Ok, but you missed the empathy part. You're arguing your side without acknowledging the other side. They're people, just like you.
The needs of NHS, education, and big business don't automatically outweigh everything else. And if, as you say, these institutions are largely made up of non-UK people, you shouldn't expect a government established for the benefit of UK-people to represent those institutions as well as you'd like.
For predicting what people might decide to do in the future? It's about as good as any of the other varieties of guessing. If you have a 100% certain method of predicting the future, please post it here.
Because the same rich European elites who benefit from the pre-Brexit conditions will stand to benefit from those conditions mostly continuing. And they're the people in charge of the EU.
It's still isolation, enmity, and someday maybe a war versus trade and peace and some amount of mutual benefit. Saying the word "colony" doesn't tip the scales.
Australia should welcome trade with China. Australia has lots of resources. China needs resources and has stuff to offer in return. Trading with a country like China is better than fighting a war with them.
Why would a country welcome someone who seems to only want to complain?
It's an honest question, BTW. Countries don't have to say yes to immigrants -- they can choose to say no. Why should they say yes? What's in it for them to say yes? Smiles from ruling-class pundits?
I've heard that a lot, but how does it make sense? Was being part of the EU a great thing for the UK? If it was, why didn't they vote to stay?If it wasn't, how can you say the UK will suffer a great hardship from leaving?
The only ways the UK suffers a great hardship on one hand without a great benefit on the other is (1) if the UK is inherently very fragile and the EU was keeping it from disaster, or (2) the EU embarks on a vengeful policy to punish the UK. Is it one of these? Or something else?
Or is "the UK will suffer" a poorly-reasoned (or exaggerated) conclusion?
Yeah, paying the debts you owe is such a buzzkill. Can't we just borrow some more money and keep the party going?
What's they purpose of the union, then?
When one group wants to borrow money and not pay it back, and the other group wants to insist on being paid back even if it's a hardship, a union seems like a bad idea.
It may not be a dream come true, but it can be a way to make a second paycheck working entirely on your own schedule. There aren't a lot of easy ways to turn a few otherwise idle hours into an income.
Plus it provides a helpful service to people and leads to less drunk driving.
What were the arguments against it supposed to be? We owe the taxi monopoly and their political friends a favor?
My guess: less than 20000. Realistically, this was never more than small fraction of an already small fraction of users.
Sony sold about 30 million PS3s in North America. Subtract Canada, and the PS3 slim and super-slim models and you're probably down below 20 million. How many PS3 owners really put Linux on their PS3? 1 in 500?
A bad job is better than no job. People are more important than robots.
Tell the complainers that. I would like governments to stop outlawing entry level jobs based on the idea that the 17-year-olds working those jobs can't support a family of four on $10/hour.
People complain about inventory pickers' and shippers' jobs being lost instead of complaining that inventory picking and shipping for Amazon are grueling jobs that are too physically demanding and don't pay enough. Who wants to hear the same complaints over and over? Now we have a variety.
Sympathy isn't the point. Moving to a less corrupt, less coercive, less divided society is the point. Perhaps corruption and coercion and a general societal construction that favors giving more power to politicians and pressure groups is working for you -- people can sometimes get away with benefitting from the mistreatment of others. But I'd rather we stop mistreating people to protect and enrich politicians and their friends.
And if we weren't talking about otherwise innocent people ending up in prison for minding their own business, that kind of "I guess that's just a choice then" attitude would be ok. But deciding to go ahead and imprison some innocent people isn't acceptable. Especially when there's zero evidence that "there has to be a workable solution" (unless by "workable" you mean "I don't care if we imprison innocents").
Yes they are. They want to arrest and imprison guys with rifles. Hunters have rifles. Some hunters have rifles with attachments like a collapsible stock, and ignorant people label that rifle a "dangerous assault rifle". And those ignorant people would arrest and imprison that hunter. That's what they're "talking about" when they talk about banning "assault rifles".
An "assault rifle" is also known as a "rifle" (with some extra stuff on it that scares ignorant people). Hunters use rifles for hunting. Some of the stuff that scares ignorant people helps hunters hunt. Personally, I don't think hunters should be imprisoned for that, because they are innocent of any wrongdoing and we shouldn't engage in witch hunts against people who aren't like us based entirely upon ignorance. Maybe you disagree?
But a society cannot be made up of Ubers. Anyway obviously it doesn't matter what I say, America is on it's way down and no one will be interested in fixing it because it will take some sort of sacrifice.
Why should anyone "sacrifice" to protect and enrich corrupt politicians and their friends? Let's "sacrifice" corruption. Let's "sacrifice" government waste. How about we ask government employees to "sacrifice" their cushy jobs and bloated pensions? How about we ask the politicians and the police to "sacrifice" their bullying disregard for individuals and their general inhumanity and start acting like their job is to serve the public?
I see. People being able to offer each other car rides causes society to "break down around us". And the only cure is more police minding everyone's business, imposing an order that protects and enriches politicians and their friends. Thanks for clearing that up.
Slashdot Mirror
C++ needed more features. Some C++ books aren't even 1000 pages long.
Thanks. That's exactly what I mean by stories about the future. We don't know. We shouldn't pretend we do.
Ok, but you missed the empathy part. You're arguing your side without acknowledging the other side. They're people, just like you.
The needs of NHS, education, and big business don't automatically outweigh everything else. And if, as you say, these institutions are largely made up of non-UK people, you shouldn't expect a government established for the benefit of UK-people to represent those institutions as well as you'd like.
