Exactly backwards; you're making the world worse for everyone else for the sake of your own personal comfort.
You have a very simplistic view of the world. I envy you, to a point. With so many easy solutions just around the corner, you probably don't ever feel the burden of your existence. I truly wish I could be like that, sometimes.
1. Says who? And even if so, I say this solution is not the best one. Prove to me first that this solution is the best one you can come up with. (my money's on you're too fucking lazy to think of a better one. My money's also on this idea not bothering you much, as you prove in point 2 very nicely, so you don't GIVE A SHIT whether it bothers other people. Give me an option that inconveniences you and me equally and then we'll talk)
2. Switzerland. Sorry to disappoint, but we don't even have a city as large as Frankfurt (if you're talking Frankfurt am Main) or Stockholm. So your experience does not apply. Besides, that's ONE city. A lot of jobs aren't located in Zurich.
No, no, NO. That's not an incentive. It's punishment and all the choice I have is to fall to my knees, hang my head in shame and accept your 'alternative' or get the shit kicked out of me (non-literally).
If you exchange my car for something that better suits your tastes and still does what I need it to, then THAT, right there, is an alternative. If you went and talked my employer into letting me work from home permanently, THAT would be an alternative. 'Give me your money or I'm gonna kill you' is NOT a choice.
Having ME do the work to get where YOU want to be just doesn't fly.
Why do people always want to slap more taxes on my daily commute? Seriously, do you have a fetish with me slaving away with little to show for it at the end of the month?
Or do you seriously believe that I drive my car from and to work because it's fun? In that case I have news for you: It's not. I do it because it's less not fun than taking public transportation. I could comfortably live with a car in my garage I take out once a week for the fun of it or even none at all if you seriously want me to... if, IF I didn't have to do pesky little things like be places on fricking time every day and go groceries shopping and stuff.
So either you make it so that I don't have to go to work that far away or you shut the fuck up about how I get there.
And no, getting another job somewhere else is not an option. Changing my profession is not an option. Sacrificing what little comfort in life I have for your stupid ideas is NOT a FUCKING OPTION!
People should stop expecting everyone else to bend over backwards for their nutcase ideas. Make it so that my life gets comparatively BETTER from how it is now by adopting your way of thinking and we'll talk. What you are doing now is telling the nigger-slave to work harder or else he gets the whip. I would have thought we were beyond that way of thinking by now. (sorry for the harsh, non-pc stuff, but I didn't want to invoke Godwin's Law and I am watching Roots these days...)
Everything you can mass-produce in a factory > stuff that needs vast fields to grow. After all, didn't we learn anything from the corn debacle when people thought it a good idea to convert to biofuels?
But I do agree that hydrogen is not the messiah of all our energy needs. Being able to convert it directly, though, is a neat trick none-the-less... only: If current solar cells have thrice the efficiency, we could attach a few of them to an electrolysis apparatus right now and have a similar effect.
Still... if they can push the efficiency some (and I think that's highly probable), this will be a pretty cool thing. Not world changing but pretty cool.
Uh, my sources may well be wrong and considering the poor job the media is doing when it comes to reporting facts, I thought the present situation happened precisely because management types pushed for cheaper plants and thus safety procedures were dropped in favour of cheaper building.
Nuclear power could be a viable energy source IF we could get our act together and actually pay the amount of money needed to make it so. Also, anyone who thinks to cut corners in this area, especially to make more profit, should be stood against a wall and shot until dead.
So... that's 2.7 years... but the thing was implanted in 2005 according to TFA. Is this top secret somehow? Has any new development happened in the meantime? Has the life expectancy of this device been improved?
All in all, this article doesn't give much information about the current level of brain interface technology... it's about three years out of date.
This sounds rather good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but might this be the MMO that does away with mindless grinding? At least a big chunk of it. Might this be the MMO that does away with standing right before the enemy, slashing your ten foot two-handed sword diagonally and freaking missing (I optimistically read that into the whole 'positioning is important' part)?
