Wow! That was easy. Now the hard part. Define "income".
My brother-in-law worked as a shift supervisor at a local printer. His work never took him out of the plant. He was given a company car to drive. Is that income?
I get a relatively nice health-plan where I work. Is that income?
The company often pays me to travel. Puts me up in a fairly nice places and lets me eat at restaurants I'd never go to on my own dime. Is that income?
Now that is a reasonable statement that can be the start of a real discussion.
I would substitute the word "coerce" for "forcing". There have been many companies left on the wayside when they fell foul of one bad mood or another of the public. They can coerce, persuade or assuage, but companies can't really force anything (until they bring government with their guns into the mix).
The most refreshing is your clear call to arms of who is at fault. We all will have to accept higher cost to have this cleaner environment. Now we can enter the discussion of how clean is clean enough, and how much do we want to pay for it. Most of all, I'd like to hear someone making the statement that, environmentally speaking, polluting some rice farmer's paddy in China is 100% equivalent to polluting Martha's Vineyard (I'm not being sarcastic. It ab-so-friggin-lutely is the same.)
However, in no way is calling companies thieves, while running to TigerDirect to get the cheapest computer components we can find, doing anything other than shifting blame from ourselves to others.
Is your position then that he should go on being complicit instead of say, recognizing the errors of the western world and trying to make amends by advocating a contrary position on the internet?
Good point. Of all the responses to my post, this was the only one that had a point.
Should he (or she. We know about a computer, nothing of the poster's gender.) go on being complicit? The poster is calling out others as being thieves, while benefiting from the same's effort to provide a product that the public desires at a price that the public is willing to pay. Is it not recognized as the height of foolishness for the pot to call the kettle black while biting the hand that feeds you? If you're going to take the moral high ground, you might want to first exert the effort to get a little higher.
And you are complicit in THAT thievery by sitting in front of your computer, probably someplace where it is air conditioned, posting your asinine banalities on Slashdot. Or do you have one of those new-fangled computers that run without electricity?
Some of us live in climates that require neither heating in the winter nor cooling in the summer, and we can power our computers easily from solar.
eg: My ULV thinkpad consumes less than 15w running full-bore with the screen turned up all the way. Each set of cheap amorphous solar panels cost me less than a new oem laptop battery, and put out enough power to run 2 or 3 laptops, depending on the season.
Please don't project your stupidity and ignorance onto others. Thanks.
You're ULV Thinkpad that consumed no energy and produced no waste in its production, powered by solar cells which produce no toxic waste in their production, and transported to your magical fairy land of perfect comfort on the backs of fartless unicorns, gives you the moral high ground to call out all the capitalists as thieves. Well...ain't you special.
Judges think that. Not because they want to, but because it has been accepted by the courts.
And it has been accepted by the courts, because it has been written into LAW.
My wife was a real-estate agent when the law went into effect about fix or six years ago. Before, FedEx made a killing with the various, slightly modified contracts flying back and forth. Faxing was ok for negotiating the deal and sending the contracts back and forth, but it wasn't legally binding until both parties held copies with original signatures. Then one magical December 31st, one party could sign, fax it to the other party that would sign and then fax the signed, wholly illegible but now legally binding contract back and the deal was cast.
It'll require a reincarnation after he blows up the Earth destroying asteroid, but don't worry. After this spreads from the shut-ins to everyone using it, Bruce will be there to bring the network down and force everyone to come out of their house and talk to their neighbors.
In a bankruptcy, someone buys the material assets...usually at bargain prices. What for who winds up with a mile long solar cell manufacturing plant, built at taxpayer expense.
And you are complicit in THAT thievery by sitting in front of your computer, probably someplace where it is air conditioned, posting your asinine banalities on Slashdot. Or do you have one of those new-fangled computers that run without electricity?
I live in Cary (Concentrated Area of Relocated Yankees) NC. All them Yankees think they can drive on our 2" of snow. They're the ones getting pulled out of ditches. All the locals know to stay home. You can't drive on our 2" of snow, 'cause it ain't snow. It's ice, with just a slight amount of sun-melted liquid water on top. There is NO measurable traction between the tire and the slicked ice. Zero. None. Nada. It not like up north where the ice freezes solid and stays that way.
I got home early before it really got started, but the worst weather traffic I've ever seen was a few winters back when there was just barely a 1/8" sheet of ice left on the roads. Nothing could move.
you can find advertisements from the 1980s about radar systems warning people about stuff behind them.
in reality, the cheap models of cars will not have any of that stuff, in order to keep the price low.
that is almost a necessity in this new age, where the distribution of wealth has become so uneven, where you have 9% unemployment measurements (and much higher in reality) , tens of millions of people on food stamps (a historical high), where minimum wage is not enough to live on, let alone buy a car, and more and more people are getting minimum wage jobs, while a very small number of people get most of the income.
you cant sell a bunch of fancy, gadget filled cars in such an economic environment.
