Why just India? Bush should be focusing on keeping our jobs inside our country. It doesn't matter if they'd be going to India, Korea, Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, Tiawan, China, or the Planet of the Lost Left Socks. The solution to high unemployment is to bring jobs into the country (no brainer) so why knitpick over which ones stay here? Just because you want to bitch is no excuse to get pissed off at the President for doing a Good Thing. God knows the government does enough to get pissed off over.
The reason crime and drugs are so popular in places like this is because kids have no supervision. No, the reason drugs are so popular anywhere in this country is because we allow them to get into this country. If you want to win the war on drugs, you have to keep the drugs out. This means the Cost Guard has to be strengthened to prevent shipments. This means the borders have to be secured to prevent overground smuggling. This means dealers and providers need to be punished (see previous posts on deterring crime) but also that they have to be kept from continuing their drug dealing in prison.
You design community centers to be as fun as parties, minus the alcohol and drugs. Give the kids what they want so they wont have a reason to party, A lot of these kids go to parties for the sole purpose of getting drunk and high. Maybe it's you who overestimates our youth.
Kids need their own drug fee clubs, they need parties which are supervised but Adults should give them they freedom they need. Exactly! But, why should a club be run by the government? Adult clubs are all for-profit organizations run by private individuals or companies. Why can't kids clubs do the same thing? They'd make money if they could get the kids in there!
We should expell kids who bully other kids and put these bullies into a school with other bullies like them. This would solve the problem to some extent or at least it would break the problem down in an attempt to solving it, then we can focus on helping these bullies fix their own mental problems which causes them to be a bully. Or, we could stick with what's always worked with bullies. If a bully starts shit with you, punch him as hard as you can in the face. or If you prefer nonviolence, go to a teacher and have them explain to him that if he touches you again, you'll have him arrested for assault and battery. Most bullies are nonconfrontational. They don't want to fight, they want to feel powerful. If you stand up to them, they'll leave you alone. It does work.
If we can seperate people with ADHD, why are we so kind to bullies who are FAR worse? <RANT>ADHD is bullshit. All the "symptoms" of ADHD are really just "symptoms" of being a kid. Kids don't focus. Kids don't pay attention. Kids get energetic and like to move around. The answer isn't drugs, the answer is learning to teach without being so damned boring. ADHD kids aren't disruptive. ADHD kids don't cause problems. Sometimes they don't do their homework, but that's usually because the homework was bullshit to start with.</RANT> Bullies on the other hand need to learn to function in society and as such can't just be plucked out of society. They need consequences for their actions. However, I do agree that if they refuse to stop their menacing, we should send them to a "special" school where they can either learn to behave or learn to do road work (because in "special" school, you don't advance in grades)
You live in NC where parks are still safe places for kids to go, Go to New York and or LA, and hang out at the park, not only do you have to worry about kidnappers, you have to worry about drug dealers selling drugs to your kids, you have to worry about your kids being robbed, raped, etc. If you don't like your kids growing up in New York or LA, move. Also, I wouldn't have to worry about kidnappers, drug dealers, robbers, and rapists because by the teenage years, the kid would be carrying a gun in a place like that, know damn well how to use it, and know damn well when to use it.
Law Enforcement? Law Enforcement are not role models, most youth, they dont like cops, they dont look up to cops, some of them even hate cops. Parents? Not everyone has perfect parents, just because you did doesnt mean every single kid in this country does. He never said that. He said that better role models are required. People have to take responsibility and be role models for their children. You don't have to be there 24/7 to set a good example when you're at home. Parents doing drugs and getting drunk off their ass every night don't help this situation at all.
Yes theres some programs out there but they are under funded. Am I the only one who notices that kids are joining gangs, selling drugs, robbing people, using drugs, getting pregnant, getting raped, raping others, shooting and killing people etc? Am I blind? You're not blind. Nobody ever said you were even wrong about your observation. You just take every proposed solution as a misobservation of the current state of things. Also, I'd like to know what you suggest for a non-athletic non-geeky person to do with their afternoon at a government sponsored center that would give them a reason to do so instead of going to get stoned at a party
My notebook works fine with Linux. I put in my Slackware 9 install CD, it did it's thing, I booted up and it Just Worked. The only thing I had to configure by hand was my 802.11b card, and that was just to tell it the WEP key. Granted, some of the more advanced things like CD burning needed some work, but everything I use my laptop for on a daily basis worked perfectly. I can't say the same for a Windows XP reintall on the same computer.
