Hey, I never said assembler was a good way to do it. I just wanted to remind my original post's parent that Java isn't the only language that can do anything.
With java you know you can get anything done. Its like the swiss army knife of programming languages. Well, it is a Turing-complete language afterall. The fact of the matter is, you can't do anything in Java you can't do in C++ or C or assembly language or raw machine language for that matter. The only difference is time/space efficiency, in both execution and code-writing.
Sure, it'd cost a tiny bit more, but think how much easier it would be to sell upgrades to consumers if they didn't have to crawl into an electrified box! Actually, the way you sell upgrades to consumers now is to con them into buying a new PC. It's amazing how quickly people are willing to shell out $500-$1000 if they think think they need to, and at least in my experience, the people who don't know how to work inside the case don't tend to realize it's possible to upgrade anything without buying a new box.
You're a student, your JOB is to go to class and LEARN. As a student, your job is to learn. That's what students do. If you can do so without going to class, why go to class? If your professor is so boring that the textbook is all you need to get an A in the class, why go to class? If I show up late, yes, that's disrespectful, and I can understand them getting mad, but if I just don't go to class, why should they really care? If I don't show up to their office begging for help, if I don't have problems with the tests, and if I understand the material they covered without being there, why should I go? If the teacher does their job right, I'll want to go to class because it'll help me learn, but if they're boring and essentially read me the book anyway, why can't I do it myself? I pay the school to teach me. My job is learning because that's what I'm here for, but they have no right to bitch about me not coming to class because I pay them. In "Real Life", it's the other way around, so of course your boss can get pissed off.
It's absurd to expect our most qualified to sit down and shut up at the end of the run... If they have something to say, they can run for the House or the Senate again. There's nothing stopping them from continuing public service. For that matter, they can go to work at the State Department and do diplomacy. That way, they'd actually have some information to go with their opinions instead of just shooting their mouthes off. I have no expectation that they sit down and shut up, but I do expect that if they choose to be a private citizen that they act like one. That means no press conferences. That means no TV appearances in times of crisis. That means if they want to bitch, they can go to the bar and bitch to their buddies like any other private citizen, and if they have an issue with the government, they can write a letter. All I ask is that they inform themselves before they speak. And, it's pretty obvious that Jimmy Carter doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time anymore.
The Democratic presidential candidates are accountable. If their constituents (or prospective constituents) don't like what they have to say, they won't vote for them. If we don't like what Jimmy Carter has to say, all we have is to tell him to STFU.
Well it's nice to see that the Americans are willing to vaporize entire cities That's a were. Our leaders no longer have the backbone for such things, despite the fact that we have the technology to vaporize small nations now.
simply for the sake of humiliating their opponents No, it's not about humiliation. It's about, we won the war, and we demanded an unconditional surrender. It's kindof like how you say, "we don't negotiate with terrorists." We don't negotiate with people who attack us on Sunday morning when it should be damned well obvious that there isn't a translator working that day in DC to read your declaration of war. What gets me is that we gave them a second chance to surrender before Nagasaki, and THEY STILL REFUSED. I'm sorry, but if they're that fucking stupid, they deserved it. Hirohito should've stepped down and surrendered instead of sacrificing his people's lives to try to keep himself in power.
What a great value for human life! It was either kill a bunch of them, or let them kill a bunch of our people invading to achieve the same goal. I, quite frankly, think that if you're fighting a war where you're not even the aggressor, you should worry about saving the ass of your own citizens who are fighting to defend/avenge your country instead of some random civilian in the offending country.
Actually, the sticking point was that we said "unconditional surrender" and they said "Nooooo! Negotiate with us!". Then we said, "unconditional surrender or we're going to vaporize a city." They repeated their refusal. We blew Hiroshima up. We repeated, "unconditional surrender or we're going to vaporize another city." They repeated their refusal. We blew Nagasaki up. Then, we said, "unconditional surrender or the next city we vaporize will be Tokyo." They said, "Ahh shit! Unconditional surrender sounds ok now!" We wrote them a consitution, and Douglas MacArthur got to pretend he was God over there for a while. Truman had already told Stalin all about the bomb as far as its power and such based on the test in the desert.
It's easier than many people want to think, but we know what we're doing, we're not completely stupid. No, you're an absolute idiot, and you're too damn stupid to realize it. If you think your tricks to cover shit up work, you're a fool. I'm 19. I was your age 2 years ago. I got away with my fair share and then some, but it's not because of any skills when it comes to covering it up. It's either because they don't want to believe that you'd be doing what they think you're doing, or because they choose to let you get away with it because they don't think you're doing any real harm. (Have a few shots, sober up, and come home. Who really cares? Sure, it's illegal, but it doesn't really hurt you if you're careful.) Your parents are probably a lot smarter than you give them credit for. I'm honestly still not sure how mine figured out some of the stuff they have in the last year or so, but I thought they were clueless. One day you'll also realize that all the shit you did and thought you got away with because you were so smart and so good at hiding everything because you're a new breed, you really got away with because people wanted you to learn from your own mistakes. People have been using Visene to get the red out for decades. Why the hell do you think that's their slogan? As for the drinking, do you really think your parents didn't know how to sober up and knock the alcohol off their breath? Your tricks are nothing new, so deal with it, and quit getting insulted because someone wanted to point it out to you. A 19 year old shouldn't feel this old, but you damned punk kids never seem to learn anything.......
I didn't say you were from Mexico. As a matter of fact, I don't think Mexicans hate us as a country, generally speaking. I just happen to know the formal name of the country as well as the name it goes by, which I think that you should be terribly offended by if you're going to be offended by my use of America to refer to the United States thereof.
