Licenses exist for one group of people to tax and control another group of people. Period.
No one said it would be legal for a 10 year old to drive. No one said your freedom to drive couldn't be taken away.
With licenses, everyone's freedom is automatically taken away, and you have to petition for special permission to get it back. Wasn't this supposed to be a free country?
But I guess this is trolling. Thinking for yourself is trolling on Slashdot. Nice place you have here.
How about giving me a license to walk, eat food, or breathe air while you're at it?
Driver's licenses are a ridiculous and unnecessary concept. Too bad all you people bought into it.
The key for me was that it had to be easy. I don't like strenuous exercise and I don't like health food. I'd tried to lose weight in the past, but it made me unhappy, so I wouldn't stick with the diet.
So my plan basically consists of 2 things:
1. Eat much less food. I eat the same things, but I eat less overall. And I don't eat health food, I eat pizza and cookies, have lunch at Wendy's, and I drink beer (not light beer either). The only thing I stopped eating was ice cream.
You'll get hungry. That's ok. After you get hungry, eat a small meal -- not enough to make you full, just enough so you're no longer hungry and you have a little energy. For example, I always skip breakfast, so I'm pretty hungry at lunch time. I'll have a small lunch and I'll be pretty hungry again before dinner. Then I'll eat a small dinner, and I'll be ok for while again. After a few days of this, I'll start getting _really_ hungry so I'll have to eat a bigger meal to be able to concentrate on my work.
Just remember, hunger is the feeling of you losing weight. It takes a little time, but you get used to it.
2. Walk an hour a day. And that's every day. I missed about 10 days last year, but I had the flu for about 7 of them.
I picked walking for a bunch of reasons. I can do it inside, so the weather doesn't matter (I don't have a treadmill, I just walk back and forth while watching TV or reading a book). It's free, it doesn't cause injury, it doesn't require special equipment (not even shoes), I don't need a shower afterwards, it doesn't make me out of breath, etc. In short, it's easy and it works. The biggest problem is that it takes an hour.
I've lost an average of 5 pounds per month for the last year and a half.
A couple of other hints:
A. If you try this plan, don't weigh yourself all the time. Weigh yourself once at the start and wait a good 6-8 weeks. Your weight won't go down really fast and if you weigh-in all the time, you might get discouraged.
In fact, don't even try to lose 5 pounds a month. Try to lose 2 pounds. Lose 2 pounds a month for 2 years, and that's 48 pounds.
B. This is not a fitness plan. It's going to be a lot easier to get into running or other fitness activities when you're no longer fat.
That's it. It's easy and it works. The best thing is, I never really have to go off the diet, so there's no worries about putting the weight back on.
The person who can cure AIDS can already "say millions of people who can't afford the cure must die" by just not bothering to cure it. Maybe he thinks the rewards aren't worth the effort.
If you were in charge, maybe they wouldn't be.
Fortunately, I live in a free society where transactions are voluntary. No one is forced to produce, and no one is forced to buy, but we do it anyway because it's in our individual best interest.
Each transaction makes both the buyer and the seller better off. That's why we both say "Thank You" after the transaction. This is why transactions happen, and this is why more transactions are better than fewer.
Your efforts to reduce the incentive for the producer will result in less producer effort and fewer transactions. This makes both the buyers and the seller worse off.
In the case of an AIDS cure, worse off for the buyer means DEAD.
If someone found a cure for AIDS, shouldn't they be able to get paid for that? Shouldn't people who do the most good for the world receive the largest rewards?
And so what if it's expensive? Say you had AIDS and the cure cost $10,000. Are you going to go buy a sports car instead?
You sound like one of those "I'll take what I want and rationalize it later" type of people. Here's a tip: If you don't bother rationalizing, you can take things faster.
So because a defense system wouldn't protect against EVERY threat, we shouldn't build any defense systems to protect against ANY threats? This is logic?
Please explain.
Re:Consensus Answer: I don't need it
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 2
Why even spend the 2 days for something I don't need? (And really, there's no way the total cost of adopting a new programming technology could ever be 2 days.)
As for not having a clue, here's my clue: I don't need a new programming technology. That's enough of a clue to decide not to go chasing after promises of new programming technologies. Good enough for me. Is it good enough for you? (Who cares.)
