I wonder if the rumors about full sized candy bars are true? I've never tried it, but I find that a better definition of "poor" is "inability to give", which often describes people with a lot of money and not people with little money. Our neighborhood is poor compared to the average in the U.S. and my kids made a pretty good haul. They didn't get any full size candy bars, but what is so good about getting that much candy when it is just going to go bad before you are done eating it anyway.
Zero decorations, one porchlight, a commercial mixing bowl full of candy, and ran out before the evening was over. The Church across the street was doing Trunk Or Treat, and there was a steady stream of kids coming from there and hitting up my house. I feel like I should ask the Church to donate some candy to me next year so that I can meet the demand since my house literally becomes part of their festivity. I'm right outside of a neighborhood, and I used to get maybe one or two kids, but then they built the Church across the street and I got inundated this year. I literally couldn't close the door or sit down.
That doesn't make any sense. The government is not going to bow to the rich just because they are paying all the taxes. Instead what will happen is that the rich will realize that it is not worth the effort to work really hard just tp have it all taken away and instead will settle for the basic subsistence income, which will now be paid for by...nobody.
Where are you getting 245 million? Only 56 million are on social security. And if those people who are on SS had been allowed to keep the 12.4% that they paid into SS and put it into the stock market, they would have millions of dollars when they retire, not a meager $28k a year for 11 or 12 years.
No, it's to have more than some lazy bum, or some disabled individual, or just to get that fancy new car you couldn't afford on a basic allotment. Why is that some people think if the basics are covered, nobody will strive for more, for luxuries, or whatever.
Because for 0% effort you can sit in front of the TV and play Xbox all day long. You have to work infinity times harder than that to be able to afford the fancy new car. The math doesn't work out.
Correct. It needs to be more than 94% so we can pay basic income.
Exactly. In order to pay everybody who doesn't want to work a basic income, we would have to collect well over 100% in taxes. Then once the program really got rolling and people realized how foolish it is to work when you could just get handouts from the government, we will have to raise that percentage to infinity percent.
I know people who would continue to work if they didn't have to (I am one) but I don't think that describes anything close to a majority of the population.
I would continue to work, but I wouldn't put up with the wage lowballing or the forced overtime or the political bullcrap. They would have to pay me what I am worth and make my job a pleasant experience. I like the work I do, but I haven't enjoyed where I worked in a long time.
I would have to agree that it is the ultimate in stupidity that government benefits would ever be higher than holding SOME kind of job, even if it was a minimum wage job. Otherwise, why would anyone ever get a job?
How is it collective good to support people who will not support themselves and whose greatest aspiration in life is to raise another generation of even more people who will not support themselves? That seems a road to the downfall of society.
It's way too complicated trying to get 3 things in sync: radiation of an atom, rotation of the Earth around it's own access and rotation of the Earth around the sun, no two of which are linked to another one other than our arbitrary standard, all three of which are not absolutes, but averages, and two (possibly 3) of which are slowly changing.
its a link to a (2006) article you illiterate moron
It is not illiterate to read something the way it was written rather than the way the author was thinking about it. In fact, it is not illiterate to read anything at all. Perhaps the word you meant was literal, in that he read it the way it was written rather than read the author's mind to see the way the author should have written it.
I also learned on BASIC. I learned FORTRAN about 7 years later in college. I didn't find it necessary to unlearn BASIC. My first summer job, after my freshmen year (which lasted 6 years), involved coding in both BASIC and two generations of FORTRAN. I learned C on my own and then used it in my Junior year of college. I didn't see any need to unlearn BASIC or FORTRAN. Then I later learned C++ and had a lot of trouble understanding learning the OO methodology simultaneously with learning a pretty complex language. I spent a lot of time out of official development for about 15 years, but still picked up Powerbuilder, Optima++ vbscript and some other utility languages. Then I learned Java. When learning Java, the OO methodology suddenly seemed to make sense, so much so that I was able to go back and do some C++ programming and now the OO methodology in C++ made sense to me. I don't feel like I have ever had to unlearn a language in order to learn another one. It's all just different rules and syntax.
How is this different than any other major metropolitan area where car ownership isn't necessary within the city limits? It's all great when you have two major rail lines and half a dozen bus lines within a 10 minute walk. If you're a fast runner 20 minutes will get you almost anywhere within the Evanston, IL city limits. But it just isn't possible in 99.9% of the rest of the country that doesn't have major rail lines and multiple bus lines. I live in a Metropolitan area of 300k people and it's a 3 mile walk just to the nearest bus stop.
The lack of auto dealerships is probably due to the high cost of real estate in Evanston. The presence of a car dealership does not correlate with the car-centricness of the town, especially that close to Chicago where there hundreds of other suburbs within 30 minute drive that all have car dealerships.