I was just curious as to what you call the country on the USA's southern border. I know I call it Mexico, and everyone I've ever spoken to from there has called it Mexico, and everyone I've ever spoken to when I've been down there has called it Mexico, so I'm guessing you also call it Mexico. Do you know it's proper name? It's Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. As they refer to my country as Los Estados Unidos Americanos (the American United States or the United American States), I'm going to translate it as the United States of Mexico. Since the United States of Mexico is known as Mexico, it therefore follows logically that the United Statse of America could be known as America, which it is. Actually, if you say "the United States", you're being ambiguous because there are United States other than the USA. Anyway, I don't see why you got so offended anyway. Nobody said we're the only Americans, just that our country is called America. American can easily refer to anyone on either continent, but America cannot (as shown in previous posts, it has to be qualified). I don't have anything against South Americans or my non-central fellow North Americans. I speak semi-fluent Spanish and am planning to minor in it at my University to get better, so don't go implying that I'm afraid, or too lazy, or whatever, to learn something. But please, if you want to call us something more specific than Americans, "central North Americans" is a lot less insulting than "Usians".
If you want to refer to the continents, they're North America and South America. Collectively, they're the Americas. Allow some reason:
America ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mr-k)
1. The United States.
2. also the Americas (-kz). The landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America. --dictionary.com
Even the friggin' dictionary says "America" is the United States, and "the Americas" refers to the continents. The rest of the world can differ if they like, but I have the authority on the English Language on my side, so I don't give a rat's ass.
Alot of rich people are inherting money they stole. And a lot of descendents of ex-slaves are also descended from the ones who stole it. Therefore, it's very difficult to say who deserves reparations. That's all.
What about the government? The government stepped on them too, no appology? No money? I mean even native americans have casinos and reservations, sure its not much but its better than affirmative action. No. The government doesn't have any assets of its own because they truly belong to society as a whole, and that's unfair to those of us who didn't do any harm. The government stepped on them because of the collective will. Those who were part of the collective can repay the collective debt. The rest of us shouldn't have to.
IF I tried to put that on the ballot the KKK would be burning crosses i my yard. We need to rid the country of terrorists before we can make the world fair. This is true. Can we put the reparations for segregation on the ballot after we manage this miracle though because I actually like the idea, and we don't often agree.
Everyone who tries to make the world fair from kennedy to martin luther king, seems to get shot in the head, am I the only one who notices this? Well, you're right that everyone who tries to make the world fair gets shot. I just hope you mean RFK, not JFK because JFK was one of the greediest CEO-type bastards I've ever heard of.
I think it will be realistic in the future when our technology reaches that point, it already is realistic enough to work on the internet, this is why peer to peer works, peer to peer is socialism but it works, open source is socialism but it still works, my P2P idea to improve the situation for musician is simple, make P2P capitalism again, give music a value again, you see the idea on my journal. I disagree. I don't think it's socialism. Socialism is government-mandated, or at least central-body-mandated. What you have is altruism. It's the good side of humanity, the giving and sharing and friendly side. The side that wants to do something for other people because they can (as opposed to the side that wants to fuck over other people because they can). And as for your P2P idea, I'd like to suggest using the napster-like model, run by a purely democratic vote by the artists whose music is being shared, so that you have a central server instead of pure P2P. Aside from that technical note, I think your idea would actually work pretty well.
when we have nano technology, we should be able to have pure socialism Actually, I think when we have nanotechnology, we should be able to dump all the economic bullshit -isms into a river and just exist. Nobody will have to work. We'll all spend our time having fun. We'll revert to the way some things were in ancient Greece where Street Philosopher will be recognized as a useful and productive "job" again. There will be no need for socialism because instead of the government distributing the wealth, everyone will just have whatever they want anyway.
Ok I actually agree with you. I just dont like when I hear that my mother (single parent) makes less money than you do, just because shes a woman. When women are making only 75% of the salary of a male when they have the exact same title, something is wrong. Very very wrong!
problem is lawyers and CEOS make millions when they usually dont help anyone. Indeed this is the case. The problem I see though, especially with lawyers, is that the government puts them in a position to take advantage of us. That's why I don't trust socialism to let the government do more because they'll hurt us instead of helping. I prefer to fix capitalism (or perhaps invent a new -ism?) instead of just switching to another broken system.
Look I'm not saying we should convert fully to socialism right now, all I am saying is we should use our tax dollars to fund things which improve society, and we must do this by fo
Thats just it though, everyone works, every single person on this planet works, who gives you the right to decide how much their work is worth? I don't want that responsibility anyway.
shouldnt their jobs worth be equal to the worth they are to society? I thought that was what I said. If i was unclear, I'm sorry.
Which means a teacher, doctor, policeman, etc should be making more than the CEO right? Exactly.
Thats impossible though, Mc Donalds does not pay enough to even get by. And that's a problem. If someone works there fulltime, they should get enough money to live off of.
[NOTE: brought up from the bottom due to relevance] Not anyone can do a Mc Donalds job, I couldnt do it, I dont have the people skills, alot of people dont have those skills and cant do it, just like not everyone has leadership skills. Working at McDonald's does not require people skills. If it did, the people working there now wouldn't be there. People at fastfood restaurants (here anyway) are generally asshole teenagers who hate being there and treat the customers like shit. If I were the manager I'd fire them, but with the current requirements, all that it takes is the ability to punch the buttons. Also, the kitchen staff don't interact with people at all. All they have to be able to do is read off the screen.
No because a doctors worth to society is greater than your CEO, The doctor has one of the most difficult jobs on this planet, if not the single most difficult, the CEO should charge less, and then people would have more money to give the doctor. Well, my problem is that the doctor doesn't set his rates at the hospital. The hospital administration does. So basically, I think the doctor should be paid about what he already is, but the hospital should be forced to charge less. The hospital's CEO should take a pay cut, basically.
The reason is, its not always profitable to do certain things, I mean look at music, you cannot make money from using using the traditional capitalist model, this is why theres the current problems. True, but I think altruism (even forced altruism) is better than socialism. I'll explain later.
I think if society makes you rich, you MUST give back and I'd rather have a group of people (decentralized) decide how the money gets used, than one guy who might be greedy as hell and decide not to give it to anyone. I could agree with that. Instead of insane taxes, perhaps you could say, insane taxes, but you get all donations to charities deducted from your income (or even from your tax bill). That way, if they choose to help society, they can. Otherwise, they can pay for my road to get repaved.
