Remember when the next Ice Age was the big concern?
No I don't.
I do, and so do many others. You don't, but... that's ok. It was overly-sensationalized then, even if there were legitimate reasons for concern. Much like AGW today.
The Tea Partiers know it, thanks. I don't know how it works on the left, but on the right, we recognize that just because you're right about one thing doesn't mean that you're right about everything, or that just because you came up with a really good idea, it doesn't mean that I have to agree with all your ideas.
I mean, really, do you agree with everything Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore says? Why do you expect us to be any different?
What you're doing is nothing more than coveting your neighbors' goods.
No, what he's doing is telling you to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.
And in a representative republic, there is no Caesar. There's us. And unlike the Roman Empire under Caesar, we have property rights that can't be taken away at the whim of the emperor. We get to decide, via our representatives, how much goes to the public coffers. If you want a system where "Caesar" can just take what he likes, then move elsewhere, because this country was founded on laws and principles very much in opposition to that kind of notion.
The class warfare is what has been waged on the poor *by the wealthy* for the past 30 years.
Again, how? Just what is it about keeping your own money that's "warfare" against others? You guys keep saying this, but you never explain just how this "warfare" supposedly works?
"Yeah, and the middle class is losing the war. We should start fighting back."
Fight back against what? People keeping their own money, instead of seeing a government bureaucrat take it from them and hand it to you, just because they made more than you?
The only class waging war in this country on other classes is the rich.
Back that argument up. Well, it's not an arguement, it's a stupid statement, but back it up anyway. How is keeping your own money and property "class warfare" against others? The only real class warfare in this country is from envious people... like you... screaming for the property of others.
You have no right... none... to other people's money. And that's precisely what you're demanding.
The only difference between you and the thugs in London robbing people in the street and looting shops is that you don't have the balls to do it yourself. You hide behind politicians and blather BS platitudes like "fairness".
Keeping the money that you earned and worked for is cheat
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH. LOL.
The vast majority of this income in this range is "Unearned Income." People aren't earning nor working for multi-million dollar annual incomes, they are enjoying the benefits of others work by collecting dividens and stock profits.
-Rick
That money is their property. Not yours. Not the government's. What this comes down to, at its base level, is that you're calling for a big chunk of that property to be seized from them because of your own envy. "They've got it and I don't, and that's not fair". What you're doing is nothing more than coveting your neighbors' goods.
"It is a vital part of our mission to build bridges between nations."
I thought CERN was all about science. What's this about building bridges?
Absolutely. Despite all of the talk here about "Science should be above politics", this seems politically-motivated. If you want to expand CERN beyond the boundaries of Europe because you want to add the best scientific minds you can to your group, then just say so (and Israel has a first-rate groups of scientists and engineers). But leave politics out of it. Stick to the science, and leave "building bridges" to the diplomats, please. Just come out and say "Hey, Israel has top scientists and we want them in our group".
We already did that with a big part of Mexico in the 1840s.
They're annexing it right back, and then some. Spanish will be the language of the lower half of California within our lifetimes. The US is rapidly heading to a Canadian-style situation where a very large chunk of the country is essentially a different nation, with a different language and culture.
Noticed that myself, especially in American Ivy League campus facilities. Look at Yale's school, for instance. You've got these gorgeous Neo-Gothc buildings, and right in their midst is this horrid concrete brutalist monstrosity that looks like something out of Hellraiser. It's the architecture school, natch.
BTW, it was Phillip Johnson that designed the AT&T building (now the Sony Building), not Robert Venturi, though Venturi was the man largely responsible for the rebellion against the uber-ugly functionalist theories of Corbu. Mies Van der Rohe said "less is more". Venturi said "Less is a bore".
... mainly through influencing so many other architects to follow his theories. All those ugly, soulless, high-rise public housing buildings that everyone hates so much? Corbu largely came up with the idea. It was his idea of a worker's paradise. Corbu is the one who popularized the notion that architects were social visionaries who were above working for commission. You were privileged to pay THEM to implement their social visions. And for decades, people actually bought into that crap. This is why so much of 5th avenue in New York looks like, in the words of Tome Wolfe, "German worker housing pitched 30 stories high". The Rue de Regret, Wolfe also called it. To be beautiful as well as functional, like the Chrysler building, was a sin to architects for so long. It was bourgeois, and had to be chucked overboard in the name of sameness and the new social harmony. Unfortunately, there's still a strong strain of Corbu among some modern architects. "What, build what YOU want? But it's about MY vision!".
