they want big government for their wars, their bail outs. For their corporate welfare and subsidies. To do the basic research they don't want to spend money on.
I think the quote goes something like this: Socialism for the Rich and Dog Eat Dog Capitalism for the Poor.
for thousands of years sex was incredibly risky. Most women died in child birth at some point. STDs were even less well understood. Then there's the high cost of raising children. And that's before we get into a discussion of the various forms of rape.
Men still don't have effective contraception (condoms break) and women's contraception has their own troubles. We'll a long way off from curing known STDs (and we're still discovering new ones). I suppose we've more or less solved women dying in child birth though.
We're a long way off from solving all the problems related to sex or even minimizing them. So no, we probably aren't going to do anything about negative attitudes towards sex in our lifetimes.
is all in favor of local government right up until they do something they don't like. Then they want the State gov't to step in and outlaw it. The State gov'ts seem about perfect. Big enough to oppress but not so big they can't just buy them all out.
and the progressives. They're not saying we won't pay for it. They're saying we _can_ and _should_ pay for it. They then proceed to point to all the other wealthy countries paying for it just fine. Big difference.
"Start up" visas if you're lucky are there so that rich people can buy their way into a country. If you're not lucky they're used to bring in cheap labor. Paperwork gets forged and the people coming here to start companies instead get jobs. That's the fear. If we weren't already staring down 20 years of H1-B abuses maybe we'd be a little more receptive to these kinds of programs. Show me that the existing rules can be enforced first. Show me that the intent of the existing programs aren't constantly being circumvented. Then we can talk about new programs.
maybe failing at it, it's hard to say. But I'd guess they've had a bunch of feature creep over the years and they're scaling back some of the less used features. A product like MS Office with near 100% market share and a virtual monopoly can do the 80/20 rule (80% of your users only use 20% of your features, but that's OK because they don't overlap and everybody's got that one feature they can't leave your product for) but a smaller product just doesn't have the user base and capital to keep throwing money at features used by a small base. A sort of niche within a niche.
not if you're taking companies like Uber. I suppose you do need a) and d). But b) can just be the tech equivalent of lego bricks. As for capital, that's for pleebs. Make it an app and let the users bring the capital and take all the risk. Rely on the bad job market and lax employee protection laws to get away with it.
It's a whole new world of 'sharing'. And by sharing, I mean you get to share your meager capital resources with the richest people in the world. Oh what a brave new world and what not.
if you were a billionaire it wouldn't matter. First, it wouldn't be a big risk to you. Second, you'd use the losses on failed businesses to avoid paying taxes on successful ones effectively shifting the risk to the working class in the form of taxes, third you'd have enough investments that the risk would be minimal and fourth if all else failed you'd be Too Big to Fail and get a government bail out. Again, at taxpayer expense.
This is why socialists exist. We're realists. We don't honestly believe we're going to ever have an even playfield so let the rich have their cake so long as we get ours. In practice the working class fight among themselves to keep anyone from getting cake and the rich laugh all the way to the bank...
you just had to show you had $250k and you're in like Flynn. Aside from obviously letting rich people buy their way in (which I could live with) the concern was you'd be able to forge the paper work, come here, and work on that visa. e.g. instead of creating jobs you'd be be taking it.
1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket in America's economy much less the global one. This is/., I'd like to think we understand numbers well enough to know that.
that might benefit American workers. These Visas were rife with potential fraud (only required $250k, little or no verification). I hate to say it because I've got friends that'll be killed by his healthcare policy but if he actually makes good on the rest of his promises to curtail the H1-B program et al his presidency will benefit me personally. At least as long as I never need pre-existing coverage (or can't just afford to move to California, NY or Massachusetts).
in his memoirs. It was created post WWII because it was the only way anyone could think of to prevent the economy from sinking back into recession/depression. The trouble isn't that we're wasting money we could be spending on income inequality, unemployment, healthcare, drug abuse, homelessness, etc. The trouble is people don't _want_ to spend money on those things. A sizable portion of the population believe if you're not working non-stop you're doing something morally wrong...
imagine if you could drop something like a nuke but have it leave behind no trace. After all, wars are fought to take land away from the people already living there. Now imagine no war, just taking the land. Sure, it'd have to be rebuilt from scratch, but the land wouldn't be radioactive. And I think we as a species have already proven we'll kill mass amounts of each other at the drop of a hat when times our tough.
If not we bloody damn well should. I'm not up on my physics here but I'm to understand that if you dropped a large metal object from space the damage would be pretty bad. Heck it might be worse than nukes. You could in theory get the destructive power of a nuke without the messy fallout. Imagine if you could wipe out a country and then just roll in and take the land day 1...
