In America that would be replaced by 'my grandfather was a miner, I'm a mine superintendent and my son will own the mine'.
And in 99 cases of 100, his son will end up unemployed. That's why Europe prefers stability, being an older culture, they've learnt that it's better for 100 sons to all be employed, than 1 son is rich while the other 99 starve.
The USA has 319 million people. The EU has 503 million people. Sure not all of them speak English but the fraction is still significant enough. English is spoken by 47% of EU citizens (i.e. 236 million people) and the fraction of those who speak English has been increasing.
I take it you've never been to Europe? Unlike the US which is a young country that (mostly) identifies under one flag, Europe has hundreds of cultural variations, some of which are thousands of years old. Some villages only a few km apart refuse to do business with each other based on some shit that happened 4 centuries ago. So there's a lot more to it than just speaking a similar language. The US is unique in this regard that is has one extremely large, almost homogenous population (relatively speaking - I'm well aware that's that statement is not entirely accurate).
Like most Americans you seem to focus only on wealth as a measure of success. Having been to Europe and America (but being a resident of neither), I much prefer the European model. Sure there's less raw cash, but since when did money buy Happiness?
Whenever there's those OECD comparisons about things that I value: happiness, standard of living, access to health and education, low violent crime etc then North Western Europe along with Australia and New Zealand blitz those things every time.
So if there's one thing Europe shouldn't be doing, it's being more like America.
Choosing not to own a weapon, and being against their legalization, may not be the identical position.
It isn't, but that's not really the point. "Legalisation" is such a useless term, no-one is advocating complete illegalisation of weapons, even civilised countries allow their citizens to own certain weapons. But I think most people believe some level of control needs to be implemented, More control than currently exists in the US.
I suspect many non-owners would reconsider, for instance, if it became necessary to hunt for their meat.
Yeah great, but what does that have to do with anything?
Many people think violent crime is a lot worse than it is. So what does that tell us about the value of people's opinions?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
This debate concerning a citizen's right to weaponry is as polarizing as those of political and religious topics. People on both sides of the argument (with entrenched belief sets) are often unable to process new evidence of a contradictory sort.
Yeah great. So you've done nothing to remedy that fact except whinge about it....
You seem jealous and butthurt that some of us have managed to avoid whatever torment you've brought upon yourself.
I have a great job that pays well with a great work life balance. You're one crying into your milk because HR don't like your skills. As you said "I can't imagine what it's like...". Instead of using your flawed imagination, take it from someone is is not using imagination but real world experience, even great companies and great jobs have crap HR processes. It'd be foolishly to think that is how the entire company operates based on your experience with one person/team.
I've never encountered a 3rd party plugin for Excel at any company I've ever worked for.
Most people simply don't use it that hard.
Probably says more about the places you've worked. If you've ever had any experience in Financial Services, ie the industry that runs the world, then Excel is king.
Pools in my country have restrictions such as proximity, fencing, water quality etc to ensure reasonable safety standards. Why should a weapon design to kill people not be subject to similar controls?
Roof used a gun to shoot 9 black people in SC recently. He was under felony charges for drug crimes and was not legally able to own a gun. How will more gun control laws stop him from getting a gun?
It won't stop him specifically because that event has already happened. Unless you have a time machine we can only focus on future events.
The logic goes something like this:
1. Restrict Gun ownership
2. Less guns are bought
3. Less guns are made
4. Less guns are available on the street
5. Less guns being used
6. Less gun violence.
Some examples of this are every other country in the western world with reduced gun ownership and reduced gun crime compared to the US.
So yeah, gun restrictions won't stop the violence in one day, or even one year, but give it 20 years and you will see an impact to gun crime numbers, as already proven elsewhere.
We can't let commoners own armored vehicles !! Why, they might want to shoot up the place !!:|
Let's replace a few words and note the resulting silliness. . . ..
We can't let commoners own private aircraft !! Why, they might fly them into buildings !!
There's a simple test for this type of thing, does the thing you want serve a legitimate purpose in a civilised society?
I'm into my 5th decade of life on this planet and never needed an Armoured truck, nor known anyone else to need one outside a business whose job involves security. I do know of people who own their own planes for completely civilised and legitimate purposes, so I can sort these items into easily definable lists which a person charged with administering this civilised society might want to use in order to try and control the use of such things.
