If my fire department is/run/ -- not ran -- by libertarians
Double checking my grammar and spelling while responding to you would be an indication of some degree of respect towards you. I don't respect you. I guess I have to spell it out since it wasn't clear.
The first engine to the scene plan is moronic, BTW.
It's the most efficient known system. The fact that you don't oppose it despite it being the best known system is... typical. It's why all you people opposing free markets are the most destructive nihilistic bunch of cretins on the planet. It forces ALL engine companies to rush to a known fire. Once they respond to the fire (ie, make a legal commitment) they have the same obligation to arrive and assist as the obligation of an emergency doctor to treat a patient. But only the first one to the scene gets paid. This forces all of them to rush. I hope all YOUR life problems are solved by volunteers.
once an offer of sale is made, a response with an offer of tender constitutes a sale. cash is legal tender. a sale establishes an obligation to settle. until such time that the person offering a tender settles it (ie, delivers the tender), a debt exists.
congratulations! you just convinced yourself that you won an argument after saying "A=A therefore if B, then C." Life is a choice of alternatives -- it's not a choice of absolutes. If your fire department is ran by libertarians, then you get the choice of a better fire department system (only-first-engine-to-the-scene-gets-paid). It's ok though. You don't have to. You can worship your right to be inefficient all you want. All the way into bankruptcy actually. You DO have that right. You just don't have the right to not suffer the consequences of making that choice.
Hiring auditors to overlook things (even in a wink-wink nodge-nodge manner) would constitute any number of felonies. Any publicly traded company is so awash in money that it would find it fairly difficult to make felonies more profitable than simply sticking to its core business. Everyone is corruptible, of course, but corruption on large scale simply doesn't pay enough to bother with it.
Google is a publicly traded company. They have to be audited every quarter simply for that reason. Every publicly traded company has to be independently audited every quarter. I doubt IRS will find anything Google can't.
Oh, so you are an idiot AND an ass hole. "Libertarians who are not stoners or CEOs"? Any educated person who is not a libertarian is not honest. How about that? If you have an education (or even if you are intelligent and not educated) and you are not a libertarian, then you are a crook. I'll start with that premise (because it's true). And no, libertarians are NOT against unions negotiating contracts. They are against compulsion. If you live in a state which is NOT a right-to-work state, you don't have the option of not hiring union labor once your shop is unionized. NO ONE complains about having to hire union after a contract is signed. The complaint is that compulsion is not a contract. If your volition is taken away during the negotiation, that's not a contract. Oh, and next time you want a straw man, add some starving kitties to your kids living with grandma bull shit. Cause adults signing a 30 year financial contract are fully and completely responsible (on their own) for the implication of such contracts.
You are an idiot. Libertarians are probably your best friends on this one. Being able to negotiate a contract for one's performance is a staple of a free society. If the unions simply negotiated residual payments for lectures per-view, libertarians would be on the union's side.
If a tape of someone's performance is available on the Internet, I fail to see why they shouldn't be able to negotiate residual payments with the distributor. Actors get paid every time someone views their performance. Why shouldn't anyone (especially under California's performance-art-oriented laws) negotiate a similar type of contract? Yes, it would mean that professors' lectures wouldn't be viewable for free (unless university wants to broadcast them for free but pay the residuals to the professors anyway). But it's taped performance which is in every sense the same as any other taped performance.
ad hoc rant... about how amazon is wrong about ALMOST everything and google is right about ALMOST everything. totally unplanned. it's even been removed from the site... which is why i got this thing emailed to me 3 times today. no planning went into it at all... promise
Don't be silly. Orthodoxy doesn't thrive because no one has yet discovered an alternative. It thrives because of endemic management practices. A firm which even has a chance falling pray to such chaos can be safely assumed to have "personal ownership" of each project attached to key stake holders. Any change probably requires a careful political negotiation because each stake holders sees it as an encroachment on their territory. Each new guy will try to contribute his view on how things should be only to get frustrated and give up within 6 months. Remember that managers are agents of the organization. They may not necessarily act in the best interest of the organization though. They may very well be simply positioning for their personal long-term growth. And that means managing more people. If they get to fix more "problems" (really put out more of their own fires) and increase their own head count, then they get more visibility and are more likely to move up. The metrics which measure performance determine the motivation of the mid-level managers. If they are motivated by having projects which are unknown to anyone (because they perform near-flawlessly), then that's what they try to achieve. If they are motivated by being able to show "management skill" (ability to push people around whether its needed or not), then they try to achieve busy activity whether it's needed or not.
Property, as such, means that the owner has the right to deny access to it. Whether the property is private or public is not the issue. The only thing at issue is that it is a property. Once the owner has indicated the access is conditioned on certain terms, you can reject the terms and leave the property. But the owner can't take arbitrary actions as you leave. So the next time someone tells you "you are on my property therefore I deem it necessary to behead you", you can safely assume that they are not within their rights as proprietors of the property.