Currently this doesnt happen because there are no laws in place telling government what they can and cant spend money on, perhaps if we made a law that everything we spend money on must improve society for everyone would solve the problem. And here's the problem I see with socialism. In its present state, the government is run by, essentially, the CEOs that you so detest. It has been for decades, really. I don't trust the government at all. In the private sector, at least you have a chance of hitting the rare non-evil/non-greedy/non-bastard company who truly wants to help improve society and just happens to want to make a profit at the same time. In the government, you just have corrupt people. Fixing the government is another discussion altogether, but I basically think people shouldn't be allowed to have power long enough for it to corrupt them. If you fixed the government to the point that we could trust them, your idea wouldn't be quite so bad, but as it is, the government needs to prove to me that they can learn to properly use the money I already give them before they ask me for a cent more, from anyone.
Bill Gates may deserve to be a millionare for creating windows and helping make computers easy to use <RANT>
What use is money to us besides to pay bills which seem to inflate based on our salary? Buy a car. Buy a TV. Buy luxury items. If you don't want more money, work less. You don't have to work, but let people do so if they want to.
They did the least amount of work but had all the resources so lets not try to pretend that capitalism fairly distributes resources based on merit or how hard a person works. Yes. That's right. That was capitalism. No, that was a corrupted empire, just like we live in a corrupted republic. The system didn't cause it, the people who had power did.
now if this is the case why should the daughter of Bill Gates get a free education when other people have to work to pay for school? Because she'll get it if he's alive, so why shouldn't she get it just because he's dead? Piece of shit that he is, Bill Gates can do whatever the hell he wants because it's HIS money.
If you think slavery is too long ago due to the fact that all the original slaves are dead, Actually, I think slavery was so long ago that its effect on the current population has been negated. In many cases, especially with interracial relationships and such, people are descended from both a slave and someone who benefited from slavery (though not necessarily a slaveowner), so it's silly for them to pay themselves. It's not fair to give a blanket payment to everyone with dark skin. I said I was all for reparations to someone who can prove that they (not their ancestors) were hurt by slavery.
you can still make the case for reparations for segregation which legally prevented minorities from making a fair wage and running a successful business. This ended in the last 30 years so you cannot tell me that you dont owe them something. That seems fair to me. If they had losses due to segregation and discrimination, then the people who hurt them owe them. However, I don't. Neither myself nor my family was part of the problem, and I don't feel any need to clean up other people's messes. Let the companies who stepped on minorities pay reparations because they owe them. Not we.
In a fair capitalist world, every single business which benefited from slavery, segregation, etc should pay millions of dollars to a reparations fund, a non profit which will help minorities with college education, starting businesses, and improve their communities. Good plan. You get it on the ballot and I'll vote for it.
Stalin was an evil bastard, Lenin had the theories right on paper and Stalin fucked up. But see, how about, Thomas Payne and John Locke had the theories right on paper, and everyone for the last 200 years has fucked it up.
This would allow everyone to do the job they truely want to do in life without worrying about survival, I think people would do a better job if they did what they wanted to do in life instead of what they have to do. I agree. I know I'd be doing a better job if I didn't hate my job. Thus, I post to/. from work.
hard labor is hard Hard labor is strenuous and tedious, but not difficult. Anyone can do it. They might take a long damn time, but eventually they'll build the muscle, etc. Even the fat rich bastards, if they were forced to work, would be able to do so.
Because the lazy CEO and businessmen KNEW it was easier to sit on their ass giving orders and going to meetings. No, it was more pleasant. It can be very difficult, but be fun and challenging. People don't do hard labor because it causes them pain, not because they can't.
Einstien would be compensated, you see Einstien didnt do the things he did for the money, he did it for the recognition, he wanted to be the one to discover new things, he did it because he loved science. Yes, but just because that wasn't his intention isn't the issue. Einstein gave freely to society, and society therefore owed it to him to give
I just refuse to pretend like Capitalism was "fair" and I think fairness should not play a role when deciding if y ou are a Capitalist or not. Then why do you even care that it's not fair? If it shouldn't play a role in deciding, don't bring it up.
If I were greedy I'd be focused on making money, but thats not my focus. You can be greedy without wanting money. Some greedy people just want to be given stuff and not money. They want you to provide everything for them instead of working for it. That's just as greedy as the guy who wants money for his lack of work.
The greedy want to hog all the resources essential for survival, just because they are greedy, That would be what being greedy is all about. They want everything, and they want everyone else to have nothing. It's a shame you believe every life is precious because I don't see a problem with society shunning the greedy people and letting them rot.
when a person such as a teacher or fireman cannot afford to pay their rent, shouldnt they blame the greedy Capitalists for not distributing the wealth fairly? No, they should blame themselves for not having the foresight to get a better job. Secondarily, they can blame the greedy people (NOT ALL GREEDY PEOPLE ARE CAPITALIST) for not paying them what their job is worth, but distribution of wealth isn't a good way to put it.
and you have people in this country who work at mc donalds or places such as this making minimum wage Okay, so you invent the robots to replace the people who work at McDonald's. McDonald's needs somebody to work there. And, their jobs are so easy anybody could do them, so the job isn't worth that much money. It really makes sense if you'll think about it. Valuable job => more money. Value is determined by taking how useful the job is accounting for how many people can do it. It isn't an ultrauseful job, and anybody can do it. Therefore, shit for wages.
living in trailers, and practically starving to death. But they're surviving, which is what you said they're entitled to.
Everyone should havw the basics, thats all I'm saying, I'm not saying everyones entitled to a big screen TV, or a nice car, or even a house, but everyone should have the basics, meaning a bed to sleep in, shelter, food, education, water and health coverage. I agree totally! So, let the people who want to work harer do so. Let the people who want to just get by do so. Definitely provide the basics to someone who can't provide it for themself. On the other hand, people should have the freedom to starve if they so choose. If they're able, but too damn lazy to work, why should they be greedy and think I should support them? That's rediculous!
there is no reason for any American to die because they cant afford a doctor. Let me solve this one real fast. Instead of giving people money to pay the doctor who charges more than he should just because all the doctors agree to do it, let's make the doctor charge less so the poor people can afford his services. Isn't that more fair?