Your method still wouldnt solve the problem that poor people dont have as much money to donate as rich people do, and rich people will only donate to things in their own Area. It doesn't take that much if you have volunteers to staff the place. Also, I wouldn't be opposed to the government having grants for NPOs who offer this type of service so that poorer areas can get funding based on need.
Kiddie Jail is even worse than real Jail because alot of people assume that there isnt alot of bad people there. Again you miss my point. You asked for my solution which is to rehabilitate juveniles. If the current facilities don't do this, they need to be changed along with the adult facilities. Sure there are terrible people there, but the facilities can be managed to keep them away from others. I propose to teach the kids why what they did was wrong, and to educate them so that they can come out as productive members of society.
You say a kid chooses to be a criminal, No, I said a kid grows up to be an adult who chooses to be a criminal. The kids often don't know any better, but once they become adults they're supposed to be able to think for themselves. This is why they can vote afterall.
you know a kid whos getting bullied constantly in school is going to think about using that shotgun. Can you blame him?
It doesnt make the kid bad or evil, its just a kid who cannot handle the world they are living in, perhaps we need to give kids more options to choose from. Agreed. I just think those options need to come from someone other than Uncle Sam.
Also, I forgot to respond to this last night, but you made a comment about companies only caring about profits. Not all companies are corporations, not all corporations are publicly traded corproations, and only publicly traded corporations have to worry about keeping shareholders happy through widening profit margins. I do realize that any for-profit business is out to make money, but many of them exist to provide a service, and to make enough money for the proprieter to get by. Not everyone who owns/runs a business is evil and greedy, just far too many of them.
The problem with private afterschool programs, people who have less money get lower quality. This is unfair, also kids need to know diversity, why would you want your kid to only know other rich kids? I disagree. A privately funded Non-Profit Organization (churches, etc.) can provide exactly what you want without the government involved. Kids get quality afterschool care by people who volunteer to help them and they get whatever diversity is available in the area.
Jail doesnt Rehabilitate, if you put a child in jail, after they get raped, bullied every day, and are forced to become a monster, do you think they will come out better? I never said it did. You asked me what my solution was, and I said to rehabilitate juveniles. That's my solution. Juveniles do NOT go to jail. Juveniles go to a juvenile detention center aimed at rehabilitation. Everything you said after that seems to me to be derived from misunderstanding my statement. I don't want kids put in jail. I want kids rehabilitated. I want adults put in jail so they don't put a bad influence on kids and so that they don't hurt kids. If a kid grows up to be a criminal, it's his own fault for choosing to be a criminal. He can go to jail as an adult just like a criminal who came out of a good neighborhood
Here you go assuming alot of things. I didn't assume anything. If you spent 24hrs a day 7 days a week 52.X weeks a year researching, you couldn't get all the information to inform yourself enough to vote on everything. Also, if everyone can't vote it isn't democracy, and if everyone isn't qualified, democracy doesn't work.
Did you know stunguns and bullet proof vests are illegal in certain states? When certain weapons are "illegal" it removes our right to defend ourselves. And the illegalization of firearms is contrary to the second ammendment and therefore unconstitutional.
The problem with the private sector is quality. I find that to be the problem with the public sector.
Imagine if churches were private sector and paid for by corperations via sponserships. They are private sector. The government can't run churches. They're private NPOs.
Theres some things that the private sector can never be good at, Kids arent livestock but the private sector will treat them like livestock because the only thing the private sector cares about is profit. Public schools treat them more like livestock than any private afterschool care I've ever heard of. My grandmother and great aunt work for a church-run afterschool care program for elementary school students. They take no money from the government and are funded solely by private donations (and what they charge the parents, which isn't a hell of a lot). Why do they do it? They love kids and want kids to have a safe place to be where they'll be taught good values.
Alot of people do need healthcare, I agree. Everyone needs healthcare.
consider the fact that people are losing their jobs and without a job how do you go to the hospital when sick? It's called health insurance. Trusting your job to provide it is stupid. Actually, trusting your job to provide any insurance is stupid because they can fire you and fuck you over. Buy your own; it's not that expensive.
College doesnt provide it, you have to pay for it. I pay no more tution if I'm sick or healthy. I'm sure it factors in, but they provide it as a service to every student.