The two major rail lines are actually one major rail line that happens to split right at Evanston, so it is great if the place you want to go is Chicago. Chicago's rail lines are start topology, so if you want to go to another suburb that is 10 miles away, but is not on the same line, then it is probably going to take you an hour to get there. I am not familiar with the bus service in Evanston, but I am familiar with bus service in other Chicago suburbs and I can tell you that it is a miserable experience that adds an hour to your commute.
Evanston is laid out with something of a main street with businesses on it, and the rest of the town is square blocks of residential. It works if the place you are trying to get to is in Evanston, you can certainly walk there. The trouble arises when the place you want to get to is not in Evanston.
Basically, it took them a long time to figure out that Evanston is a land-locked suburb and so the only way they can grow is more dense. I think they will find that by becoming more dense, they will substitute the upper middle class people and the high property (and property tax) values for a larger number of lower income people with low property values. They may get more tax money overall, but the per capita will be down drastically, and their spending will continue to be linear to the population. Basically, they have a really good thing going right now, and they are looking for a way to destroy it.
A toy drone that is filming your daughters swimming is a threat and the owner of such drone needs to be thrown in jail. He is no better than people who put video cameras in dressing rooms and toilets.
Or all those nasty perverts I see taking photos at beaches ( Of all places! you know how many people's daughters are swimming at beaches?!?!? )
I think you'll find the key problem here was the invasion/expectation of privacy. There's nothing intrinsically immoral or illegal about taking pictures of people swimming.
Also, why is the UAV a toy? I mean, call it what you like, just wondering how that is relevant, and I think that's what really made me feel your whole statement was loaded.
Toy was what the GP said in order to try to make the strawman appear even more ridiculous.
I agree there is no expectation of privacy in a public place like a swimming pool or beach. But there is in your own back yard.
If you've ever seen these lunar prototypes up close, you'd understand how it could get sold for scrap. Everything that was "space age" in the 1960's looks primitive today.
Yes, that. And in addition, it was a "prototype" and as such may have been just frame and wheels, which could be mistaken for just about anything. The first picture in the article looks nothing like the actual lunar rover other than having a stupid looking antenna on top. It looks like 1000s of other homemade dunebuggies.
Normally when someone invades your privacy you call the police, take them to court, get a restraining order, etc.In my view the correct justice would have been the person doing the shooting have to pay for the damage to the drone. Then the person infringing the privacy get hit with a fine for doing so.
Except you can't do that when the person who is infringing on your privacy is enforcing their own privacy while trampling all over yours by being blocks away where you cannot track them down.
Unless in a helicopter, then that doesn't apply... except that the pilot "must not fly at an altitude that causes hazard to persons or property on the surface".
What is that limit? That is largely up to your local FAA inspector, among other things.
And as another helicopter pointed out, the FAA inspector is going to base his conclusions on public opinion. A person feels threatened if they feel threatened.
In this case, it is pretty clear he felt threatened (or rather that he felt his daughters were being threatened), as he resorted to shooting down the threatening object.
So if a person armed with nothing but a camera was harassing them (not a threat to life, just annoyance), would it be OK to use lethal force?
If it was a person, the threat of lethal force could be used to detain the criminal until the cops could arrive and arrest the trespasser. With a drone, you don't know where the trespasser is actually hiding. Calling the cops probably wouldn't help, except that he might have been able to avoid a lot of hoopla by letting the cops shoot it down instead. Of course, the cops would have used handguns which would be much more dangerous to fire in a neighborhood than a shotgun.
Problem is, people will read: I can shoot down a drone now, and they will use other things than a shotgun because they are dumb idiots
One of the strangest things I've found is that the most passionate gun lovers I know, all think that drones should be banned.
I'd love a discussion on the second amendment aspects of weaponized personal drones. Do we have the right to use a drone only as long as we have afirearm attached to it?
Is not allowing weaponized drones an example of the federal government and anti-gun forces interfering in our rights?
All of the people that I know that are into guns are also into drones. They also are against people using drones to spy on other people and invade other people's property, and are also against weaponized drones.
A toy drone that is filming your daughters swimming is a threat and the owner of such drone needs to be thrown in jail. He is no better than people who put video cameras in dressing rooms and toilets.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if the rumors about full sized candy bars are true? I've never tried it, but I find that a better definition of "poor" is "inability to give", which often describes people with a lot of money and not people with little money. Our neighborhood is poor compared to the average in the U.S. and my kids made a pretty good haul. They didn't get any full size candy bars, but what is so good about getting that much candy when it is just going to go bad before you are done eating it anyway.
