That slogan was created as a parody to mock the Democrat's pro-gun-control views (i.e. suggesting the obviously absurd proposition that a woman should put up with being raped) - and here we are, people like you lapping up an absurd parody slogan repeating it as "so true"... lol... I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I hope your entire post was meant sarcastically.
Destroying working equipment and criminalizing the export of working equipment is just plain evil. If disposal thereof is a problem, then enforce disposal laws.
I know I'm fighting a losing battle by pointing out the obvious but that isn't "capitalism" - by definition.
Capitalism is defined as a system in which private property rights are respected and people have the right to trade. A system which requires bribing officials to use force to limit trade of private property or sieze the private property of others, by definition, falls outside that definition.
But yeah, this is a long-lost battle to redefine the word amongst the public to mean "whatever evil shit corporations in bed with government do"
To be fair, Yahoo was already in trouble before Marissa took over. She was tasked with a turnaround. Sometimes companies fail to 'turn around' for no reason other than they no longer offer much value to the market that isn't served elsewhere already. Carly, on the other hand..
It's not me I'm worried about. It's other drivers. Think about the average driver you encounter on the road... sitting texting, or driving drunk, or driving recklessly, or putting on makeup... I think, would I rather THEY be driving automated cars? Hell yeah. Over 50% of accidents involve alcohol - driverless cars can't get drunk, to start with.
To be fair Chas didn't really say 'the technology has not yet developed to the appropriate level of reliability'... he just said he's scared of this new technology and left it at that. If the technology is not trustworthy, well that's a claim that should be backed by something - e.g. pointing to the large number of accidents Google's experimental driverless cars have had for example (hint: it's 'zero').
'Are you living in a cave' is not actually ad hominem. Chas was overtly expressing an anti-technology viewpoint, based on no substantiation other than a claim that he is afraid of technology. In that context, 'are you living in a cave' is obviously just a pointed question intended to demonstrate a point: If he is fearful of technology, why not take that to its logical conclusion? (And that, given he has not taken it to its logical conclusion, there is a contradiction in his worldview.) Sounds like an honest question to me. If it sounded like ad hominem it's only because the shoe fits.
Simply put, having seen the arc of technology advance over the last 30+ years, I still don't trust an automated driver system with my safety. PERIOD.
Yeah, I'm with you, in fact I still don't trust them dang new 'automamobile' deathtraps, that's why I live here amongst the Amish, ain't never had a high-speed freeway accimadent with our trusty old horse carriages.
I've been on a commercial flight that auto-landed due to a low but dense ground cloud cover that resulted in literally ZERO visibility of not the runway (actually zero visibility of basically the entire city we were landing in).
The pilot announced after the landing that it had been an automated landing. My understanding is that the norm is human landing unless there is some good reason to use the automated landing.
FTR, it was the smoothest, most perfect landing I've experienced, and I've done a lot of flying.
You don't really have a "right to your likeness" or the courts would have ruled that you couldn't keep photos even if fully clothed in photos - which would be nuts - no, this ruling specifically pertains to permission to keep nude photos. If it was as you say, a model who agreed to do a topless photo shoot and signed an agreement could renegue on the agreement the transaction is complete - no, she cannot, she would be in violation of a contractual agreement. When you're in a relationship, there IS a sort of a contract/agreement, an "implicit contract" - the only reason you can keep the naked photos while still in the relationship is that it is clear the other person has given 'implicit consent' to do so. It stands to reason that the average person would expect that the 'default terms' of such an implicit agreement would probably include that if that person ceased to be a romantic partner, they are generally unlikely to want you to keep naked photos of them (i.e. you cannot claim to reasonably expect that the terms of the implicit agreement were indefinite). So the agreement is fair, but not because of a "right to their likeness" and lack of contract - on the contrary, there's an implicit agreement, but no "right to likeness".
@"some kind of libertarian weirdo"
So the only argument you've found against libertarianism is resorting to ad hominem (insults)? That actually strengthens the case for libertarianism.