Consensus Answer: I don't need it
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 4
"I don't need it." seems to be the consensus answer to the "Why not Ruby?" question.
If people don't need it, it doesn't stand a chance. The helpfulness of Ruby is outweighed by the cost of learning it.
The cost is greater than the benefit, just like [insert your other underused neato technology here]. Come back when the benefits are greater than the costs; preferably when they're MUCH, MUCH greater.
In other words, some accident that didn't happen might be really dangerous, according to someone I never heard of.
I'm positively terrified.
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
"You cannot 'steal' an idea."
Someone works for years and years to develop a drug. You then steal their formula, and produce the drug yourself, leaving them out in the cold.
You haven't stolen their idea, you've stolen their WORK. Stealing is wrong. Even when you're stealing something "not everyone can afford".
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Not a troll. Just a guy that knows that stealing is wrong, even when you have the government do it for you. Even when you really want to. Even when you "dont believe their should be health-related IP of any kind". Even when you can rationalize it a hundred different ways. Stealing is wrong.
I also like the fact that I can get whatever medical service I want, exactly when I want it, with no waiting for a government waiting list. I want to see a doctor today, I go. And all I have to do is pay for it. What a simple, wonderful system.
Re:People tend to shoot back
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
The world is flat because the people who say it's round are "insane" and "their funding reads like a "who's who" list of the worst corporate polluters, rights abusers, etc".
When are you people going to figure this out?
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Ah. But you said better service, not worse service. Canada saves money on health care by offering worse service and stealing drug formulas from US companies. Quite an achievement.
Re:People tend to shoot back
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
The world is flat because the people who say it's round are "right wing extremists".
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Electricity is not a free market, and even if it were, you have mentioned nothing about the total cost of the service. Does it get subsidies from taxes or tax exemptions? You didn't say.
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Before: The energy market was not a free market, and blackouts were rare, but not unheard of.
After: The energy market was not a free market and blackouts are more common, but still rare.
Conclusion: When there's not a free market for energy, sometimes there are blackouts.
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
"You can bet that the right capitalist will offer these services, with lower real value, at higher prices and with zero certainty."
So governments offer better service at a lower total cost than companies? What planet does this happen on?
If you mean taxing other people so you can get free (or reduced-price) stuff for yourself or your friends, then there's a word for that. Stealing.
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
I said it above, and I'll repeat it here: Start destroying people's stuff, and eventually, you aren't going to live through one of the attempts.
Taxes are just a slower method of destroying people's stuff. The end result is inevitable: a civil war. Hope that's what you had in mind.
People tend to shoot back
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 3
Start destroying people's stuff, and eventually, you aren't going to live through one of the attempts.
Might want to look up whether you're really correct first. Start by debunking everything you read at junkscience.com. And saying "they're all liars funded by evil corporate interests" doesn't count. (E.g. The world is flat because the people who say it's round "are all liars and funded by evil corporate interests". "It's just common-sense.":)
"The future is dynamic" is great on a bumper sticker, but you're effectively claiming that what we do in our present doesn't affect the future.
Actually, I was saying exactly the opposite. The future can't be projected on a linear curve because things that happen in the future affect things that happen later in the future.
Example: We can never "run out" of fossil fuels because, as they become more scarce, their cost increases, leading to slower and slower usage, and ultimately to near zero usage with fossil fuels still in the ground.
From an engineering standpoint, this is simple: what happens if we listen to "the crazy greens" and they're wrong?
To even start, you'd have to eliminate many, many freedoms and subject citizens to the control of an elite class. This is a harm that cannot be repaired.
And last but not least, if I represent "the orthodoxy," I guess that explains why there are so many more Honda Insights on the road than SUVs
You misunderstand. Being part of the orthodox-green movement is about thinking and believing what you're supposed to, regardless of the actual truth. You're supposed to venerate the environmental leaders, decry the environmental bogeymen, and fear the apocalyptic prophesies. Actual "actions" are rare, and tend towards the symbolic.
Slashdot Mirror
No one said it would be legal for a 10 year old to drive. No one said your freedom to drive couldn't be taken away.