What if someone wants to do community service and does not want to be a business man? Then we, as members of the community, should compensate them. Everyone who works to help others, in any capacity, deserves compensation. This is why I support capitalism over socialism. I think people should give to charities because it's the right thing to do instead of being greedy and hording their money. Just because you're a not-for-profit organization doesn't mean you shouldn't make money to use for operating expenses and for paying your employees. Frankly, I think a community service person should make more money because of their contribution.
You think the mc donalds worker isnt just as important as the CEO? As a person, sure they are. As a worker, no they're not. Anybody can do the McDonald's worker's job, and they can do it well. It takes skil
Rewarded how? Money isnt a reward for everyone, not everyone can gain happiness from money. Money is worthless ink-on-paper (or pressed metal). The way it's a reward however is that you can buy the things you want or need. For example, for those with kids, people tend to want to have nice things for their children. As another example, having a house instead of an apartment, or a comfortable chair instead of a cheap plastic one. These things are not true necessities, but they're nice to have, and I don't see wanting them as greedy.
Why reward Greed? Reward the action, not the motivation. I don't care if you work hard because you're greedy or if you work hard to pay for your grandma's surgery, you deserve to be compensated for your time because it's the most valuable thing you have.
You see I believe everyone is priceless, people dont have a specific "worth", everyone is worthy of survival. I never said people have a specific "worth" in a general sense. Just, some people have the skills that make them more valuable for certain situations. Other people are more valuable in other situations. Everyone is priceless indeed, and I never suggested that anyone is unworthy of survival. However, I shouldn't be asked to provide luxury for those who don't want to support themselves. I have no problem with giving food, water, clothing, and shelter to those who need it. On the other hand, those who are fully capable of supporting themselves and opt not to should deal with the consequences of their decision.
Sure if you work hard maybe its ok for you to make more money, but Capitalism doesnt work like that, alot of people who work the hardest have the least money, and people who sit on their ass have the most money. This is a bad thing. On the other hand, if you work your ass off for 20 years and make a couple million bucks, you've earned the priveledge of sitting on your ass for a while.
I may do the most important job, but because I'm not greedy, I wont be rich, you think a teacher or fireman is important? What about construction workers and police? These are some of our most important jobs and they pay the least amount of money, so why do people do it? Because not everyone is motivated by money. Teachers should make enough money to support themselves because they do a valuable job. On the other hand, bad teachers should be fired so they quit producing highschool graduates who can't even do basic math. Police and firemen are also extremely valuable careers, but they don't pay the least amount of money. I know several cops who have nice cars, nice houses, and plenty of the necessities. Construction workers often do that job because they're not smart enough to do anything else. The ones who are smart enough tend to do the construction jobs which pay competitive salaries. I mean, the guy who stands in the street and holds the Stop/Slow sign (read: unskilled construction worker) is useful, but ANYBODY could do that job. He doesn't deserve a huge amount of money because he really doesn't do a hell of a lot of work. The heavy machinery operators (read: skilled construction workers) get paid well enough.
The problem with Capitalism is, its designed for the greedy and not everyone is greedy. Actually it isn't, but the problem with every system is that it can be exploited by the greedy to oppress everyone else. The same goes for socialism. Capitalism is actually designed so that people who give the most to society get the most back from society. The problem is that the oligarchy hijacked the system. I don't recall a socioeconomic system in history that hasn't been hijacked in a similar fashion.
The rich usually are the laziest though, why should a person be allowed to work less hard because they have money? If they earned the money themselves, let them work less hard because they put forth the effort and sacrifice earlier in life. Otherwise, they shouldn't.
I believe those who work hard in life deserve to be rewarded whereas those who sit around lazily deserve to be treated like the parasites they are. Some people are worth more in a given situation than others because everyone has different talents. The problem with "equality" is that for everyone to truly be equal, everyone would have to have exactly the same qualities.
I also believe that everyone should be given an equal opportunity. That is to say, everyone should have a chance to work hard and get ahead. That way, the industrious are rewarded and the lazy fall behind. I hate how people act like the poor should be propped up by the not-so-poor (because we all know the rich sure as hell won't do it!). If you want to give your money to those less fortunate than yourself, feel free, and congratulations to you. I, on the other hand, would rather provide a comfortable existance for my family than to provide that for some stranger.
I'm not really sure if that was a joke or not, so I'm gonna 1. pretend it was and laugh, and 2. pretend it wasn't and respond anyway;)
No. They wasted money porting the catelog from paper to computers. It worked on paper, and it had 0 upkeep cost on paper. The computers may have been discounted, but the catelog had to be entered into a database (and time is expensive), the software was likely (but not definitely) expensive, and the damn things require electricity, plus a tech guy to fix them when somebody manages to break them (weekly at best).
Unless Apple's discounts made the total price nonpositive, the school wasted money.
Under socialism, everyone is equal except the boss. The boss separates him/her/itself from the group because they're the greedy bastard who oppresses you under capitalism. At least under capitalism people who aren't worth much get treated as such, and people who are worth more are treated as such. Under socialism everyone is equally worthless.
Who goes to college for an education? Some of us do actually go to college for an education. Some of us don't really have any special-interests to further aside from learning the skills we'll need for a job in the next few years. Granted, the majority of the people in the US today spend their lives trying to promote their minority lifestyle, but not everybody. Some of us are still sickened by the garbage going on every day.
<RANT topic="schools wasting money"> I'm sick of elementary/middle schools telling us to give them kleenexes and bandaids because they've wasted their money putting the library card catelog on Macs (which are used for NOTHING ELSE!) and building a new soccer field (when the old one was perfectly usable but ugly and with less-than-comfortable bleachers), among other worthless projects. </RANT>
You are right colleges are like socialism, whats wrong with socialism? Colleges are totalitarian institutions which give you more freedom than the totalitarian institution you just left (High School). Sure, you're not treated worse than an inmate at a medium-security prison anymore, but you're still told what you can and can't do to a large degree. THAT is what's wrong with socialism, because when implemented, it always turns out that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I never said assembler was a good way to do it. I just wanted to remind my original post's parent that Java isn't the only language that can do anything.
With java you know you can get anything done. Its like the swiss army knife of programming languages.