Word salad. Where, exactly, is the "bad guy" exception in the 5th Amendment:
No where. But again, you are not responding to a post about 5th amendment. I gave a quote from article 1 section 9. But if you can't read, then quite a bit probably looks like word salad to you.
"Evidence"? You probably should say "intelligence." Evidence is information presented (or presentable) at a trial. The whole point of the exception to privilege of Habeas Corpus is to outline the cases when insisting on a trial is unreasonable. And yes, Bush administration had bad intelligence. But their burden of getting good intelligence was much higher. They were making a much larger commitment than taking out 1 guy. The burden of getting good intelligence is on the armed forces. And only for the purposes of protecting the country (not for the purpose of having to defend their actions in court). If they had enough intelligence to indicate that the guy was providing training to active combatants against the US, then the armed forces were perfectly justified in treating him as a rebel. Can this chain of logic be abused? Absolutely. Just as every other public service position can be. Will it eventually get abused if we accept widespread targeting of US citizens as rebels? Most likely. Does that mean that the this guy had to be treated as something other than a rebel even though he was a rebel? No. There is no perfect world. There is only a choice of available alternatives. If he fit the archetype of a rebel more than that of a criminal, than the correct choice was to treat him as a rebel.
I had a boss like that once. He had a policy of assigning people the work that they least enjoyed. This kept everyone miserable and feeling too inferior to seek a better lot in life. The problem with fucking people in a situation where they are free to leave is just that. They are free to leave at the moment least convenient to you. I quit at the very moment I became irreplaceable. It was just a change of job for me. It was end of corporate climb for him. He got cut down a few notches. In fact, it was a huge demotion at that point either for him or for his boss. And as much as he was best friends with his boss, he got set back 5-10 years in his career because of it.
they also had breakfast in nazi germany. does that mean that having breakfast makes one a nazi? how about building highways? autobahns were INVENTED in nazi germany. i am pretty sure nazi germany is hated for genocide (jews, gypses, etc.) rather than for every little thing they did.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a promise to accept a tender once offered. Cash is just one possible tender. I should have probably said that "cash is ***a*** legal tender."
I am not interested in schooling from an idiot.
Given how much you trust the nonsense that you spout, that's a hypocrisy wrapped in an irony.
If my fire department is /run/ -- not ran -- by libertarians
Double checking my grammar and spelling while responding to you would be an indication of some degree of respect towards you. I don't respect you. I guess I have to spell it out since it wasn't clear.
The first engine to the scene plan is moronic, BTW.
It's the most efficient known system. The fact that you don't oppose it despite it being the best known system is... typical. It's why all you people opposing free markets are the most destructive nihilistic bunch of cretins on the planet. It forces ALL engine companies to rush to a known fire. Once they respond to the fire (ie, make a legal commitment) they have the same obligation to arrive and assist as the obligation of an emergency doctor to treat a patient. But only the first one to the scene gets paid. This forces all of them to rush. I hope all YOUR life problems are solved by volunteers.
once an offer of sale is made, a response with an offer of tender constitutes a sale. cash is legal tender. a sale establishes an obligation to settle. until such time that the person offering a tender settles it (ie, delivers the tender), a debt exists.
Cue the "baww, federal government doesn't get to trample on states' rights!" Libertarian shitstorm
knee jerk much? and i mean YOU, not the libertarians.
Sounds like her career depended on a secret rather than a lie. Those are not the same thing.
devices which do the opposite: convert power into biologically useful energy. after that, resistance is futile.
congratulations! you just convinced yourself that you won an argument after saying "A=A therefore if B, then C." Life is a choice of alternatives -- it's not a choice of absolutes. If your fire department is ran by libertarians, then you get the choice of a better fire department system (only-first-engine-to-the-scene-gets-paid). It's ok though. You don't have to. You can worship your right to be inefficient all you want. All the way into bankruptcy actually. You DO have that right. You just don't have the right to not suffer the consequences of making that choice.
if you are not a libertarian, then you are either stupid, uneducated, or a crook.
volunteer fire departments are much worse than only-first-engine-to-the-scene-gets-paid competitive professional fire departments.
psychopaths used more conjunctions such as “because “ or “since,”
Sounds like another attempt to label left-brain people as psychopaths.
Hiring auditors to overlook things (even in a wink-wink nodge-nodge manner) would constitute any number of felonies. Any publicly traded company is so awash in money that it would find it fairly difficult to make felonies more profitable than simply sticking to its core business. Everyone is corruptible, of course, but corruption on large scale simply doesn't pay enough to bother with it.
Google is a publicly traded company. They have to be audited every quarter simply for that reason. Every publicly traded company has to be independently audited every quarter. I doubt IRS will find anything Google can't.