Once upon a time, there was a great depression, the economy was shit, how did our government solve it? I believe the answer we're looking for here is World War II. We got involved, kicked up production, and revitalized the economy.
Social Security, and other programs which gave workers confidence. By providing a safety net workers were more willing to go to work, knowing they will be protected when they retire. Riiiiight. They didn't work until we went to war and the military started spending enough money to win it. If people are unwilling to go to work, that's their problem. I'm not paying for them to be lazy with the excuse of distrust.
You just dont understand. People dont become doctors for the money, so private doctors have no more incentive to be a good doctor than public doctors. If your reason for becoming a doctor was to help people, you'd be motivated to be the best at doing this because you want to be as efficient as possible at helping and curing people. Doctors, Teachers, Firemen, Police, these jobs shouldnt pay alot of money, it should pay enough money for them to get by, doctors make plenty of money. You can help people in lots of ways. Doctors choose to be doctors instead of teachers for a reason. One of those reasons is money. I agree that they shouldn't be paid a lot, but they should be paid enough for them to live comfortably, not just to get by. People who do a valuable service to society should be compensated accordingly.
Paying teachers more money wont make them care about what they are doing. No, but when a person cares about teaching kids but also cares about providing for their own kids, they'll more likely choose the latter. I'm not saying to make them rich, but just to
"The people don't know what's best for them." Ah and who does know whats[sic] best for them? Let me explain that a little bit since you took it totally the wrong way. To know what's best for you, you have to understand an issue. You have to understand all sides of said issue. Even for intelligent people, there is no time to understand every side of every issue, especially when you have to work to provide for your family. Now, who does know what's best for them? Well, we do elect officials just for that purpose! They learn about a few of the issues, educate each other, and then make a decision based on the information (well, they would if we didn't fuck up our job of electing them). I'm not saying it's perfect. The simple fact though is that democracy does not work in our society. There will always be stupid people to make bad decisions even with all the information. It is impossible to have all the information, so even smart people will make bad decisions. Therefore, you put smart people in power and dedicate them to getting all the information. Then we might have a chance of making a good decision instead of by chance making the right decision.
You sound like Adolph Hitler. Thanks, you lose.
I mean if the government was supposed to be exactly like the constitution says, what the hell is gun control? You miss the point of the Constitution. The government is empowered by it and constrained by it. On the other hand, if the Constitution doesn't mention it, it's up to the Congress to decide (with checks and balances and whatever so that they don't break the rules of course). Gun control is perfectly constitutional so long as the right to bear arms isn't infringed upon. Controlling the guns is fine, controlling the people (to say they can't have guns) isn't. Furthermore, the police (as referenced here) are state or local entities. It could be argued that a group of citizens working on a local level to control crime and the like (ie, the police) is actually a militia as provided for in the Constitution. More police is just the local government (ie, city/county) doing its job. I pay city taxes so that my city cops stop the burglars and murderers. (Which they should spend more time doing instead of writing traffic tickets, but that's another issue.) Police, fire protection, education, roads, and water are why people form cities in the first place.
You dont need after school programs, too bad, the majority of the people in this country do. Then they can get it from the private sector instead of me paying for it for them.
Guess what, most people need this, No, they don't! They want it, but they don't need it.
when people grow old they dont have any way to pay their medical bills, Old people's medical bills are paid through Medicare and through a Medicare Supplement insurance policy, which is plenty affordable on a Social Security Benefits income. Old people already have somewhat socialized healthcare, and it works like it is.
college students dont have any way to pay their medical bills, My college provides health care for its students through its medical school. Aside from that, college students are covered under their parents' health insurance generally, and otherwise they can take out their own insurance. Why should I pay for it for them?
with the job market getting more competitive we need universal healthcare to keep society from collapsing. Howso? People are out of work because jobs are being shipped overseas (and accross borders) due to corporate greed. This is not remedied by universal health care. This is remedied by..erm...convincing companies in this country to employ people in this country. Under socialized health care, doctors are given patients and paid a salary. Where is their incentive to be the best? Where is their incentive to do their job quickly? A private doctor is paid by the
The United States is not a democracy. It never was, and I pray it never will be. The United States is a Republic. The Constitution even calls it that. The people don't make the decisions about big socialist government or not. The people elect officials to make those decisions. Why does it matter? It matters because people are idiots. The people don't know what's best for them. Granted, the people they elect often don't either, but the goal is for them to elect people who they trust to make the right choice with all the information. Universal healthcare would fuck our entire healthcare system. Canadians come to the US to work in the medical field because under their socialized health care system they don't make a decent living. Having more police isn't socialist, it's just the government doing the job it's been assigned properly. Bigger schools falls under the same category. As for afterschool programs, that's slight socialization, but the people who want that probably wouldn't if they had to pay a fair tax rate instead of leeching off of the rest of us. Just because people want something doesn't mean they should get it. If it conflicts with a need, they need to be told to shut the fuck u
Re:If people really cared...