It's so easy I think even a 12 year old could do it.
Give these things a try and see how you go:
Hammer
Axe
Fully automatic assault rifle
Tractor
Plane
Bulldozer
Armoured Truck
Two, there are still places in the U.S. remote enough that a rifle and/or shotgun are still important survival tools and assistance is quite a way off even if you can call someone.
Imagine being all alone in the U.K. surrounded by wilderness and the nearest help if something goes wrong is in France. Now you have an idea why people in the more remote parts of the U.S. believe they need a gun.
Compare on the chart linked above Australia. Much more remote places, much more things that kill you, much less guns, much less shootings.
We all know why you think you need a gun, but evidence suggests you don't really need it at all.
Define "trouble"? Recent history is littered with examples of the US military immediately and utterly crushing the armies and rebel groups in any country they invade.
I think we mean outside the movies. Based on outcomes, Iraq is a loss, Afghanistan a loss, Vietnam was a loss, Korea technically a draw but really a loss based on outcome for the US. WW1 and 2 were group wins, prior to that my American military history is vague but the US civil war is technically a win I guess, and the war for Independence was an assisted win (thanks to the French).
If anything, the long string of mediocre results despite extremely superior hardware is a clear sign of how poor the US military are at "crushing" anything.
If that is a trade-off the population can live with, then so be it. Each is free in a way of their choosing.
Well except if some people want one thing, and the rest want another, and minority interests wield disproportionate power.
78% of Americans choose not to own a gun, yet still have to live with the threat of being shot by the other 22% that do.
Well there was that guy that stole that tank once and got killed by the cops, and... well that's the only story I know of. So 1 for the US, 0 for the rest of the universe.
And most IT drones don't understand the purpose of HR. HR are not there to help you, they exist solely as a hedge for the business owners against liability from employees.
However the fix, is to teach the ideas and not the tools. How to use a Word Processor not Microsoft Word, How to program in C++ not Visual C++.
Depends on what you're at school to learn doesn't it? Most people don't go to school for an education, they go there to get a job. In that use case, you are better simply learning the tools to get in the door and figure the rest out for yourself when you get there.
Critical thinking is like common sense, not so common anymore.
When was it then? Seriously, when was the magic era when common sense and critical thinking was common? Name a time/generation/era you think was the peak of human development and I will take pleasure in ripping it to shreds.
Common sense is a term used by old people with nostalgia goggles who conveniently forget all the stupid shit they did when they were younger.
Post of the Day!
To back up the "kids these days" myth. Progress allows growth in both directions, so just as some 'kids these days' are fatter and lazier and more addicted to junk-food than our generation (whichever generation you are makes no difference to this statement), so some are taller, faster, stronger and smarter. My wife is a teacher and I'm blown away by what some kids can do these days, a lot smarter than anyone I knew as a kid. And there are also the jerks. So yeah, like a tree, the branches spread further from the trunk in ALL directions.
The reason is that if that company hires inefficient people and/or uses inefficient hiring process, I can't imagine how bad situation would I be to deal with their HR in the future...
You don't get out much do you? All companies have crap hiring processes, and in the dozens of jobs (multiple dozens) I've had, the HR dept had precisely zero bearing on the rest of the company. But if you want to get all precious about it, all the better for people like me who get those jobs.
Also, most people have evolved to be able to use more than just MSOffice, they can use LibreOffice, Google Docs etc.
Yeah screw application compatibility. Who needs all those 3rd party vendor plugins that seamlessly connect to Excel when you can wave the FOSS flag that doesn't work with anything...
Slashdot Mirror
In America that would be replaced by 'my grandfather was a miner, I'm a mine superintendent and my son will own the mine'.
And in 99 cases of 100, his son will end up unemployed. That's why Europe prefers stability, being an older culture, they've learnt that it's better for 100 sons to all be employed, than 1 son is rich while the other 99 starve.
The USA has 319 million people. The EU has 503 million people. Sure not all of them speak English but the fraction is still significant enough. English is spoken by 47% of EU citizens (i.e. 236 million people) and the fraction of those who speak English has been increasing.
