As Repton points out, from all appearances at least the citizens of every single human civilization in history have paid or collected taxes in some form or another. This was true whether we're talking the Sumerians (in cash), Egyptians (in labor), or feudal France (in crop).
I don't know why some people can't simply accept that stories in the Bible are just that -- stories.
There's more to it than that, actually: a ton of history and cultural issues as well. Stuff like "so-and-so kicked the Amorites butts", "you're not allowed to sleep with your sister", and "the proper offering for this transgression is 2 goats" doesn't seem terribly interesting at first, but it can give you a big hint into how people lived at the time.
For instance, if you have to outlaw something, that means people were doing it. That makes Leviticus a lot more interesting.
I mean, would you think the FBI would be willing to let the citizenry know about ******* and ***** and ***** ***** *******? That would pose a massive security risk to ****** **********, and couldn't be allowed under any circumstances.
They aren't run by idiots. They're run by selfish bastards. There's a big difference.
An idiot will make you fill out form 22/B in order to get a new stapler because he doesn't know of any other solution. A selfish bastard will make you fill out form 22/B in order to get a new stapler because he wants to save money on staplers and knows that most people won't take the time unless they really really need one.
This may seem like the effects are similar, but they aren't: the idiot, when he hears of a more efficient way, will at least consider changing it or at worst be very confused. The selfish bastard, when he hears of a more efficient way, will fire the guy who made the suggestion for undermining his authority. It's a difference between Dogbert and the PHB.
An excellent plan, sir, with just 2 major drawbacks: (1) We don't have any shields, and (2) we don't have a any shields. I realize this is technically just one drawback, but I thought it was so important it was worth mentioning twice.
You're darn right it's terrible advice. So the question I immediately thought of is "Why does he think that?"
Some possible answers: - The updates had "updates with incomprehensible names and unenlightening descriptions". - We've drilled into users' heads "don't do things you don't understand or you might get a virus". - The package manager gives them the option to uncheck the updates by default. Similar tools like Windows Update don't, and recommend that you just blindly install all updates.
Another thing we learned is that "Apply Changes" isn't the correct button text, because ordinary users have no clue what that means. The right button text is "Install", "Upgrade", "Remove", or possibly "Go!" or "Do it". Or maybe no text at all and just a big green checkmark to click on. And any sort of description text on the package manager might also want to include stuff like "Get more programs".
You'd be surprised how much of a difference little stuff like this makes.
The better approach would be to make programming a part of, say, the pre-calculus course, or maybe make Algebra II a prerequisite. If you do that, you end up with students who have a good background in math and logic (in theory at least) and are ready for a bit of applied discrete math.
That said, I've taught the basics to bright and motivated 12-year-olds.
Only with the advent of mass marketing has it been acceptable for a company to entirely dictate the terms of the apple sale. Before, I could walk into a store and ask them if they'll sell me that package of apples for $.80, and it would be totally okay.
Not exactly true. Fixed prices were introduced by a number of religious dissident groups, notably Quakers (who did so because bargaining often involves lying about what price you will or will not accept), as early as the 1700's.
The problem is that atheism is not in fact the position of someone who is completely rational or scientifically motivated. The rational position is "You haven't proven the existence of God. God may exist in the same way extraterrestrials may exist, but there's absolutely no evidence for it right now." The difference here is that if incontrovertible evidence for God suddenly turned up, an atheist would reject that evidence, whereas a rational user of the scientific method would look for more ways to test the hypothesis.
I don't have to be tolerant of the belief in Zeus. I can see flat out, it is bunk. There is no god Zeus, and no one will be offended.
And FYI, there are people who will be offended about your intolerance of people who believe in Zeus, you insensitive clod. They're far from the majority, but they definitely exist.
I think it has to do with Dawkin's bashing of religion and religious people in his TV programs and books by using fallacies which some people call it as "Hate Speech".
So what? The KKK is allowed to march down the street too (granted, the ACLU had to go to bat for them). And if people committing logical fallacies were banned from speaking, political speech would be essentially over.
I know this is a very delayed reply: I didn't really focus on your response, although the answer to your first paragraph is in a response to one of your siblings. Basically, different markets behave differently, because there's different commodities involved.
Really the best argument I can make for why telephone systems tend towards monopoly comes from the market itself: we broke Bell into a bunch of Baby Bells, and in a couple of decades AT&T has more-or-less reconstituted itself.
I don't dislike a monopoly controlling Catv/Internet, I dislike a monopoly controlling Catv/Internet without a lot of government (and possibly private) control over the monopoly. Telecom is considered a utility these days, and utilities have generally been controlled by governments to a large degree since the Roman Empire.