I think you are contradicting yourself. More employees doing the same work means more bureaucratic overhead. That is not the point of streamlining your business processes.
Let me make a different example: If someone is a stay-at-home mother or father, do they not contribute to society? Don't we bitch and moan every day about all those kids who get parked in front of the TV and then behave like they were fresh from the caves? So a stable situation at home with a parent present should be in our best interest.
Yet if a family wants to go down that route, at least here, the working adult needs to shoulder the whole burden. They need to make more money (often thus becoming a complete working horse with little relaxation and burning out quickly), the 'I could lose my job and we'd all starve' anxiety would grow and so on.
People who don't have a job aren't necessarily not working. Unless we start to honor that, we're basically fucked and it will only get worse.
Not quite. Social programs mean you're accountable. They make you go find a job, don't they? And what is gained by that after we've already noticed that everyone having a job is not the way to go?
Of course, but if you want to bring a system over to a completely now ideal, you first have to convince the people in charge (and those who think they are) that it's a good idea.
Have you ever tried telling someone who's worked his ass off for forty years that it's not actually supposed to work like that anymore? That it's okay for some people not to work? That one doesn't need to work to be able to buy things?
Yeah, you're labeled a socialist, stat. That their way of doing it doesn't make any economical sense either is completely beside the point the moment you become 'that commie'.
No, the problem is a system that demands you HAVE a job even though your fellow man does NOT NEED your labor. We don't need more jobs. Obviously, we're getting the stuff we need to live quite comfortably with the jobs we have.
We're still linking 'having a job' to 'contributing to society' and therefore we're linking 'salary' to 'right to buy food and shelter'. At the same time it's every manager's duty to make his business more streamlined and thus efficient. Cutting jobs is their primary goal and rightfully so. It just runs contrary to that idea that everyone needs a job.
Full employment runs contrary to capitalism. The more efficient capitalism gets, the less workable the socialist idea of full employment becomes.
Can someone explain to me how long these years are? I find the TFA confusing.
Our years are calculated by the circuit of our own planet around the sun. So does this rainy weather last for literal earth years or are they talking about relative years? And then: Saturn yars or Titan years? And what would a Titan year be since it doesn't revolve around the sun directly.
While I agree with that point, I believe not all women are whores who will marry for financial status alone. People do still marry for love. And since women are supposed to be equal and have jobs of their own, think about a three-way marriage. Two people working, one staying at home will be much better off than a couple with only 50% income (compared to the two thirds).
Another underlying problem: I personally believe that a three-way relationship can only work if everyone in it has a relationship with both other participants. A 'V' Structure just has less chance to work compared to a triangle. Again, only my belief. But going from there, what does it mean? Gay marriage will have to be allowed before three-way marriage (and more) could be discussed.
Or from another POV: Marriage, before the law, is about being able to make decisions for your spouse (in case of medical issues and such) and having claim to their property in case of their death. In a polyamourous situation, everyone involved should have the same claims. So sexuality doesn't even come into play at this point and still same sex marriages need to be equal to old-school marriage.
Because, like it or not, scientific method dictates that creationism must be disproven before it can be dismissed. Since you can't possibly prove or disprove it... open end.
Of course, one can then decide which theory to use as a working theory by accumulating observations and calculating chances of the theory being more or less close to the truth. Still... you can't discount creationists just like that.
Remember, evolution is still a theory as well. Heck, if you want to go scientific method nazi on someone's ass, gravity is still a theory.
Laughing at somebody, as someone else suggested, is at best infantile.
Slashdot Mirror
You act as if going to doctors was healthy in the first place. If you have a good one, certainly, but my experience with them makes me wary.
Exactly backwards; you're making the world worse for everyone else for the sake of your own personal comfort.
You have a very simplistic view of the world. I envy you, to a point. With so many easy solutions just around the corner, you probably don't ever feel the burden of your existence. I truly wish I could be like that, sometimes.