I take it you've never been to Europe? Unlike the US which is a young country that (mostly) identifies under one flag, Europe has hundreds of cultural variations, some of which are thousands of years old. Some villages only a few km apart refuse to do business with each other based on some shit that happened 4 centuries ago. So there's a lot more to it than just speaking a similar language. The US is unique in this regard that is has one extremely large, almost homogenous population (relatively speaking - I'm well aware that's that statement is not entirely accurate).
The US's distinct advantage: Immediate access to a 320M people market with the same language and very similar culture.
Seems odd that it works well in the case of technology or entertainment industry, but why is the American auto industry so shit?
Like most Americans you seem to focus only on wealth as a measure of success. Having been to Europe and America (but being a resident of neither), I much prefer the European model. Sure there's less raw cash, but since when did money buy Happiness?
Whenever there's those OECD comparisons about things that I value: happiness, standard of living, access to health and education, low violent crime etc then North Western Europe along with Australia and New Zealand blitz those things every time.
So if there's one thing Europe shouldn't be doing, it's being more like America.
Choosing not to own a weapon, and being against their legalization, may not be the identical position.
It isn't, but that's not really the point. "Legalisation" is such a useless term, no-one is advocating complete illegalisation of weapons, even civilised countries allow their citizens to own certain weapons. But I think most people believe some level of control needs to be implemented, More control than currently exists in the US.
I suspect many non-owners would reconsider, for instance, if it became necessary to hunt for their meat.
Yeah great, but what does that have to do with anything?
Many people think violent crime is a lot worse than it is. So what does that tell us about the value of people's opinions? http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
This debate concerning a citizen's right to weaponry is as polarizing as those of political and religious topics. People on both sides of the argument (with entrenched belief sets) are often unable to process new evidence of a contradictory sort.
Yeah great. So you've done nothing to remedy that fact except whinge about it....
You seem jealous and butthurt that some of us have managed to avoid whatever torment you've brought upon yourself.
I have a great job that pays well with a great work life balance. You're one crying into your milk because HR don't like your skills. As you said "I can't imagine what it's like...". Instead of using your flawed imagination, take it from someone is is not using imagination but real world experience, even great companies and great jobs have crap HR processes. It'd be foolishly to think that is how the entire company operates based on your experience with one person/team.
I've never encountered a 3rd party plugin for Excel at any company I've ever worked for.
Most people simply don't use it that hard.
Probably says more about the places you've worked. If you've ever had any experience in Financial Services, ie the industry that runs the world, then Excel is king.
Ban pools while you are at it
Pools in my country have restrictions such as proximity, fencing, water quality etc to ensure reasonable safety standards. Why should a weapon design to kill people not be subject to similar controls?
The wide majority of gun crime in the US is committed with guns that the person using them has no right to posses.
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
Roof used a gun to shoot 9 black people in SC recently. He was under felony charges for drug crimes and was not legally able to own a gun. How will more gun control laws stop him from getting a gun?
It won't stop him specifically because that event has already happened. Unless you have a time machine we can only focus on future events.
The logic goes something like this:
1. Restrict Gun ownership
2. Less guns are bought
3. Less guns are made
4. Less guns are available on the street
5. Less guns being used
6. Less gun violence.
Some examples of this are every other country in the western world with reduced gun ownership and reduced gun crime compared to the US.
So yeah, gun restrictions won't stop the violence in one day, or even one year, but give it 20 years and you will see an impact to gun crime numbers, as already proven elsewhere.
It's also why our poorest state is wealthier than the UK on a per capita basis.
So the conclusion is that money doesn't buy happiness? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We can't let commoners own armored vehicles !! Why, they might want to shoot up the place !! :|
Let's replace a few words and note the resulting silliness. . . . .
We can't let commoners own private aircraft !! Why, they might fly them into buildings !!
There's a simple test for this type of thing, does the thing you want serve a legitimate purpose in a civilised society?
I'm into my 5th decade of life on this planet and never needed an Armoured truck, nor known anyone else to need one outside a business whose job involves security. I do know of people who own their own planes for completely civilised and legitimate purposes, so I can sort these items into easily definable lists which a person charged with administering this civilised society might want to use in order to try and control the use of such things. It's so easy I think even a 12 year old could do it.