The heirs of Corbu and Mies Van der Rohe howled like dogs when Robert Venturi built what is now called the Sony Building in New York. Once again, the NYC skyline had a building that was actually aesthetically pleasing. Imagine that; a company demanding that their architects building something beautiful in their eyes, regardless of what architecture critics thought. I mean, the nerve.
Are you blaming Congress for the copyright that King himself took out? And that his family still holds?
King didn't have to copyright his speeches. But he did. And he did it to make money. If you think there's fault in this, then put it squarely where it belongs: King himself, and later, his family.
Members of celebrities families are greedy free-riding bastards who hang on their relatives coattails. In other news, rodent attacks man. More at 11.
King's family is just continuing what King himself did; copyright as much of what he said and wrote as he could, and jealously guard the rights and profits from such work. It doesn't exactly jibe with the image we have of him today, but facts are facts. The man was intent on squeezing out every dime could in this manner.
St That's almost as bad as spending one dollar out of every four on the military, then telling people on Social Security and Medicare we need to cut their programs.
The DOD budget is 20 percent. And we're spending less of our GDP on defense now than we have since the end of WWII, on average. Now, I'd actually like to see that cut some more. But I have the feeling you were just taking the opportunity to do some cheap political bitching. Because we do have to cut entitlements, because that's where the overwhelming budget growth is.
"Forced education" has given most industrialized nations literacy rates far in excess of 90%..
Most totalitarian states have high literacy rates. So what? I wouldn't want to be a Cuban or North Korean.
We should seriously consider replacing state compulsory education... going a state approved school, or else... with a simple requirement that you get an education from a source of your choosing. And I say this as a man with a college degree, a son that's in his junior year of high school, and another son that just started Kindergarten last week. Most compulsory education systems exist either to produce a supply of workers, and/or indoctrinate children. There is no education for education's sake in America's schools, or anyone elses. There are a variety of other ways to educate children... Montesorri, private schools, home schooling, unschooling... that prove packing kids into a government box to stare at a chalkboard 8 hours a day is not the best way to do things.
You have (rightly or wrongly) taken from the schools a lot of their powers in regards to disciplining students. So where the school can not, the parents must. Except, the parents are not fulfilling their obligations in this regard,
While some parents are not, it's also true that we've also taken power and authority away from parents as well, and vested that authority in the government instead. So schools with a police force shouldn't be a surprise. We're well on our way to the nanny state, and this is just one more step.
You cannot teach someone when they are not willing to learn.
Bullshit. You just have to find the right way. Give them the right support.
This isn't the movies, where a teacher can devote all his/her spare time to that one rogue student that might have potential. In the real world, teachers have a lot of kids to work with, and if one kid is completely resistant to the classroom, then they need to get him elsewhere, pronto.
Oh brilliant. Kids act out for a variety of reasons, none of which deserves to get them expelled. Expelling them shows them that you, and hence the world, has given up on them.
"Hence the world"? What soppish nonsense. You sound like a melodramatic 13 year old girl. Expelling a disruptive student teaches them that there are limits to their disruptive behavior, that they can't go on being an ass in the classroom without consequences. Some schools could use more expulsions, not less. Not every disruptive student is a desperate cry for help. Some of them just want to be trouble. Father Flanagan was wrong, there are bad boys (and girls).
Because they're kids.
And? You realize that your whole argument is a variant of "for the children"?
Slashdot Mirror
Remember when the next Ice Age was the big concern?
No I don't.
I do, and so do many others. You don't, but... that's ok. It was overly-sensationalized then, even if there were legitimate reasons for concern. Much like AGW today.
I certainly remember it.
Ayn Rand was an Atheist.
Just don't tell the Tea Partiers.
The Tea Partiers know it, thanks. I don't know how it works on the left, but on the right, we recognize that just because you're right about one thing doesn't mean that you're right about everything, or that just because you came up with a really good idea, it doesn't mean that I have to agree with all your ideas.
I mean, really, do you agree with everything Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore says? Why do you expect us to be any different?
