Basically, he is saying that he doesn't wish death on you for disagreeing but for having the gall to actually act on your convictions. That is plain stupid and infantile. And this is coming from someone who agrees that we need euthanization laws.
So, uh, you can't see a distinction between 'I don't want to be killed when I'm dying of a terminal illness with no hope of cure' and 'I don't want others to be killed when they're dying of a terminal illness with no hope of cure, even if they want to'?
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the standard conservative argument is that if you create an obstacle, people will always "find a way", and in fact you should purposefully do so.
Maybe you could try dealing with real people, and not just making them up in your head.
Minimum wages, if set above the market wage, just put the poorest out of work, or into illegal work below the minimum wage, because they can no longer do anything worth paying for.
Then, some Romanians, Poles, Bulgarians come in, get the same jobs for 70% of the initial wage the UK natives were whining about and work harder and are happier with 0% insanity.
That's because they're getting paid ten times as much as a doctor would in their own country for doing menial work, and can save enough in a few years to go home and set themselves up for life.
If 'Lazy Britons' could earn $1,000,000 a year for fifteen hour days cleaning offices in Poland, they'd be out there with a big smile on their face eager to do as many hours as they could.
I don't know, I see a lot of conservative garbage come out of their reporting too.....
I guess you could argue that the British left are really now the conservatives, because they're the ones trying to conserve bloated government and a massive, inefficient welfare state in a world where decades of socialism is driving the nation into bankruptcy.
At which point, the BBC will be printing articles about how awful it is that Amazon are sacking all their workers and replacing them with robots.
While supporting the left-wing government that encouraged British companies to shut down their factories in the UK, sell the land for condos, and move the work to cheaper locations in Eastern Europe. And blaming Thatcher. Right on!
No, it's always been a liberal vs conservative issue, because liberals passionately hate anything that's successful without the government being involved.
And 'mental illness' is one of the standard lefty sticks to beat people with. They'll probably be marching into Amazon warehouses soon to drag out the 'mentally ill' workers and send them to camps to be 'cured' of wanting to work for Amazon.
The BBC is mostly staffed by trendy lefties writing stories for their trendy lefty mates. It would have collapsed long ago if most people weren't forced to pay for it just because they own a TV.
Imagine if RIM were a privately owned bank. Too big to fail anyone?
Again, the government bailed out the banks. How is this supposed to prove that government does things better than private businesses?
In any sane world, the banks would have gone bankrupt and been bought up by people who knew how to run a business so it doesn't fail. But your beloved government instead took vast amounts of taxpayers' money and threw it at them so the failures who previosly ran them could stay in their jobs.
And don't forget that typically when companies go bankrupt plenty of people ARE on the hook and hurt. All the employees and all the creditors.
That's why the smart ones leave when they realise the company is going down.
The difference is that it's big news when government does it. When private enterprise does it it's mostly unnoticed by those outside the company.
The difference is, the government takes money from taxpayers to build those sites. When private enterprise builds a crappy web site, it's their employees and shareholders who pay. Which is why the rest of us don't notice or care.
The solution to high profile failure of governmental projects is to fire the people responsible, find out what went wrong, make sure it doesn't go wrong again, and hire people who can get the job done right. Much like private companies. The solution is not to preach that government always does a worse job than free enterprise.
Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
If RIM was a government department, they'd just have raised taxes to cover their losses, and told everyone how much better they'd do their job if only they were paid more.
When was the last time a government kicked out most or all those at the top of a failing department, rather than throw more money at them?
Voltage has gone back to producing million dollar genre films and international acquisitions, which is to say, producing a Oscar winner for best picture has gotten them absolutely nowhere, but for the money, of which there was very little.
How is this any different to the vast fines the IP Barons demand when someone downloads a song? Except that, in this case, they actually profitted from his work rather than just downloaded it to look at.
So long as copyright exists, media corporations should pay far more for violating it for commercial use than any individual for private use.
Makes sense. This is exactly the sort of partner I'd expect the NSA to work with. If packets were diverted through Langley, VA or somewhere in Utah, we'd all figure out who was behind this pretty quickly.
Instead, everyone just assumes the NSA are behind it, even if it's actually... whatever the KGB mutated into after the Soviet Union collapsed. Or are they still the KGB these days?
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, he is saying that he doesn't wish death on you for disagreeing but for having the gall to actually act on your convictions. That is plain stupid and infantile. And this is coming from someone who agrees that we need euthanization laws.
So, uh, you can't see a distinction between 'I don't want to be killed when I'm dying of a terminal illness with no hope of cure' and 'I don't want others to be killed when they're dying of a terminal illness with no hope of cure, even if they want to'?
The postdoc situation is a symptom of there beeing too little resources invested in science compared to the number of people who want to do science.
No, it's a symptom of far too many people wanting a comfy job in an ivory tower where they never really have to achieve much.
No it isn't. The BBC is full of Oxbridge-educated upper middle-class types & their kids.