Zero decorations, one porchlight, a commercial mixing bowl full of candy, and ran out before the evening was over. The Church across the street was doing Trunk Or Treat, and there was a steady stream of kids coming from there and hitting up my house. I feel like I should ask the Church to donate some candy to me next year so that I can meet the demand since my house literally becomes part of their festivity. I'm right outside of a neighborhood, and I used to get maybe one or two kids, but then they built the Church across the street and I got inundated this year. I literally couldn't close the door or sit down.
That doesn't make any sense. The government is not going to bow to the rich just because they are paying all the taxes. Instead what will happen is that the rich will realize that it is not worth the effort to work really hard just tp have it all taken away and instead will settle for the basic subsistence income, which will now be paid for by...nobody.
Basically 800 Euro will become the new zero Euro.
Where are you getting 245 million? Only 56 million are on social security. And if those people who are on SS had been allowed to keep the 12.4% that they paid into SS and put it into the stock market, they would have millions of dollars when they retire, not a meager $28k a year for 11 or 12 years.
Are you suggesting that minority races are too lazy or too stupid to work? You are a racist.
No, it's to have more than some lazy bum, or some disabled individual, or just to get that fancy new car you couldn't afford on a basic allotment. Why is that some people think if the basics are covered, nobody will strive for more, for luxuries, or whatever.
Because for 0% effort you can sit in front of the TV and play Xbox all day long. You have to work infinity times harder than that to be able to afford the fancy new car. The math doesn't work out.
Correct. It needs to be more than 94% so we can pay basic income.
Exactly. In order to pay everybody who doesn't want to work a basic income, we would have to collect well over 100% in taxes. Then once the program really got rolling and people realized how foolish it is to work when you could just get handouts from the government, we will have to raise that percentage to infinity percent.
I know people who would continue to work if they didn't have to (I am one) but I don't think that describes anything close to a majority of the population.
I would continue to work, but I wouldn't put up with the wage lowballing or the forced overtime or the political bullcrap. They would have to pay me what I am worth and make my job a pleasant experience. I like the work I do, but I haven't enjoyed where I worked in a long time.
I would have to agree that it is the ultimate in stupidity that government benefits would ever be higher than holding SOME kind of job, even if it was a minimum wage job. Otherwise, why would anyone ever get a job?
The collective good.
How is it collective good to support people who will not support themselves and whose greatest aspiration in life is to raise another generation of even more people who will not support themselves? That seems a road to the downfall of society.
You obviously didn't play any Early Access games on Steam after 2014 on.
I don't even know what an Early Access game is, so you would be correct on that score.
It's way too complicated trying to get 3 things in sync: radiation of an atom, rotation of the Earth around it's own access and rotation of the Earth around the sun, no two of which are linked to another one other than our arbitrary standard, all three of which are not absolutes, but averages, and two (possibly 3) of which are slowly changing.
My gaming PC from 2011 has 8GB and I have yet to come across a title that has any problems. Of course, I don't have Batman...OR Windows 10.
its a link to a (2006) article you illiterate moron
It is not illiterate to read something the way it was written rather than the way the author was thinking about it. In fact, it is not illiterate to read anything at all. Perhaps the word you meant was literal, in that he read it the way it was written rather than read the author's mind to see the way the author should have written it.
I also learned on BASIC. I learned FORTRAN about 7 years later in college. I didn't find it necessary to unlearn BASIC. My first summer job, after my freshmen year (which lasted 6 years), involved coding in both BASIC and two generations of FORTRAN. I learned C on my own and then used it in my Junior year of college. I didn't see any need to unlearn BASIC or FORTRAN. Then I later learned C++ and had a lot of trouble understanding learning the OO methodology simultaneously with learning a pretty complex language. I spent a lot of time out of official development for about 15 years, but still picked up Powerbuilder, Optima++ vbscript and some other utility languages. Then I learned Java. When learning Java, the OO methodology suddenly seemed to make sense, so much so that I was able to go back and do some C++ programming and now the OO methodology in C++ made sense to me. I don't feel like I have ever had to unlearn a language in order to learn another one. It's all just different rules and syntax.
How is this different than any other major metropolitan area where car ownership isn't necessary within the city limits? It's all great when you have two major rail lines and half a dozen bus lines within a 10 minute walk. If you're a fast runner 20 minutes will get you almost anywhere within the Evanston, IL city limits. But it just isn't possible in 99.9% of the rest of the country that doesn't have major rail lines and multiple bus lines. I live in a Metropolitan area of 300k people and it's a 3 mile walk just to the nearest bus stop.
