Personally, I think ALL responsibility for Government IT should be taken away from people like Smith, who should revert to her proper job as an inner city nightclub bouncer
*shiver*
I wouldn't fancy trying to get past HER on a dark night.
I haven't been to the UK in several years. Could someone explain how these projects have any kind of public support at all? Even in the US -- hardly a standard-bearer for liberal thought -- the UK proposals would produce an uproar.
What is the underlying sentiment of the people that continues to produce these ideas?
As every good Daily Mail reader has been informed by that rag, illegal immigrants are the cause of all evil and ID cards will fix them good.
Erm, I'm not sure the Daily Mail are as in favour of ID cards as you seem to have assumed. Take a look at this article only today. It doesn't seem to glowing about the idea.
It's OK, though, because everyone has changed their mind on the ID cards issue and are really chomping at the bit to get one now... Jacqui Smith has had people coming up to her in the street asking for their ID card before they're even being offered! They must have put something really cool on it, like a holographic Angelina Jolie.
This is one of the principal reasons why I've changed my mind on universal suffrage. It's a bad idea. People who vote one way because of 'tradition' are so stupid that they have the potential to do great damage to the democratic process (and there are a LOT of them), so there should have a test you take before being allowed to vote, showing that you have a decent grasp of at least some key topical issues and can form a coherent opinion on them. I have no doubt that this would eliminate half or more of the voting populace from taking part, but so be it.
Seriously, why doesn't this happen more? Brothels install cameras in the rooms and if the police 'bust' them, they're all making movies? That's legal, right?
Apparently in Unix you can connect to another computer - get this - *without having to be at the screen* to see it! I think the software was developer by a company called Shell or something. You use 'shhhh' to use it, which I think tells the computer to basically quieten down its TCP communications so it can get ready for the connection to the other machine. I'm probably not doing it justice but you have to see for yourself.
It's not as good as Windows though because you still have to use typing to do things, and then it's only very boring things like deleting files.:-( I haven't found Solitare or Pinball yet. Hopefully Shell will invent a remote desktop program soon though so we can replace Remote Desktop!
Bill Clinton was no peacemaker either, and don't forget that Billary cheerfully threatened to totally obliterate Iran [youtube.com] if she were to become president.
If Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, I can't see what choice a US president would have other than to do that. You would have an extremely unstable state throwing extremely destructive weapons around, and frankly by far the best solution would seem to be to obliterate them as quickly as possible.
That said, it's a very hypothetical question but I don't think it's fair to attack Hillary for saying that.
I guarantee when you take, for example, 95-100% of someone's money, they will quickly find themselves with very little money
They get to keep the money they already have (10 million). They may get slowly weaned down from that if, despite earning over 250k/year and getting to keep 10% of it (25k) they spend over 25k/yr, fine. Tough shit. They can still live a lifetime off their 10 million. They will not get poor quickly. They will get slightly less rich slowly.
You want other people to have all their money taken from them to fund government programs that benefit you, and have their money given directly to you?
As long as the other people are very rich, hell yes.
And once they are the poor
This is probably a troll, but what the heck. No, they don't get 'poor' because of this system because if they were somehow to get below $250k/year they wouldn't pay the high taxes anymore. Get it?
It is theft.
Theft is the *unlawful* taking of someone else's property. This is lawful. It IS wealth redistribution, and it is sorely needed in the US, pretty much more than anywhere else in the world.
The same point of them working before they get taxed a lot: none. They have 10 million, so they can choose whether or not to work. They may want to work because they like the business in which they work, but don't get the idea that they're working now because they need more money.
Wow, somebody stating exactly what I've been trying to tell people for ages now.:-)
The day racism is well and truly behind us is the day that we no longer feel it necessary to draw attention to the colour of someone's skin. Until then, racism is still with us, even if it's just as a legacy (it's not even that yet).
the kind that people decades from now will remember and ask each other "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?"
In bed, getting some Z's, as I was on the other side of the world and I'm damned if I'm staying up to see some states turn blue and red instead of just hearing the result tomorrow.:-D
I think there are a few Republicans in the House that have some respect for balancing the budget. At least they (initially) opposed the buyout.
So, I guess you wouldn't have minded losing your savings and plunging into undoubtedly the worst recession the country would ever have faced, then, when the banking system inevitably collapsed? I agree that you should generally let business that deserve to fail, fail. Banking, however, is a special sector because of its vital importance to the economy, and so it can't really be allowed to fail. Yeah, it shouldn't have been allowed to get to the stage it got to, and it did thanks to people like Greenspan and the neo-cons' idea of deregulation being good. However, we were where we were, and the bailout was the best option in the circumstances. The solution is next to setup much tighter regulation of what is a very special industry, and never again let neoconservative-cum-greedybastards convince those in power that deregulation is ALWAYS a good thing, again.
Slashdot Mirror
You can also just stretch as you do your warm up, by walking on your toes, kicking your butt,
Obligatory Liar, Liar:
Guy in the Washroom: What the hell are you doing?
Fletcher: I'm kicking my ass! Do you mind?
Now where's my dollar?
Dunno, but if you're implying that it has some link-in with IE, I doubt it.
Ballmer's probably just peeved that he won't get to be Secretary of State now. Muahahahahaha.
I think this article has been incorrectly filed; please fix, editors. It's been put under "News".