With licenses, everyone's freedom is automatically taken away, and you have to petition for special permission to get it back. Wasn't this supposed to be a free country?
But I guess this is trolling. Thinking for yourself is trolling on Slashdot. Nice place you have here.
"It's much harder to kill or seriously injure someone when you're eating, walking, or breathing."
But not impossible, hence the need for the license. Won't somebody think of the children!!??
You've let them have your freedom (to drive, in this case). What did you get in return?
How about giving me a license to walk, eat food, or breathe air while you're at it? Driver's licenses are a ridiculous and unnecessary concept. Too bad all you people bought into it.
The key for me was that it had to be easy. I don't like strenuous exercise and I don't like health food. I'd tried to lose weight in the past, but it made me unhappy, so I wouldn't stick with the diet.
So my plan basically consists of 2 things:
1. Eat much less food. I eat the same things, but I eat less overall. And I don't eat health food, I eat pizza and cookies, have lunch at Wendy's, and I drink beer (not light beer either). The only thing I stopped eating was ice cream.
You'll get hungry. That's ok. After you get hungry, eat a small meal -- not enough to make you full, just enough so you're no longer hungry and you have a little energy. For example, I always skip breakfast, so I'm pretty hungry at lunch time. I'll have a small lunch and I'll be pretty hungry again before dinner. Then I'll eat a small dinner, and I'll be ok for while again. After a few days of this, I'll start getting _really_ hungry so I'll have to eat a bigger meal to be able to concentrate on my work.
Just remember, hunger is the feeling of you losing weight. It takes a little time, but you get used to it.
2. Walk an hour a day. And that's every day. I missed about 10 days last year, but I had the flu for about 7 of them.
I picked walking for a bunch of reasons. I can do it inside, so the weather doesn't matter (I don't have a treadmill, I just walk back and forth while watching TV or reading a book). It's free, it doesn't cause injury, it doesn't require special equipment (not even shoes), I don't need a shower afterwards, it doesn't make me out of breath, etc. In short, it's easy and it works. The biggest problem is that it takes an hour.
I've lost an average of 5 pounds per month for the last year and a half.
A couple of other hints:
A. If you try this plan, don't weigh yourself all the time. Weigh yourself once at the start and wait a good 6-8 weeks. Your weight won't go down really fast and if you weigh-in all the time, you might get discouraged.
In fact, don't even try to lose 5 pounds a month. Try to lose 2 pounds. Lose 2 pounds a month for 2 years, and that's 48 pounds.
B. This is not a fitness plan. It's going to be a lot easier to get into running or other fitness activities when you're no longer fat.
That's it. It's easy and it works. The best thing is, I never really have to go off the diet, so there's no worries about putting the weight back on.
Hope this helps.
Nope, killing the dog is a fine choice and doesn't suck whatsoever.
Hindsight, however, doesn't reveal any immediate choices at all.
The person who can cure AIDS can already "say millions of people who can't afford the cure must die" by just not bothering to cure it. Maybe he thinks the rewards aren't worth the effort.
If you were in charge, maybe they wouldn't be.
Fortunately, I live in a free society where transactions are voluntary. No one is forced to produce, and no one is forced to buy, but we do it anyway because it's in our individual best interest.
Each transaction makes both the buyer and the seller better off. That's why we both say "Thank You" after the transaction. This is why transactions happen, and this is why more transactions are better than fewer.
Your efforts to reduce the incentive for the producer will result in less producer effort and fewer transactions. This makes both the buyers and the seller worse off.
In the case of an AIDS cure, worse off for the buyer means DEAD.
If someone found a cure for AIDS, shouldn't they be able to get paid for that? Shouldn't people who do the most good for the world receive the largest rewards?
And so what if it's expensive? Say you had AIDS and the cure cost $10,000. Are you going to go buy a sports car instead?
You sound like one of those "I'll take what I want and rationalize it later" type of people. Here's a tip: If you don't bother rationalizing, you can take things faster.
So because a defense system wouldn't protect against EVERY threat, we shouldn't build any defense systems to protect against ANY threats? This is logic? Please explain.