Give these things a try and see how you go:
Hammer
Axe
Fully automatic assault rifle
Tractor
Plane
Bulldozer
Armoured Truck
Not that hard is it?
There are a few things to keep in mind though. First, Canada has more guns per capita than the United States.
Is that what they tell you at the NRA meetings? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Two, there are still places in the U.S. remote enough that a rifle and/or shotgun are still important survival tools and assistance is quite a way off even if you can call someone.
Imagine being all alone in the U.K. surrounded by wilderness and the nearest help if something goes wrong is in France. Now you have an idea why people in the more remote parts of the U.S. believe they need a gun.
Compare on the chart linked above Australia. Much more remote places, much more things that kill you, much less guns, much less shootings.
We all know why you think you need a gun, but evidence suggests you don't really need it at all.
Define "trouble"? Recent history is littered with examples of the US military immediately and utterly crushing the armies and rebel groups in any country they invade.
I think we mean outside the movies. Based on outcomes, Iraq is a loss, Afghanistan a loss, Vietnam was a loss, Korea technically a draw but really a loss based on outcome for the US. WW1 and 2 were group wins, prior to that my American military history is vague but the US civil war is technically a win I guess, and the war for Independence was an assisted win (thanks to the French).
If anything, the long string of mediocre results despite extremely superior hardware is a clear sign of how poor the US military are at "crushing" anything.
If that is a trade-off the population can live with, then so be it. Each is free in a way of their choosing.
Well except if some people want one thing, and the rest want another, and minority interests wield disproportionate power. 78% of Americans choose not to own a gun, yet still have to live with the threat of being shot by the other 22% that do.
And that guy that made an armoured bulldozer who went on a rampage and killed himself. So far that US 2, rest of universe 0...
Well there was that guy that stole that tank once and got killed by the cops, and... well that's the only story I know of. So 1 for the US, 0 for the rest of the universe.
Because HR Drones don't understand software
And most IT drones don't understand the purpose of HR. HR are not there to help you, they exist solely as a hedge for the business owners against liability from employees.
However the fix, is to teach the ideas and not the tools. How to use a Word Processor not Microsoft Word, How to program in C++ not Visual C++.
Depends on what you're at school to learn doesn't it? Most people don't go to school for an education, they go there to get a job. In that use case, you are better simply learning the tools to get in the door and figure the rest out for yourself when you get there.
Critical thinking is like common sense, not so common anymore.
When was it then? Seriously, when was the magic era when common sense and critical thinking was common? Name a time/generation/era you think was the peak of human development and I will take pleasure in ripping it to shreds.
Common sense is a term used by old people with nostalgia goggles who conveniently forget all the stupid shit they did when they were younger.
Post of the Day!
To back up the "kids these days" myth. Progress allows growth in both directions, so just as some 'kids these days' are fatter and lazier and more addicted to junk-food than our generation (whichever generation you are makes no difference to this statement), so some are taller, faster, stronger and smarter. My wife is a teacher and I'm blown away by what some kids can do these days, a lot smarter than anyone I knew as a kid. And there are also the jerks. So yeah, like a tree, the branches spread further from the trunk in ALL directions.
The reason is that if that company hires inefficient people and/or uses inefficient hiring process, I can't imagine how bad situation would I be to deal with their HR in the future...
You don't get out much do you? All companies have crap hiring processes, and in the dozens of jobs (multiple dozens) I've had, the HR dept had precisely zero bearing on the rest of the company. But if you want to get all precious about it, all the better for people like me who get those jobs.
Also, most people have evolved to be able to use more than just MSOffice, they can use LibreOffice, Google Docs etc.
Yeah screw application compatibility. Who needs all those 3rd party vendor plugins that seamlessly connect to Excel when you can wave the FOSS flag that doesn't work with anything...
You mean like the preview button?
Fuck google's business model.
Really? Keep in mind that without it Google search wouldn't exist...
Google Search existed before Google settled on their business model...
Is it better if Paul robs Peter then fucks him in the ass? What is this Fox News?