1. Says who? And even if so, I say this solution is not the best one. Prove to me first that this solution is the best one you can come up with. (my money's on you're too fucking lazy to think of a better one. My money's also on this idea not bothering you much, as you prove in point 2 very nicely, so you don't GIVE A SHIT whether it bothers other people. Give me an option that inconveniences you and me equally and then we'll talk)
2. Switzerland. Sorry to disappoint, but we don't even have a city as large as Frankfurt (if you're talking Frankfurt am Main) or Stockholm. So your experience does not apply. Besides, that's ONE city. A lot of jobs aren't located in Zurich.
3. You just disqualified yourself.
No, no, NO. That's not an incentive. It's punishment and all the choice I have is to fall to my knees, hang my head in shame and accept your 'alternative' or get the shit kicked out of me (non-literally).
If you exchange my car for something that better suits your tastes and still does what I need it to, then THAT, right there, is an alternative. If you went and talked my employer into letting me work from home permanently, THAT would be an alternative. 'Give me your money or I'm gonna kill you' is NOT a choice.
Having ME do the work to get where YOU want to be just doesn't fly.
Why do people always want to slap more taxes on my daily commute? Seriously, do you have a fetish with me slaving away with little to show for it at the end of the month?
Or do you seriously believe that I drive my car from and to work because it's fun? In that case I have news for you: It's not. I do it because it's less not fun than taking public transportation. I could comfortably live with a car in my garage I take out once a week for the fun of it or even none at all if you seriously want me to... if, IF I didn't have to do pesky little things like be places on fricking time every day and go groceries shopping and stuff.
So either you make it so that I don't have to go to work that far away or you shut the fuck up about how I get there.
And no, getting another job somewhere else is not an option. Changing my profession is not an option. Sacrificing what little comfort in life I have for your stupid ideas is NOT a FUCKING OPTION!
People should stop expecting everyone else to bend over backwards for their nutcase ideas. Make it so that my life gets comparatively BETTER from how it is now by adopting your way of thinking and we'll talk. What you are doing now is telling the nigger-slave to work harder or else he gets the whip. I would have thought we were beyond that way of thinking by now. (sorry for the harsh, non-pc stuff, but I didn't want to invoke Godwin's Law and I am watching Roots these days...)
Everything you can mass-produce in a factory > stuff that needs vast fields to grow. After all, didn't we learn anything from the corn debacle when people thought it a good idea to convert to biofuels?
But I do agree that hydrogen is not the messiah of all our energy needs. Being able to convert it directly, though, is a neat trick none-the-less... only: If current solar cells have thrice the efficiency, we could attach a few of them to an electrolysis apparatus right now and have a similar effect.
Still... if they can push the efficiency some (and I think that's highly probable), this will be a pretty cool thing. Not world changing but pretty cool.
Uh, my sources may well be wrong and considering the poor job the media is doing when it comes to reporting facts, I thought the present situation happened precisely because management types pushed for cheaper plants and thus safety procedures were dropped in favour of cheaper building.
Nuclear power could be a viable energy source IF we could get our act together and actually pay the amount of money needed to make it so. Also, anyone who thinks to cut corners in this area, especially to make more profit, should be stood against a wall and shot until dead.
So... that's 2.7 years... but the thing was implanted in 2005 according to TFA. Is this top secret somehow? Has any new development happened in the meantime? Has the life expectancy of this device been improved?
All in all, this article doesn't give much information about the current level of brain interface technology... it's about three years out of date.
LFTR reactors are good at getting rid of the stuff, too, I heard.
Thanks for clarification, then. For me, auto-hit means you don't press the button for each attack :).
Either you have completely different ideas of what the word 'auto-hit' implies than I do, or I didn't make my point particularly clear.
This sounds rather good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but might this be the MMO that does away with mindless grinding? At least a big chunk of it. Might this be the MMO that does away with standing right before the enemy, slashing your ten foot two-handed sword diagonally and freaking missing (I optimistically read that into the whole 'positioning is important' part)?
Time will surely tell.
I think you are contradicting yourself. More employees doing the same work means more bureaucratic overhead. That is not the point of streamlining your business processes.