Well, it is a Turing-complete language afterall. The fact of the matter is, you can't do anything in Java you can't do in C++ or C or assembly language or raw machine language for that matter. The only difference is time/space efficiency, in both execution and code-writing.
Sure, it'd cost a tiny bit more, but think how much easier it would be to sell upgrades to consumers if they didn't have to crawl into an electrified box!
Actually, the way you sell upgrades to consumers now is to con them into buying a new PC. It's amazing how quickly people are willing to shell out $500-$1000 if they think think they need to, and at least in my experience, the people who don't know how to work inside the case don't tend to realize it's possible to upgrade anything without buying a new box.
Of course not. It takes energy to measure it, so it'd be raised above absolute zero and of course you agree that the principle applies there.
You're a student, your JOB is to go to class and LEARN.
As a student, your job is to learn. That's what students do. If you can do so without going to class, why go to class? If your professor is so boring that the textbook is all you need to get an A in the class, why go to class? If I show up late, yes, that's disrespectful, and I can understand them getting mad, but if I just don't go to class, why should they really care? If I don't show up to their office begging for help, if I don't have problems with the tests, and if I understand the material they covered without being there, why should I go? If the teacher does their job right, I'll want to go to class because it'll help me learn, but if they're boring and essentially read me the book anyway, why can't I do it myself? I pay the school to teach me. My job is learning because that's what I'm here for, but they have no right to bitch about me not coming to class because I pay them. In "Real Life", it's the other way around, so of course your boss can get pissed off.
It's absurd to expect our most qualified to sit down and shut up at the end of the run...
If they have something to say, they can run for the House or the Senate again. There's nothing stopping them from continuing public service. For that matter, they can go to work at the State Department and do diplomacy. That way, they'd actually have some information to go with their opinions instead of just shooting their mouthes off. I have no expectation that they sit down and shut up, but I do expect that if they choose to be a private citizen that they act like one. That means no press conferences. That means no TV appearances in times of crisis. That means if they want to bitch, they can go to the bar and bitch to their buddies like any other private citizen, and if they have an issue with the government, they can write a letter. All I ask is that they inform themselves before they speak. And, it's pretty obvious that Jimmy Carter doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time anymore.
The Democratic presidential candidates are accountable. If their constituents (or prospective constituents) don't like what they have to say, they won't vote for them. If we don't like what Jimmy Carter has to say, all we have is to tell him to STFU.
Well it's nice to see that the Americans are willing to vaporize entire cities
That's a were. Our leaders no longer have the backbone for such things, despite the fact that we have the technology to vaporize small nations now.
simply for the sake of humiliating their opponents
No, it's not about humiliation. It's about, we won the war, and we demanded an unconditional surrender. It's kindof like how you say, "we don't negotiate with terrorists." We don't negotiate with people who attack us on Sunday morning when it should be damned well obvious that there isn't a translator working that day in DC to read your declaration of war. What gets me is that we gave them a second chance to surrender before Nagasaki, and THEY STILL REFUSED. I'm sorry, but if they're that fucking stupid, they deserved it. Hirohito should've stepped down and surrendered instead of sacrificing his people's lives to try to keep himself in power.
What a great value for human life!
It was either kill a bunch of them, or let them kill a bunch of our people invading to achieve the same goal. I, quite frankly, think that if you're fighting a war where you're not even the aggressor, you should worry about saving the ass of your own citizens who are fighting to defend/avenge your country instead of some random civilian in the offending country.
Actually, the sticking point was that we said "unconditional surrender" and they said "Nooooo! Negotiate with us!". Then we said, "unconditional surrender or we're going to vaporize a city." They repeated their refusal. We blew Hiroshima up. We repeated, "unconditional surrender or we're going to vaporize another city." They repeated their refusal. We blew Nagasaki up. Then, we said, "unconditional surrender or the next city we vaporize will be Tokyo." They said, "Ahh shit! Unconditional surrender sounds ok now!" We wrote them a consitution, and Douglas MacArthur got to pretend he was God over there for a while. Truman had already told Stalin all about the bomb as far as its power and such based on the test in the desert.
It's easier than many people want to think, but we know what we're doing, we're not completely stupid.
No, you're an absolute idiot, and you're too damn stupid to realize it. If you think your tricks to cover shit up work, you're a fool. I'm 19. I was your age 2 years ago. I got away with my fair share and then some, but it's not because of any skills when it comes to covering it up. It's either because they don't want to believe that you'd be doing what they think you're doing, or because they choose to let you get away with it because they don't think you're doing any real harm. (Have a few shots, sober up, and come home. Who really cares? Sure, it's illegal, but it doesn't really hurt you if you're careful.) Your parents are probably a lot smarter than you give them credit for. I'm honestly still not sure how mine figured out some of the stuff they have in the last year or so, but I thought they were clueless. One day you'll also realize that all the shit you did and thought you got away with because you were so smart and so good at hiding everything because you're a new breed, you really got away with because people wanted you to learn from your own mistakes. People have been using Visene to get the red out for decades. Why the hell do you think that's their slogan? As for the drinking, do you really think your parents didn't know how to sober up and knock the alcohol off their breath? Your tricks are nothing new, so deal with it, and quit getting insulted because someone wanted to point it out to you. A 19 year old shouldn't feel this old, but you damned punk kids never seem to learn anything.......
I didn't say you were from Mexico. As a matter of fact, I don't think Mexicans hate us as a country, generally speaking. I just happen to know the formal name of the country as well as the name it goes by, which I think that you should be terribly offended by if you're going to be offended by my use of America to refer to the United States thereof.
I was just curious as to what you call the country on the USA's southern border. I know I call it Mexico, and everyone I've ever spoken to from there has called it Mexico, and everyone I've ever spoken to when I've been down there has called it Mexico, so I'm guessing you also call it Mexico. Do you know it's proper name? It's Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. As they refer to my country as Los Estados Unidos Americanos (the American United States or the United American States), I'm going to translate it as the United States of Mexico. Since the United States of Mexico is known as Mexico, it therefore follows logically that the United Statse of America could be known as America, which it is. Actually, if you say "the United States", you're being ambiguous because there are United States other than the USA. Anyway, I don't see why you got so offended anyway. Nobody said we're the only Americans, just that our country is called America. American can easily refer to anyone on either continent, but America cannot (as shown in previous posts, it has to be qualified). I don't have anything against South Americans or my non-central fellow North Americans. I speak semi-fluent Spanish and am planning to minor in it at my University to get better, so don't go implying that I'm afraid, or too lazy, or whatever, to learn something. But please, if you want to call us something more specific than Americans, "central North Americans" is a lot less insulting than "Usians".