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 1
Why is it that just because I want a car that can withstand a collision, you think I'm evil? I quite frankly don't care if my car will hurt other people on the road or damage other cars because it's the other car's fault they couldn't take it. I want a car that is strong enough to not hurt my family and myself if some idiot hits me. If they have a "safer" car and my "unsafe" car causes them to die, that's too bad for them. I trust myself not to cause the collision and therefore not to hurt people with my car, but I don't trust others not to hurt me. If people really cared, they would drive cars made to withstand any type of collision so that their loved ones aren't hurt. Greed doesn't cause stupidity. Stupidity causes greed
If we could make flawless copies of any real world objects like that, there would be no need for businesses. Boxes would be replicated by other boxes, and everything else would be replicated by those. It would be a lot like in Star Trek where when you're hungry you walk up to the computer and tell it to feed you. Jobs and economy would be pointless aside from energy and production and resource acquisition.
Sadly, we can't do that, so we need the economy and businesses. People have to make money in order to get the things they want since it can't be freely replicated, and so yes, keeping a few aging companies in business really is a good reason for restricting the bounty and wealth of media. I personally would love to see them all go away because I think their business model is retarded, but that's for the free market to decide.
The only way to eliminate dumb laws is with other laws. It takes a law to repeal a law after all. Granted, this doesn't look like it'll be a full repeal, not by a longshot, but then again, it isn't even a bill yet. What exactly do you propose that they do? They're Congress. Aside from arguing and wasting my money, what can they do but make laws?
They have every right to stop you from circumventing it. The thing is, everybody knows they've got a better chance of flying pigs throwing snowballs in hell. They just better not go cry to the government when they lose.
because regulating large corperations[sic] is not their thing That's a fairly recent problem, though. I'd like to see the party return to the Teddy Roosevelt trust-buster style instead of catering to the evil bastards like the RIAA, and this legislation is a good start.
I'm pretty sure that your parent's whole point was that a linux kernel upgrade doesn't require you to upgrade the whole OS (which would include the GUI). Linux doesn't include a GUI. RedHat includes Linux.
Yes... I should definitely make sure I don't have grandchildren. But I just wanted to note that I don't think the technology is bad. I just think there are lots of idiots in the world who will do stupid and wasteful things with it. Plus, with one more octet, I'll have 100 IP addresses (based on being an average person..see above math) so after my pacemaker I've got 99 left.;)
My question is simply, why does every appliance need an IP address? Rather, why do they need a public one. I can see starting the dishwasher from my PC (via a timer or task scheduler or some such), but I don't see any need to start it from outside my house. My complaint is that your toaster doesn't need to be networked. Maybe I'm missing something, but I honestly can't think of 100 things that I own that I'd allocate IP addresses.
I understand adding more addresses, and I understand that network usage is growing, but the 32 bit number didn't cover every human on the planet 100 times over 20 years ago like a 40 bit address would now. Add an octet or two, we need more addresses, but quadrupling the length of the address is just a pain in the ass for anybody who needs to remember a few addresses, and it's overkill.
Current population of Earth: ~6,000,000,000 Total number of addresses with one more octet added to IPv4: 1,099,511,627,776 (little less because you have to take out reserved-for-private blocks) Some simple math... and... Addresses per person: ~183
Do you need 183 addresses? And please note, this isn't even considering NAT. Nobody said that we will never need a 128bit address, but the only way we'd need that many addresses in the near future is if we start assigning IPs to random kitchen appliances. Quite frankly, I don't want my toaster to have a public IP address, and if it ever gets an address at all you can be sure as hell it'll be behind a firewall. I can see it now, "ToasterVirus v.3.0 unleashed today, burning down the houses of 20 people who didn't know better than to open that email!" Seems a little bit silly, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Why just India? Bush should be focusing on keeping our jobs inside our country. It doesn't matter if they'd be going to India, Korea, Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, Tiawan, China, or the Planet of the Lost Left Socks. The solution to high unemployment is to bring jobs into the country (no brainer) so why knitpick over which ones stay here? Just because you want to bitch is no excuse to get pissed off at the President for doing a Good Thing. God knows the government does enough to get pissed off over.
