This is the sentiment of a typical bigot. A bigot is someone who takes a whole category of people as a blanket statement and judges them unworthy. There are some wealthy people who fall squarely into your category, there are some who very much earned every penny they have honestly and there is a whole range in between like. Inherited some wealth then used it. Do you really think every singer songwriter out there who becomes a mega star is a thief? What about the person who wins the lottery then invest wisely, did they steal anything?
I have know both poor people who were bigoted against the wealthy and wealthy bigoted against poor, but honestly there are a lot of good people who fit both categories. This type of 'class warfare' is nothing but counter productive.
A better way to approach wealth discrepancy is to look for laws that 'even the playing field' for those who are underprivileged. How about instead of a typical minimum wage, there is a law that requires some kind of profit , ( and risk ) sharing with employees. Not that I actually advantage this specifically , but consider some of the interesting effects it would have if we simply outlawed paying people a wage and instead required each persons compensation to be tied to the previous quarters profits / income of the company. I'm not saying that is a real solution, but with some creative work, there is a real place for a win / win for both labor and owners in an arrangement like that. Labor should earn higher income, and feel more invested, owners get to share the risk because if sales tank they aren't still stuck with a labor bill. Of coarse there would have to be a lot more too it then that, like something that involved some decision making mechanism, but there are better ways to solve the problem then scream.
The rich are thieves and the poor are lazy welfare leaches.
sure they have;) have you never heard of a combination harvester? There's lots of automation out there and probably more coming. in 1800 the average farmer raised enough food for their family + 5 others, by the 90's the average farming family raised enough food for their family +5000 others, however , that is why the population has gone up without people starving. Even though we have fewer farmers then we once did.
Automation is not necessarily a bad thing, it is just hard to predict what it will change, how and when, so all the tea readers get upset about it.
that is not exactly because of automation. It is because the devices being repaired became so cheap it was cheaper to buy a new one then pay someone to repair them, and many of them were built not to be repaired. Some of this probably needs to change. As a society we need to look at making things recyclable or fixable as a way of reducing our carbon footprint, which raises the cost. Cheap and disposable is an environmental nightmare and so solving that will probably create a lot of jobs in the future.
5 acres is generally considered enough for a large family and to still have something left to sell. ( that was the 'standard' during the american land rush as well as I recall')
You used an interesting word. 'right',can you define it. I only know 2 definitions. 1) that which is legal due a person as an act or point of law. 2) that which is naturally due a person because they are a creation of God.
Since a legal 'right' cannot be artificial I assume you are using the second definition, which makes no sense because properties rights are certainly a natural right as related to the possession of a thing. Otherwise there would be no such thing as theft.
Each community should train one of its own as a doctor ( or perhaps medicine person, not sure they need to be a full on MD) for the community. They collective a hospital that serves around 50 communities with things the Dr. can't solve. As a group they decide how much risk of dying they wan to take on just because something is treatable by someone , somewhere , doesn't mean you need to seek or accept treatment.
Property tax, I guess you would have to have something you could sell as a group that paid the property tax. ( food maybe , or almost anything else).
Get this product made well enough,then convince some state legislatures to mandate their use. Think about even if you were only making $2 on a sale and.50 a month on the upkeep. What kind of money is that across the population of say California or new York. After the product is adopted.
You are of course correct, but if it were up to me they would take the money they are using for 'original" content and get the rights to a bunch of old site Coms and dramas you can't see anywhere else. Or use it to lobby for shortening copyright I'd support that.
This is a company who provided a very useful service one. Had lots of content I was interested in seeing. Now-day's they self produce stuff I'm mostly not interested in and have removed many things I'd like to watch. They have basically been ignoring the core of what made them attractive to users like me ( lots of old and some new content cheap). In favor of other business, but I apparently am not a member of the demographic they are marketing too. So, I dumped them and went on the greener pastures. Lot's of other options out there.
A better way to not be arrogant. How about this reasoning. There are many many people that study this issue. Most of them know a lot more about the fields involved then I do. ( chemistry, weather, hydraulics etc.) . The majority of them believe there is a real problem with how much plant food we are releasing and how it will effect things over time. That's pretty easy to establish, doesn't take a lot of hard science. Where to rubber meets the road though is , what if anything can and should we do about it. I personally don't think establishing arbitrary targets is a great way to go. It is kind of like deciding to loose weight by only counting calories.