If you want to refer to the continents, they're North America and South America. Collectively, they're the Americas. Allow some reason:
America ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mr-k)
1. The United States.
2. also the Americas (-kz). The landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America.
--dictionary.com
Even the friggin' dictionary says "America" is the United States, and "the Americas" refers to the continents. The rest of the world can differ if they like, but I have the authority on the English Language on my side, so I don't give a rat's ass.
No, you're in South America or North America, but America on its own refers to the United States thereof.
Nobody was trying to extract money from Microsoft. Microsoft was attacked because they abused their monopoly status in an anti-capitalistic manner.
Alot of rich people are inherting money they stole.
And a lot of descendents of ex-slaves are also descended from the ones who stole it. Therefore, it's very difficult to say who deserves reparations. That's all.
What about the government? The government stepped on them too, no appology? No money? I mean even native americans have casinos and reservations, sure its not much but its better than affirmative action.
No. The government doesn't have any assets of its own because they truly belong to society as a whole, and that's unfair to those of us who didn't do any harm. The government stepped on them because of the collective will. Those who were part of the collective can repay the collective debt. The rest of us shouldn't have to.
IF I tried to put that on the ballot the KKK would be burning crosses i my yard. We need to rid the country of terrorists before we can make the world fair.
This is true. Can we put the reparations for segregation on the ballot after we manage this miracle though because I actually like the idea, and we don't often agree.
Everyone who tries to make the world fair from kennedy to martin luther king, seems to get shot in the head, am I the only one who notices this?
Well, you're right that everyone who tries to make the world fair gets shot. I just hope you mean RFK, not JFK because JFK was one of the greediest CEO-type bastards I've ever heard of.
I think it will be realistic in the future when our technology reaches that point, it already is realistic enough to work on the internet, this is why peer to peer works, peer to peer is socialism but it works, open source is socialism but it still works, my P2P idea to improve the situation for musician is simple, make P2P capitalism again, give music a value again, you see the idea on my journal.
I disagree. I don't think it's socialism. Socialism is government-mandated, or at least central-body-mandated. What you have is altruism. It's the good side of humanity, the giving and sharing and friendly side. The side that wants to do something for other people because they can (as opposed to the side that wants to fuck over other people because they can). And as for your P2P idea, I'd like to suggest using the napster-like model, run by a purely democratic vote by the artists whose music is being shared, so that you have a central server instead of pure P2P. Aside from that technical note, I think your idea would actually work pretty well.
when we have nano technology, we should be able to have pure socialism
Actually, I think when we have nanotechnology, we should be able to dump all the economic bullshit -isms into a river and just exist. Nobody will have to work. We'll all spend our time having fun. We'll revert to the way some things were in ancient Greece where Street Philosopher will be recognized as a useful and productive "job" again. There will be no need for socialism because instead of the government distributing the wealth, everyone will just have whatever they want anyway.
Ok I actually agree with you. I just dont like when I hear that my mother (single parent) makes less money than you do, just because shes a woman. When women are making only 75% of the salary of a male when they have the exact same title, something is wrong.
Very very wrong!
problem is lawyers and CEOS make millions when they usually dont help anyone.
Indeed this is the case. The problem I see though, especially with lawyers, is that the government puts them in a position to take advantage of us. That's why I don't trust socialism to let the government do more because they'll hurt us instead of helping. I prefer to fix capitalism (or perhaps invent a new -ism?) instead of just switching to another broken system.
Look I'm not saying we should convert fully to socialism right now, all I am saying is we should use our tax dollars to fund things which improve society, and we must do this by fo
Thats just it though, everyone works, every single person on this planet works, who gives you the right to decide how much their work is worth?
I don't want that responsibility anyway.
shouldnt their jobs worth be equal to the worth they are to society?
I thought that was what I said. If i was unclear, I'm sorry.
Which means a teacher, doctor, policeman, etc should be making more than the CEO right?
Exactly.
Thats impossible though, Mc Donalds does not pay enough to even get by.
And that's a problem. If someone works there fulltime, they should get enough money to live off of.
[NOTE: brought up from the bottom due to relevance]
Not anyone can do a Mc Donalds job, I couldnt do it, I dont have the people skills, alot of people dont have those skills and cant do it, just like not everyone has leadership skills.
Working at McDonald's does not require people skills. If it did, the people working there now wouldn't be there. People at fastfood restaurants (here anyway) are generally asshole teenagers who hate being there and treat the customers like shit. If I were the manager I'd fire them, but with the current requirements, all that it takes is the ability to punch the buttons. Also, the kitchen staff don't interact with people at all. All they have to be able to do is read off the screen.
No because a doctors worth to society is greater than your CEO, The doctor has one of the most difficult jobs on this planet, if not the single most difficult, the CEO should charge less, and then people would have more money to give the doctor.
Well, my problem is that the doctor doesn't set his rates at the hospital. The hospital administration does. So basically, I think the doctor should be paid about what he already is, but the hospital should be forced to charge less. The hospital's CEO should take a pay cut, basically.
The reason is, its not always profitable to do certain things, I mean look at music, you cannot make money from using using the traditional capitalist model, this is why theres the current problems.
True, but I think altruism (even forced altruism) is better than socialism. I'll explain later.
I think if society makes you rich, you MUST give back and I'd rather have a group of people (decentralized) decide how the money gets used, than one guy who might be greedy as hell and decide not to give it to anyone.
I could agree with that. Instead of insane taxes, perhaps you could say, insane taxes, but you get all donations to charities deducted from your income (or even from your tax bill). That way, if they choose to help society, they can. Otherwise, they can pay for my road to get repaved.