You mean like how cheap cars don't have power locks or CD players today? All of this stuff could be controlled with a stock standard ECU that are currently in today's cars. The extra "features" will be thrown in for an extra $800 (will cost the manufacture a $100, if that as it will be integrated into existing displays and computer controls), which will be advertised as just "$7 more on your monthly payment". It is the exact same thing they do with radios and entertainment systems (who the hell pays $600 for a radio anyhow?).
*Warning....all numbers are fictional and any resemblance to actual numbers is entirely coincidence. But that is basically how it works.
Fact: Anyone can be suspected of ANYTHING. Fact: These laws are not created to protect. They are created to control and convict. They are not expected to be followed. Create enough laws and everyone is a criminal.
Clinton didn't have a surplus. There was a "projected" surplus, based on some accounting gimmicks. They are NOT the same.
The Bush tax cuts were in effect for ten years. Considering that the country was recovering from a post Year-2000 capital equipment replacement lull, I would say they did quite a bit, as did many economist.
And vote in who? The (George Soros sponsored) Progressives, who didn't vote on a budget when they had control of both houses of the legislature AND the Presidency, and couldn't offer up a plan that could pass their own caucus?
"And sorry it is no ones fault but ours." Not all of us, just a very irrational (in need of meds) & vocal (needs to STFU) minority.
If they were a minority, how did they "hold the country hostage"? Each Congressman gets the same number of votes, exactly 1. You need to go back to Rachel and get more talking points. These aren't serving you well.
The big potential problem with term limits is that you'll have a government where the only people who know what they're doing is the bureaucracy. Which moves the power from guys we can kick out of office to unelected (and largely unaccountable) bureaucrats...
Which will force the elected officials to scale back the powers of the bureaucrats by not giving them cart blanche to run roughshod over the populace.
Term limits aren't quite the panacea you're thinking they are. If a politician isn't running for the same office, he's still running for a different one. There's still pandering, nepotism, and corruption, it's just harder to keep track of when the players keep moving.
That's why I say it should be simplified, and a sitting politician, occupying an elected seat should not be allowed to actively campaign for office. All voting records should be public information.
Of course, I also believe candidate's names should be eliminated from the ballot. Just a list of offices, followed by blank lines. Every vote is a write in. If you don't know you're guy well enough to spell his name, the rest of us shouldn't be abuse by your opinion.
You have no concept of what you speak of. The vast majority of the people in those situations didn't choose to be there, they ended up there due to circumstances outside of their control.
Well, I know of what I speak, because I came from that situation. The attitude you express in the second sentence is why the majority of the people in those situations are still there.
Fuck you. Fuck you and you're whiny, condescending, thieving attitude. You proclaim people to be helpless, and yourself their saviour. Your not. You're their captor. You're blinded by your overriding sense of superiority which you use to justify stealing from those you envy, to give to those look down on. You don't believe in charity. That would be giving of your own time, energy and treasure. You're just a common thief that wants to hide behind what you want to call benevolence. You're evil. Evil and stupid, for refusing to see the harm you inflict on those you claim to be protecting by instilling an I-can't outlook.
The poor get poorer, and the rich get richer, because the poor keep doing what they did to get poor and the rich keep doing what they did to get rich. Robbing from the rich and handing it back to the poor doesn't change a damn thing.
How about the administrators be paid for getting people OFF of welfare? It's all in the incentives. Social workers are currently paid for their case-load. The more people on welfare, the more they make. Where is the incentive to declare someone capable and self-sustainable? Hell, where is the incentive to do anything except push more "services" onto them?
The unemployment services (whatever they're called in a particular state) should be melded with the community college services which should be tied to child care services. To get an unemployment check, people should be required to be in job training programs for 6 hours a day, and job hunting for 2. Support and push people. Tie in with local industries. No free rides, but don't leave people to starve. If you want money, we'll help you, but you've got to play the game and try to help yourself.
If you're still in the program after 3 yrs, some social service agent needs to be dinged on a progress report.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! That was easy. Now the hard part. Define "income".
My brother-in-law worked as a shift supervisor at a local printer. His work never took him out of the plant. He was given a company car to drive. Is that income?
I get a relatively nice health-plan where I work. Is that income?
The company often pays me to travel. Puts me up in a fairly nice places and lets me eat at restaurants I'd never go to on my own dime. Is that income?
