That might be a good idea, actually. Establish a baseline and then offer a variety of electives so children can find what interests them and pursue that with genuine interest, rather than forcing them to sit in uncomfortable chairs under unnatural fluroescent lights for 7 hours a day working on things they have no interest in. (And people wonder why schools have behavioral problems. [Though parents are the biggest problem there.]) People might be surprised what children will develop an interest in if they are allowed to rather than forced to.
...really? I watch Top Gear all the time and I have no problem understanding Jeremy and the gang. A little slang vocabulary doesn't render the rest unintelligible.
What are you proposing then? Anarchy? Civil war? Might-makes-right? Pitchfork mobs descending upon corporate headquarters demanding the payment of "fair shares"?
We have laws for a reason. If the law isn't fair, make it more fair.
The real question is whether the government deserves more of our money, whether it is a good steward; or, on the other hand, should we not give it any more money than is absolutely necessary?
But slavery was made illegal, i.e. the law was moved to be closer to fair.
Therefore the solution is not to cry about fairness but to move the laws closer to fairness. Then if someone breaks the law, something can actually be done about it.
The alternative is basically civil war, i.e. anarchy. We have law for a reason.
Wait, so the U.S. is saying, "No, we don't want their taxes," and Ireland is also saying, "No, we don't want their taxes." But out of the other side of their mouth (who knows how many there are), they are saying, "Hey, why aren't you paying me your taxes?"
And people wonder why people think government is incompetent and want to give it as little money as possible...
Debt going up does not mean that Taxes are the problem. It's the Spending! Hello!? Do you have any idea how much spending has gone up in the past 30 years? Do you have any idea how astronomically spending has gone up under Obama?!
Eh, I think you're the short-sighted one. You're ignoring all sorts of issues, such as:
Many people believe that governments are inherently incapable of using money effectively for the common good. They believe that private individuals and organizations are more effective. Therefore they prefer to give the government as little money to waste as possible so they can give more to better causes.
Many people disagree with governments' actions and policies. Therefore they don't want to support those actions and policies, therefore they don't want to give the government any more money than absolutely necessary.
Many people believe in freedom; they believe that they should have the freedom to use their hard-earned money as they see fit, not as some bureaucrat behind a desk--who has little accountability to anyone, and is frequently lobbied by special interests--sees fit. Therefore they want to keep as much of their own money as they can.
What boggles my mind is why people like you seem to think that government is so good at "redistributing wealth and propping up the economy for the future." I would argue that its track record is very poor and shows no signs of improving. I don't understand why you think taxes are a good way of redistributing wealth in comparison to private, free enterprise--individuals with the freedom to pursue their own happiness and determine their own destiny, i.e. motivated people. What is motivating about having your earnings taken away and spent by some bureaucrat who gets away with immoral, unethical, and even illegal activities (e.g. latest IRS scandal--no one has been punished for any of it!)? That is demoralizing and discouraging and demotivating, and demoralized, discouraged, demotivated people are not good for economies, societies, or cultures.
Are you saying Apple didn't pay its electric bills? Are you saying their partner shipping companies don't stop at weigh stations and pay taxes and fees? I'm not a fan of Apple, but what you're saying doesn't make sense to me.
Not giving back to the young people growing up today is morally acceptable to you?
That is such a broad, vague statement that it's practically meaningless. Who could argue with "giving back to the young people growing up today"? Think of the children! But what does it actually mean? Nothing. This is the kind of meaningless rhetoric that politicians use to pass garbage laws--and it's the same kind of talk that the MAFIAA uses to try to get its pet bills passed.
Now let's shift our brains into gear and actually think: The deeper question here is, how many times should the same money be taxed? Everyone pays income tax, then more tax when they buy something; and before that, their employers pay payroll tax, and lots of sales tax, etc, etc. It's like there's a government claw-grabber plucking out its "share" at every stage of the game.
And another serious problem: the government keeps wanting to raise income and other taxes on families and individuals, but at the same time these megacorps are slipping through the (enormous) cracks and not paying their share of taxes. Hello? Is anyone there?
That's interesting. There are lots of people complaining about USB I/O on Linux (e.g. https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309 ), and I've experienced it myself. And many also say that CFQ is quite poor at I/O, especially when it comes to latency, so I'm really surprised that you found it to be the best. Did you try deadline?
I sure hope BFQ becomes the default someday. Blows everything else out of the water as far as latency goes, and sometimes throughput too.