The reason crime and drugs are so popular in places like this is because kids have no supervision.
No, the reason drugs are so popular anywhere in this country is because we allow them to get into this country. If you want to win the war on drugs, you have to keep the drugs out. This means the Cost Guard has to be strengthened to prevent shipments. This means the borders have to be secured to prevent overground smuggling. This means dealers and providers need to be punished (see previous posts on deterring crime) but also that they have to be kept from continuing their drug dealing in prison.
You design community centers to be as fun as parties, minus the alcohol and drugs. Give the kids what they want so they wont have a reason to party,
A lot of these kids go to parties for the sole purpose of getting drunk and high. Maybe it's you who overestimates our youth.
Kids need their own drug fee clubs, they need parties which are supervised but Adults should give them they freedom they need.
Exactly! But, why should a club be run by the government? Adult clubs are all for-profit organizations run by private individuals or companies. Why can't kids clubs do the same thing? They'd make money if they could get the kids in there!
We should expell kids who bully other kids and put these bullies into a school with other bullies like them. This would solve the problem to some extent or at least it would break the problem down in an attempt to solving it, then we can focus on helping these bullies fix their own mental problems which causes them to be a bully.
Or, we could stick with what's always worked with bullies. If a bully starts shit with you, punch him as hard as you can in the face. or If you prefer nonviolence, go to a teacher and have them explain to him that if he touches you again, you'll have him arrested for assault and battery. Most bullies are nonconfrontational. They don't want to fight, they want to feel powerful. If you stand up to them, they'll leave you alone. It does work.
If we can seperate people with ADHD, why are we so kind to bullies who are FAR worse?
<RANT>ADHD is bullshit. All the "symptoms" of ADHD are really just "symptoms" of being a kid. Kids don't focus. Kids don't pay attention. Kids get energetic and like to move around. The answer isn't drugs, the answer is learning to teach without being so damned boring. ADHD kids aren't disruptive. ADHD kids don't cause problems. Sometimes they don't do their homework, but that's usually because the homework was bullshit to start with.</RANT>
Bullies on the other hand need to learn to function in society and as such can't just be plucked out of society. They need consequences for their actions. However, I do agree that if they refuse to stop their menacing, we should send them to a "special" school where they can either learn to behave or learn to do road work (because in "special" school, you don't advance in grades)
You live in NC where parks are still safe places for kids to go, Go to New York and or LA, and hang out at the park, not only do you have to worry about kidnappers, you have to worry about drug dealers selling drugs to your kids, you have to worry about your kids being robbed, raped, etc.
If you don't like your kids growing up in New York or LA, move. Also, I wouldn't have to worry about kidnappers, drug dealers, robbers, and rapists because by the teenage years, the kid would be carrying a gun in a place like that, know damn well how to use it, and know damn well when to use it.
Law Enforcement? Law Enforcement are not role models, most youth, they dont like cops, they dont look up to cops, some of them even hate cops. Parents? Not everyone has perfect parents, just because you did doesnt mean every single kid in this country does.
He never said that. He said that better role models are required. People have to take responsibility and be role models for their children. You don't have to be there 24/7 to set a good example when you're at home. Parents doing drugs and getting drunk off their ass every night don't help this situation at all.
Yes theres some programs out there but they are under funded. Am I the only one who notices that kids are joining gangs, selling drugs, robbing people, using drugs, getting pregnant, getting raped, raping others, shooting and killing people etc? Am I blind?
You're not blind. Nobody ever said you were even wrong about your observation. You just take every proposed solution as a misobservation of the current state of things. Also, I'd like to know what you suggest for a non-athletic non-geeky person to do with their afternoon at a government sponsored center that would give them a reason to do so instead of going to get stoned at a party
My notebook works fine with Linux. I put in my Slackware 9 install CD, it did it's thing, I booted up and it Just Worked. The only thing I had to configure by hand was my 802.11b card, and that was just to tell it the WEP key. Granted, some of the more advanced things like CD burning needed some work, but everything I use my laptop for on a daily basis worked perfectly. I can't say the same for a Windows XP reintall on the same computer.
