good, well I hope the next time zuckerberg has a heart attack, his neighbor gets a signed agreement from him before calling 911. after all, corporations are people, right? (yes I know this is the UK, but it would be no different in the US) the only 'costs' were associated with a byzantine, bought-out legal system and not with mangham himself.
not as long as she has legal sole proprietorship for the incubation period. To be clear, and filter out any would be 'this is how it is' arguments, I"m referring to the hypocrisy involved that causes a lot of the grief in divorce. The way the law is written now basically gives her the right to mow over his rights when it's convenient. in this situation, the kids are often used as weapons, either as proof of liability for financial compensation, or as emotional deadweight used in visitation/custody rights. my statement above is correct.
..or the school could simply give the kid the paid for/allowed allotment of whatever food the plan provides for regardless of what he brought from home.. no nanny state form letters or pissing contests required.
..and if the government didnt' intrude, the parents wouldn't be flipping shits about it either. the kid's there to learn, not to be treated like a prisoner who has everything from his hair to his meals micromanaged by the state.
..and of course the left wing 'straight fact' campaign you've got going there acknowledges that this situation is a great example of socialized programs like this being truly optional and respectful of freedom of choice right? regardless as to whether they participate in a lunch program or not, if the parent sends the kid to school with a lunch he provided, that should take precedence over anything else. if anything, the state owes the tax payer (or whoever funds the program) reimbursement for the uneaten lunch.
well obviously I meant the kinds of plastic that are being used have changed from more reliable, but possibly less 'eco friendly', to less reliable, but supposedly more eco-friendly.. sounds nice except that if it means that products last 2 years instead of 5, or 10 instead 30, are we really saving anything?
yeah.. capitulate to women.. that's the answer. no wonder the feminists are making a mockery of gender relations.. the majority of guys have your attitude.
the answer is: 1. the insecurity of those who want the state to manage everyone's personal lives because they fear people who want to live differently than they. ie religious sorts. 2. activist groups who would lose their equality = equality+n (for positive values) government enforced benefits. ie womens' groups in this case. it's interesting how they rail against traditional marriage, but when it comes time to separate, they have no problem with things like alimony.
I think you're just trying to justify to yourself that you made the right choice because you don't even want to think about the alternative. sure things may be great now, but when they aren't you'll learn how quickly it can all collapse. she'll have her friends, her family, and society (through feminist indoctrinated media and select components of tradition) telling her to rape you of everything you have because she's perfect after all... it's not rational, but then rationality isn't a strong suit for women, generally, when they're in this state.
you need to protect yourself. today's marriages aren't until death do you part.
I laughed too, but in all seriousness, this is special pleading for making a stupid decision. the pragmatics of modern marriage offer little of value to men. it really is all about her.
the number of kids who get permanently injured or killed by electrical outlets does not justify this crazy overengineering that creates more problems than it solves. as a kid who could take those plastic covers off around age 3, I've never been shocked. the problem here is that authority and/or corporate interest will push this for your 'prudent' safety concerns and people will buy into it because their ignorance of the stats leaves them vulnerable to kneejerk fear. we're already well on the way to doing this with the internet and computing devices, and now someone wants to do it with electrical power too? no thanks.
if anything, we shouldn't be rewarding stupidity by shielding it from darwin.
I fail to see how this is a good thing. it's just an excuse to micro-TRACK every little thing that everyone does. the people around here who advocate for that are just lazy fucktards that can't think 20 minutes into the future of their own immediate needs, nevermind handle big-picture long term thinking.
maybe we should be working on ways to fix this 'expensive future' prophecy we're headed towards instead of working so hard on ways to make it happen?
if that's all this did (or could do) I'm sure you'd be right, but that's NOT what will happen if this becomes common. it will be used as a control mechanism first and foremost which negates any of the other minor conveniences listed in the gp.
seriously? you're going to use 'zomg the children' as a defense? how about just don't stick a fork in it? use plastic covers when your kids are young. it's not that hard.
..and you're missing the more obvious point: control. it's all about control. the more control authorities can take from you, the more helpless you are to resist whatever it is they do in other areas. billed by kw/h electricity is empowering as it lets you do all kinds of neat things.. once it's behind lock and key, it sets the stage for all sorts of regulation, and registration, and of course income from that. the big staters and large corporates will eat this stuff up while preaching it as some kind of green cornucopia as the trojan to get it into every home. I"m sure whatever efficiency gains it has will not come close to what these power hungry sorts will claim as they drool for ever more control over what people do with their property.
since people don't seem to mind being raped goatse style by cellphone providers as long as they have their shiny toys it's pretty obvious that most wouldn't mind electricity locked up too if it was more convenient for them. people are stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
good, well I hope the next time zuckerberg has a heart attack, his neighbor gets a signed agreement from him before calling 911. after all, corporations are people, right? (yes I know this is the UK, but it would be no different in the US) the only 'costs' were associated with a byzantine, bought-out legal system and not with mangham himself.
not as long as she has legal sole proprietorship for the incubation period. To be clear, and filter out any would be 'this is how it is' arguments, I"m referring to the hypocrisy involved that causes a lot of the grief in divorce. The way the law is written now basically gives her the right to mow over his rights when it's convenient. in this situation, the kids are often used as weapons, either as proof of liability for financial compensation, or as emotional deadweight used in visitation/custody rights. my statement above is correct.
false dilemma. the school can educate without inserting itself between parent and child.
losing everything you worked for in the process is hardly a victory and also makes 'being happy without her' a hell of a lot harder.