I think we would be much better off if we focused on the environment as a social value, on building houses that fit in to the environment, on building whole communities that did less harm to the animals and plants and produced more natural and less harmful things. Then when we value that,we can start looking at if there are more specific things to be done. Why power everything with solar and wind if we can? Why not? ( assuming it can be done in a way the increase personal freedom and health).
Morally. I would agree that God wants us to take care of the planet and His creation and reducing pollution is part of that, the specifics of how to do that are probably something that need a great deal of consideration. I'd be happier if the republicans at least embraced the principle then maybe there would be a better chance of working out specifics. Just because you don't believe climate change is real , doesn't mean burning coal and oil is good for the environment. Reducing smog alone is a good reason to move away from it. Anything in large enough levels is a pollutant and if we can start there maybe there is a place for the middle ground.
Under united states law the we are not bound by a treaty that was not ratified by congress no matter what the president at the time says. I don't think this was and there is a reason the law is that way. partially to avoid this type of mess. Just because the president thinks it is a good idea, isn't good enough unless the legislative branch also agrees.
'Republicans, more than their Democratic counterparts, displayed concern over perceived political bias' --- given it is pretty much established that both the companies have a liberal political slant in their employees statement i don't think this statement should be a shock.
not until the probe disturbs the space creature that is inside the asteroid waking it up after millions of years and it can be seen flying towards the earth. Then it is Anime;)
What exactly is the objection to providing people with better information? Isn't it the people who decide what to do about that information?
Last time I checked part of the point of a 'free market' included the idea that you had better be paying your employees enough (including intangables) that they are not so miserable doing their jobs that they feel like they need a different one. If someone makes them a better offer, that is the employers fault and those who offer better salaries should expect the better employees. More to the point , it is better if people actually feel some loyalty and personal investment in there work, usually a result of being well treated and dealt with transparently.
It seems a win for employees, ( who are the majority), It is neither illegal or immoral, so exactly what is the objection?
but does it give more false positives ? It seems like a %accuracy calculation would be most appropriate with any computer identification system, so the humans on the ground can behave differently with a 85% likelihood vs a 99% likelihood vs a 20% are these systems not able to generate that kind of data?
I think the idea further down is that it has more false positives for minority groups on which it is not as well trained. Although wouldn't it be ok if it had more false negatives? Not sure I know enough about how that works to understand why less data would mean more false positives.
People use the word right in two sense'since 1 a legal right . Which exist primary as a object of a law. Which of course ceases to be if the law is changed.
2. A natural right granted God as is spoken of in the declaration of independence.
Of course naturally there is also freedom of association, which is nearly as important and people forget that just because you have freedom of speech that does not mean you are free from repercussions
You have readily proved my point. The only argument you were able to make against slavery us basically. I don't feel it is right and I'm sure other people who aren't bad all agree.
As you pointed out therearly were thousands of supporters of slavery and there empathy didn't change there minds.
People who were willing to dieverything for what they thought washe right changed that situation, but I feel it is bad and you should too isn't a reason to stand up to anybody about anything. Had the bulk of the north been atheist during the Civil War slavery would still be legal today.
Do I think all atheist are bad evildoers, absolutely not that is some you made up in your irrational over emotional reaction not me.
You stated that the previous post probably used reason to arrive at his moral conclusions and then attempted to support your argument with nothing bur irrational emotionalism.
Simple , logic, if there is no universal cause of ethics that is greater then human beings,then you cannot expect anyone to agree with what you feel is right unless there experience gives them the same feeling.
So you have no right to be down on rapist and slavery just because they feel differently then you do.
Yes but the audience can. And if the machine is well programed it can use that. You are assuming the machine is on the better side of the debate. What is the machine is asked to defend climate denial. Or atheism
Interestinging. So the obligation business are only required to pay sales taxes for the state they are in, and they can expect the customer to pay the tax if they are in another state.
Is that based on shipping address billing address or physical location at time of purchase?
So does the state where the company is headquarter get to charge the tax? The state where the companies warehouse is? or the state where the purchaser resides? Is that the same as the shipping address? What if someone coming in on a VPN from vermont, uses a card issued with a billing address in Washington state and has the product shipped to Ohio? who gets to charge the tax?
Slashdot Mirror
This is the sentiment of a typical bigot. A bigot is someone who takes a whole category of people as a blanket statement and judges them unworthy.
