So, "I've got mine, everybody else can go fuck themselves," basically? It's a perfectly reasonable and understandable viewpoint, but do realize that you've ceded any possible ethical or moral debate over the issue.
The drones are just a tactic to disrupt the hunters.
"Hunters" should be in quotes everywhere it's used in relation to this article. These people are as about as much of a "hunter" as a clay pigeon shooter is. It's kind of pathetic, really.
Because you are intimately familiar with almost all southern Republican politicians.
I'll bet he's more familiar with all southern Republican politicians than you are with the millions of violent Muslims that you claim to have such intimate knowledge of.
In other words: your generalizations aren't any more valid than the ones you disagree with.
Something like this is at best worthy of protection via copyright or as some sort of trade dress. Owning a patent on an animation makes absolutely no sense.
The negative externalities that the GP refers to aren't, in my opinion, something that's actually a negative externalities. However, the point stands that the USPS has to deal with legislation from (a Republican) congress that forced them to:
a) fund pensions in a manner that has no parallel anywhere else in the private or public arena b) forces them to take on the most unprofitable routes and deliveries and c) prevents them from doing things that could make them profitable
These are pretty well documented throughout the thread. It's a perfect example of Republicans setting up a government agency to fail and then pointing at that agency as an example of government failure.
Yeah, they should have done something about it. Would have been nice. Unfortunately, *nothing* is getting done right now and even getting the most basic legislation passed takes enormous amounts of time and energy because the Republican party has decided to take the ball and go home by obstructing *everything,* no matter how trivial. They won't even let universally-liked stuff like health care for 9/11 first responders get through.
Most of the music from the 60s and 70s that people still listen to, however, tends to be the actual good stuff. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Estimates are something like $0.15 per pizza. I'd have no problem paying that. If you think that a dime and a nickel per pizza isn't worth keeping people's access to health care available, then you and I have very different priorities.
No, instead we spend our money at places that don't treat their employees like shit. You seem to think that the only alternative to buying Papa Johns is to not buy pizza at all.
Yeah, it's going to suck for people stuck working at Papa Johns until they're able to get out, but unfortunately it's the only way to combat this predatory behavior.
Presumably, they hired these people because they needed them to do a job. That need doesn't just go away because it became more expensive to employ them. If they fire people, they have to make up for it somehow. Hopefully that will be partially by making some of the jobs actual honest-to-goodness full-time jobs that people can support themselves off of. Part of it might come from reduced customer service in the form of longer waits or other intangibles. If the customer service gets bad enough, they'll start to lose business.
What actions like this tells me is that these CEOs are willing to slit their own throats because they aren't willing to pay their employees a living wage.
I'm guessing that you're one of these "free market" loons; if not, then I apologize because this isn't addressed specifically to you but to others that are.
I love how you dipshits go on and on about the free market being able to take care of everything, but then when the free market does actually take care of something (such as boycotts against organizations that espouse bigoted ideologies), you get all up in arms about it. You know what? The market has spoken. If you're going to promote hate and bigotry against gays, it's not going to be tolerated. You're still free to hate them all you want, and the flip side of that is that the rest of the civilized country is free to mock and boycott you for it.
And companies that push liberal ideas are praised for being progressive so it's not as simple as people don't want politics mixed with business.
And again, even though you haven't provided any specific examples, this would be an example of the free market doing its job. If progressively-minded companies get praised, it's because the free market has decided that this is something worthy of praise. If you claim that it's the government doing the praising, therefore not really the free market, well, AGAIN, the free market of voters decided that this was the government they wanted, and it is acting, at least nominally, in the way that they expected it to when they voted for it.
Sure they do. The threat of a class action suit acts as a deterrent for potential abuse. Without the deterrent, corporations are more likely to try to engage in unethical or illegal behavior if they think it'll make them a buck.
To be fair, a lot of it is compartmentalization. Many extremely religious people have no problem applying logic and reason to other areas of their lives.
Doesn't matter how long you deny it. Biggest software ecosystem will win. It's only a matter of time. It's happened in every single instance of competing ecosystems in computing history. From PCs to phones to game consoles. Sure, there's plenty of good stuff available on any platform of any significant size, but the biggest userbase attracts the most developers. Period. It's very unlikely that anybody is going to unseat Android because it's awfully tough to compete with "free" when there's no other inertia to overcome. Perhaps if Apple had been willing to license out iOS to other manufacturers they could have stayed relevant -- possibly even dominant -- for longer.