In that case, they should pass it....right away!
Now that is a reasonable statement that can be the start of a real discussion.
I would substitute the word "coerce" for "forcing". There have been many companies left on the wayside when they fell foul of one bad mood or another of the public. They can coerce, persuade or assuage, but companies can't really force anything (until they bring government with their guns into the mix).
The most refreshing is your clear call to arms of who is at fault. We all will have to accept higher cost to have this cleaner environment. Now we can enter the discussion of how clean is clean enough, and how much do we want to pay for it. Most of all, I'd like to hear someone making the statement that, environmentally speaking, polluting some rice farmer's paddy in China is 100% equivalent to polluting Martha's Vineyard (I'm not being sarcastic. It ab-so-friggin-lutely is the same.)
However, in no way is calling companies thieves, while running to TigerDirect to get the cheapest computer components we can find, doing anything other than shifting blame from ourselves to others.
Is your position then that he should go on being complicit instead of say, recognizing the errors of the western world and trying to make amends by advocating a contrary position on the internet?
Good point. Of all the responses to my post, this was the only one that had a point.
Should he (or she. We know about a computer, nothing of the poster's gender.) go on being complicit? The poster is calling out others as being thieves, while benefiting from the same's effort to provide a product that the public desires at a price that the public is willing to pay. Is it not recognized as the height of foolishness for the pot to call the kettle black while biting the hand that feeds you? If you're going to take the moral high ground, you might want to first exert the effort to get a little higher.
And you are complicit in THAT thievery by sitting in front of your computer, probably someplace where it is air conditioned, posting your asinine banalities on Slashdot. Or do you have one of those new-fangled computers that run without electricity?
Some of us live in climates that require neither heating in the winter nor cooling in the summer, and we can power our computers easily from solar.
eg: My ULV thinkpad consumes less than 15w running full-bore with the screen turned up all the way. Each set of cheap amorphous solar panels cost me less than a new oem laptop battery, and put out enough power to run 2 or 3 laptops, depending on the season.
Please don't project your stupidity and ignorance onto others. Thanks.
You're ULV Thinkpad that consumed no energy and produced no waste in its production, powered by solar cells which produce no toxic waste in their production, and transported to your magical fairy land of perfect comfort on the backs of fartless unicorns, gives you the moral high ground to call out all the capitalists as thieves. Well...ain't you special.
8*) Good point. Notice though that I said, "businessman worth his salt".
Only for clueless sheeple that don't realize that they can create their own jobs.
Agreed. And how have they tilted that playing field? One of the big guns that established players use is ... regulations.
Judges think that. Not because they want to, but because it has been accepted by the courts.
And it has been accepted by the courts, because it has been written into LAW.
My wife was a real-estate agent when the law went into effect about fix or six years ago. Before, FedEx made a killing with the various, slightly modified contracts flying back and forth. Faxing was ok for negotiating the deal and sending the contracts back and forth, but it wasn't legally binding until both parties held copies with original signatures. Then one magical December 31st, one party could sign, fax it to the other party that would sign and then fax the signed, wholly illegible but now legally binding contract back and the deal was cast.
It'll require a reincarnation after he blows up the Earth destroying asteroid, but don't worry. After this spreads from the shut-ins to everyone using it, Bruce will be there to bring the network down and force everyone to come out of their house and talk to their neighbors.
Incremental change is the domain of business,
Because a businessman worth his salt knows that you don't bet $500,000,000 on unproven technology.
In a bankruptcy, someone buys the material assets...usually at bargain prices. What for who winds up with a mile long solar cell manufacturing plant, built at taxpayer expense.
And you are complicit in THAT thievery by sitting in front of your computer, probably someplace where it is air conditioned, posting your asinine banalities on Slashdot. Or do you have one of those new-fangled computers that run without electricity?
I live in Cary (Concentrated Area of Relocated Yankees) NC. All them Yankees think they can drive on our 2" of snow. They're the ones getting pulled out of ditches. All the locals know to stay home. You can't drive on our 2" of snow, 'cause it ain't snow. It's ice, with just a slight amount of sun-melted liquid water on top. There is NO measurable traction between the tire and the slicked ice. Zero. None. Nada. It not like up north where the ice freezes solid and stays that way.
I got home early before it really got started, but the worst weather traffic I've ever seen was a few winters back when there was just barely a 1/8" sheet of ice left on the roads. Nothing could move.
Sounds like life to me.