..or the school could simply give the kid the paid for/allowed allotment of whatever food the plan provides for regardless of what he brought from home.. no nanny state form letters or pissing contests required.
..and if the government didnt' intrude, the parents wouldn't be flipping shits about it either. the kid's there to learn, not to be treated like a prisoner who has everything from his hair to his meals micromanaged by the state.
obviously the poster's target was the fallout of the soft socialism america is embracing. obama wasn't mentioned anywhere in that post.
..and of course the left wing 'straight fact' campaign you've got going there acknowledges that this situation is a great example of socialized programs like this being truly optional and respectful of freedom of choice right? regardless as to whether they participate in a lunch program or not, if the parent sends the kid to school with a lunch he provided, that should take precedence over anything else. if anything, the state owes the tax payer (or whoever funds the program) reimbursement for the uneaten lunch.
well obviously I meant the kinds of plastic that are being used have changed from more reliable, but possibly less 'eco friendly', to less reliable, but supposedly more eco-friendly.. sounds nice except that if it means that products last 2 years instead of 5, or 10 instead 30, are we really saving anything?
depends on the situation. they're his if it benefits her in some way. if it benefits her for them to not be his, then they're not.
yeah.. capitulate to women.. that's the answer. no wonder the feminists are making a mockery of gender relations.. the majority of guys have your attitude.
the answer is:
1. the insecurity of those who want the state to manage everyone's personal lives because they fear people who want to live differently than they. ie religious sorts.
2. activist groups who would lose their equality = equality+n (for positive values) government enforced benefits. ie womens' groups in this case. it's interesting how they rail against traditional marriage, but when it comes time to separate, they have no problem with things like alimony.
I think you're just trying to justify to yourself that you made the right choice because you don't even want to think about the alternative. sure things may be great now, but when they aren't you'll learn how quickly it can all collapse. she'll have her friends, her family, and society (through feminist indoctrinated media and select components of tradition) telling her to rape you of everything you have because she's perfect after all... it's not rational, but then rationality isn't a strong suit for women, generally, when they're in this state.
you need to protect yourself. today's marriages aren't until death do you part.
I laughed too, but in all seriousness, this is special pleading for making a stupid decision. the pragmatics of modern marriage offer little of value to men. it really is all about her.
Yes, definitely.. he's smart.
so is the cowardice inherent in socialist ideology.
they're not 'his' kids.. they're hers, see it's 'her body her right.'
the number of kids who get permanently injured or killed by electrical outlets does not justify this crazy overengineering that creates more problems than it solves. as a kid who could take those plastic covers off around age 3, I've never been shocked. the problem here is that authority and/or corporate interest will push this for your 'prudent' safety concerns and people will buy into it because their ignorance of the stats leaves them vulnerable to kneejerk fear. we're already well on the way to doing this with the internet and computing devices, and now someone wants to do it with electrical power too? no thanks.
if anything, we shouldn't be rewarding stupidity by shielding it from darwin.
the thing is, these efforts NEVER bring prices down for the consumer, only for the provider who pockets the difference.
you should worry about them splicing into your cable.
I fail to see how this is a good thing. it's just an excuse to micro-TRACK every little thing that everyone does. the people around here who advocate for that are just lazy fucktards that can't think 20 minutes into the future of their own immediate needs, nevermind handle big-picture long term thinking.
maybe we should be working on ways to fix this 'expensive future' prophecy we're headed towards instead of working so hard on ways to make it happen?
if that's all this did (or could do) I'm sure you'd be right, but that's NOT what will happen if this becomes common. it will be used as a control mechanism first and foremost which negates any of the other minor conveniences listed in the gp.
seriously? you're going to use 'zomg the children' as a defense? how about just don't stick a fork in it? use plastic covers when your kids are young. it's not that hard.
..and you're missing the more obvious point: control. it's all about control. the more control authorities can take from you, the more helpless you are to resist whatever it is they do in other areas. billed by kw/h electricity is empowering as it lets you do all kinds of neat things.. once it's behind lock and key, it sets the stage for all sorts of regulation, and registration, and of course income from that. the big staters and large corporates will eat this stuff up while preaching it as some kind of green cornucopia as the trojan to get it into every home. I"m sure whatever efficiency gains it has will not come close to what these power hungry sorts will claim as they drool for ever more control over what people do with their property.
since people don't seem to mind being raped goatse style by cellphone providers as long as they have their shiny toys it's pretty obvious that most wouldn't mind electricity locked up too if it was more convenient for them. people are stupid.