Your method still wouldnt solve the problem that poor people dont have as much money to donate as rich people do, and rich people will only donate to things in their own Area.
It doesn't take that much if you have volunteers to staff the place. Also, I wouldn't be opposed to the government having grants for NPOs who offer this type of service so that poorer areas can get funding based on need.
Kiddie Jail is even worse than real Jail because alot of people assume that there isnt alot of bad people there.
Again you miss my point. You asked for my solution which is to rehabilitate juveniles. If the current facilities don't do this, they need to be changed along with the adult facilities. Sure there are terrible people there, but the facilities can be managed to keep them away from others. I propose to teach the kids why what they did was wrong, and to educate them so that they can come out as productive members of society.
You say a kid chooses to be a criminal,
No, I said a kid grows up to be an adult who chooses to be a criminal. The kids often don't know any better, but once they become adults they're supposed to be able to think for themselves. This is why they can vote afterall.
you know a kid whos getting bullied constantly in school is going to think about using that shotgun.
Can you blame him?
It doesnt make the kid bad or evil, its just a kid who cannot handle the world they are living in, perhaps we need to give kids more options to choose from.
Agreed. I just think those options need to come from someone other than Uncle Sam.
Also, I forgot to respond to this last night, but you made a comment about companies only caring about profits. Not all companies are corporations, not all corporations are publicly traded corproations, and only publicly traded corporations have to worry about keeping shareholders happy through widening profit margins. I do realize that any for-profit business is out to make money, but many of them exist to provide a service, and to make enough money for the proprieter to get by. Not everyone who owns/runs a business is evil and greedy, just far too many of them.
The problem with private afterschool programs, people who have less money get lower quality. This is unfair, also kids need to know diversity, why would you want your kid to only know other rich kids?
I disagree. A privately funded Non-Profit Organization (churches, etc.) can provide exactly what you want without the government involved. Kids get quality afterschool care by people who volunteer to help them and they get whatever diversity is available in the area.
Jail doesnt Rehabilitate, if you put a child in jail, after they get raped, bullied every day, and are forced to become a monster, do you think they will come out better?
I never said it did. You asked me what my solution was, and I said to rehabilitate juveniles. That's my solution. Juveniles do NOT go to jail. Juveniles go to a juvenile detention center aimed at rehabilitation. Everything you said after that seems to me to be derived from misunderstanding my statement. I don't want kids put in jail. I want kids rehabilitated. I want adults put in jail so they don't put a bad influence on kids and so that they don't hurt kids. If a kid grows up to be a criminal, it's his own fault for choosing to be a criminal. He can go to jail as an adult just like a criminal who came out of a good neighborhood
Here you go assuming alot of things.
I didn't assume anything. If you spent 24hrs a day 7 days a week 52.X weeks a year researching, you couldn't get all the information to inform yourself enough to vote on everything. Also, if everyone can't vote it isn't democracy, and if everyone isn't qualified, democracy doesn't work.
Did you know stunguns and bullet proof vests are illegal in certain states? When certain weapons are "illegal" it removes our right to defend ourselves.
And the illegalization of firearms is contrary to the second ammendment and therefore unconstitutional.
The problem with the private sector is quality.
I find that to be the problem with the public sector.
Imagine if churches were private sector and paid for by corperations via sponserships.
They are private sector. The government can't run churches. They're private NPOs.
Theres some things that the private sector can never be good at, Kids arent livestock but the private sector will treat them like livestock because the only thing the private sector
cares about is profit.
Public schools treat them more like livestock than any private afterschool care I've ever heard of. My grandmother and great aunt work for a church-run afterschool care program for elementary school students. They take no money from the government and are funded solely by private donations (and what they charge the parents, which isn't a hell of a lot). Why do they do it? They love kids and want kids to have a safe place to be where they'll be taught good values.
Alot of people do need healthcare,
I agree. Everyone needs healthcare.
consider the fact that people are losing their jobs and without a job how do you go to the hospital when sick?
It's called health insurance. Trusting your job to provide it is stupid. Actually, trusting your job to provide any insurance is stupid because they can fire you and fuck you over. Buy your own; it's not that expensive.
College doesnt provide it, you have to pay for it.
I pay no more tution if I'm sick or healthy. I'm sure it factors in, but they provide it as a service to every student.
Once upon a time, there was a great depression, the economy was shit, how did our government solve it?