Eventually iOS will be a lot like MacOS was in the '90s. Apple and a few other dedicated players will support it, nobody else will care. Nobody begrudges you for your walled garden and lack-of-options choices: if it meets your needs, go for it. It will just be nice for the rest of us when Apple once again has very little influence over the industry as a whole.
So, you're paying more to the company than the hardware is worth and getting less for it than, say, a Galaxy S3 user, and you congratulate *others* on their "math+logic fail"?
Are you a Poe? If so, well played.
As a customer, I really don't give a shit how profitable a company is for their shareholders as long as they can stay in business and keep serving my needs.
"prior conflict with subsidiary of Samsung" years before it was a subsidiary of Samsung.
So what's your point? You think when this subsidiary became a part of Samsung the dude just thought, "oh well, they're owned by a different company now; I'll just let it go."
Only because people who are no longer eligible to receive assistance aren't counted!
And this has been exactly the same case as it was under Bush and every other president.
AND, on top of that, unemployment insurance has been extended far beyond what was available during the Bush administration; so if anything, there are *more* people eligible to claim unemployment now than would have been the case in past years, which *inflates* the numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
So, "I've got mine, everybody else can go fuck themselves," basically? It's a perfectly reasonable and understandable viewpoint, but do realize that you've ceded any possible ethical or moral debate over the issue.
--Jeremy
The drones are just a tactic to disrupt the hunters.
"Hunters" should be in quotes everywhere it's used in relation to this article. These people are as about as much of a "hunter" as a clay pigeon shooter is. It's kind of pathetic, really.
--Jeremy
I want them out because I want a smaller government.
Apparently you weren't paying attention from 2001-2007, when the federal government expanded to include the DHS.
And you also weren't paying attention from 2009-2012, when the federal government shrunk under Obama's watch.
Your reasoning is not uncommon, but it's a narrative searching for a matching reality.
--Jeremy
But they lost by 2%
To an extremely vulnerable candidate. Don't forget that. Considering historical precedents, Obama *should* have lost this election.
--Jeremy
See, that's your definition of Christianity.
Some others define a Christian as anyone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.
Why should we take your definition over theirs? Because you're the True Scotsman?
--Jeremy
Because you are intimately familiar with almost all southern Republican politicians.
I'll bet he's more familiar with all southern Republican politicians than you are with the millions of violent Muslims that you claim to have such intimate knowledge of.
In other words: your generalizations aren't any more valid than the ones you disagree with.
--Jeremy
Christianity does not politicise.
In other words, Christianity is not a True Scotsman.
--Jeremy
Something like this is at best worthy of protection via copyright or as some sort of trade dress. Owning a patent on an animation makes absolutely no sense.
--Jeremy
If it was, they could easily implement a system where you had to call an automated system when you needed a pickup.
They could, if they were allowed to do so. Or they could reduce the number of days per week that they delivered.
Again, if they were allowed to do so.
--Jeremy
Operaghost only speaks hyperbole.
The negative externalities that the GP refers to aren't, in my opinion, something that's actually a negative externalities. However, the point stands that the USPS has to deal with legislation from (a Republican) congress that forced them to:
a) fund pensions in a manner that has no parallel anywhere else in the private or public arena
b) forces them to take on the most unprofitable routes and deliveries
and c) prevents them from doing things that could make them profitable
These are pretty well documented throughout the thread. It's a perfect example of Republicans setting up a government agency to fail and then pointing at that agency as an example of government failure.
--Jeremy
Yeah, they should have done something about it. Would have been nice. Unfortunately, *nothing* is getting done right now and even getting the most basic legislation passed takes enormous amounts of time and energy because the Republican party has decided to take the ball and go home by obstructing *everything,* no matter how trivial. They won't even let universally-liked stuff like health care for 9/11 first responders get through.
--Jeremy
Most of the music from the 60s and 70s that people still listen to, however, tends to be the actual good stuff. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.
--Jeremy
Not under NDAA (Obama's Law)
You mean that thing that congress hashed out and sent him to sign?
It's funny how people's understanding of how government works goes right out the window as soon as they find a talking point to latch onto.