Even if they agreed to a background check, they probably didn't agree to be checked for activities that aren't in any way illegal or reflecting on job performance, such as (FTFA) "ex-shop steward" or "Irish ex-Army".
Or another way of making the same argument, in the immortal words of George Carlin: "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"
Think that's pretty much everyone at that point, so lets enjoy our cough syrup with codeine because there's really no other way around it.
No, your list does in fact leave out 2 quite large groups of people: 1. renters who work in non-financial industries. (at least half of the US population) 2. renters who work in the financial industry but have no authority over mortgages (e.g. tellers)
Those people can reasonably argue that they had nothing to do with this mess.
Your darn right I attacked your source. Not as necessarily wrong, merely as completely unqualified to make a judgment about whether subprime mortgage lending was caused by the CRA and showing all the signs of being a partisan hack. You'd be right to attack me in the same way if I started citing Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman.
What would you consider to be an unbiased source, if we're ruling out government and academic studies? I mistook the Federal Reserve, run for the last 20 years by Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke (appointed by Reagan and George W Bush respectively), as a source with either no political agenda or a slightly conservative agenda (given the ideology of its leadership) rather than the bastion of socialism that you claim it is.
Not all markets are the same, that's why they behave differently.
The optimum production level of a car company or electronics manufacturer doesn't satisfy the demand for cars or electronics, for instance.
In the case of operating systems, you have what is officially called monopolistic competition, where the differences between the 3 OSes are far more than just price.
Competitive markets aren't competitive because we want to eliminate monopolies, in most cases. They're competitive because the markets they're in don't lend themselves to being monopolies. For instance, in the North End of Boston there are about 20 Italian restaurants in a 4-block area. If it were profitable to do so, they would buy each other out. It's not, so they don't, and you end up with a competitive market.
Slashdot Mirror
As Repton points out, from all appearances at least the citizens of every single human civilization in history have paid or collected taxes in some form or another. This was true whether we're talking the Sumerians (in cash), Egyptians (in labor), or feudal France (in crop).
Or even more likely, A.C. Doyle's opinion on what Holmes should know changed over the time of writing the stories.
I don't know why some people can't simply accept that stories in the Bible are just that -- stories.
There's more to it than that, actually: a ton of history and cultural issues as well. Stuff like "so-and-so kicked the Amorites butts", "you're not allowed to sleep with your sister", and "the proper offering for this transgression is 2 goats" doesn't seem terribly interesting at first, but it can give you a big hint into how people lived at the time.
For instance, if you have to outlaw something, that means people were doing it. That makes Leviticus a lot more interesting.
teaching a wide base of scientifically determined fats
They're big-boned, and quit talking about their wide backsides.
Oh, wait, you were describing the curriculum, not the student body.
I mean, would you think the FBI would be willing to let the citizenry know about ******* and ***** and ***** ***** *******? That would pose a massive security risk to ****** **********, and couldn't be allowed under any circumstances.
They aren't run by idiots. They're run by selfish bastards. There's a big difference.
An idiot will make you fill out form 22/B in order to get a new stapler because he doesn't know of any other solution. A selfish bastard will make you fill out form 22/B in order to get a new stapler because he wants to save money on staplers and knows that most people won't take the time unless they really really need one.
This may seem like the effects are similar, but they aren't: the idiot, when he hears of a more efficient way, will at least consider changing it or at worst be very confused. The selfish bastard, when he hears of a more efficient way, will fire the guy who made the suggestion for undermining his authority. It's a difference between Dogbert and the PHB.
A keyboard. How quaint. (cracks knuckles)
An excellent plan, sir, with just 2 major drawbacks: (1) We don't have any shields, and (2) we don't have a any shields. I realize this is technically just one drawback, but I thought it was so important it was worth mentioning twice.
Without mashups, we'd all be able to touch M.C. Hammer.
Especially after the artist has been dead for 50 years.
And I say this as someone who's family still gets royalties from music my grandfather wrote in the 1940's.
That's terrible advice.
You're darn right it's terrible advice. So the question I immediately thought of is "Why does he think that?"
Some possible answers:
- The updates had "updates with incomprehensible names and unenlightening descriptions".
- We've drilled into users' heads "don't do things you don't understand or you might get a virus".
- The package manager gives them the option to uncheck the updates by default. Similar tools like Windows Update don't, and recommend that you just blindly install all updates.
Another thing we learned is that "Apply Changes" isn't the correct button text, because ordinary users have no clue what that means. The right button text is "Install", "Upgrade", "Remove", or possibly "Go!" or "Do it". Or maybe no text at all and just a big green checkmark to click on.