The reason you don't do this is because there's often dangerous chemicals all over landfills and the cleanup is too expensive. Odds are is this is allowed we'll be hearing about the cancer rates there in 20 years. But by then the investors will be long gone.
if you use a Credit Card. Credit Cards are essentially loans. Swipe a card to buy a coffee and congrats, you just borrowed money. Our consumer protection laws say that you can't be held liable for more than a token sum ($50) if somebody uses a line of credit without your authorization. Hence all of the risk is on the card issuers. In practice they charge various fees (a lot of them to the businesses) to cover these losses. The cost ends up being built into everything you buy online (and a lot of things bought locally) but OTOH not having to handle cash has it's pluses for both sides.
If he's bringing up fake news that basically means two things: Trump & Brexit. Aside from the lower classes taking it in the shorts a little more than usual (and some of the middle class thanks to Brexit) there haven't been any material changes. I suppose it'd be nice if things had gotten better instead of worse, but maybe it's the cynic in me that's been fed on 30 years of declining wages but, well, fat chance.
but I'd kill for the Microsoft natural layout with clicky keys. I've tried those split keyboards but they don't slant the keys at an angle so they're a mess.
by mega corps. There's no useful muck racking and nothing that anybody in the working class would be interested in. The only thing left is comics from the 70s and sports stats. And I can get those on my phone. Still, I suppose if you automate it then it costs so little to produce you can make some money off ad revenue from folks in their 50s. I'll go back to the BBC, Al Jazeerez and some of the youtube channels out there that report on the last round of leaked documents and the evil things my senator's are up to.
resulting in more and better paid staff. That cuts into profits. It would be far better to recognize that short of mandatory strip searches actually securing transportation is hard. We'd be better off asking ourselves why folks want to drive planes into buildings in the first place. Yeah, there's some religious nut jobs out there to be sure. But let's not forget that desperate times make desperate people. Spend more money on sending food and medicine to impoverished countries and you'll have less desperate people. Then you can cut back on stuff like the military we use to keep those folks at bay. Put another way: It's cheaper to drop food on people than bombs.
before too much longer, if only because of insurance companies. It's going to be the death of the auto body industry though. Heck, this plus single payer health care (to cover the injury costs) could make Auto insurance all but obsolete. If nothing else it'd drive prices way down as the risk drops to nil and more players could afford to enter the market.
Slashdot Mirror
they want big government for their wars, their bail outs. For their corporate welfare and subsidies. To do the basic research they don't want to spend money on.
I think the quote goes something like this: Socialism for the Rich and Dog Eat Dog Capitalism for the Poor.
I think it's more likely that almost everything is owned by 100 companies.
for thousands of years sex was incredibly risky. Most women died in child birth at some point. STDs were even less well understood. Then there's the high cost of raising children. And that's before we get into a discussion of the various forms of rape.
Men still don't have effective contraception (condoms break) and women's contraception has their own troubles. We'll a long way off from curing known STDs (and we're still discovering new ones). I suppose we've more or less solved women dying in child birth though.
We're a long way off from solving all the problems related to sex or even minimizing them. So no, we probably aren't going to do anything about negative attitudes towards sex in our lifetimes.
is all in favor of local government right up until they do something they don't like. Then they want the State gov't to step in and outlaw it. The State gov'ts seem about perfect. Big enough to oppress but not so big they can't just buy them all out.
and the progressives. They're not saying we won't pay for it. They're saying we _can_ and _should_ pay for it. They then proceed to point to all the other wealthy countries paying for it just fine. Big difference.
and for a lot of people that's savings from a good paying job. Tough to do when most of them are going to H1-Bs.
Yeah, I'm bitter. I've watched job after job going to cheap, imported labor.
"Start up" visas if you're lucky are there so that rich people can buy their way into a country. If you're not lucky they're used to bring in cheap labor. Paperwork gets forged and the people coming here to start companies instead get jobs. That's the fear. If we weren't already staring down 20 years of H1-B abuses maybe we'd be a little more receptive to these kinds of programs. Show me that the existing rules can be enforced first. Show me that the intent of the existing programs aren't constantly being circumvented. Then we can talk about new programs.
maybe failing at it, it's hard to say. But I'd guess they've had a bunch of feature creep over the years and they're scaling back some of the less used features. A product like MS Office with near 100% market share and a virtual monopoly can do the 80/20 rule (80% of your users only use 20% of your features, but that's OK because they don't overlap and everybody's got that one feature they can't leave your product for) but a smaller product just doesn't have the user base and capital to keep throwing money at features used by a small base. A sort of niche within a niche.
not if you're taking companies like Uber. I suppose you do need a) and d). But b) can just be the tech equivalent of lego bricks. As for capital, that's for pleebs. Make it an app and let the users bring the capital and take all the risk. Rely on the bad job market and lax employee protection laws to get away with it.
