I also assumed the Jedi wouldn't be wearing a big fucking sign that says "I'm a Jedi, so never mind that I am blind".
I knew that. I was thinking more of the audience reaction being something like "well, of course he/she/it knows about moving toward Jedi Siggymorpahginfah. Yeah, parry, dodge, thrust dodge. Predictable. zzzzz." And I am sure they can jazz it up like Yoda's fight scenes, but eye candy for eye candy's sake is not great film-making ( in my opinion anyway ).
It would not be unexpected that a Jedi could defend himself without sight, so I dont think it would work. And the sword slashing noises would be drowned out in the "woooz woooz" noises. And no blood spurting everywhere. Nope.
Lana Turner and John Garfield in "The PostDroid always rings 2^32-1 times", set on Tattoine? That works, sure.
Humphrey Bogart in "The Corusant Falcon"? Darth-Gutman searching for a black bird? Wanted for the death of a furby?
Even non profits employ researchers. They don't work for free. Any many still license the results of their work so they can do even more work.
Yes, non-profits employ researchers, and they dont work for free. But someone, somewhere donated that money ( invested without expectation of return, no profit motive ). If you were correct in your assertion that nothing is done without profit motive, this would not happen, there would be no non-profits, and no need for the corporation type.
It's kind of hard to collect taxes without the threat of being confronted by them.
There is an implied threat at some level, but the imagery brought up by the oher poster is way over the top. And with all the commercials I see on TV about how such and such a lawyer settled some supposed person's tax bill for pennies on the dollar, armed people coming after you just doesnt sound anywhere near plausible.
The question of "which laws backed by the threat of force ( pretty much all of them ) are to be obeyed"? If you can argue that you should not obey tax law, can I ignore the speed limits? Is breaking and entering OK now? Where is the line, and why?
Not according to the original poster. He's the one who brought government into the picture and associated a socialized system with being synonymous with "Christian values".
Nominally, socialized medicine *is* closer to "Christian Values". Withholding that which is "yours" ( but given to you by God ) from others when you have more than you "need" when they dont have the basics puts them on the wide road, in my opinion.
seeks to establish a Canadian-style system in the U.S.
OK, it seems to have been proposed. Is there a likelyhood this will become law?
See, they put a clause in the bill of sale ( 5th page, helvetical.00005 point font, color light yellow ) about how taking the computer out the front door is acceptance of a contract allowing the charging of your credit card by the third party.
Here is one for you... There is some collections agency after some woman. My work number is in their database as the number for this person. So, every couple days, I get a call, rolled over from my work account to my personal cell phone. They say something like
"this call is for."
I always hung up at this point. One of my clients has an office in Houston, which is where this collection agency is out of. I was having phone trouble one morning when the call came, and I happened to be in the office. I sent the call to voice mail, as the phone problem kept me from answering the call. I listend to the call, it was not my client, it was the collection agency again. So, I listened to more of the message. It went on to say
"by accepting this call, you are acknowledgeing that you are.". I think it went on to say that accepting the call implied ownership of the debt. So, now, is my work's VM system the person the caller claimed? And does my work's VM system now owe someone money?
you take away the incentive to to research for a profit and you take away the reason to do it at all.
at all? No one, anywhere would do anything without a profit motive? I think experience does not bear that out. Charitable institutions come to mind. The fact that it is nessesary to have a "non-profit" corporation type. Taking away profit does reduce incentive for many, and there is nothing wrong, in the main, with profit, but is it more important than people's lives?
On the 'subsitization' issue, should 'those socialists' be subsidizing corporate profits? Also, in going for the hard sell, they might have lost a possible profit, depending on the marginal costs of the item in question, yes?
Yes, because it didn't cost anything to do all the tons and tons of research and testing
Yes, it cost to do the R&D and QA. Those costs are probably already recovered in sales in the
"first world". If they arent, then why were they producing such in the first place?
(not to mention the cost of education for all the scientists) to produce the drug.
That cost was born by the scientists. Payback for that is in their salaries. Part of
the costs of the R&D and QA mentioned above.
This is why I hate slashdot. It's full of communist bastards who think that just because they want something that they have a right to take it by force. Without capitalism, that drug wouldn't exist.
Nonsense. Capitalism is probably the best way to allocate economic values most of the time.
It is not a wonder drug that fixes everything. Profit motivates people to produce things
that are wanted. In this case, profit appears to bave motivated people to withhold things
that others need. Is it communist to care more about people that profits? Then color me
communist.
And there is a difference between "needing" something and "wanting" something. Roughly,
if you will die without it, it is a need, and if not, a want. I would put a life saving
drug in the need category. So, this is not a want, as you put it, but a need. Should
these people just roll over and die? What kind of allocation of values make it so that
the premise that "it is OK that they die, otherwise we will not make enough" acceptable?
Go ahead, mod me down for standing up for freedom. You'll only prove my point.
In what way was your post about freedom? And how does being modded down prove your point?
You appear to have gotten your wish about being modded down. I disapprove
that you were modded down for your opinion, but I dont have a lot of sympathy.
Another thing. As long a the price it was going to be sold at was above the marginal
costs of another pill, that would have meant profits to the company. Can you see
how, in trying to drive too hard a bargain, holding people's lives in ransom,
they have failed to make that profit? The shareholders should not be pleased.
Also, in doing this, they have opened themselves to bad PR, damaging the brand,
which may result in lowered sales later. Another point on which the shareholders
should not be pleased.