No, what he's doing is telling you to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.
And in a representative republic, there is no Caesar. There's us. And unlike the Roman Empire under Caesar, we have property rights that can't be taken away at the whim of the emperor. We get to decide, via our representatives, how much goes to the public coffers. If you want a system where "Caesar" can just take what he likes, then move elsewhere, because this country was founded on laws and principles very much in opposition to that kind of notion.
"The money is their property AFTER taxes."
Wrong. It's their property from the get-go.
"You owe society more than society owes you."
"Society" doesn't owe me a damn thing. And the reverse is true as well.
The class warfare is what has been waged on the poor *by the wealthy* for the past 30 years.
Again, how? Just what is it about keeping your own money that's "warfare" against others? You guys keep saying this, but you never explain just how this "warfare" supposedly works?
"Yeah, and the middle class is losing the war. We should start fighting back."
Fight back against what? People keeping their own money, instead of seeing a government bureaucrat take it from them and hand it to you, just because they made more than you?
This smells like more class warfare shit.
The only class waging war in this country on other classes is the rich.
Back that argument up. Well, it's not an arguement, it's a stupid statement, but back it up anyway. How is keeping your own money and property "class warfare" against others? The only real class warfare in this country is from envious people... like you... screaming for the property of others.
You have no right... none... to other people's money. And that's precisely what you're demanding.
The only difference between you and the thugs in London robbing people in the street and looting shops is that you don't have the balls to do it yourself. You hide behind politicians and blather BS platitudes like "fairness".
Keeping the money that you earned and worked for is cheat
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH. LOL.
The vast majority of this income in this range is "Unearned Income." People aren't earning nor working for multi-million dollar annual incomes, they are enjoying the benefits of others work by collecting dividens and stock profits.
-Rick
That money is their property. Not yours. Not the government's. What this comes down to, at its base level, is that you're calling for a big chunk of that property to be seized from them because of your own envy. "They've got it and I don't, and that's not fair". What you're doing is nothing more than coveting your neighbors' goods.
"It is a vital part of our mission to build bridges between nations."
I thought CERN was all about science. What's this about building bridges?
Absolutely. Despite all of the talk here about "Science should be above politics", this seems politically-motivated. If you want to expand CERN beyond the boundaries of Europe because you want to add the best scientific minds you can to your group, then just say so (and Israel has a first-rate groups of scientists and engineers). But leave politics out of it. Stick to the science, and leave "building bridges" to the diplomats, please. Just come out and say "Hey, Israel has top scientists and we want them in our group".
I'm curious. Does it hurt when your knee jerks like that?
You shouldn't be one to talk of jerking-knees. Your legs are still swinging from the force of yours.
"I support the annexing of Mexico!"
We already did that with a big part of Mexico in the 1840s.
They're annexing it right back, and then some. Spanish will be the language of the lower half of California within our lifetimes. The US is rapidly heading to a Canadian-style situation where a very large chunk of the country is essentially a different nation, with a different language and culture.
Noticed that myself, especially in American Ivy League campus facilities. Look at Yale's school, for instance. You've got these gorgeous Neo-Gothc buildings, and right in their midst is this horrid concrete brutalist monstrosity that looks like something out of Hellraiser. It's the architecture school, natch.
BTW, it was Phillip Johnson that designed the AT&T building (now the Sony Building), not Robert Venturi, though Venturi was the man largely responsible for the rebellion against the uber-ugly functionalist theories of Corbu. Mies Van der Rohe said "less is more". Venturi said "Less is a bore".
... mainly through influencing so many other architects to follow his theories. All those ugly, soulless, high-rise public housing buildings that everyone hates so much? Corbu largely came up with the idea. It was his idea of a worker's paradise. Corbu is the one who popularized the notion that architects were social visionaries who were above working for commission. You were privileged to pay THEM to implement their social visions. And for decades, people actually bought into that crap. This is why so much of 5th avenue in New York looks like, in the words of Tome Wolfe, "German worker housing pitched 30 stories high". The Rue de Regret, Wolfe also called it. To be beautiful as well as functional, like the Chrysler building, was a sin to architects for so long. It was bourgeois, and had to be chucked overboard in the name of sameness and the new social harmony. Unfortunately, there's still a strong strain of Corbu among some modern architects. "What, build what YOU want? But it's about MY vision!".