I believe the answer we're looking for here is World War II. We got involved, kicked up production, and revitalized the economy.
Social Security, and other programs which gave workers confidence. By providing a safety net workers were more willing to go to work, knowing they will be protected when they retire.
Riiiiight. They didn't work until we went to war and the military started spending enough money to win it. If people are unwilling to go to work, that's their problem. I'm not paying for them to be lazy with the excuse of distrust.
You just dont understand. People dont become doctors for the money, so private doctors have no more incentive to be a good doctor than public doctors. If your reason for becoming a doctor was to help people, you'd be motivated to be the best at doing this because you want to be as efficient as possible at helping and curing people. Doctors, Teachers, Firemen, Police, these jobs shouldnt pay alot of money, it should pay enough money for them to get by, doctors make plenty of money.
You can help people in lots of ways. Doctors choose to be doctors instead of teachers for a reason. One of those reasons is money. I agree that they shouldn't be paid a lot, but they should be paid enough for them to live comfortably, not just to get by. People who do a valuable service to society should be compensated accordingly.
Paying teachers more money wont make them care about what they are doing.
No, but when a person cares about teaching kids but also cares about providing for their own kids, they'll more likely choose the latter. I'm not saying to make them rich, but just to
"The people don't know what's best for them." Ah and who does know whats[sic] best for them?
Let me explain that a little bit since you took it totally the wrong way. To know what's best for you, you have to understand an issue. You have to understand all sides of said issue. Even for intelligent people, there is no time to understand every side of every issue, especially when you have to work to provide for your family. Now, who does know what's best for them? Well, we do elect officials just for that purpose! They learn about a few of the issues, educate each other, and then make a decision based on the information (well, they would if we didn't fuck up our job of electing them). I'm not saying it's perfect. The simple fact though is that democracy does not work in our society. There will always be stupid people to make bad decisions even with all the information. It is impossible to have all the information, so even smart people will make bad decisions. Therefore, you put smart people in power and dedicate them to getting all the information. Then we might have a chance of making a good decision instead of by chance making the right decision.
You sound like Adolph Hitler.
Thanks, you lose.
I mean if the government was supposed to be exactly like the constitution says, what the hell is gun control?
You miss the point of the Constitution. The government is empowered by it and constrained by it. On the other hand, if the Constitution doesn't mention it, it's up to the Congress to decide (with checks and balances and whatever so that they don't break the rules of course). Gun control is perfectly constitutional so long as the right to bear arms isn't infringed upon. Controlling the guns is fine, controlling the people (to say they can't have guns) isn't. Furthermore, the police (as referenced here) are state or local entities. It could be argued that a group of citizens working on a local level to control crime and the like (ie, the police) is actually a militia as provided for in the Constitution. More police is just the local government (ie, city/county) doing its job. I pay city taxes so that my city cops stop the burglars and murderers. (Which they should spend more time doing instead of writing traffic tickets, but that's another issue.) Police, fire protection, education, roads, and water are why people form cities in the first place.
You dont need after school programs, too bad, the majority of the people in this country do.
Then they can get it from the private sector instead of me paying for it for them.
Guess what, most people need this,
No, they don't! They want it, but they don't need it.
when people grow old they dont have any way to pay their medical bills,
Old people's medical bills are paid through Medicare and through a Medicare Supplement insurance policy, which is plenty affordable on a Social Security Benefits income. Old people already have somewhat socialized healthcare, and it works like it is.
college students dont have any way to pay their medical bills,
My college provides health care for its students through its medical school. Aside from that, college students are covered under their parents' health insurance generally, and otherwise they can take out their own insurance. Why should I pay for it for them?
with the job market getting more competitive we need universal healthcare to keep society from collapsing.