Not specifically, but I suppose all you need is any app that can download mail from an Exchange server. If the app can tell the server that a flag is set, or tell the server whatever the server wants to hear, then the app can download mail, period.
I fail to see the irony in my comment. Please enlighten me, gentle...whatever...
My perspective is that attacking America is all the rage nowadays, and people love to jump on the bandwagon with stupid memes. But if an American were to make such a comment about some other nation, there would be outrage.
I do detect a hint of irony in your comment, though...
To me the OP's comment bears strong anti-American connotations, which people seem to justify by criticizing what the USA has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Interpreting it in that light, he didn't need to be so specific. So I don't think my comment was stupid. It's all a matter of perspective.
Your perspective is extremely negative, judging from your itchy finger on the putdown trigger. Might I suggest you relieve your stress in more positive ways?
You're presupposing that "nature" is incompatible with the industrial age--that humans are not part of "nature." And you're presupposing that "nature"--however you define it--is the correct or more desirable choice.
What about the environmental changes brought about by the shifting populations of species, the introduction of new ones, etc? If all the algae or all the cattle died, what effect would that have? If all the humans stopped producing CO2, what effect would that have? Which would be better? Which would be more ethical? Says who?
What if humans are just another part of nature, machines and all? What if, as far as the planet is concerned, machinery built by humans is ultimately just another form of biological machinery, once-removed?
I don't think we truly know nearly as much as we think we do.
You asserted that he's illogical, but you didn't explain how.
He's saying that these renewable technologies suffer from fundamental problems that cannot be solved short of a breakthrough, whereas thorium reactors show great undeveloped potential which does not require a breakthrough. Do you not understand the difference between a technology requiring a breakthrough to be sufficient and a technology simply requiring further development to be sufficient?
Slashdot Mirror
Who decides who is irrational and who is rational?
There are puh-lenty of NRA members who are doctors.
There are also plenty of people trying to reduce poverty, increase education, etc. who are law-abiding gun-owners who oppose further gun control.
Generalize much?
Why would irrational people obey laws?
That might be a good idea, actually. Establish a baseline and then offer a variety of electives so children can find what interests them and pursue that with genuine interest, rather than forcing them to sit in uncomfortable chairs under unnatural fluroescent lights for 7 hours a day working on things they have no interest in. (And people wonder why schools have behavioral problems. [Though parents are the biggest problem there.]) People might be surprised what children will develop an interest in if they are allowed to rather than forced to.
...really? I watch Top Gear all the time and I have no problem understanding Jeremy and the gang. A little slang vocabulary doesn't render the rest unintelligible.
INB4 correcting articles on Wikipedia is a waste of time because of territorial wonks.
Oh, wait, that's actually true.
What are you proposing then? Anarchy? Civil war? Might-makes-right? Pitchfork mobs descending upon corporate headquarters demanding the payment of "fair shares"?
We have laws for a reason. If the law isn't fair, make it more fair.
The real question is whether the government deserves more of our money, whether it is a good steward; or, on the other hand, should we not give it any more money than is absolutely necessary?
But slavery was made illegal, i.e. the law was moved to be closer to fair.
Therefore the solution is not to cry about fairness but to move the laws closer to fairness. Then if someone breaks the law, something can actually be done about it.
The alternative is basically civil war, i.e. anarchy. We have law for a reason.
Wait, so the U.S. is saying, "No, we don't want their taxes," and Ireland is also saying, "No, we don't want their taxes." But out of the other side of their mouth (who knows how many there are), they are saying, "Hey, why aren't you paying me your taxes?"
And people wonder why people think government is incompetent and want to give it as little money as possible...
I do not take any deductions for charity, if I did that it would not be charitable giving.
It does not follow.
No.
Taxes - Spending = Debt
Debt going up does not mean that Taxes are the problem. It's the Spending! Hello!? Do you have any idea how much spending has gone up in the past 30 years? Do you have any idea how astronomically spending has gone up under Obama?!
This is a false dichotomy: it's not as if the corporation has paid no taxes at all. But this kind of hyperbole is great at riling up the mobs.
Eh, I think you're the short-sighted one. You're ignoring all sorts of issues, such as:
Many people believe that governments are inherently incapable of using money effectively for the common good. They believe that private individuals and organizations are more effective. Therefore they prefer to give the government as little money to waste as possible so they can give more to better causes.
Many people disagree with governments' actions and policies. Therefore they don't want to support those actions and policies, therefore they don't want to give the government any more money than absolutely necessary.