Why do people make up stories like this about the future? You don't know the future. Stop pretending to yourself and everyone else that you do.
Watch the NHS, education, and the large businesses. They're all about to suffer, even if they don't immediately collapse.
I guess people thought the benefits to these institutions weren't worth the costs. Empathy for the people bearing those costs might have helped.
For predicting what people might decide to do in the future? It's about as good as any of the other varieties of guessing. If you have a 100% certain method of predicting the future, please post it here.
Because the same rich European elites who benefit from the pre-Brexit conditions will stand to benefit from those conditions mostly continuing. And they're the people in charge of the EU.
It's still isolation, enmity, and someday maybe a war versus trade and peace and some amount of mutual benefit. Saying the word "colony" doesn't tip the scales.
That seems to support a conclusion that the UK will suffer in some ways and benefit in others rather than simply "the UK will suffer".
The bottom of your society is literally an endless abyss...
They keep voting for the same people and supporting the same institutions that have failed them for decades.
Australia should welcome trade with China. Australia has lots of resources. China needs resources and has stuff to offer in return. Trading with a country like China is better than fighting a war with them.
Why would a country welcome someone who seems to only want to complain?
It's an honest question, BTW. Countries don't have to say yes to immigrants -- they can choose to say no. Why should they say yes? What's in it for them to say yes? Smiles from ruling-class pundits?
... the UK will suffer.
I've heard that a lot, but how does it make sense? Was being part of the EU a great thing for the UK? If it was, why didn't they vote to stay?If it wasn't, how can you say the UK will suffer a great hardship from leaving?
The only ways the UK suffers a great hardship on one hand without a great benefit on the other is (1) if the UK is inherently very fragile and the EU was keeping it from disaster, or (2) the EU embarks on a vengeful policy to punish the UK. Is it one of these? Or something else?
Or is "the UK will suffer" a poorly-reasoned (or exaggerated) conclusion?
Why should someone believe Greece will actually carry out the austerity measures? Saying you'll change isn't the same as actually changing.
Yeah, paying the debts you owe is such a buzzkill. Can't we just borrow some more money and keep the party going?
What's they purpose of the union, then?
When one group wants to borrow money and not pay it back, and the other group wants to insist on being paid back even if it's a hardship, a union seems like a bad idea.
It may not be a dream come true, but it can be a way to make a second paycheck working entirely on your own schedule. There aren't a lot of easy ways to turn a few otherwise idle hours into an income.
Plus it provides a helpful service to people and leads to less drunk driving.
What were the arguments against it supposed to be? We owe the taxi monopoly and their political friends a favor?
My guess: less than 20000. Realistically, this was never more than small fraction of an already small fraction of users.
Sony sold about 30 million PS3s in North America. Subtract Canada, and the PS3 slim and super-slim models and you're probably down below 20 million. How many PS3 owners really put Linux on their PS3? 1 in 500?
A bad job is better than no job. People are more important than robots.
Tell the complainers that. I would like governments to stop outlawing entry level jobs based on the idea that the 17-year-olds working those jobs can't support a family of four on $10/hour.
People complain about inventory pickers' and shippers' jobs being lost instead of complaining that inventory picking and shipping for Amazon are grueling jobs that are too physically demanding and don't pay enough. Who wants to hear the same complaints over and over? Now we have a variety.
Sympathy isn't the point. Moving to a less corrupt, less coercive, less divided society is the point. Perhaps corruption and coercion and a general societal construction that favors giving more power to politicians and pressure groups is working for you -- people can sometimes get away with benefitting from the mistreatment of others. But I'd rather we stop mistreating people to protect and enrich politicians and their friends.
And if we weren't talking about otherwise innocent people ending up in prison for minding their own business, that kind of "I guess that's just a choice then" attitude would be ok. But deciding to go ahead and imprison some innocent people isn't acceptable. Especially when there's zero evidence that "there has to be a workable solution" (unless by "workable" you mean "I don't care if we imprison innocents").
Yes they are. They want to arrest and imprison guys with rifles. Hunters have rifles. Some hunters have rifles with attachments like a collapsible stock, and ignorant people label that rifle a "dangerous assault rifle". And those ignorant people would arrest and imprison that hunter. That's what they're "talking about" when they talk about banning "assault rifles".
Why does an ordinary person need that kind of military-style Internet connection anyway?
An "assault rifle" is also known as a "rifle" (with some extra stuff on it that scares ignorant people). Hunters use rifles for hunting. Some of the stuff that scares ignorant people helps hunters hunt. Personally, I don't think hunters should be imprisoned for that, because they are innocent of any wrongdoing and we shouldn't engage in witch hunts against people who aren't like us based entirely upon ignorance. Maybe you disagree?
But a society cannot be made up of Ubers. Anyway obviously it doesn't matter what I say, America is on it's way down and no one will be interested in fixing it because it will take some sort of sacrifice.
Why should anyone "sacrifice" to protect and enrich corrupt politicians and their friends? Let's "sacrifice" corruption. Let's "sacrifice" government waste. How about we ask government employees to "sacrifice" their cushy jobs and bloated pensions? How about we ask the politicians and the police to "sacrifice" their bullying disregard for individuals and their general inhumanity and start acting like their job is to serve the public?
I see. People being able to offer each other car rides causes society to "break down around us". And the only cure is more police minding everyone's business, imposing an order that protects and enriches politicians and their friends. Thanks for clearing that up.