Howso? People are out of work because jobs are being shipped overseas (and accross borders) due to corporate greed. This is not remedied by universal health care. This is remedied by..erm...convincing companies in this country to employ people in this country. Under socialized health care, doctors are given patients and paid a salary. Where is their incentive to be the best? Where is their incentive to do their job quickly? A private doctor is paid by the
The United States is not a democracy. It never was, and I pray it never will be. The United States is a Republic. The Constitution even calls it that. The people don't make the decisions about big socialist government or not. The people elect officials to make those decisions. Why does it matter? It matters because people are idiots. The people don't know what's best for them. Granted, the people they elect often don't either, but the goal is for them to elect people who they trust to make the right choice with all the information. Universal healthcare would fuck our entire healthcare system. Canadians come to the US to work in the medical field because under their socialized health care system they don't make a decent living. Having more police isn't socialist, it's just the government doing the job it's been assigned properly. Bigger schools falls under the same category. As for afterschool programs, that's slight socialization, but the people who want that probably wouldn't if they had to pay a fair tax rate instead of leeching off of the rest of us. Just because people want something doesn't mean they should get it. If it conflicts with a need, they need to be told to shut the fuck u
Why is it that just because I want a car that can withstand a collision, you think I'm evil? I quite frankly don't care if my car will hurt other people on the road or damage other cars because it's the other car's fault they couldn't take it. I want a car that is strong enough to not hurt my family and myself if some idiot hits me. If they have a "safer" car and my "unsafe" car causes them to die, that's too bad for them. I trust myself not to cause the collision and therefore not to hurt people with my car, but I don't trust others not to hurt me. If people really cared, they would drive cars made to withstand any type of collision so that their loved ones aren't hurt. Greed doesn't cause stupidity. Stupidity causes greed
If we could make flawless copies of any real world objects like that, there would be no need for businesses. Boxes would be replicated by other boxes, and everything else would be replicated by those. It would be a lot like in Star Trek where when you're hungry you walk up to the computer and tell it to feed you. Jobs and economy would be pointless aside from energy and production and resource acquisition.
Sadly, we can't do that, so we need the economy and businesses. People have to make money in order to get the things they want since it can't be freely replicated, and so yes, keeping a few aging companies in business really is a good reason for restricting the bounty and wealth of media. I personally would love to see them all go away because I think their business model is retarded, but that's for the free market to decide.
The only way to eliminate dumb laws is with other laws. It takes a law to repeal a law after all. Granted, this doesn't look like it'll be a full repeal, not by a longshot, but then again, it isn't even a bill yet. What exactly do you propose that they do? They're Congress. Aside from arguing and wasting my money, what can they do but make laws?
They have every right to stop you from circumventing it. The thing is, everybody knows they've got a better chance of flying pigs throwing snowballs in hell. They just better not go cry to the government when they lose.
Maybe you should take a look at what the 106th Congress had to say? They seem to think it's possible anyway.
because regulating large corperations[sic] is not their thing
That's a fairly recent problem, though. I'd like to see the party return to the Teddy Roosevelt trust-buster style instead of catering to the evil bastards like the RIAA, and this legislation is a good start.
I'm pretty sure that your parent's whole point was that a linux kernel upgrade doesn't require you to upgrade the whole OS (which would include the GUI). Linux doesn't include a GUI. RedHat includes Linux.
Yes... I should definitely make sure I don't have grandchildren. But I just wanted to note that I don't think the technology is bad. I just think there are lots of idiots in the world who will do stupid and wasteful things with it. Plus, with one more octet, I'll have 100 IP addresses (based on being an average person..see above math) so after my pacemaker I've got 99 left. ;)
My question is simply, why does every appliance need an IP address? Rather, why do they need a public one. I can see starting the dishwasher from my PC (via a timer or task scheduler or some such), but I don't see any need to start it from outside my house. My complaint is that your toaster doesn't need to be networked. Maybe I'm missing something, but I honestly can't think of 100 things that I own that I'd allocate IP addresses.
I understand adding more addresses, and I understand that network usage is growing, but the 32 bit number didn't cover every human on the planet 100 times over 20 years ago like a 40 bit address would now. Add an octet or two, we need more addresses, but quadrupling the length of the address is just a pain in the ass for anybody who needs to remember a few addresses, and it's overkill.
Let's see here:
Current population of Earth: ~6,000,000,000
Total number of addresses with one more octet added to IPv4: 1,099,511,627,776 (little less because you have to take out reserved-for-private blocks)
Some simple math... and... Addresses per person: ~183
Do you need 183 addresses? And please note, this isn't even considering NAT. Nobody said that we will never need a 128bit address, but the only way we'd need that many addresses in the near future is if we start assigning IPs to random kitchen appliances. Quite frankly, I don't want my toaster to have a public IP address, and if it ever gets an address at all you can be sure as hell it'll be behind a firewall. I can see it now, "ToasterVirus v.3.0 unleashed today, burning down the houses of 20 people who didn't know better than to open that email!" Seems a little bit silly, doesn't it?