The heirs of Corbu and Mies Van der Rohe howled like dogs when Robert Venturi built what is now called the Sony Building in New York. Once again, the NYC skyline had a building that was actually aesthetically pleasing. Imagine that; a company demanding that their architects building something beautiful in their eyes, regardless of what architecture critics thought. I mean, the nerve.
but omitting an optical drive in a full-size desktop computer build seems something like cheating.
It's 2011, dammit, why do people still use optical drives?
Because they want to.
Ah, yes. We can make 'green technology' profitable by simply... taking more money from taxpayers and giving it to them.
That'll work.
The only "green" in these jobs are the dollars being flushed down the toilet.
Were you born stupid or did you have to work on it? Either way, impressive result.
We're you born a mindless lemming, or did you choose to be one?
What we need is an MLK-like figure making an impassioned and influential speech promoting the abolition of patent and copyright laws.
That's silly. Patent and copyright laws protect creators and encourage research. What we need are sane copyright and patent laws.
MLK: I have a dream.
FOX: We have a congress. Your move.
Are you blaming Congress for the copyright that King himself took out? And that his family still holds?
King didn't have to copyright his speeches. But he did. And he did it to make money. If you think there's fault in this, then put it squarely where it belongs: King himself, and later, his family.
Members of celebrities families are greedy free-riding bastards who hang on their relatives coattails. In other news, rodent attacks man. More at 11.
King's family is just continuing what King himself did; copyright as much of what he said and wrote as he could, and jealously guard the rights and profits from such work. It doesn't exactly jibe with the image we have of him today, but facts are facts. The man was intent on squeezing out every dime could in this manner.
Steve Jobs actually had some original ideas
It's pretty silly to say that Gates did not. You just didn't like his ideas very much. Millions of other people did.
St That's almost as bad as spending one dollar out of every four on the military, then telling people on Social Security and Medicare we need to cut their programs.
The DOD budget is 20 percent. And we're spending less of our GDP on defense now than we have since the end of WWII, on average. Now, I'd actually like to see that cut some more. But I have the feeling you were just taking the opportunity to do some cheap political bitching. Because we do have to cut entitlements, because that's where the overwhelming budget growth is.
"Forced education" has given most industrialized nations literacy rates far in excess of 90%. .
Most totalitarian states have high literacy rates. So what? I wouldn't want to be a Cuban or North Korean.
We should seriously consider replacing state compulsory education... going a state approved school, or else... with a simple requirement that you get an education from a source of your choosing. And I say this as a man with a college degree, a son that's in his junior year of high school, and another son that just started Kindergarten last week. Most compulsory education systems exist either to produce a supply of workers, and/or indoctrinate children. There is no education for education's sake in America's schools, or anyone elses. There are a variety of other ways to educate children... Montesorri, private schools, home schooling, unschooling... that prove packing kids into a government box to stare at a chalkboard 8 hours a day is not the best way to do things.
You have (rightly or wrongly) taken from the schools a lot of their powers in regards to disciplining students. So where the school can not, the parents must. Except, the parents are not fulfilling their obligations in this regard,
While some parents are not, it's also true that we've also taken power and authority away from parents as well, and vested that authority in the government instead. So schools with a police force shouldn't be a surprise. We're well on our way to the nanny state, and this is just one more step.
You cannot teach someone when they are not willing to learn.
Bullshit. You just have to find the right way. Give them the right support.
This isn't the movies, where a teacher can devote all his/her spare time to that one rogue student that might have potential. In the real world, teachers have a lot of kids to work with, and if one kid is completely resistant to the classroom, then they need to get him elsewhere, pronto.
Oh brilliant. Kids act out for a variety of reasons, none of which deserves to get them expelled. Expelling them shows them that you, and hence the world, has given up on them.
"Hence the world"? What soppish nonsense. You sound like a melodramatic 13 year old girl. Expelling a disruptive student teaches them that there are limits to their disruptive behavior, that they can't go on being an ass in the classroom without consequences. Some schools could use more expulsions, not less. Not every disruptive student is a desperate cry for help. Some of them just want to be trouble. Father Flanagan was wrong, there are bad boys (and girls).
Because they're kids.
And? You realize that your whole argument is a variant of "for the children"?