pace corps. That has its own form of reward and I would never say someone doing what they love or helping others is inferior to me. Also, I know plenty of people in that boat as teachers and social workers, none of which make minimum wage.
However, I doubt the guy flipping burgers at that fast food joint is doing it for altruistic reasons. Now what is it that entitles that burger flipper to a two bedroom house in the burbs, a cell phone, internet, healthcare, gourmet food and alcohol, a retirement plan, and to top it off a chunk of my paycheck every year?
There are really two arguments that can be made:
No one is entitled to anything. A fair argument can be made for this.
People who contribute more to society are entitled to a better standard of living afforded by that society than those who don't contribute.
I am ok with either of these really. The one that is harder to make an argument for is people who don't contribute to society get a better standard of living than those who work.
I have not met anyone making minimum wage that was not lazy. Period. When I joined the work force at 15, I didn't make minimum wage. It was a typical fast food job, but when they hired me on, I immediately told them I wanted more than the minimum and I got it (not much but it was still higher).
On the flip side, one person I know has worked at minimum wage for 5 years at 39 hours a week. 5 years! In that time she didn't look for another job, ask for a raise or ask to be full time. Any one of those simple three things would have moved her further out of poverty. I don't know what you call it, but I call it lazy.
That being said, there are people that cant work and people that cant do anything higher than menial labor (more specifically the mentally disabled). We can included safety nets for these people, but what entitles them to a life better than poverty?
And all the 4k Pr0n you can compress
He must be here to fix the cable.
Interestingly, autonomous vehicles follow that same rule. They will break the speed limit when the flow of traffic is. So in theory if you go to pass a bunch of them, they would speed up to account for your disproportionate speed. Sounds like a fun experiment: can you govern a flock of autonomous cars by altering your speed? Program them to go north in the summer and crap on other cars and we have the AI equivalent of birds.
All available sources for collecting data should be used to help enforce safety.
Brilliant! Lets turn the entire country into Camden NJ. Not to beat a great quote to death: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Your whole post really shows a naivety of power, corruption and human nature.
Traffic authorities? As autonomous vehicles increase, traffic cops will decrease.
Besides if we let the government collect all autonomous vehicle data, we are in for some serious trouble. If they use that power to enforce something as frivolous as traffic violations then we have really f***ed ourselves over.
Racist or not, there is a valid question brought up by Chas: at what point do we end AA? Is it when we get a black president? Is it when 40% of CEO's and small business owners are minorities? Or when 50% of Ivy League enrollment is minorities? Where is the line drawn where we can say success?
Sadly, AA isn't about equality. By its very definition, it is racist. If you want races to be treated equally, you need to start dismantlement legislation that treats them differently. We've legally re-segregated races in this country. We need to get rid of programs like AA and tackle the real issues of poverty and income equality.
Even worse, because of this sentiment, I'll probably be labeled as a racist by some people on here.
But imagine driving after all the idiots who ride in the fast lane, going 10 under the speed limit, swerving because they are texting, are off the road in self driving cars. It will be some time before self driving cars are mandatory. I'll relish in those years where I can drive like a mad man and all those self driving cars will part like the red sea.
The same can be said of all of the problems arising from religious disputes, it is a blemish on the ethics and morals (lack thereof) of the men involved.
And political wackos have no ethics.
At some point people will say, I'm glad they took away the flesh and blood driver from the car, people could never drive as well as a machine.
Retractable shades. There, I just saved you the effort of building two nearly identical fleets of vehicles. You can send the check to my secretary.
WordPress developers - Isn't that an oxymoron
I know news has gotten pretty bad, but mistaking a super bowl commercial... Ok, I can see that.
You sir, are what I'd call an Idiot.
A downward slope would just be non-normalized data. If there are a lot of bad ones, bad just becomes the mean. Programming talent, like most things, probably falls neatly into a bell curve.
The U curve the article is referring to is a bimodel distribution, which is rare even in nature. It occurs for something like a disease that effects immune compromised people. Thus the age distribution of infected would be the very old and very young.
Well just to state the obvious, the benefit of less federal government and the power reverting to the states is that you, the voter, have more power to influence elections.
People aren't afraid of change. Not only do people expect change, but they embrace it.
Disproven by product adoption models, showing most people are hesitant to jump on new technology right away. They may not fear it, but most certainly don't embrace it. Those are only the early adopters.
Businesses are afraid of change, people are not.
This just doesn't make sense. Apart from the business having feelings thing, how do you explain new companies coming into the market place or existing companies coming out with cool new innovative products.
Businesses are afraid of change, people are not.
Businesses cant feel anything. The people running businesses can. So your statement becomes "People are afraid of change, people are not."
Next, you completely ignore Luddites, which are increasing in number with increased autonomy in industry.
Lastly, you completely ignore the standard distribution model of product adoption. If everyone was as you say, we'd all be early adopters.
Shh! Or the handicapper general will come for you.
I for one welcome our new genetically modified overlords!
Haven't you heard? Monkeys are people. We're digressing here in the west.
I agree parents should have the final say, however, unvaccinated children should not be allowed in public schools. Parents should also be held liable if their unvaccinated kid (by choice) is involved in an outbreak that harms others. Yes, the decision is yours but you also need to accept the consequences.