You're a moron. If they could only turn clockwise, then you'd have reason to permit them to turn counter clockwise. You could call such a counter-clockwise turning permit a... CCW permit. Like the GP said. Idiot.
So if you're issuing a robot a CCW permit, it must only be able to turn clockwise right now, otherwise it wouldn't need the permit. You vomit-festooned jackanape.
Your point of confusion is thinking that the left is in favor of blacks, hispanics, etc, against whites, while the right is for whites against everyone else. In fact, the left is in favor of everyone being equally free, and if more blacks and hispanics would freely choose to have fewer kids if presented with the opportunity than white people would, that's not against the left's aims, because the left isn't trying to breed blacks and hispanics, just to let them live.
The world belongs to mankind as a whole, not just to 1% of it. If you cannot handle that notion, maybe someone should kill you so you don't burden others with your greedy pathetic existence.
So by "regular English" you mean the English as most native speakers use it, like in the United States and Canada, whereas by "American English" you mean English as it is spoken (mostly non-natively) in the rest of the Americas?
The primary reason I want to block ads is that they (and other useless Javascript bullshit) makes the web unbearably slow in this day and age, so replacing that with an invisible drain on my system resources isn't going to enhance my user experience much.
I would rather read a narrow column of text surrounded by static locally-hosted and fast-loading image ads that I can easily ignore than read an ad-free page that makes my computer unable to even accept text input at the speed I'm capable of typing.
A vountary certification program that doesn't punish people who don't participate in it accomplishes the same thing. Consumers can just check the certificate to see if someone's legit, as easily as they can check a license. (And if consumers aren't checking for licenses, then the licenses aren't doing what you're saying here). Only difference is if the consumer doesn't check or doesn't care about its absence and nothing bad happens as a consequence, nobody is punished. If the consumer does care and check, same result: they avoid that business. If something bad results, same result: the business is punished for the harm they did.
It's actually quite the opposite of that. Punishing murder is punishing harm that has actually been done. Requiring a license to do something punishes people for doing something without asking permission first, even if no harm is done -- and then if harm is done anyway, even by a licensed person, there is still punishment for that, as there should be. So with or without licensing, if you do harm you get rightly punished. All licensing adds is punishment for people who did harmless things without asking permission first.
That's the question that was at hand in this labor board review: was it legal, in this specific circumstance? Because it's not always legal to fire someone for their speech. So it's not a ridiculous position to take that this should be one of those circumstances where it's not. The labor board disagrees with that position, evidently, but we're all here talking about whether or not their decision was correct, so it's not prima facie true that it was.
Nobody ever said anything against other people speaking back against anyone else. They are concerned with reactions besides just more speech, like say termination of your employment.
That says that Congress (and then via the later incorporation clause, state legislatures) cannot infring on free speech. It says nothing one way or another about whether or not anyone else may infringe on it. Free speech is broader than just the first amendment, which accepta it as a preexisting right and prohibits congress from infringing it.
So If Google wants to shoot you for speaking, that's okay? Or is there some limit short of "however they please" on how they may react? If so, where exactly is that limit?
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
This particular topic aside: stop saying that. Freedom of any kind absolutely is freedom from at least specific kinds of consequences. You're "free" (inasmuch as nothing is physically stopping you) to not give a mugger your wallet, if you're willing to accept the consequences of being shot; that doesn't mean you really gave it to him freely in the relevant sociopolitical sense. You're "free" to break the law, so long as you're willing to accept the consequences of the punishment. But absence of such consequences are exactly what we mean by "free" in a sociopolitical sense. If you can be punished for doing something, then you are not free to do it.
Property taxes, mortgage interest, and HOA fees I'll give you. Maintenance costs aren't bribing anyone into just letting you use a thing, they're just the cost of repairing it, like if your car breaks down. You're free to keep using the house with a leaky roof or no water heater, which is still more than someone with no house can say.
In all of those cases but the first one (when you don't really own your house yet, the bank still owns most of it), you are still richer than anyone who doesn't own a home, richer than many people will manage to achieve in their entire lives.
If enough people like that are in the market, then the market will make homes available without a down payment.
Thank you, it's heartening that someone else can see this.
If renting our property was not an option, people who own property they're not using (like what they had been renting out) have two options: let it sit there and rot and have wasted their money, or sell it on terms that people who need it to live in (like their former renters) can meet. (Since nobody else is going to be buying it to rent out, since they can't do that, the only buyers will be people who actually want to live there, not other "real estate investors").