Many people believe in freedom; they believe that they should have the freedom to use their hard-earned money as they see fit, not as some bureaucrat behind a desk--who has little accountability to anyone, and is frequently lobbied by special interests--sees fit. Therefore they want to keep as much of their own money as they can.
What boggles my mind is why people like you seem to think that government is so good at "redistributing wealth and propping up the economy for the future." I would argue that its track record is very poor and shows no signs of improving. I don't understand why you think taxes are a good way of redistributing wealth in comparison to private, free enterprise--individuals with the freedom to pursue their own happiness and determine their own destiny, i.e. motivated people. What is motivating about having your earnings taken away and spent by some bureaucrat who gets away with immoral, unethical, and even illegal activities (e.g. latest IRS scandal--no one has been punished for any of it!)? That is demoralizing and discouraging and demotivating, and demoralized, discouraged, demotivated people are not good for economies, societies, or cultures.
Think about that.
Are you saying Apple didn't pay its electric bills? Are you saying their partner shipping companies don't stop at weigh stations and pay taxes and fees? I'm not a fan of Apple, but what you're saying doesn't make sense to me.
Not giving back to the young people growing up today is morally acceptable to you?
That is such a broad, vague statement that it's practically meaningless. Who could argue with "giving back to the young people growing up today"? Think of the children! But what does it actually mean? Nothing. This is the kind of meaningless rhetoric that politicians use to pass garbage laws--and it's the same kind of talk that the MAFIAA uses to try to get its pet bills passed.
Now let's shift our brains into gear and actually think: The deeper question here is, how many times should the same money be taxed? Everyone pays income tax, then more tax when they buy something; and before that, their employers pay payroll tax, and lots of sales tax, etc, etc. It's like there's a government claw-grabber plucking out its "share" at every stage of the game.
And another serious problem: the government keeps wanting to raise income and other taxes on families and individuals, but at the same time these megacorps are slipping through the (enormous) cracks and not paying their share of taxes. Hello? Is anyone there?
But they'd still have to pay taxes in the nations where they do business.
You can't prove that they aren't real. The most you can legitimately, rationally say is that you don't know if they are real.
How do we know you aren't also APK? Seems like you're popping up everywhere he does.
That's interesting. There are lots of people complaining about USB I/O on Linux (e.g. https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309 ), and I've experienced it myself. And many also say that CFQ is quite poor at I/O, especially when it comes to latency, so I'm really surprised that you found it to be the best. Did you try deadline?
I sure hope BFQ becomes the default someday. Blows everything else out of the water as far as latency goes, and sometimes throughput too.
Not specifically, but I suppose all you need is any app that can download mail from an Exchange server. If the app can tell the server that a flag is set, or tell the server whatever the server wants to hear, then the app can download mail, period.
I fail to see the irony in my comment. Please enlighten me, gentle...whatever...
My perspective is that attacking America is all the rage nowadays, and people love to jump on the bandwagon with stupid memes. But if an American were to make such a comment about some other nation, there would be outrage.
I do detect a hint of irony in your comment, though...
To me the OP's comment bears strong anti-American connotations, which people seem to justify by criticizing what the USA has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Interpreting it in that light, he didn't need to be so specific. So I don't think my comment was stupid. It's all a matter of perspective.
Your perspective is extremely negative, judging from your itchy finger on the putdown trigger. Might I suggest you relieve your stress in more positive ways?
If you knowingly trick a computer into giving you money that's not yours, it's not any different than tricking a person into the same.
But that's exactly what poker is...
You're presupposing that "nature" is incompatible with the industrial age--that humans are not part of "nature." And you're presupposing that "nature"--however you define it--is the correct or more desirable choice.
What about the environmental changes brought about by the shifting populations of species, the introduction of new ones, etc? If all the algae or all the cattle died, what effect would that have? If all the humans stopped producing CO2, what effect would that have? Which would be better? Which would be more ethical? Says who?
What if humans are just another part of nature, machines and all? What if, as far as the planet is concerned, machinery built by humans is ultimately just another form of biological machinery, once-removed?
I don't think we truly know nearly as much as we think we do.
You asserted that he's illogical, but you didn't explain how.
He's saying that these renewable technologies suffer from fundamental problems that cannot be solved short of a breakthrough, whereas thorium reactors show great undeveloped potential which does not require a breakthrough. Do you not understand the difference between a technology requiring a breakthrough to be sufficient and a technology simply requiring further development to be sufficient?
Did they keep records back then?