British people will always assure their cops never get shot. These cops beg to differ (oh wait they can't, they're dead): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Don't you need to calculate some actual cost projections before you know it "would cost too much"? As far as I can tell, they're only at the stage of talking about the idea. Have you seen cost projections or an economic feasibility study somewhere?
Hm, a signficant cost driver of rail transport today is requisitioning - planning, environmental assessments, analysis of complex urban layouts in densely populated areas, legal wrangling with property owners where you want to build the route, purchasing many properties where you want the rail to run, dealing with protesters and legal obstacles, etc. etc. - this is because the world is much more densely populated now than when most our original rail infrastructure was laid out - but much of these costs don't apply if you're building out in the middle of nowhere and nobody's living there. I don't know much about rail infrastructure budgeting, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that 'average' costs apply.
Your comments are so stupid it's difficult to tell if you're just trolling, but either way, here is some information that contradicts your central claim:
http://www.happyschools.com/h1...
So, yes, the majority are escaping 3rd world countries.
Your other points are so beyond ridiculous that they don't need responses.
The problem with the uber drivers though is that they may have no clue where they are going.
So what? Uber isn't trying to ban black cabs, they'd still exist - and still have "The Knowledge" - and thus if they're so much better than Uber, people would choose to use them. I.e. if you wanted your taxi driver to go to "that pub off chancery lane with the yellow sign", you'd still be able to hire a black cab and pay a premium for "The Knowledge". But if you already know where you're going, or it's someplace obvious? Then you could get an Uber driver and pay less.
If they're "awesome", they have nothing to fear from allowing competition.
Ah, so talking to stupid people who don't understand the word 'culture' makes you feel superior
Not to point out the obvious, but if you're capable of understanding something that someone else isn't capable of understanding, then by definition it makes you superior (in that aspect). Unless you are attempting to claim that intelligence offers no objective benefits?
Slashdot Mirror
That slogan was created as a parody to mock the Democrat's pro-gun-control views (i.e. suggesting the obviously absurd proposition that a woman should put up with being raped) - and here we are, people like you lapping up an absurd parody slogan repeating it as "so true" ... lol ... I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I hope your entire post was meant sarcastically.
Destroying working equipment and criminalizing the export of working equipment is just plain evil. If disposal thereof is a problem, then enforce disposal laws.
Capitalism is defined as a system in which private property rights are respected and people have the right to trade. A system which requires bribing officials to use force to limit trade of private property or sieze the private property of others, by definition, falls outside that definition.
But yeah, this is a long-lost battle to redefine the word amongst the public to mean "whatever evil shit corporations in bed with government do"
That's less than $6.71 at today's exchange rates - that is very cheap, I'll get one at that price.
It's true, I've seen those SMART cars all over Europe - and yet, they still look silly.
To be fair, Yahoo was already in trouble before Marissa took over. She was tasked with a turnaround. Sometimes companies fail to 'turn around' for no reason other than they no longer offer much value to the market that isn't served elsewhere already. Carly, on the other hand ..
Kids today think everything is new.
It's the bubble bubble.
It's not me I'm worried about. It's other drivers. Think about the average driver you encounter on the road ... sitting texting, or driving drunk, or driving recklessly, or putting on makeup ... I think, would I rather THEY be driving automated cars? Hell yeah. Over 50% of accidents involve alcohol - driverless cars can't get drunk, to start with.
To be fair Chas didn't really say 'the technology has not yet developed to the appropriate level of reliability' ... he just said he's scared of this new technology and left it at that. If the technology is not trustworthy, well that's a claim that should be backed by something - e.g. pointing to the large number of accidents Google's experimental driverless cars have had for example (hint: it's 'zero').
'Are you living in a cave' is not actually ad hominem. Chas was overtly expressing an anti-technology viewpoint, based on no substantiation other than a claim that he is afraid of technology. In that context, 'are you living in a cave' is obviously just a pointed question intended to demonstrate a point: If he is fearful of technology, why not take that to its logical conclusion? (And that, given he has not taken it to its logical conclusion, there is a contradiction in his worldview.) Sounds like an honest question to me. If it sounded like ad hominem it's only because the shoe fits.