The high barriers to entry in home ownership are part of the distorted market that the availability of rent creates. If there was no rent, sellers would have to meet buyers on their terms if they want to make any profit off their excess property at all, else just let it go to waste and lose everything.
It's dismissing problems that huge numbers of people face just because there's another really difficult alternative available to them that's the problem.
If we were just talking about one person who lives somewhere they can't afford to live, then them moving somewhere cheaper might be a reasonable choice for them to make, if they choose to make that choice.
But displacing tens of millions of people from their homes is not a solution to widespread housing unaffordability.
Even if you have $0 left over from rental income after paying the mortgage, that still means you got someone else to pay your mortgage for you. Someone else is paying off your house; you get a free house out of it. Unless your average costs from all the rest of that (maintenance, legal fights, etc) are high enough to completely negate the mortgage subsidy you're getting from your tenant every month, renting out the property is still just a font of free money for you. Maybe not directly money you can be spending right now, but money you will have in equity in a house that you will own free and clear some day, something that you would otherwise need to be funding out of your own pocket, so that money you would otherwise be paying out of your own pocket toward that end is money you can be spending right now instead.
Exactly, which is why people who already own are richer than people who have to rent. People who have to rent have a large ongoing cost that subtracts from their income, that people who already own don't have, so all else being equal, owners are far richer. You can be a renter and have massive mountains of debt too. The owner's home may be in such disrepair that they'd rather sleep in their car, but at least they have a place to legally park their car without having to pay for it; the would-be renter in the same dire straits can't even sleep in their car in peace.
I make more than about 75% of individual Americans, but someone who owns a house outright and makes minimum wage can afford the same lifestyle as me plus infinitely more peace and security knowing that at the very least they have a place they are allowed to exist without having to bribe someone every month just for that privilege.
Slashdot Mirror
Most Californians don't make enough money for taxes to be worth worrying about in comparison to the exorbitant rents they can't afford.
You're a moron. If they could only turn clockwise, then you'd have reason to permit them to turn counter clockwise. You could call such a counter-clockwise turning permit a... CCW permit. Like the GP said. Idiot.
So if you're issuing a robot a CCW permit, it must only be able to turn clockwise right now, otherwise it wouldn't need the permit. You vomit-festooned jackanape.
Your point of confusion is thinking that the left is in favor of blacks, hispanics, etc, against whites, while the right is for whites against everyone else. In fact, the left is in favor of everyone being equally free, and if more blacks and hispanics would freely choose to have fewer kids if presented with the opportunity than white people would, that's not against the left's aims, because the left isn't trying to breed blacks and hispanics, just to let them live.
The world belongs to mankind as a whole, not just to 1% of it. If you cannot handle that notion, maybe someone should kill you so you don't burden others with your greedy pathetic existence.
Would you rather not do your job and not get paid? Because that's what will happen when the robots eliminate your jobs.
You have that option now, of course, and evidently haven't taken it, so it's pretty clear you'd rather keep your job and keep getting paid.
Of course everyone would prefer to lose their job yet keep getting paid anyway, but our robot-owning overlords are unlikely to offer that option.
So by "regular English" you mean the English as most native speakers use it, like in the United States and Canada, whereas by "American English" you mean English as it is spoken (mostly non-natively) in the rest of the Americas?
Not in English it's not.
You either fuck pussy or you don’t, too. Obviously the ones who do are the straights right?
Even if those pussy-fuckers also suck cock? Still straight? You either fuck pussy or you don’t right? And they do, so...
And what about people who neither fuck nor suck? Gay because they don’t fuck pussy? Or straight because they don’t suck cock?
Do you equally object to "straight" or "heterosexual" being words?
"Queer" is a catchall term for anyone not cisgender and heterosexual. In place of the alphabet soup of "LGBTQQA+OMGWTFBBQ".
The primary reason I want to block ads is that they (and other useless Javascript bullshit) makes the web unbearably slow in this day and age, so replacing that with an invisible drain on my system resources isn't going to enhance my user experience much.
I would rather read a narrow column of text surrounded by static locally-hosted and fast-loading image ads that I can easily ignore than read an ad-free page that makes my computer unable to even accept text input at the speed I'm capable of typing.
A vountary certification program that doesn't punish people who don't participate in it accomplishes the same thing. Consumers can just check the certificate to see if someone's legit, as easily as they can check a license. (And if consumers aren't checking for licenses, then the licenses aren't doing what you're saying here). Only difference is if the consumer doesn't check or doesn't care about its absence and nothing bad happens as a consequence, nobody is punished. If the consumer does care and check, same result: they avoid that business. If something bad results, same result: the business is punished for the harm they did.