--Jeremy
Estimates are something like $0.15 per pizza. I'd have no problem paying that. If you think that a dime and a nickel per pizza isn't worth keeping people's access to health care available, then you and I have very different priorities.
--Jeremy
Kelsey Grammer, is that you?
--Jeremy
No, instead we spend our money at places that don't treat their employees like shit. You seem to think that the only alternative to buying Papa Johns is to not buy pizza at all.
Yeah, it's going to suck for people stuck working at Papa Johns until they're able to get out, but unfortunately it's the only way to combat this predatory behavior.
--Jeremy
Presumably, they hired these people because they needed them to do a job. That need doesn't just go away because it became more expensive to employ them. If they fire people, they have to make up for it somehow. Hopefully that will be partially by making some of the jobs actual honest-to-goodness full-time jobs that people can support themselves off of. Part of it might come from reduced customer service in the form of longer waits or other intangibles. If the customer service gets bad enough, they'll start to lose business.
What actions like this tells me is that these CEOs are willing to slit their own throats because they aren't willing to pay their employees a living wage.
--Jeremy
I'm guessing that you're one of these "free market" loons; if not, then I apologize because this isn't addressed specifically to you but to others that are.
I love how you dipshits go on and on about the free market being able to take care of everything, but then when the free market does actually take care of something (such as boycotts against organizations that espouse bigoted ideologies), you get all up in arms about it. You know what? The market has spoken. If you're going to promote hate and bigotry against gays, it's not going to be tolerated. You're still free to hate them all you want, and the flip side of that is that the rest of the civilized country is free to mock and boycott you for it.
And companies that push liberal ideas are praised for being progressive so it's not as simple as people don't want politics mixed with business.
And again, even though you haven't provided any specific examples, this would be an example of the free market doing its job. If progressively-minded companies get praised, it's because the free market has decided that this is something worthy of praise. If you claim that it's the government doing the praising, therefore not really the free market, well, AGAIN, the free market of voters decided that this was the government they wanted, and it is acting, at least nominally, in the way that they expected it to when they voted for it.
--Jeremy
But they do nothing for the consumer.
Sure they do. The threat of a class action suit acts as a deterrent for potential abuse. Without the deterrent, corporations are more likely to try to engage in unethical or illegal behavior if they think it'll make them a buck.
--Jeremy
To be fair, a lot of it is compartmentalization. Many extremely religious people have no problem applying logic and reason to other areas of their lives.
--Jeremy
Doesn't matter how long you deny it. Biggest software ecosystem will win. It's only a matter of time. It's happened in every single instance of competing ecosystems in computing history. From PCs to phones to game consoles. Sure, there's plenty of good stuff available on any platform of any significant size, but the biggest userbase attracts the most developers. Period. It's very unlikely that anybody is going to unseat Android because it's awfully tough to compete with "free" when there's no other inertia to overcome. Perhaps if Apple had been willing to license out iOS to other manufacturers they could have stayed relevant -- possibly even dominant -- for longer.
Eventually iOS will be a lot like MacOS was in the '90s. Apple and a few other dedicated players will support it, nobody else will care. Nobody begrudges you for your walled garden and lack-of-options choices: if it meets your needs, go for it. It will just be nice for the rest of us when Apple once again has very little influence over the industry as a whole.
--Jeremy
Congratulations on your math+logic fail.
So, you're paying more to the company than the hardware is worth and getting less for it than, say, a Galaxy S3 user, and you congratulate *others* on their "math+logic fail"?
Are you a Poe? If so, well played.
As a customer, I really don't give a shit how profitable a company is for their shareholders as long as they can stay in business and keep serving my needs.
--Jeremy
"prior conflict with subsidiary of Samsung" years before it was a subsidiary of Samsung.
So what's your point? You think when this subsidiary became a part of Samsung the dude just thought, "oh well, they're owned by a different company now; I'll just let it go."
--Jeremy
Maybe if they'd had that tea sit-down, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
--Jeremy
Only because people who are no longer eligible to receive assistance aren't counted!
And this has been exactly the same case as it was under Bush and every other president.
AND, on top of that, unemployment insurance has been extended far beyond what was available during the Bush administration; so if anything, there are *more* people eligible to claim unemployment now than would have been the case in past years, which *inflates* the numbers.
Keep reaching. You might find something someday.
--Jeremy