Sure, that's obviously part of it too. But food stamps are way cheaper than prisons, and the system we've got depends on both to keep the poor in line,
Also, money is made coming and going. Look at EBT, or WIC, or whatever. That's not "giving money to the poor." It's "giving money to Big Agriculture." Heating assistance in colder parts of the country like the one I live in, same deal. That's a straight government handout to energy companies. I mean, come on, it's not like we're giving money to the poor to invest in their 401k, we're basically giving vouchers.
No, it was a lie. Historically, the price of real estate tracks inflation very closely. That's what buying land is; a hedge against inflation. It's not generally a money maker, it's a money saver. Looking at the price of homes skyrocketing far beyond inflation through the late 90s and early 00s, it should have been obvious to anybody that that state of affairs could not last. And of course, it didn't.
You're both partisan cunts. It's the "Military/Industrial/Democratic/Republican/Chinese Perpetual Poverty Economy (tm)," and it is brought to you by Wal Mart. Politics isn't football. These people are all on the same team.
There seems to be a common misconception that unemployment insurance is somehow "free money from the government." It is not. The second word should give it away. It's insurance. It is money paid by employers in the form of a tax (and therefore by employees, even though you don't see it in your pay stub), and it goes into a fund for just such a contingency. Your friend who's getting his $347 a week is really getting his own money back.
Because it allows you to share nothing with no one. I have an account on joindiaspora, but it's fucking useless. And it takes a lot for me to say that, because I really want to like it.
If that's the angle you're going with, then you're going to have to assume assume that for the last 150 or so years, we have had nothing but "bad presidents who muck around in shit they shouldn't be." This isn't about some elected official's agenda. It's longstanding government policy. It's how we do things.
You've heard this one before, I'm sure, but I still think it's pretty apt. You are not required to know how to replace your fuel pump, or even change your oil, in order to be allowed to drive a car. However, you are required to know how to drive a car in order to drive a car. People understand this (except that asshole that cut me off this morning). You don't need to know how to build the machine or fix the machine, but you need to know how to operate the machine. We don't hold people to that standard with computing devices, which are, at least on the "driver's end," much simpler machines than automobiles. If you would rather spend your time on heart surgery than learning to drive, you get a cab, you don't just get in the driver's seat anyway and start randomly turning the wheel, pushing buttons, and making VRROOOOM noises. But that's how people treat computers. There is this expectation that things should "Just do what I want," regardless of one's understanding or lack thereof of how to operate the machine, and if it doesn't magically work, it's the machine's fault. I think that's bullshit.
Retiring the shuttle program is good in some ways because it frees up resources to go for more ambitious goals like Mars and beyond. It's bad, though, in that it takes away NASA's primary method of staying in the public eye. People get excited about humans going into space. Most people don't get excited about sending robots into space. This sort of thing is important to an organization whose funding is subject to the changing political winds.
I agree with your sentiment here, but people aren't excited about the shuttle, and haven't been for years. If you talk about the shuttle with anyone who's not a space geek, nobody even knows what they do up there. Just tonight at a barbecue I had to explain to someone that no, the shuttle couldn't go to the moon.
I agree with all of that. I certainly do support referring people to the manual ("manual" being used loosely, it can be a blog post or a wiki page or what have you), especially for beginners because it's a behavior that they're gonna need to learn anyway, but I agree that while teaching one to fish, you do also need to give them a fish so they don't starve.
I guess what I was trying to say with my initial comment was that it's a fine line between being supportive and encouraging laziness. We're not doing the beginner any favors by instilling the idea that they'll never have to read the manual. As I said, I understand that's not what you're proposing, but I think it's a huge, huge point that needs to be made over and over. Sometimes you're gonna have to do your own research and figure shit out, and we need to teach folks how to do that.
Well, I can do three of those things. But that's not the point. The point is that I could do any of those things given sufficient time. Because, as noted, ignorance is not stupidity. Until you refuse to learn. Everybody's ignorant about something, I'm ignorant about a great many things, but I am willing to work, and read, and learn. Anyone (barring disability) is capable of doing those three things; some people choose not to.
To swing this around to the original topic, those people (the ones who choose ignorance) are Apple's target market. And why should I respect that? If I can learn to weld, and someone else isn't willing to read a fucking page or three about their smartphone, why should it be the rest of the world's responsibility to pander to that? They're not handicapped. They're lazy. They don't deserve your pity.
We have this same problem all the time in American politics. "The market will fix it." Sure, it probably will, *after* bad things happen to make it fix it.
That's exactly what the government does too. But it'll cost five times as much.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, that's obviously part of it too. But food stamps are way cheaper than prisons, and the system we've got depends on both to keep the poor in line,
Also, money is made coming and going. Look at EBT, or WIC, or whatever. That's not "giving money to the poor." It's "giving money to Big Agriculture." Heating assistance in colder parts of the country like the one I live in, same deal. That's a straight government handout to energy companies. I mean, come on, it's not like we're giving money to the poor to invest in their 401k, we're basically giving vouchers.