It's actually quite the opposite of that. Punishing murder is punishing harm that has actually been done. Requiring a license to do something punishes people for doing something without asking permission first, even if no harm is done -- and then if harm is done anyway, even by a licensed person, there is still punishment for that, as there should be. So with or without licensing, if you do harm you get rightly punished. All licensing adds is punishment for people who did harmless things without asking permission first.
Firing you though *is* legal
That's the question that was at hand in this labor board review: was it legal, in this specific circumstance? Because it's not always legal to fire someone for their speech. So it's not a ridiculous position to take that this should be one of those circumstances where it's not. The labor board disagrees with that position, evidently, but we're all here talking about whether or not their decision was correct, so it's not prima facie true that it was.
Nobody ever said anything against other people speaking back against anyone else. They are concerned with reactions besides just more speech, like say termination of your employment.
That says that Congress (and then via the later incorporation clause, state legislatures) cannot infring on free speech. It says nothing one way or another about whether or not anyone else may infringe on it. Free speech is broader than just the first amendment, which accepta it as a preexisting right and prohibits congress from infringing it.
So If Google wants to shoot you for speaking, that's okay? Or is there some limit short of "however they please" on how they may react? If so, where exactly is that limit?
That is the question at hand here.
And for that reason, you are not free to make fart noises nonstop at city council meetings.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
This particular topic aside: stop saying that. Freedom of any kind absolutely is freedom from at least specific kinds of consequences. You're "free" (inasmuch as nothing is physically stopping you) to not give a mugger your wallet, if you're willing to accept the consequences of being shot; that doesn't mean you really gave it to him freely in the relevant sociopolitical sense. You're "free" to break the law, so long as you're willing to accept the consequences of the punishment. But absence of such consequences are exactly what we mean by "free" in a sociopolitical sense. If you can be punished for doing something, then you are not free to do it.
Property taxes, mortgage interest, and HOA fees I'll give you. Maintenance costs aren't bribing anyone into just letting you use a thing, they're just the cost of repairing it, like if your car breaks down. You're free to keep using the house with a leaky roof or no water heater, which is still more than someone with no house can say.
In all of those cases but the first one (when you don't really own your house yet, the bank still owns most of it), you are still richer than anyone who doesn't own a home, richer than many people will manage to achieve in their entire lives.
If enough people like that are in the market, then the market will make homes available without a down payment.
Thank you, it's heartening that someone else can see this.
If renting our property was not an option, people who own property they're not using (like what they had been renting out) have two options: let it sit there and rot and have wasted their money, or sell it on terms that people who need it to live in (like their former renters) can meet. (Since nobody else is going to be buying it to rent out, since they can't do that, the only buyers will be people who actually want to live there, not other "real estate investors").
The high barriers to entry in home ownership are part of the distorted market that the availability of rent creates. If there was no rent, sellers would have to meet buyers on their terms if they want to make any profit off their excess property at all, else just let it go to waste and lose everything.
It's dismissing problems that huge numbers of people face just because there's another really difficult alternative available to them that's the problem.
If we were just talking about one person who lives somewhere they can't afford to live, then them moving somewhere cheaper might be a reasonable choice for them to make, if they choose to make that choice.
But displacing tens of millions of people from their homes is not a solution to widespread housing unaffordability.
Even if you have $0 left over from rental income after paying the mortgage, that still means you got someone else to pay your mortgage for you. Someone else is paying off your house; you get a free house out of it. Unless your average costs from all the rest of that (maintenance, legal fights, etc) are high enough to completely negate the mortgage subsidy you're getting from your tenant every month, renting out the property is still just a font of free money for you. Maybe not directly money you can be spending right now, but money you will have in equity in a house that you will own free and clear some day, something that you would otherwise need to be funding out of your own pocket, so that money you would otherwise be paying out of your own pocket toward that end is money you can be spending right now instead.
Renting is more expensive than owning.
Exactly, which is why people who already own are richer than people who have to rent. People who have to rent have a large ongoing cost that subtracts from their income, that people who already own don't have, so all else being equal, owners are far richer. You can be a renter and have massive mountains of debt too. The owner's home may be in such disrepair that they'd rather sleep in their car, but at least they have a place to legally park their car without having to pay for it; the would-be renter in the same dire straits can't even sleep in their car in peace.
I make more than about 75% of individual Americans, but someone who owns a house outright and makes minimum wage can afford the same lifestyle as me plus infinitely more peace and security knowing that at the very least they have a place they are allowed to exist without having to bribe someone every month just for that privilege.