Likewise, none of my third-year courses involved anything as simple as writing a blog. Even first-year courses weren't that simple. Please tell me the OP isn't actually for a computer science degree; but I can't think of any respected degree that would include writing blog posts as a third-year credit. My third-year courses covered topics like operating systems (with programming assignments to implement things like virtual memory), numerical analysis, concurrency (heavy theory and programming), and the like. (Damn straight get off my lawn!)
Are you perhaps thinking of this Joel on Software article "How Trello is different", in which Joel writes:
Over the next two weeks we visited dozens of Excel customers, and did not see anyone using Excel to actually perform what you would call “calculations.” Almost all of them were using Excel because it was a convenient way to create a table.
What was I talking about? Oh yeah... most people just used Excel to make lists. Suddenly we understood why Lotus Improv, which was this fancy futuristic spreadsheet that was going to make Excel obsolete, had failed completely: because it was great at calculations, but terrible at creating tables, and everyone was using Excel for tables, not calculations.
Your source could have just been another writeup of the same Microsoft investigation, of course.
Perhaps I should have written more specifically not happy with their work at a given rate, X+$5 per hour in this case, then.:-) That is, with making an exchange of X+$5 for an hour of said work. A job is, after all, a (repeated/continued) transaction between a buyer and seller. I may be happy to buy a 6-pack of beer for $8, but balk at buying the same 6-pack for $13; but someone may buy it, or pay the worker $5 more. Value is subjective.
How is forced age discrimination "morality"? Granted, forcing 8-year-olds to dig coal out of a mine is wrong (because of the forcing, not because it's work), but there are plenty of jobs banned to people that are perfectly able to do them and give informed consent without sacrificing education or health. Child labor laws came about to reduce competition (as did many forced union laws - those darkies were stepping on toes with their work ethic and lower wages; how dare they! Require people to belong to unions, and then it's as simple as keeping black people out of unions based on the flimsy pretext of the day.).
Similarly, there's no such thing as "right to unions". Or, rather, you can (or should be able to) associate however you like, and let whoever you like speak on your behalf; but it is not "moral" to force an employer to retain or hire union members (or redheads, or people that wear Nikes, or Democrats or Republicans or gun owners or gun grabbers) if they don't want to. Since I'm on the subject, "right to work" laws aren't quite right either because they stop employers from choosing to, say, hire only union members if they wish to do so.
Compared to, say, 1000 years ago - heck, just 100 or 200 - we are living in their Star Trek. Capitalism is still alive and kicking and remains the primary vehicle for advances in technology, medicine, entertainment, transportation, etc. There's no reason to expect that voluntary exchange would go away just because all menial labor can be done with robots. Robots still require energy and programming and materials.
Things would get a little more interesting if someone managed to invent a teleportation device or a replicator: but they'd probably require massive amounts of fuel. But combine them with Mr. Fusion, and we're off to the races!
You don't "need" a TV, computers, Internet—anything beyond basic food and shelter—the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy.
Need is irrelevant to freedom. The right question is, "Why should the right of a peaceful individual to voluntarily own, trade, import, export, or carry any property, including firearms of any sort, be violently infringed?" And, of course, there is no justifiable reason to so infringe.
Web form? Text editor? Ha! Start with scrolls and quill pens (due to earlier bans and unavailability of various current technology).
That would bring the first amendment on par with the much-infringed "shall not be infringed" second.
Then the NFA/Hughes amendment (unconstitutional laws restricting sale of automatic weapons, suppressors, etc.) is a bit like limiting the number of computers that can access the Internet or publish anything to those made before 2000, with any software upgrade (or custom work) or transfer of any of these machines without a tax stamp, even if you had one but lost it, belong a felony, and then claiming that such a law follows the first amendment. Yeah. Have fun paying $20,000 for a computer with Windows 95 and Netscape Navigator.
There is a mechanic to change the constitution, and it's not called an "executive order", but rather amending the constitution.
But why bother when the partisan supreme court can just continue to find that "shall not be infringed" means "shall be infringed"? A bunch of two-year-olds could do better than that.
Gun manufacturers wouldn't see massive purchase spikes if anti-liberty folk didn't use the corpses of children as an excuse to do harm to people that had nothing to do with creating those corpses. This new law in New York just proves the panic buyers right.
If there were no anti-liberty politicians seeking to use tragedy for a people control agenda, then there would be no panic buys.
Standard capacity magazines, like the 30-round AR-15 magazine in the article, are illegal in some US states, for example, New York. Fortunately, they appear to be in the less-Draconian state of Texas.