Why even spend the 2 days for something I don't need? (And really, there's no way the total cost of adopting a new programming technology could ever be 2 days.)
As for not having a clue, here's my clue: I don't need a new programming technology. That's enough of a clue to decide not to go chasing after promises of new programming technologies. Good enough for me. Is it good enough for you? (Who cares.)
"I don't need it." seems to be the consensus answer to the "Why not Ruby?" question.
If people don't need it, it doesn't stand a chance. The helpfulness of Ruby is outweighed by the cost of learning it.
The cost is greater than the benefit, just like [insert your other underused neato technology here]. Come back when the benefits are greater than the costs; preferably when they're MUCH, MUCH greater.
In other words, some accident that didn't happen might be really dangerous, according to someone I never heard of.
I'm positively terrified.
"You cannot 'steal' an idea."
Someone works for years and years to develop a drug. You then steal their formula, and produce the drug yourself, leaving them out in the cold.
You haven't stolen their idea, you've stolen their WORK. Stealing is wrong. Even when you're stealing something "not everyone can afford".
Not a troll. Just a guy that knows that stealing is wrong, even when you have the government do it for you. Even when you really want to. Even when you "dont believe their should be health-related IP of any kind". Even when you can rationalize it a hundred different ways. Stealing is wrong.
I also like the fact that I can get whatever medical service I want, exactly when I want it, with no waiting for a government waiting list. I want to see a doctor today, I go. And all I have to do is pay for it. What a simple, wonderful system.
The world is flat because the people who say it's round are "insane" and "their funding reads like a "who's who" list of the worst corporate polluters, rights abusers, etc".
When are you people going to figure this out?
Ah. But you said better service, not worse service. Canada saves money on health care by offering worse service and stealing drug formulas from US companies. Quite an achievement.
The world is flat because the people who say it's round are "right wing extremists".
Electricity is not a free market, and even if it were, you have mentioned nothing about the total cost of the service. Does it get subsidies from taxes or tax exemptions? You didn't say.
Before: The energy market was not a free market, and blackouts were rare, but not unheard of.
After: The energy market was not a free market and blackouts are more common, but still rare.
Conclusion: When there's not a free market for energy, sometimes there are blackouts.
"You can bet that the right capitalist will offer these services, with lower real value, at higher prices and with zero certainty."
So governments offer better service at a lower total cost than companies? What planet does this happen on?
If you mean taxing other people so you can get free (or reduced-price) stuff for yourself or your friends, then there's a word for that. Stealing.
I said it above, and I'll repeat it here: Start destroying people's stuff, and eventually, you aren't going to live through one of the attempts.
Taxes are just a slower method of destroying people's stuff. The end result is inevitable: a civil war. Hope that's what you had in mind.
Might want to look up whether you're really correct first. Start by debunking everything you read at junkscience.com. And saying "they're all liars funded by evil corporate interests" doesn't count. (E.g. The world is flat because the people who say it's round "are all liars and funded by evil corporate interests". "It's just common-sense." :)
Imperfect != "does not work"
"The future is dynamic" is great on a bumper sticker, but you're effectively claiming that what we do in our present doesn't affect the future.
Actually, I was saying exactly the opposite. The future can't be projected on a linear curve because things that happen in the future affect things that happen later in the future.
Example: We can never "run out" of fossil fuels because, as they become more scarce, their cost increases, leading to slower and slower usage, and ultimately to near zero usage with fossil fuels still in the ground.
From an engineering standpoint, this is simple: what happens if we listen to "the crazy greens" and they're wrong?
To even start, you'd have to eliminate many, many freedoms and subject citizens to the control of an elite class. This is a harm that cannot be repaired.
And last but not least, if I represent "the orthodoxy," I guess that explains why there are so many more Honda Insights on the road than SUVs
You misunderstand. Being part of the orthodox-green movement is about thinking and believing what you're supposed to, regardless of the actual truth. You're supposed to venerate the environmental leaders, decry the environmental bogeymen, and fear the apocalyptic prophesies. Actual "actions" are rare, and tend towards the symbolic.
I would rather my Bush tax cut go towards funding renewable energy sources, education, and other worthy conservation causes
You're probably getting a $300 check. Send it to them.