Personally, I think ALL responsibility for Government IT should be taken away from people like Smith, who should revert to her proper job as an inner city nightclub bouncer
*shiver*
I wouldn't fancy trying to get past HER on a dark night.
I haven't been to the UK in several years. Could someone explain how these projects have any kind of public support at all? Even in the US -- hardly a standard-bearer for liberal thought -- the UK proposals would produce an uproar.
What is the underlying sentiment of the people that continues to produce these ideas?
Two words: "The Sun".
As every good Daily Mail reader has been informed by that rag, illegal immigrants are the cause of all evil and ID cards will fix them good.
Erm, I'm not sure the Daily Mail are as in favour of ID cards as you seem to have assumed. Take a look at this article only today. It doesn't seem to glowing about the idea.
It's OK, though, because everyone has changed their mind on the ID cards issue and are really chomping at the bit to get one now... Jacqui Smith has had people coming up to her in the street asking for their ID card before they're even being offered! They must have put something really cool on it, like a holographic Angelina Jolie.
Thank goodness the issue is settled.
Hmm, please tell me more about the You Fucking Wanker party. I don't believe I've heard of them before...
'my dad always voted for them'
This is one of the principal reasons why I've changed my mind on universal suffrage. It's a bad idea. People who vote one way because of 'tradition' are so stupid that they have the potential to do great damage to the democratic process (and there are a LOT of them), so there should have a test you take before being allowed to vote, showing that you have a decent grasp of at least some key topical issues and can form a coherent opinion on them. I have no doubt that this would eliminate half or more of the voting populace from taking part, but so be it.
Seriously, why doesn't this happen more? Brothels install cameras in the rooms and if the police 'bust' them, they're all making movies? That's legal, right?
What show is that? Doctor Who?
... and, Mr. Data.
Yes, sir? ... Nicely done!!!
Apparently in Unix you can connect to another computer - get this - *without having to be at the screen* to see it! I think the software was developer by a company called Shell or something. You use 'shhhh' to use it, which I think tells the computer to basically quieten down its TCP communications so it can get ready for the connection to the other machine. I'm probably not doing it justice but you have to see for yourself.
It's not as good as Windows though because you still have to use typing to do things, and then it's only very boring things like deleting files. :-( I haven't found Solitare or Pinball yet. Hopefully Shell will invent a remote desktop program soon though so we can replace Remote Desktop!
Bill Clinton was no peacemaker either, and don't forget that Billary cheerfully threatened to totally obliterate Iran [youtube.com] if she were to become president.
If Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, I can't see what choice a US president would have other than to do that. You would have an extremely unstable state throwing extremely destructive weapons around, and frankly by far the best solution would seem to be to obliterate them as quickly as possible.
That said, it's a very hypothetical question but I don't think it's fair to attack Hillary for saying that.
I guarantee when you take, for example, 95-100% of someone's money, they will quickly find themselves with very little money
They get to keep the money they already have (10 million). They may get slowly weaned down from that if, despite earning over 250k/year and getting to keep 10% of it (25k) they spend over 25k/yr, fine. Tough shit. They can still live a lifetime off their 10 million. They will not get poor quickly. They will get slightly less rich slowly.
Citations, evidence, citations...
You want other people to have all their money taken from them to fund government programs that benefit you, and have their money given directly to you?
As long as the other people are very rich, hell yes.
And once they are the poor
This is probably a troll, but what the heck. No, they don't get 'poor' because of this system because if they were somehow to get below $250k/year they wouldn't pay the high taxes anymore. Get it?
It is theft.
Theft is the *unlawful* taking of someone else's property. This is lawful. It IS wealth redistribution, and it is sorely needed in the US, pretty much more than anywhere else in the world.
What's the point of them working, then?
The same point of them working before they get taxed a lot: none. They have 10 million, so they can choose whether or not to work. They may want to work because they like the business in which they work, but don't get the idea that they're working now because they need more money.
"we will fight these evil ones, and we will win."
- GWB
Wow, somebody stating exactly what I've been trying to tell people for ages now. :-)
The day racism is well and truly behind us is the day that we no longer feel it necessary to draw attention to the colour of someone's skin. Until then, racism is still with us, even if it's just as a legacy (it's not even that yet).
the kind that people decades from now will remember and ask each other "Do you remember where you were when Obama was elected?"
In bed, getting some Z's, as I was on the other side of the world and I'm damned if I'm staying up to see some states turn blue and red instead of just hearing the result tomorrow. :-D
I think there are a few Republicans in the House that have some respect for balancing the budget. At least they (initially) opposed the buyout.
So, I guess you wouldn't have minded losing your savings and plunging into undoubtedly the worst recession the country would ever have faced, then, when the banking system inevitably collapsed? I agree that you should generally let business that deserve to fail, fail. Banking, however, is a special sector because of its vital importance to the economy, and so it can't really be allowed to fail. Yeah, it shouldn't have been allowed to get to the stage it got to, and it did thanks to people like Greenspan and the neo-cons' idea of deregulation being good. However, we were where we were, and the bailout was the best option in the circumstances. The solution is next to setup much tighter regulation of what is a very special industry, and never again let neoconservative-cum-greedybastards convince those in power that deregulation is ALWAYS a good thing, again.
Hmm, I thought cow orkers tended toward the Republicans more?