Yes, Virginia, there are people out there that will gleefully cage you for ten years for merely possessing a piece of plastic or metal but doing no harm. Heck, well over half of the laws and regulations that exist prescribe harm against or extortion of peaceful individuals, and that's ridiculous. No victim, no crime.
No. The "well-regulated militia" part is explanatory/commentary for the following primary clause. It wouldn't change anything at all if it instead said, "Bacon, being a delicious breakfast food, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A few specific notes from said founding fathers:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." – Thomas Jefferson
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." – The Federalist, No. 29
"A free people ought to be armed." – George Washington
I do not myself appeal to the founding fathers for a right, but I bring up a few quotes because the parent post did. Jefferson again: "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." - a form of the non-aggression principle, an individual right not to be harmed in peaceful pursuits, which include the production, import, export, trade, or carriage of arms, but of course exclude their use to initiate aggression.
Uh, well, because bullets (cartridges) have chemical agents in them (primers, powder), so you wouldn't get far printing them (and the casing has to meet certain tolerances for those propellants to be used, so extruded plastic isn't going to be good for that). A magazine, on the other hand, is just an inert attachable box for bullets with a spring in it (follower), and doesn't need to meet such stringent requirements.
Bullets (cartridges) are made by many at home, however, in a process called "reloading" (not to be confused with loading a fresh magazine into a firearm), but it usually involves starting with the brass cases and putting everything (primer, powder, bullet) together.
If it's all about need (I must have missed the memo) nobody needs computers, TVs, hand-held phones, heck, printing presses; we can go back to hunter-gatherer societies secure in the knowledge that nobody has anything they don't need.
You are welcome to give up your own freedom. You are not welcome to give up mine.
How are we defining tyranny today? Will any rights infringement do, or do there have to be actual storm troopers in riot gear marching down the street? Are you under the misconception that democracy of all things obviates tyranny?
Some places are doing this - it's called a Results Only Work Environment (ROWE). Of course, it's not such a terrifically advanced concept that that's the only name for it, I'm sure, but knowing that name might provide some useful leads.
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise, none of my third-year courses involved anything as simple as writing a blog. Even first-year courses weren't that simple. Please tell me the OP isn't actually for a computer science degree; but I can't think of any respected degree that would include writing blog posts as a third-year credit. My third-year courses covered topics like operating systems (with programming assignments to implement things like virtual memory), numerical analysis, concurrency (heavy theory and programming), and the like. (Damn straight get off my lawn!)
Are you perhaps thinking of this Joel on Software article "How Trello is different", in which Joel writes:
Your source could have just been another writeup of the same Microsoft investigation, of course.
Why aren't you out fighting it? Clearly you understand it exists.
Why should a person be forced to continue to pay someone they no longer wish to pay to do work, for any reason?
That's not "unfortunate" at all; that's basic freedom of association and trade.
A job is a transaction between a buyer and a seller.. That transaction should not be forced to continue if either party does not wish it.
Perhaps I should have written more specifically not happy with their work at a given rate, X+$5 per hour in this case, then. :-) That is, with making an exchange of X+$5 for an hour of said work. A job is, after all, a (repeated/continued) transaction between a buyer and seller. I may be happy to buy a 6-pack of beer for $8, but balk at buying the same 6-pack for $13; but someone may buy it, or pay the worker $5 more. Value is subjective.
Why is that unfortunate? Should people be forced to continue paying someone to do work that they no longer want them to do?
How, exactly, did it work out for Poland?
How high "should" pay be, and why? How do you know? Whose head are you going to hold a gun to to make it so?
How is forced age discrimination "morality"? Granted, forcing 8-year-olds to dig coal out of a mine is wrong (because of the forcing, not because it's work), but there are plenty of jobs banned to people that are perfectly able to do them and give informed consent without sacrificing education or health. Child labor laws came about to reduce competition (as did many forced union laws - those darkies were stepping on toes with their work ethic and lower wages; how dare they! Require people to belong to unions, and then it's as simple as keeping black people out of unions based on the flimsy pretext of the day.).
Similarly, there's no such thing as "right to unions". Or, rather, you can (or should be able to) associate however you like, and let whoever you like speak on your behalf; but it is not "moral" to force an employer to retain or hire union members (or redheads, or people that wear Nikes, or Democrats or Republicans or gun owners or gun grabbers) if they don't want to. Since I'm on the subject, "right to work" laws aren't quite right either because they stop employers from choosing to, say, hire only union members if they wish to do so.
Sure it's allowed; you just have to call it a "stock market".
(Yeah, yeah, if trading stocks is gambling you're doing it wrong.)