Let me make a different example: If someone is a stay-at-home mother or father, do they not contribute to society? Don't we bitch and moan every day about all those kids who get parked in front of the TV and then behave like they were fresh from the caves? So a stable situation at home with a parent present should be in our best interest.
Yet if a family wants to go down that route, at least here, the working adult needs to shoulder the whole burden. They need to make more money (often thus becoming a complete working horse with little relaxation and burning out quickly), the 'I could lose my job and we'd all starve' anxiety would grow and so on.
People who don't have a job aren't necessarily not working. Unless we start to honor that, we're basically fucked and it will only get worse.
Not quite. Social programs mean you're accountable. They make you go find a job, don't they? And what is gained by that after we've already noticed that everyone having a job is not the way to go?
Of course, but if you want to bring a system over to a completely now ideal, you first have to convince the people in charge (and those who think they are) that it's a good idea.
Have you ever tried telling someone who's worked his ass off for forty years that it's not actually supposed to work like that anymore? That it's okay for some people not to work? That one doesn't need to work to be able to buy things?
Yeah, you're labeled a socialist, stat. That their way of doing it doesn't make any economical sense either is completely beside the point the moment you become 'that commie'.
Just FYI, I am not an American, so things like food stamps are horrors I associate with post-war zones, or any kind of post-apocalyptic SciFi...
That being said, did I in any way insinuate that our system was in any way ready to get to where I think we need to be?
No, the problem is a system that demands you HAVE a job even though your fellow man does NOT NEED your labor. We don't need more jobs. Obviously, we're getting the stuff we need to live quite comfortably with the jobs we have.
We're still linking 'having a job' to 'contributing to society' and therefore we're linking 'salary' to 'right to buy food and shelter'. At the same time it's every manager's duty to make his business more streamlined and thus efficient. Cutting jobs is their primary goal and rightfully so. It just runs contrary to that idea that everyone needs a job.
Full employment runs contrary to capitalism. The more efficient capitalism gets, the less workable the socialist idea of full employment becomes.
Who said the window had to open all the way? I'd say 5 inches would be way enough the get some fresh air in.
Besides, as certain Toronto natives know, even closed windows won't stop determined jumpers... or idiots:
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/window.asp
Can someone explain to me how long these years are? I find the TFA confusing.
Our years are calculated by the circuit of our own planet around the sun. So does this rainy weather last for literal earth years or are they talking about relative years? And then: Saturn yars or Titan years? And what would a Titan year be since it doesn't revolve around the sun directly.
Yeah, I don't have a clue about astronomy ;).
We are shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!
While I agree with that point, I believe not all women are whores who will marry for financial status alone. People do still marry for love. And since women are supposed to be equal and have jobs of their own, think about a three-way marriage. Two people working, one staying at home will be much better off than a couple with only 50% income (compared to the two thirds).
Another underlying problem: I personally believe that a three-way relationship can only work if everyone in it has a relationship with both other participants. A 'V' Structure just has less chance to work compared to a triangle. Again, only my belief. But going from there, what does it mean? Gay marriage will have to be allowed before three-way marriage (and more) could be discussed.
Or from another POV: Marriage, before the law, is about being able to make decisions for your spouse (in case of medical issues and such) and having claim to their property in case of their death. In a polyamourous situation, everyone involved should have the same claims. So sexuality doesn't even come into play at this point and still same sex marriages need to be equal to old-school marriage.
It's all not quite that easy from a social POV.
Seasickness right in your living room.
Because, like it or not, scientific method dictates that creationism must be disproven before it can be dismissed. Since you can't possibly prove or disprove it... open end.
Of course, one can then decide which theory to use as a working theory by accumulating observations and calculating chances of the theory being more or less close to the truth. Still... you can't discount creationists just like that.
Remember, evolution is still a theory as well. Heck, if you want to go scientific method nazi on someone's ass, gravity is still a theory.
Laughing at somebody, as someone else suggested, is at best infantile.
Why? Do you truly believe a swimming pool would be saliva-free if it weren't for those people?
Not that it really looks like any vagina I have ever seen.