Oh, so you are an idiot AND an ass hole. "Libertarians who are not stoners or CEOs"? Any educated person who is not a libertarian is not honest. How about that? If you have an education (or even if you are intelligent and not educated) and you are not a libertarian, then you are a crook. I'll start with that premise (because it's true). And no, libertarians are NOT against unions negotiating contracts. They are against compulsion. If you live in a state which is NOT a right-to-work state, you don't have the option of not hiring union labor once your shop is unionized. NO ONE complains about having to hire union after a contract is signed. The complaint is that compulsion is not a contract. If your volition is taken away during the negotiation, that's not a contract. Oh, and next time you want a straw man, add some starving kitties to your kids living with grandma bull shit. Cause adults signing a 30 year financial contract are fully and completely responsible (on their own) for the implication of such contracts.
You are an idiot. Libertarians are probably your best friends on this one. Being able to negotiate a contract for one's performance is a staple of a free society. If the unions simply negotiated residual payments for lectures per-view, libertarians would be on the union's side.
If a tape of someone's performance is available on the Internet, I fail to see why they shouldn't be able to negotiate residual payments with the distributor. Actors get paid every time someone views their performance. Why shouldn't anyone (especially under California's performance-art-oriented laws) negotiate a similar type of contract? Yes, it would mean that professors' lectures wouldn't be viewable for free (unless university wants to broadcast them for free but pay the residuals to the professors anyway). But it's taped performance which is in every sense the same as any other taped performance.
Kyoto never became a ratified treaty in the US. Ie, as far as US is concerned, we are not a party to the treaty.
ad hoc rant... about how amazon is wrong about ALMOST everything and google is right about ALMOST everything. totally unplanned. it's even been removed from the site... which is why i got this thing emailed to me 3 times today. no planning went into it at all... promise
Don't be silly. Orthodoxy doesn't thrive because no one has yet discovered an alternative. It thrives because of endemic management practices. A firm which even has a chance falling pray to such chaos can be safely assumed to have "personal ownership" of each project attached to key stake holders. Any change probably requires a careful political negotiation because each stake holders sees it as an encroachment on their territory. Each new guy will try to contribute his view on how things should be only to get frustrated and give up within 6 months. Remember that managers are agents of the organization. They may not necessarily act in the best interest of the organization though. They may very well be simply positioning for their personal long-term growth. And that means managing more people. If they get to fix more "problems" (really put out more of their own fires) and increase their own head count, then they get more visibility and are more likely to move up. The metrics which measure performance determine the motivation of the mid-level managers. If they are motivated by having projects which are unknown to anyone (because they perform near-flawlessly), then that's what they try to achieve. If they are motivated by being able to show "management skill" (ability to push people around whether its needed or not), then they try to achieve busy activity whether it's needed or not.
Property, as such, means that the owner has the right to deny access to it. Whether the property is private or public is not the issue. The only thing at issue is that it is a property. Once the owner has indicated the access is conditioned on certain terms, you can reject the terms and leave the property. But the owner can't take arbitrary actions as you leave. So the next time someone tells you "you are on my property therefore I deem it necessary to behead you", you can safely assume that they are not within their rights as proprietors of the property.
Word salad. Where, exactly, is the "bad guy" exception in the 5th Amendment:
No where. But again, you are not responding to a post about 5th amendment. I gave a quote from article 1 section 9. But if you can't read, then quite a bit probably looks like word salad to you.
"Evidence"? You probably should say "intelligence." Evidence is information presented (or presentable) at a trial. The whole point of the exception to privilege of Habeas Corpus is to outline the cases when insisting on a trial is unreasonable. And yes, Bush administration had bad intelligence. But their burden of getting good intelligence was much higher. They were making a much larger commitment than taking out 1 guy. The burden of getting good intelligence is on the armed forces. And only for the purposes of protecting the country (not for the purpose of having to defend their actions in court). If they had enough intelligence to indicate that the guy was providing training to active combatants against the US, then the armed forces were perfectly justified in treating him as a rebel. Can this chain of logic be abused? Absolutely. Just as every other public service position can be. Will it eventually get abused if we accept widespread targeting of US citizens as rebels? Most likely. Does that mean that the this guy had to be treated as something other than a rebel even though he was a rebel? No. There is no perfect world. There is only a choice of available alternatives. If he fit the archetype of a rebel more than that of a criminal, than the correct choice was to treat him as a rebel.
I had a boss like that once. He had a policy of assigning people the work that they least enjoyed. This kept everyone miserable and feeling too inferior to seek a better lot in life. The problem with fucking people in a situation where they are free to leave is just that. They are free to leave at the moment least convenient to you. I quit at the very moment I became irreplaceable. It was just a change of job for me. It was end of corporate climb for him. He got cut down a few notches. In fact, it was a huge demotion at that point either for him or for his boss. And as much as he was best friends with his boss, he got set back 5-10 years in his career because of it.
they also had breakfast in nazi germany. does that mean that having breakfast makes one a nazi? how about building highways? autobahns were INVENTED in nazi germany. i am pretty sure nazi germany is hated for genocide (jews, gypses, etc.) rather than for every little thing they did.