What free state? Freer state, maybe. "Free" and "state" don't go together.
Compared to, say, 1000 years ago - heck, just 100 or 200 - we are living in their Star Trek. Capitalism is still alive and kicking and remains the primary vehicle for advances in technology, medicine, entertainment, transportation, etc. There's no reason to expect that voluntary exchange would go away just because all menial labor can be done with robots. Robots still require energy and programming and materials.
Things would get a little more interesting if someone managed to invent a teleportation device or a replicator: but they'd probably require massive amounts of fuel. But combine them with Mr. Fusion, and we're off to the races!
“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” (MLK jr.)
“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.” (Mohandas Gandhi)
Law, especially of this sort, is an excuse to do harm.
Brillant!
You don't "need" a TV, computers, Internet—anything beyond basic food and shelter—the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy.
Need is irrelevant to freedom. The right question is, "Why should the right of a peaceful individual to voluntarily own, trade, import, export, or carry any property, including firearms of any sort, be violently infringed?" And, of course, there is no justifiable reason to so infringe.
Correction: there are 240,000+ legal assault rifles (meaning: select fire rifles) in the US.
Web form? Text editor? Ha! Start with scrolls and quill pens (due to earlier bans and unavailability of various current technology).
That would bring the first amendment on par with the much-infringed "shall not be infringed" second.
Then the NFA/Hughes amendment (unconstitutional laws restricting sale of automatic weapons, suppressors, etc.) is a bit like limiting the number of computers that can access the Internet or publish anything to those made before 2000, with any software upgrade (or custom work) or transfer of any of these machines without a tax stamp, even if you had one but lost it, belong a felony, and then claiming that such a law follows the first amendment. Yeah. Have fun paying $20,000 for a computer with Windows 95 and Netscape Navigator.
There is a mechanic to change the constitution, and it's not called an "executive order", but rather amending the constitution.
But why bother when the partisan supreme court can just continue to find that "shall not be infringed" means "shall be infringed"? A bunch of two-year-olds could do better than that.
Gun manufacturers wouldn't see massive purchase spikes if anti-liberty folk didn't use the corpses of children as an excuse to do harm to people that had nothing to do with creating those corpses. This new law in New York just proves the panic buyers right.
If there were no anti-liberty politicians seeking to use tragedy for a people control agenda, then there would be no panic buys.
Standard capacity magazines, like the 30-round AR-15 magazine in the article, are illegal in some US states, for example, New York. Fortunately, they appear to be in the less-Draconian state of Texas.
Yes, Virginia, there are people out there that will gleefully cage you for ten years for merely possessing a piece of plastic or metal but doing no harm. Heck, well over half of the laws and regulations that exist prescribe harm against or extortion of peaceful individuals, and that's ridiculous. No victim, no crime.
No. The "well-regulated militia" part is explanatory/commentary for the following primary clause. It wouldn't change anything at all if it instead said, "Bacon, being a delicious breakfast food, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A few specific notes from said founding fathers:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." – Thomas Jefferson
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." – The Federalist, No. 29
"A free people ought to be armed." – George Washington
I do not myself appeal to the founding fathers for a right, but I bring up a few quotes because the parent post did. Jefferson again: "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." - a form of the non-aggression principle, an individual right not to be harmed in peaceful pursuits, which include the production, import, export, trade, or carriage of arms, but of course exclude their use to initiate aggression.
Uh, well, because bullets (cartridges) have chemical agents in them (primers, powder), so you wouldn't get far printing them (and the casing has to meet certain tolerances for those propellants to be used, so extruded plastic isn't going to be good for that). A magazine, on the other hand, is just an inert attachable box for bullets with a spring in it (follower), and doesn't need to meet such stringent requirements.
Bullets (cartridges) are made by many at home, however, in a process called "reloading" (not to be confused with loading a fresh magazine into a firearm), but it usually involves starting with the brass cases and putting everything (primer, powder, bullet) together.
If it's all about need (I must have missed the memo) nobody needs computers, TVs, hand-held phones, heck, printing presses; we can go back to hunter-gatherer societies secure in the knowledge that nobody has anything they don't need.
You are welcome to give up your own freedom. You are not welcome to give up mine.
How are we defining tyranny today? Will any rights infringement do, or do there have to be actual storm troopers in riot gear marching down the street? Are you under the misconception that democracy of all things obviates tyranny?
Some places are doing this - it's called a Results Only Work Environment (ROWE). Of course, it's not such a terrifically advanced concept that that's the only name for it, I'm sure, but knowing that name might provide some useful leads.