Yeah. Trendy lefties.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the standard conservative argument is that if you create an obstacle, people will always "find a way", and in fact you should purposefully do so.
Maybe you could try dealing with real people, and not just making them up in your head.
Where's the non-socialist US?
Minimum wages, if set above the market wage, just put the poorest out of work, or into illegal work below the minimum wage, because they can no longer do anything worth paying for.
Hence the need for the workers of the world to unite -- so we can get our fair share of the world's resources.
Uh, but how are 'THE WORKERS OF THE WORLD' going unite when all the work is done by robots?
Hopefully this can be accomplished through conventional political means, otherwise it's going to get awfully bloody.
Yeah, there are few things the left love more than mass murder.
If you think the BBC is balanced, you're a raving lefty.
Suppose I started marketing an HIV test, or a Hepatitis C test, or a tuberculosis test without demonstrating the test was effective?
Is anyone claiming these tests aren't effective? I don't see it in TFS, only claims that they don't have the right paperwork from the government.
Someone in another story was just telling us how wonderful the FDA are.
Then, some Romanians, Poles, Bulgarians come in, get the same jobs for 70% of the initial wage the UK natives were whining about and work harder and are happier with 0% insanity.
That's because they're getting paid ten times as much as a doctor would in their own country for doing menial work, and can save enough in a few years to go home and set themselves up for life.
If 'Lazy Britons' could earn $1,000,000 a year for fifteen hour days cleaning offices in Poland, they'd be out there with a big smile on their face eager to do as many hours as they could.
I don't know, I see a lot of conservative garbage come out of their reporting too.....
I guess you could argue that the British left are really now the conservatives, because they're the ones trying to conserve bloated government and a massive, inefficient welfare state in a world where decades of socialism is driving the nation into bankruptcy.
At which point, the BBC will be printing articles about how awful it is that Amazon are sacking all their workers and replacing them with robots.
While supporting the left-wing government that encouraged British companies to shut down their factories in the UK, sell the land for condos, and move the work to cheaper locations in Eastern Europe. And blaming Thatcher. Right on!
No, it's always been a liberal vs conservative issue, because liberals passionately hate anything that's successful without the government being involved.
And 'mental illness' is one of the standard lefty sticks to beat people with. They'll probably be marching into Amazon warehouses soon to drag out the 'mentally ill' workers and send them to camps to be 'cured' of wanting to work for Amazon.
The BBC is mostly staffed by trendy lefties writing stories for their trendy lefty mates. It would have collapsed long ago if most people weren't forced to pay for it just because they own a TV.
Imagine if RIM were a privately owned bank. Too big to fail anyone?
Again, the government bailed out the banks. How is this supposed to prove that government does things better than private businesses?
In any sane world, the banks would have gone bankrupt and been bought up by people who knew how to run a business so it doesn't fail. But your beloved government instead took vast amounts of taxpayers' money and threw it at them so the failures who previosly ran them could stay in their jobs.
And don't forget that typically when companies go bankrupt plenty of people ARE on the hook and hurt. All the employees and all the creditors.
That's why the smart ones leave when they realise the company is going down.
The difference is that it's big news when government does it. When private enterprise does it it's mostly unnoticed by those outside the company.
The difference is, the government takes money from taxpayers to build those sites. When private enterprise builds a crappy web site, it's their employees and shareholders who pay. Which is why the rest of us don't notice or care.
Similar to how the banks and other companies that screwed up disappeared. Er ah... I mean got bailed out by tax payer dollars.
And who bailed them out?
Ah, the government that's apparently so wonderfully good at running everything.
The solution to high profile failure of governmental projects is to fire the people responsible, find out what went wrong, make sure it doesn't go wrong again, and hire people who can get the job done right. Much like private companies. The solution is not to preach that government always does a worse job than free enterprise.
And when did that last happen?
Governments are not businesses.
If they were, most of them would have had to declare bankruptcy long ago.
Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
If RIM was a government department, they'd just have raised taxes to cover their losses, and told everyone how much better they'd do their job if only they were paid more.
When was the last time a government kicked out most or all those at the top of a failing department, rather than throw more money at them?
In what way does a camera on a tripod pointed at an exhibit taking a long exposure with the museum's existing light damage the exhibit?
The camera steals its soul.
Voltage has gone back to producing million dollar genre films and international acquisitions, which is to say, producing a Oscar winner for best picture has gotten them absolutely nowhere, but for the money, of which there was very little.
Probably because it was a really crappy movie.
How is this any different to the vast fines the IP Barons demand when someone downloads a song? Except that, in this case, they actually profitted from his work rather than just downloaded it to look at.
So long as copyright exists, media corporations should pay far more for violating it for commercial use than any individual for private use.
Makes sense. This is exactly the sort of partner I'd expect the NSA to work with. If packets were diverted through Langley, VA or somewhere in Utah, we'd all figure out who was behind this pretty quickly.
Instead, everyone just assumes the NSA are behind it, even if it's actually... whatever the KGB mutated into after the Soviet Union collapsed. Or are they still the KGB these days?