That is basically the list that was available to every generation before Y...even when the "cars" ate hay for power.
you can find advertisements from the 1980s about radar systems warning people about stuff behind them.
in reality, the cheap models of cars will not have any of that stuff, in order to keep the price low.
that is almost a necessity in this new age, where the distribution of wealth has become so uneven, where you have 9% unemployment measurements (and much higher in reality) , tens of millions of people on food stamps (a historical high), where minimum wage is not enough to live on, let alone buy a car, and more and more people are getting minimum wage jobs, while a very small number of people get most of the income.
you cant sell a bunch of fancy, gadget filled cars in such an economic environment.
You mean like how cheap cars don't have power locks or CD players today? All of this stuff could be controlled with a stock standard ECU that are currently in today's cars. The extra "features" will be thrown in for an extra $800 (will cost the manufacture a $100, if that as it will be integrated into existing displays and computer controls), which will be advertised as just "$7 more on your monthly payment". It is the exact same thing they do with radios and entertainment systems (who the hell pays $600 for a radio anyhow?).
*Warning....all numbers are fictional and any resemblance to actual numbers is entirely coincidence. But that is basically how it works.
Fact: Anyone can be suspected of ANYTHING.
Fact: These laws are not created to protect. They are created to control and convict. They are not expected to be followed. Create enough laws and everyone is a criminal.
Clinton didn't have a surplus. There was a "projected" surplus, based on some accounting gimmicks. They are NOT the same.
The Bush tax cuts were in effect for ten years. Considering that the country was recovering from a post Year-2000 capital equipment replacement lull, I would say they did quite a bit, as did many economist.
And vote in who? The (George Soros sponsored) Progressives, who didn't vote on a budget when they had control of both houses of the legislature AND the Presidency, and couldn't offer up a plan that could pass their own caucus?
"And sorry it is no ones fault but ours."
Not all of us, just a very irrational (in need of meds) & vocal (needs to STFU) minority.
If they were a minority, how did they "hold the country hostage"? Each Congressman gets the same number of votes, exactly 1. You need to go back to Rachel and get more talking points. These aren't serving you well.
People who save a lot instead of spending their income creates unemployment by forcing a lack of demand.
So, they're not "spending it right", huh? You learned your talking points well.
The big potential problem with term limits is that you'll have a government where the only people who know what they're doing is the bureaucracy. Which moves the power from guys we can kick out of office to unelected (and largely unaccountable) bureaucrats...
Which will force the elected officials to scale back the powers of the bureaucrats by not giving them cart blanche to run roughshod over the populace.
Term limits aren't quite the panacea you're thinking they are. If a politician isn't running for the same office, he's still running for a different one. There's still pandering, nepotism, and corruption, it's just harder to keep track of when the players keep moving.
That's why I say it should be simplified, and a sitting politician, occupying an elected seat should not be allowed to actively campaign for office. All voting records should be public information.
Of course, I also believe candidate's names should be eliminated from the ballot. Just a list of offices, followed by blank lines. Every vote is a write in. If you don't know you're guy well enough to spell his name, the rest of us shouldn't be abuse by your opinion.
You have no concept of what you speak of. The vast majority of the people in those situations didn't choose to be there, they ended up there due to circumstances outside of their control.
Well, I know of what I speak, because I came from that situation. The attitude you express in the second sentence is why the majority of the people in those situations are still there.
Fuck you. Fuck you and you're whiny, condescending, thieving attitude. You proclaim people to be helpless, and yourself their saviour. Your not. You're their captor. You're blinded by your overriding sense of superiority which you use to justify stealing from those you envy, to give to those look down on. You don't believe in charity. That would be giving of your own time, energy and treasure. You're just a common thief that wants to hide behind what you want to call benevolence. You're evil. Evil and stupid, for refusing to see the harm you inflict on those you claim to be protecting by instilling an I-can't outlook.
The poor get poorer, and the rich get richer, because the poor keep doing what they did to get poor and the rich keep doing what they did to get rich. Robbing from the rich and handing it back to the poor doesn't change a damn thing.
In other words, "Let's cut the budget, but not the programs *I* care about."
Sounds just like what everyone else is screaming.
How about the administrators be paid for getting people OFF of welfare? It's all in the incentives. Social workers are currently paid for their case-load. The more people on welfare, the more they make. Where is the incentive to declare someone capable and self-sustainable? Hell, where is the incentive to do anything except push more "services" onto them?
The unemployment services (whatever they're called in a particular state) should be melded with the community college services which should be tied to child care services. To get an unemployment check, people should be required to be in job training programs for 6 hours a day, and job hunting for 2. Support and push people. Tie in with local industries. No free rides, but don't leave people to starve. If you want money, we'll help you, but you've got to play the game and try to help yourself.
If you're still in the program after 3 yrs, some social service agent needs to be dinged on a progress report.