There are some wealthy people who fall squarely into your category, there are some who very much earned every penny they have honestly and there is a whole range in between like. Inherited some wealth then used it. Do you really think every singer songwriter out there who becomes a mega star is a thief?
What about the person who wins the lottery then invest wisely, did they steal anything?
I have know both poor people who were bigoted against the wealthy and wealthy bigoted against poor, but honestly there are a lot of good people who fit both categories. This type of 'class warfare' is nothing but counter productive.
A better way to approach wealth discrepancy is to look for laws that 'even the playing field' for those who are underprivileged.
How about instead of a typical minimum wage, there is a law that requires some kind of profit , ( and risk ) sharing with employees.
Not that I actually advantage this specifically , but consider some of the interesting effects it would have if we simply outlawed paying people a wage and instead required each persons compensation to be tied to the previous quarters profits / income of the company. I'm not saying that is a real solution, but with some creative work, there is a real place for a win / win for both labor and owners in an arrangement like that. Labor should earn higher income, and feel more invested, owners get to share the risk because if sales tank they aren't still stuck with a labor bill. Of coarse there would have to be a lot more too it then that, like something that involved some decision making mechanism, but there are better ways to solve the problem then scream.
The rich are thieves and the poor are lazy welfare leaches.
sure they have ;) have you never heard of a combination harvester? There's lots of automation out there and probably more coming.
in 1800 the average farmer raised enough food for their family + 5 others, by the 90's the average farming family raised enough food for their family +5000 others, however , that is why the population has gone up without people starving. Even though we have fewer farmers then we once did.
Automation is not necessarily a bad thing, it is just hard to predict what it will change, how and when, so all the tea readers get upset about it.
that is not exactly because of automation. It is because the devices being repaired became so cheap it was cheaper to buy a new one then pay someone to repair them, and many of them were built not to be repaired. Some of this probably needs to change. As a society we need to look at making things recyclable or fixable as a way of reducing our carbon footprint, which raises the cost. Cheap and disposable is an environmental nightmare and so solving that will probably create a lot of jobs in the future.
5 acres is generally considered enough for a large family and to still have something left to sell. ( that was the 'standard' during the american land rush as well as I recall')
https://www.amazon.com/Five-Ac...
You used an interesting word. 'right' ,can you define it. I only know 2 definitions.
1) that which is legal due a person as an act or point of law.
2) that which is naturally due a person because they are a creation of God.
Since a legal 'right' cannot be artificial I assume you are using the second definition, which makes no sense because properties rights are certainly a natural right as related to the possession of a thing. Otherwise there would be no such thing as theft.
Each community should train one of its own as a doctor ( or perhaps medicine person, not sure they need to be a full on MD) for the community.
They collective a hospital that serves around 50 communities with things the Dr. can't solve. As a group they decide how much risk of dying they wan to take on
just because something is treatable by someone , somewhere , doesn't mean you need to seek or accept treatment.
Property tax, I guess you would have to have something you could sell as a group that paid the property tax. ( food maybe , or almost anything else).
Get this product made well enough ,then convince some state legislatures to mandate their use. Think about even if you were only making $2 on a sale and .50 a month on the upkeep. What kind of money is that across the population of say California or new York. After the product is adopted.
You are of course correct, but if it were up to me they would take the money they are using for 'original" content and get the rights to a bunch of old site Coms and dramas you can't see anywhere else. Or use it to lobby for shortening copyright I'd support that.
This is a company who provided a very useful service one. Had lots of content I was interested in seeing.
Now-day's they self produce stuff I'm mostly not interested in and have removed many things I'd like to watch.
They have basically been ignoring the core of what made them attractive to users like me ( lots of old and some new content cheap). In favor of other business, but I apparently am not a member of the demographic they are marketing too.
So, I dumped them and went on the greener pastures. Lot's of other options out there.
A better way to not be arrogant. How about this reasoning. There are many many people that study this issue. Most of them know a lot more about the fields involved then I do. ( chemistry, weather, hydraulics etc.) . The majority of them believe there is a real problem with how much plant food we are releasing and how it will effect things over time. That's pretty easy to establish, doesn't take a lot of hard science. Where to rubber meets the road though is , what if anything can and should we do about it. I personally don't think establishing arbitrary targets is a great way to go. It is kind of like deciding to loose weight by only counting calories.