The lack of auto dealerships is probably due to the high cost of real estate in Evanston. The presence of a car dealership does not correlate with the car-centricness of the town, especially that close to Chicago where there hundreds of other suburbs within 30 minute drive that all have car dealerships.
The two major rail lines are actually one major rail line that happens to split right at Evanston, so it is great if the place you want to go is Chicago. Chicago's rail lines are start topology, so if you want to go to another suburb that is 10 miles away, but is not on the same line, then it is probably going to take you an hour to get there. I am not familiar with the bus service in Evanston, but I am familiar with bus service in other Chicago suburbs and I can tell you that it is a miserable experience that adds an hour to your commute.
Evanston is laid out with something of a main street with businesses on it, and the rest of the town is square blocks of residential. It works if the place you are trying to get to is in Evanston, you can certainly walk there. The trouble arises when the place you want to get to is not in Evanston.
Basically, it took them a long time to figure out that Evanston is a land-locked suburb and so the only way they can grow is more dense. I think they will find that by becoming more dense, they will substitute the upper middle class people and the high property (and property tax) values for a larger number of lower income people with low property values. They may get more tax money overall, but the per capita will be down drastically, and their spending will continue to be linear to the population.
Basically, they have a really good thing going right now, and they are looking for a way to destroy it.
A toy drone that is filming your daughters swimming is a threat and the owner of such drone needs to be thrown in jail. He is no better than people who put video cameras in dressing rooms and toilets.
Or all those nasty perverts I see taking photos at beaches ( Of all places! you know how many people's daughters are swimming at beaches?!?!? ) I think you'll find the key problem here was the invasion/expectation of privacy. There's nothing intrinsically immoral or illegal about taking pictures of people swimming. Also, why is the UAV a toy? I mean, call it what you like, just wondering how that is relevant, and I think that's what really made me feel your whole statement was loaded.
Toy was what the GP said in order to try to make the strawman appear even more ridiculous.
I agree there is no expectation of privacy in a public place like a swimming pool or beach. But there is in your own back yard.
If you've ever seen these lunar prototypes up close, you'd understand how it could get sold for scrap. Everything that was "space age" in the 1960's looks primitive today.
Yes, that. And in addition, it was a "prototype" and as such may have been just frame and wheels, which could be mistaken for just about anything. The first picture in the article looks nothing like the actual lunar rover other than having a stupid looking antenna on top. It looks like 1000s of other homemade dunebuggies.
Normally when someone invades your privacy you call the police, take them to court, get a restraining order, etc.In my view the correct justice would have been the person doing the shooting have to pay for the damage to the drone. Then the person infringing the privacy get hit with a fine for doing so.
Except you can't do that when the person who is infringing on your privacy is enforcing their own privacy while trampling all over yours by being blocks away where you cannot track them down.
Unless in a helicopter, then that doesn't apply... except that the pilot "must not fly at an altitude that causes hazard to persons or property on the surface".
What is that limit? That is largely up to your local FAA inspector, among other things.
And as another helicopter pointed out, the FAA inspector is going to base his conclusions on public opinion. A person feels threatened if they feel threatened.
In this case, it is pretty clear he felt threatened (or rather that he felt his daughters were being threatened), as he resorted to shooting down the threatening object.
So if a person armed with nothing but a camera was harassing them (not a threat to life, just annoyance), would it be OK to use lethal force?
If it was a person, the threat of lethal force could be used to detain the criminal until the cops could arrive and arrest the trespasser. With a drone, you don't know where the trespasser is actually hiding. Calling the cops probably wouldn't help, except that he might have been able to avoid a lot of hoopla by letting the cops shoot it down instead. Of course, the cops would have used handguns which would be much more dangerous to fire in a neighborhood than a shotgun.
Well, this is going to be fun once delivery drones start flying.
Sucks to have grandmas medicine shot down by some hick when the drone passed too close to his property.
Let's hope that doesn't happen. Drone delivery is inefficient, expensive and dangerous.
Problem is, people will read: I can shoot down a drone now, and they will use other things than a shotgun because they are dumb idiots
One of the strangest things I've found is that the most passionate gun lovers I know, all think that drones should be banned.
I'd love a discussion on the second amendment aspects of weaponized personal drones. Do we have the right to use a drone only as long as we have afirearm attached to it?
Is not allowing weaponized drones an example of the federal government and anti-gun forces interfering in our rights?
All of the people that I know that are into guns are also into drones. They also are against people using drones to spy on other people and invade other people's property, and are also against weaponized drones.
A toy drone that is filming your daughters swimming is a threat and the owner of such drone needs to be thrown in jail. He is no better than people who put video cameras in dressing rooms and toilets.