Currently this doesnt happen because there are no laws in place telling government what they can and cant spend money on, perhaps if we made a law that everything we spend money on must improve society for everyone would solve the problem.
And here's the problem I see with socialism. In its present state, the government is run by, essentially, the CEOs that you so detest. It has been for decades, really. I don't trust the government at all. In the private sector, at least you have a chance of hitting the rare non-evil/non-greedy/non-bastard company who truly wants to help improve society and just happens to want to make a profit at the same time. In the government, you just have corrupt people. Fixing the government is another discussion altogether, but I basically think people shouldn't be allowed to have power long enough for it to corrupt them. If you fixed the government to the point that we could trust them, your idea wouldn't be quite so bad, but as it is, the government needs to prove to me that they can learn to properly use the money I already give them before they ask me for a cent more, from anyone.
Bill Gates may deserve to be a millionare for creating windows and helping make computers easy to use
<RANT>
What use is money to us besides to pay bills which seem to inflate based on our salary?
/. from work.
Buy a car. Buy a TV. Buy luxury items. If you don't want more money, work less. You don't have to work, but let people do so if they want to.
They did the least amount of work but had all the resources so lets not try to pretend that capitalism fairly distributes resources based on merit or how hard a person works.
Yes. That's right. That was capitalism. No, that was a corrupted empire, just like we live in a corrupted republic. The system didn't cause it, the people who had power did.
now if this is the case why should the daughter of Bill Gates get a free education when other people have to work to pay for school?
Because she'll get it if he's alive, so why shouldn't she get it just because he's dead? Piece of shit that he is, Bill Gates can do whatever the hell he wants because it's HIS money.
If you think slavery is too long ago due to the fact that all the original slaves are dead,
Actually, I think slavery was so long ago that its effect on the current population has been negated. In many cases, especially with interracial relationships and such, people are descended from both a slave and someone who benefited from slavery (though not necessarily a slaveowner), so it's silly for them to pay themselves. It's not fair to give a blanket payment to everyone with dark skin. I said I was all for reparations to someone who can prove that they (not their ancestors) were hurt by slavery.
you can still make the case for reparations for segregation which legally prevented minorities from making a fair wage and running a successful business. This ended in the last 30 years so you cannot tell me that you dont owe them something.
That seems fair to me. If they had losses due to segregation and discrimination, then the people who hurt them owe them. However, I don't. Neither myself nor my family was part of the problem, and I don't feel any need to clean up other people's messes. Let the companies who stepped on minorities pay reparations because they owe them. Not we.
In a fair capitalist world, every single business which benefited from slavery, segregation, etc should pay millions of dollars to a reparations fund, a non profit which will help minorities with college education, starting businesses, and improve their communities.
Good plan. You get it on the ballot and I'll vote for it.
Stalin was an evil bastard, Lenin had the theories right on paper and Stalin fucked up.
But see, how about, Thomas Payne and John Locke had the theories right on paper, and everyone for the last 200 years has fucked it up.
This would allow everyone to do the job they truely want to do in life without worrying about survival, I think people would do a better job if they did what they wanted to do in life instead of what they have to do.
I agree. I know I'd be doing a better job if I didn't hate my job. Thus, I post to
hard labor is hard
Hard labor is strenuous and tedious, but not difficult. Anyone can do it. They might take a long damn time, but eventually they'll build the muscle, etc. Even the fat rich bastards, if they were forced to work, would be able to do so.
Because the lazy CEO and businessmen KNEW it was easier to sit on their ass giving orders and going to meetings.
No, it was more pleasant. It can be very difficult, but be fun and challenging. People don't do hard labor because it causes them pain, not because they can't.
Einstien would be compensated, you see Einstien didnt do the things he did for the money, he did it for the recognition, he wanted to be the one to discover new things, he did it because he loved science.
Yes, but just because that wasn't his intention isn't the issue. Einstein gave freely to society, and society therefore owed it to him to give
I just refuse to pretend like Capitalism was "fair" and I think fairness should not play a role when deciding if y ou are a Capitalist or not.
Then why do you even care that it's not fair? If it shouldn't play a role in deciding, don't bring it up.
If I were greedy I'd be focused on making money, but thats not my focus.
You can be greedy without wanting money. Some greedy people just want to be given stuff and not money. They want you to provide everything for them instead of working for it. That's just as greedy as the guy who wants money for his lack of work.
The greedy want to hog all the resources essential for survival, just because they are greedy,
That would be what being greedy is all about. They want everything, and they want everyone else to have nothing. It's a shame you believe every life is precious because I don't see a problem with society shunning the greedy people and letting them rot.
when a person such as a teacher or fireman cannot afford to pay their rent, shouldnt they blame the greedy Capitalists for not distributing the wealth fairly?
No, they should blame themselves for not having the foresight to get a better job. Secondarily, they can blame the greedy people (NOT ALL GREEDY PEOPLE ARE CAPITALIST) for not paying them what their job is worth, but distribution of wealth isn't a good way to put it.
and you have people in this country who work at mc donalds or places such as this making minimum wage
Okay, so you invent the robots to replace the people who work at McDonald's. McDonald's needs somebody to work there. And, their jobs are so easy anybody could do them, so the job isn't worth that much money. It really makes sense if you'll think about it. Valuable job => more money. Value is determined by taking how useful the job is accounting for how many people can do it. It isn't an ultrauseful job, and anybody can do it. Therefore, shit for wages.
living in trailers, and practically starving to death.
But they're surviving, which is what you said they're entitled to.
Everyone should havw the basics, thats all I'm saying, I'm not saying everyones entitled to a big screen TV, or a nice car, or even a house, but everyone should have the basics, meaning a bed to sleep in, shelter, food, education, water and health coverage.
I agree totally! So, let the people who want to work harer do so. Let the people who want to just get by do so. Definitely provide the basics to someone who can't provide it for themself. On the other hand, people should have the freedom to starve if they so choose. If they're able, but too damn lazy to work, why should they be greedy and think I should support them? That's rediculous!
there is no reason for any American to die because they cant afford a doctor.
Let me solve this one real fast. Instead of giving people money to pay the doctor who charges more than he should just because all the doctors agree to do it, let's make the doctor charge less so the poor people can afford his services. Isn't that more fair?