It's a whole new world of 'sharing'. And by sharing, I mean you get to share your meager capital resources with the richest people in the world. Oh what a brave new world and what not.
if you were a billionaire it wouldn't matter. First, it wouldn't be a big risk to you. Second, you'd use the losses on failed businesses to avoid paying taxes on successful ones effectively shifting the risk to the working class in the form of taxes, third you'd have enough investments that the risk would be minimal and fourth if all else failed you'd be Too Big to Fail and get a government bail out. Again, at taxpayer expense.
This is why socialists exist. We're realists. We don't honestly believe we're going to ever have an even playfield so let the rich have their cake so long as we get ours. In practice the working class fight among themselves to keep anyone from getting cake and the rich laugh all the way to the bank...
so that they don't pay taxes on their profitable lines of business, well, you couldn't be more wrong.
Now, if we stopped letting them write off Business As losses for Business Bs profits...
you just had to show you had $250k and you're in like Flynn. Aside from obviously letting rich people buy their way in (which I could live with) the concern was you'd be able to forge the paper work, come here, and work on that visa. e.g. instead of creating jobs you'd be be taking it.
1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket in America's economy much less the global one. This is /., I'd like to think we understand numbers well enough to know that.
that might benefit American workers. These Visas were rife with potential fraud (only required $250k, little or no verification). I hate to say it because I've got friends that'll be killed by his healthcare policy but if he actually makes good on the rest of his promises to curtail the H1-B program et al his presidency will benefit me personally. At least as long as I never need pre-existing coverage (or can't just afford to move to California, NY or Massachusetts).
in his memoirs. It was created post WWII because it was the only way anyone could think of to prevent the economy from sinking back into recession/depression. The trouble isn't that we're wasting money we could be spending on income inequality, unemployment, healthcare, drug abuse, homelessness, etc. The trouble is people don't _want_ to spend money on those things. A sizable portion of the population believe if you're not working non-stop you're doing something morally wrong...
imagine if you could drop something like a nuke but have it leave behind no trace. After all, wars are fought to take land away from the people already living there. Now imagine no war, just taking the land. Sure, it'd have to be rebuilt from scratch, but the land wouldn't be radioactive. And I think we as a species have already proven we'll kill mass amounts of each other at the drop of a hat when times our tough.
If not we bloody damn well should. I'm not up on my physics here but I'm to understand that if you dropped a large metal object from space the damage would be pretty bad. Heck it might be worse than nukes. You could in theory get the destructive power of a nuke without the messy fallout. Imagine if you could wipe out a country and then just roll in and take the land day 1...
The reason you don't do this is because there's often dangerous chemicals all over landfills and the cleanup is too expensive. Odds are is this is allowed we'll be hearing about the cancer rates there in 20 years. But by then the investors will be long gone.
if you use a Credit Card. Credit Cards are essentially loans. Swipe a card to buy a coffee and congrats, you just borrowed money. Our consumer protection laws say that you can't be held liable for more than a token sum ($50) if somebody uses a line of credit without your authorization. Hence all of the risk is on the card issuers. In practice they charge various fees (a lot of them to the businesses) to cover these losses. The cost ends up being built into everything you buy online (and a lot of things bought locally) but OTOH not having to handle cash has it's pluses for both sides.
If he's bringing up fake news that basically means two things: Trump & Brexit. Aside from the lower classes taking it in the shorts a little more than usual (and some of the middle class thanks to Brexit) there haven't been any material changes. I suppose it'd be nice if things had gotten better instead of worse, but maybe it's the cynic in me that's been fed on 30 years of declining wages but, well, fat chance.
Try to get a bill through to pay for reliable public transportation (along with the taxes to fund it) and let me know how that turns out.
but I'd kill for the Microsoft natural layout with clicky keys. I've tried those split keyboards but they don't slant the keys at an angle so they're a mess.
by mega corps. There's no useful muck racking and nothing that anybody in the working class would be interested in. The only thing left is comics from the 70s and sports stats. And I can get those on my phone. Still, I suppose if you automate it then it costs so little to produce you can make some money off ad revenue from folks in their 50s. I'll go back to the BBC, Al Jazeerez and some of the youtube channels out there that report on the last round of leaked documents and the evil things my senator's are up to.
resulting in more and better paid staff. That cuts into profits. It would be far better to recognize that short of mandatory strip searches actually securing transportation is hard. We'd be better off asking ourselves why folks want to drive planes into buildings in the first place. Yeah, there's some religious nut jobs out there to be sure. But let's not forget that desperate times make desperate people. Spend more money on sending food and medicine to impoverished countries and you'll have less desperate people. Then you can cut back on stuff like the military we use to keep those folks at bay. Put another way: It's cheaper to drop food on people than bombs.
before too much longer, if only because of insurance companies. It's going to be the death of the auto body industry though. Heck, this plus single payer health care (to cover the injury costs) could make Auto insurance all but obsolete. If nothing else it'd drive prices way down as the risk drops to nil and more players could afford to enter the market.