And any sort of description text on the package manager might also want to include stuff like "Get more programs".
You'd be surprised how much of a difference little stuff like this makes.
The better approach would be to make programming a part of, say, the pre-calculus course, or maybe make Algebra II a prerequisite. If you do that, you end up with students who have a good background in math and logic (in theory at least) and are ready for a bit of applied discrete math.
That said, I've taught the basics to bright and motivated 12-year-olds.
Only with the advent of mass marketing has it been acceptable for a company to entirely dictate the terms of the apple sale. Before, I could walk into a store and ask them if they'll sell me that package of apples for $.80, and it would be totally okay.
Not exactly true. Fixed prices were introduced by a number of religious dissident groups, notably Quakers (who did so because bargaining often involves lying about what price you will or will not accept), as early as the 1700's.
Leaves room for comments to be inserted, and most of the people who read them are old and blind.
Where did you get this idea that legislators actually read bills?
The problem is that atheism is not in fact the position of someone who is completely rational or scientifically motivated. The rational position is "You haven't proven the existence of God. God may exist in the same way extraterrestrials may exist, but there's absolutely no evidence for it right now." The difference here is that if incontrovertible evidence for God suddenly turned up, an atheist would reject that evidence, whereas a rational user of the scientific method would look for more ways to test the hypothesis.
I don't have to be tolerant of the belief in Zeus. I can see flat out, it is bunk. There is no god Zeus, and no one will be offended.
And FYI, there are people who will be offended about your intolerance of people who believe in Zeus, you insensitive clod. They're far from the majority, but they definitely exist.
I think it has to do with Dawkin's bashing of religion and religious people in his TV programs and books by using fallacies which some people call it as "Hate Speech".
So what? The KKK is allowed to march down the street too (granted, the ACLU had to go to bat for them). And if people committing logical fallacies were banned from speaking, political speech would be essentially over.
I know this is a very delayed reply: I didn't really focus on your response, although the answer to your first paragraph is in a response to one of your siblings. Basically, different markets behave differently, because there's different commodities involved.
Really the best argument I can make for why telephone systems tend towards monopoly comes from the market itself: we broke Bell into a bunch of Baby Bells, and in a couple of decades AT&T has more-or-less reconstituted itself.
I don't dislike a monopoly controlling Catv/Internet, I dislike a monopoly controlling Catv/Internet without a lot of government (and possibly private) control over the monopoly. Telecom is considered a utility these days, and utilities have generally been controlled by governments to a large degree since the Roman Empire.
That doesn't make any sense at all: the Coulter module would have to spread waste products far and wide.
Even if they agreed to a background check, they probably didn't agree to be checked for activities that aren't in any way illegal or reflecting on job performance, such as (FTFA) "ex-shop steward" or "Irish ex-Army".
Or another way of making the same argument, in the immortal words of George Carlin:
"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"
Come on, be fair: Eris is so gracious that she gives out lovely golden apples even when she's not invited to the party.
Think that's pretty much everyone at that point, so lets enjoy our cough syrup with codeine because there's really no other way around it.
No, your list does in fact leave out 2 quite large groups of people:
1. renters who work in non-financial industries. (at least half of the US population)
2. renters who work in the financial industry but have no authority over mortgages (e.g. tellers)
Those people can reasonably argue that they had nothing to do with this mess.
Your darn right I attacked your source. Not as necessarily wrong, merely as completely unqualified to make a judgment about whether subprime mortgage lending was caused by the CRA and showing all the signs of being a partisan hack. You'd be right to attack me in the same way if I started citing Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman.
What would you consider to be an unbiased source, if we're ruling out government and academic studies? I mistook the Federal Reserve, run for the last 20 years by Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke (appointed by Reagan and George W Bush respectively), as a source with either no political agenda or a slightly conservative agenda (given the ideology of its leadership) rather than the bastion of socialism that you claim it is.
Not all markets are the same, that's why they behave differently.
The optimum production level of a car company or electronics manufacturer doesn't satisfy the demand for cars or electronics, for instance.
In the case of operating systems, you have what is officially called monopolistic competition, where the differences between the 3 OSes are far more than just price.
Competitive markets aren't competitive because we want to eliminate monopolies, in most cases. They're competitive because the markets they're in don't lend themselves to being monopolies. For instance, in the North End of Boston there are about 20 Italian restaurants in a 4-block area. If it were profitable to do so, they would buy each other out. It's not, so they don't, and you end up with a competitive market.