What if someone wants to do community service and does not want to be a business man?
Then we, as members of the community, should compensate them. Everyone who works to help others, in any capacity, deserves compensation. This is why I support capitalism over socialism. I think people should give to charities because it's the right thing to do instead of being greedy and hording their money. Just because you're a not-for-profit organization doesn't mean you shouldn't make money to use for operating expenses and for paying your employees. Frankly, I think a community service person should make more money because of their contribution.
You think the mc donalds worker isnt just as important as the CEO?
As a person, sure they are. As a worker, no they're not. Anybody can do the McDonald's worker's job, and they can do it well. It takes skil
Rewarded how? Money isnt a reward for everyone, not everyone can gain happiness from money.
Money is worthless ink-on-paper (or pressed metal). The way it's a reward however is that you can buy the things you want or need. For example, for those with kids, people tend to want to have nice things for their children. As another example, having a house instead of an apartment, or a comfortable chair instead of a cheap plastic one. These things are not true necessities, but they're nice to have, and I don't see wanting them as greedy.
Why reward Greed?
Reward the action, not the motivation. I don't care if you work hard because you're greedy or if you work hard to pay for your grandma's surgery, you deserve to be compensated for your time because it's the most valuable thing you have.
You see I believe everyone is priceless, people dont have a specific "worth", everyone is worthy of survival.
I never said people have a specific "worth" in a general sense. Just, some people have the skills that make them more valuable for certain situations. Other people are more valuable in other situations. Everyone is priceless indeed, and I never suggested that anyone is unworthy of survival. However, I shouldn't be asked to provide luxury for those who don't want to support themselves. I have no problem with giving food, water, clothing, and shelter to those who need it. On the other hand, those who are fully capable of supporting themselves and opt not to should deal with the consequences of their decision.
Sure if you work hard maybe its ok for you to make more money, but Capitalism doesnt work like that, alot of people who work the hardest have the least money, and people who sit on their ass have the most money.
This is a bad thing. On the other hand, if you work your ass off for 20 years and make a couple million bucks, you've earned the priveledge of sitting on your ass for a while.
I may do the most important job, but because I'm not greedy, I wont be rich, you think a teacher or fireman is important? What about construction workers and police? These are some of our most important jobs and they pay the least amount of money, so why do people do it? Because not everyone is motivated by money.
Teachers should make enough money to support themselves because they do a valuable job. On the other hand, bad teachers should be fired so they quit producing highschool graduates who can't even do basic math. Police and firemen are also extremely valuable careers, but they don't pay the least amount of money. I know several cops who have nice cars, nice houses, and plenty of the necessities. Construction workers often do that job because they're not smart enough to do anything else. The ones who are smart enough tend to do the construction jobs which pay competitive salaries. I mean, the guy who stands in the street and holds the Stop/Slow sign (read: unskilled construction worker) is useful, but ANYBODY could do that job. He doesn't deserve a huge amount of money because he really doesn't do a hell of a lot of work. The heavy machinery operators (read: skilled construction workers) get paid well enough.
The problem with Capitalism is, its designed for the greedy and not everyone is greedy.
Actually it isn't, but the problem with every system is that it can be exploited by the greedy to oppress everyone else. The same goes for socialism. Capitalism is actually designed so that people who give the most to society get the most back from society. The problem is that the oligarchy hijacked the system. I don't recall a socioeconomic system in history that hasn't been hijacked in a similar fashion.
The rich usually are the laziest though, why should a person be allowed to work less hard because they have money?
If they earned the money themselves, let them work less hard because they put forth the effort and sacrifice earlier in life. Otherwise, they shouldn't.
If yo
I believe those who work hard in life deserve to be rewarded whereas those who sit around lazily deserve to be treated like the parasites they are. Some people are worth more in a given situation than others because everyone has different talents. The problem with "equality" is that for everyone to truly be equal, everyone would have to have exactly the same qualities.
I also believe that everyone should be given an equal opportunity. That is to say, everyone should have a chance to work hard and get ahead. That way, the industrious are rewarded and the lazy fall behind. I hate how people act like the poor should be propped up by the not-so-poor (because we all know the rich sure as hell won't do it!). If you want to give your money to those less fortunate than yourself, feel free, and congratulations to you. I, on the other hand, would rather provide a comfortable existance for my family than to provide that for some stranger.
I'm not really sure if that was a joke or not, so I'm gonna 1. pretend it was and laugh, and 2. pretend it wasn't and respond anyway ;)
No. They wasted money porting the catelog from paper to computers. It worked on paper, and it had 0 upkeep cost on paper. The computers may have been discounted, but the catelog had to be entered into a database (and time is expensive), the software was likely (but not definitely) expensive, and the damn things require electricity, plus a tech guy to fix them when somebody manages to break them (weekly at best).
Unless Apple's discounts made the total price nonpositive, the school wasted money.
Under socialism, everyone is equal except the boss. The boss separates him/her/itself from the group because they're the greedy bastard who oppresses you under capitalism. At least under capitalism people who aren't worth much get treated as such, and people who are worth more are treated as such. Under socialism everyone is equally worthless.
Who goes to college for an education?
Some of us do actually go to college for an education. Some of us don't really have any special-interests to further aside from learning the skills we'll need for a job in the next few years. Granted, the majority of the people in the US today spend their lives trying to promote their minority lifestyle, but not everybody. Some of us are still sickened by the garbage going on every day.
<RANT topic="schools wasting money">
I'm sick of elementary/middle schools telling us to give them kleenexes and bandaids because they've wasted their money putting the library card catelog on Macs (which are used for NOTHING ELSE!) and building a new soccer field (when the old one was perfectly usable but ugly and with less-than-comfortable bleachers), among other worthless projects.
</RANT>
You are right colleges are like socialism, whats wrong with socialism?
Colleges are totalitarian institutions which give you more freedom than the totalitarian institution you just left (High School). Sure, you're not treated worse than an inmate at a medium-security prison anymore, but you're still told what you can and can't do to a large degree. THAT is what's wrong with socialism, because when implemented, it always turns out that way.