No, it was a lie. Historically, the price of real estate tracks inflation very closely. That's what buying land is; a hedge against inflation. It's not generally a money maker, it's a money saver. Looking at the price of homes skyrocketing far beyond inflation through the late 90s and early 00s, it should have been obvious to anybody that that state of affairs could not last. And of course, it didn't.
You're both partisan cunts. It's the "Military/Industrial/Democratic/Republican/Chinese Perpetual Poverty Economy (tm)," and it is brought to you by Wal Mart. Politics isn't football. These people are all on the same team.
Come on. That's the reason for social welfare programs. They're not to benefit the poor. They're to protect the rich.
There seems to be a common misconception that unemployment insurance is somehow "free money from the government." It is not. The second word should give it away. It's insurance. It is money paid by employers in the form of a tax (and therefore by employees, even though you don't see it in your pay stub), and it goes into a fund for just such a contingency. Your friend who's getting his $347 a week is really getting his own money back.
The burden of evidence is not on the person boarding the plane. You know why? Because this is America.
Because it allows you to share nothing with no one. I have an account on joindiaspora, but it's fucking useless. And it takes a lot for me to say that, because I really want to like it.
That was no more coherent the second time around.
What an idiotic comparison.
If that's the angle you're going with, then you're going to have to assume assume that for the last 150 or so years, we have had nothing but "bad presidents who muck around in shit they shouldn't be." This isn't about some elected official's agenda. It's longstanding government policy. It's how we do things.
Oooohhh, so close there Mr. Troll, but so very very far away. Let's try again. How about "Fuck you, we are the users."
WARNING: Busted old car analogy ahead.
You've heard this one before, I'm sure, but I still think it's pretty apt. You are not required to know how to replace your fuel pump, or even change your oil, in order to be allowed to drive a car. However, you are required to know how to drive a car in order to drive a car. People understand this (except that asshole that cut me off this morning). You don't need to know how to build the machine or fix the machine, but you need to know how to operate the machine. We don't hold people to that standard with computing devices, which are, at least on the "driver's end," much simpler machines than automobiles. If you would rather spend your time on heart surgery than learning to drive, you get a cab, you don't just get in the driver's seat anyway and start randomly turning the wheel, pushing buttons, and making VRROOOOM noises. But that's how people treat computers. There is this expectation that things should "Just do what I want," regardless of one's understanding or lack thereof of how to operate the machine, and if it doesn't magically work, it's the machine's fault. I think that's bullshit.
Completely agreed.
We're not doing any of those things, don't be dense.
Retiring the shuttle program is good in some ways because it frees up resources to go for more ambitious goals like Mars and beyond. It's bad, though, in that it takes away NASA's primary method of staying in the public eye. People get excited about humans going into space. Most people don't get excited about sending robots into space. This sort of thing is important to an organization whose funding is subject to the changing political winds.
I agree with your sentiment here, but people aren't excited about the shuttle, and haven't been for years. If you talk about the shuttle with anyone who's not a space geek, nobody even knows what they do up there. Just tonight at a barbecue I had to explain to someone that no, the shuttle couldn't go to the moon.
Corporations overcharge, provide shitty service...
Oh, you mean like NASA.
You're both right, but you're both wrong.
Obviously yes, there is money to be made in orbit; whether you like TheRaven's example or not, it's in no way pedantic.
But orbit ain't space. It remains to be seen whether a profit can be turned in space.
Okay. You're obviously not the target audience for this discussion then, but thanks for your input.
I agree with all of that. I certainly do support referring people to the manual ("manual" being used loosely, it can be a blog post or a wiki page or what have you), especially for beginners because it's a behavior that they're gonna need to learn anyway, but I agree that while teaching one to fish, you do also need to give them a fish so they don't starve.
I guess what I was trying to say with my initial comment was that it's a fine line between being supportive and encouraging laziness. We're not doing the beginner any favors by instilling the idea that they'll never have to read the manual. As I said, I understand that's not what you're proposing, but I think it's a huge, huge point that needs to be made over and over. Sometimes you're gonna have to do your own research and figure shit out, and we need to teach folks how to do that.
the community response to beginner questions is "go read the man pages"
Why is this a bad thing?
Is there finally an option in the Windows installation to leave the bootloader alone?
Well, I can do three of those things. But that's not the point. The point is that I could do any of those things given sufficient time. Because, as noted, ignorance is not stupidity. Until you refuse to learn. Everybody's ignorant about something, I'm ignorant about a great many things, but I am willing to work, and read, and learn. Anyone (barring disability) is capable of doing those three things; some people choose not to.
To swing this around to the original topic, those people (the ones who choose ignorance) are Apple's target market. And why should I respect that? If I can learn to weld, and someone else isn't willing to read a fucking page or three about their smartphone, why should it be the rest of the world's responsibility to pander to that? They're not handicapped. They're lazy. They don't deserve your pity.
"Simple" and "easy" are not the same.
We have this same problem all the time in American politics. "The market will fix it." Sure, it probably will, *after* bad things happen to make it fix it.
That's exactly what the government does too. But it'll cost five times as much.
The scenario you describe is... exactly what is happening now.