I think we would be much better off if we focused on the environment as a social value, on building houses that fit in to the environment, on building whole communities that did less harm to the animals and plants and produced more natural and less harmful things. Then when we value that ,we can start looking at if there are more specific things to be done. Why power everything with solar and wind if we can? Why not? ( assuming it can be done in a way the increase personal freedom and health).
Morally. I would agree that God wants us to take care of the planet and His creation and reducing pollution is part of that, the specifics of how to do that are probably something that need a great deal of consideration. I'd be happier if the republicans at least embraced the principle then maybe there would be a better chance of working out specifics. Just because you don't believe climate change is real , doesn't mean burning coal and oil is good for the environment. Reducing smog alone is a good reason to move away from it. Anything in large enough levels is a pollutant and if we can start there maybe there is a place for the middle ground.
what if you don't have any?
Under united states law the we are not bound by a treaty that was not ratified by congress no matter what the president at the time says.
I don't think this was and there is a reason the law is that way. partially to avoid this type of mess. Just because the president thinks it is a good idea, isn't good enough unless the legislative branch also agrees.
'Republicans, more than their Democratic counterparts, displayed concern over perceived political bias' --- given it is pretty much established that both the companies have a liberal political slant in their employees statement i don't think this statement should be a shock.
not until the probe disturbs the space creature that is inside the asteroid waking it up after millions of years and it can be seen flying towards the earth. ;)
Then it is Anime
What exactly is the objection to providing people with better information?
Isn't it the people who decide what to do about that information?
Last time I checked part of the point of a 'free market' included the idea that you had better be paying your employees enough (including intangables) that they are not so miserable doing their jobs that they feel like they need a different one. If someone makes them a better offer, that is the employers fault and those who offer better salaries should expect the better employees. More to the point , it is better if people actually feel some loyalty and personal investment in there work, usually a result of being well treated and dealt with transparently.
It seems a win for employees, ( who are the majority), It is neither illegal or immoral, so exactly what is the objection?
but does it give more false positives ? It seems like a %accuracy calculation would be most appropriate with any computer identification system, so the humans on the ground can behave differently with a 85% likelihood vs a 99% likelihood vs a 20% are these systems not able to generate that kind of data?
I think the idea further down is that it has more false positives for minority groups on which it is not as well trained.
Although wouldn't it be ok if it had more false negatives? Not sure I know enough about how that works to understand why less data would mean more false positives.
People use the word right in two sense'since
1 a legal right . Which exist primary as a object of a law. Which of course ceases to be if the law is changed.
2. A natural right granted God as is spoken of in the declaration of independence.
Of course naturally there is also freedom of association, which is nearly as important and people forget that just because you have freedom of speech that does not mean you are free from repercussions
I'm a little confused what do you think the military does?
You have readily proved my point. The only argument you were able to make against slavery us basically. I don't feel it is right and I'm sure other people who aren't bad all agree.
As you pointed out therearly were thousands of supporters of slavery and there empathy didn't change there minds.
People who were willing to dieverything for what they thought washe right changed that situation, but I feel it is bad and you should too isn't a reason to stand up to anybody about anything. Had the bulk of the north been atheist during the Civil War slavery would still be legal today.
Do I think all atheist are bad evildoers, absolutely not that is some you made up in your irrational over emotional reaction not me.
You stated that the previous post probably used reason to arrive at his moral conclusions and then attempted to support your argument with nothing bur irrational emotionalism.
Simple , logic, if there is no universal cause of ethics that is greater then human beings,then you cannot expect anyone to agree with what you feel is right unless there experience gives them the same feeling.
So you have no right to be down on rapist and slavery just because they feel differently then you do.
Yes but the audience can. And if the machine is well programed it can use that. You are assuming the machine is on the better side of the debate. What is the machine is asked to defend climate denial. Or atheism
Interestinging.
So the obligation business are only required to pay sales taxes for the state they are in, and they can expect the customer to pay the tax if they are in another state.
Is that based on shipping address billing address or physical location at time of purchase?
Where is that written? I
Even so enforcement seems impossible, and knowing all the possible taxes as well for any small company.
I don't see this going well, esp. When customers start trying to obscure there location to avoid tax.
So does the state where the company is headquarter get to charge the tax? The state where the companies warehouse is? or the state where the purchaser resides? Is that the same as the shipping address? What if someone coming in on a VPN from vermont, uses a card issued with a billing address in Washington state and has the product shipped to Ohio? who gets to charge the tax?