Simply put, having seen the arc of technology advance over the last 30+ years, I still don't trust an automated driver system with my safety. PERIOD.
Yeah, I'm with you, in fact I still don't trust them dang new 'automamobile' deathtraps, that's why I live here amongst the Amish, ain't never had a high-speed freeway accimadent with our trusty old horse carriages.
Lol .. sometimes you just have to wonder at what people write.
I've been on a commercial flight that auto-landed due to a low but dense ground cloud cover that resulted in literally ZERO visibility of not the runway (actually zero visibility of basically the entire city we were landing in). The pilot announced after the landing that it had been an automated landing. My understanding is that the norm is human landing unless there is some good reason to use the automated landing. FTR, it was the smoothest, most perfect landing I've experienced, and I've done a lot of flying.
^This. I wish I had mod points to mod you up. It is absurd that society has such a repressive view of the natural human body.
You don't really have a "right to your likeness" or the courts would have ruled that you couldn't keep photos even if fully clothed in photos - which would be nuts - no, this ruling specifically pertains to permission to keep nude photos. If it was as you say, a model who agreed to do a topless photo shoot and signed an agreement could renegue on the agreement the transaction is complete - no, she cannot, she would be in violation of a contractual agreement. When you're in a relationship, there IS a sort of a contract/agreement, an "implicit contract" - the only reason you can keep the naked photos while still in the relationship is that it is clear the other person has given 'implicit consent' to do so. It stands to reason that the average person would expect that the 'default terms' of such an implicit agreement would probably include that if that person ceased to be a romantic partner, they are generally unlikely to want you to keep naked photos of them (i.e. you cannot claim to reasonably expect that the terms of the implicit agreement were indefinite). So the agreement is fair, but not because of a "right to their likeness" and lack of contract - on the contrary, there's an implicit agreement, but no "right to likeness".
@"some kind of libertarian weirdo" So the only argument you've found against libertarianism is resorting to ad hominem (insults)? That actually strengthens the case for libertarianism.
British people will always assure their cops never get shot. These cops beg to differ (oh wait they can't, they're dead): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Too many Muslims use the Chunnel, it would be too much like attacking one of their own countries, so it's probably safe.
Yes, it's important that we borrow from people who are aren't born yet 'in order to keep the books balanced'.
Don't you need to calculate some actual cost projections before you know it "would cost too much"? As far as I can tell, they're only at the stage of talking about the idea. Have you seen cost projections or an economic feasibility study somewhere?
Hm, a signficant cost driver of rail transport today is requisitioning - planning, environmental assessments, analysis of complex urban layouts in densely populated areas, legal wrangling with property owners where you want to build the route, purchasing many properties where you want the rail to run, dealing with protesters and legal obstacles, etc. etc. - this is because the world is much more densely populated now than when most our original rail infrastructure was laid out - but much of these costs don't apply if you're building out in the middle of nowhere and nobody's living there. I don't know much about rail infrastructure budgeting, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that 'average' costs apply.
Your comments are so stupid it's difficult to tell if you're just trolling, but either way, here is some information that contradicts your central claim: http://www.happyschools.com/h1... So, yes, the majority are escaping 3rd world countries. Your other points are so beyond ridiculous that they don't need responses.
The problem with the uber drivers though is that they may have no clue where they are going.
So what? Uber isn't trying to ban black cabs, they'd still exist - and still have "The Knowledge" - and thus if they're so much better than Uber, people would choose to use them. I.e. if you wanted your taxi driver to go to "that pub off chancery lane with the yellow sign", you'd still be able to hire a black cab and pay a premium for "The Knowledge". But if you already know where you're going, or it's someplace obvious? Then you could get an Uber driver and pay less.
If they're "awesome", they have nothing to fear from allowing competition.
Ah, so talking to stupid people who don't understand the word 'culture' makes you feel superior
Not to point out the obvious, but if you're capable of understanding something that someone else isn't capable of understanding, then by definition it makes you superior (in that aspect). Unless you are attempting to claim that intelligence offers no objective benefits?