I was writing a component to track files in a system, and we were not to use a DB for this. So, we stored them in the file system. I wrote a stress tester for this component, which caused it to write files like mad. Long story short, after all the activity, the machine appeared to be OK. Next reboot, however, it would die. Repeatable. Very repeatable.
Fixed in the next SP.
Course, recently, we just decommissioned a DB server, 2003 server, MSSQL 2000, if I ran a script against the DB that was "too stressfull", the machine would power off, no entry in the event log, no warning, no nothing. OS was not hung, there was nothing, except a need to power the machine back on.
coercing money from people upon penalty of imprisonment or death is "warm", "humane" and "Christian"?
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Takes care of the "Christian" part.
There are laws other than tax enforced unpon penalty of imprisonment or death. What is OK to enforce, and what is not, and why? Seems to me that this is anarchy at bottom.
Is it more "warm", "humane" and "Christian" when the State goes a step further and bans private health care altogether, as is the case in Canada?
How does this tie in, except in Canada? Has anyone in the US called for that? Is it a reasonable expectation, and why do you think so?
I spoke with Charles Hammerton about this, and you are neglecting many aspects.
He might have had the hammer for home defence. There is nothing wrong with some sport hammering from time to time. Of course, we believe that hammers should be licensed, and background checks done before a hammer can be purchased. Training is, of course, very important, and hammers should never be left where children could harm themselves with them. If appropriate, a hammer lock can be had at any high school that teaches wrestling.
Dont forget about the constitution, and the right to bear hammers.
Responsible hammer ownership is a right, and should not be infringed by a few nut cases.
As Charles said "you can have my hammer, when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers".
Slashdot Mirror
Because the path points there, this way they can be found.
I knew that. I was thinking more of the audience reaction being something like
"well, of course he/she/it knows about moving toward
Jedi Siggymorpahginfah. Yeah, parry, dodge, thrust dodge. Predictable. zzzzz."
And I am sure they can jazz it up like Yoda's fight scenes, but eye candy
for eye candy's sake is not great film-making ( in my opinion anyway ).
Or, maybe you could pay attention to what you are doing?
:-)
Great name, by the way. "Password required for shag".
You owe me a new keyboard.
A blind Jedi wandering around, cutting people up?
It would not be unexpected that a Jedi could defend himself
without sight, so I dont think it would work. And the sword
slashing noises would be drowned out in the "woooz woooz"
noises. And no blood spurting everywhere. Nope.
Lana Turner and John Garfield in "The PostDroid always rings 2^32-1 times",
set on Tattoine? That works, sure.
Humphrey Bogart in "The Corusant Falcon"? Darth-Gutman searching
for a black bird? Wanted for the death of a furby?
And, you can put advertising on the tarp.
Rent it out, you know.
The same people that require the use of an SSN will do exactly
the same thing with a "better" identifier.
Pish tosh ( I learned that from Dilbert, and it feels good to say it ).
When all the companies are mediocre because they are all run by MBA's, one
minor turn around story is not proof, it might have been random good luck.
Yes, non-profits employ researchers, and they dont work for free.
But someone, somewhere donated that money ( invested without expectation
of return, no profit motive ). If you were correct in your assertion
that nothing is done without profit motive, this would not happen,
there would be no non-profits, and no need for the corporation type.
There is an implied threat at some level, but the imagery brought up by the oher
poster is way over the top. And with all the commercials I see on TV about
how such and such a lawyer settled some supposed person's tax bill for pennies
on the dollar, armed people coming after you just doesnt sound anywhere near plausible.
The question of "which laws backed by the threat of force ( pretty much all of them ) are to be obeyed"?
If you can argue that you should not obey tax law, can I ignore the speed limits?
Is breaking and entering OK now? Where is the line, and why?
Nominally, socialized medicine *is* closer to "Christian Values". Withholding that
which is "yours" ( but given to you by God ) from others when you have more than
you "need" when they dont have the basics puts them on the wide road, in my opinion.
OK, it seems to have been proposed. Is there a likelyhood this will become law?
I suspected as much, but it is interesting how they work.
See, they put a clause in the bill of sale ( 5th page, .00005 point font, color light yellow )
."
.". I think
helvetical
about how taking the computer out the front door is
acceptance of a contract allowing the charging of
your credit card by the third party.
Here is one for you... There is some collections
agency after some woman. My work number is in their
database as the number for this person. So, every
couple days, I get a call, rolled over from my work
account to my personal cell phone. They say something
like
"this call is for
I always hung up at this point. One of my clients
has an office in Houston, which is where this collection
agency is out of. I was having phone trouble one
morning when the call came, and I happened to be in
the office. I sent the call to voice mail, as
the phone problem kept me from answering the call.
I listend to the call, it was not my client, it
was the collection agency again. So, I listened to
more of the message. It went on to say
"by accepting this call, you are acknowledgeing
that you are
it went on to say that accepting the call implied
ownership of the debt. So, now, is my work's VM
system the person the caller claimed? And does
my work's VM system now owe someone money?
at all? No one, anywhere would do anything without a profit motive?
I think experience does not bear that out. Charitable institutions
come to mind. The fact that it is nessesary to have a "non-profit"
corporation type. Taking away profit does reduce incentive for many,
and there is nothing wrong, in the main, with profit, but is it more
important than people's lives?
On the 'subsitization' issue, should 'those socialists' be subsidizing
corporate profits? Also, in going for the hard sell, they might have
lost a possible profit, depending on the marginal costs of the item
in question, yes?
Yes, it cost to do the R&D and QA. Those costs are probably already recovered in sales in the
"first world". If they arent, then why were they producing such in the first place?
That cost was born by the scientists. Payback for that is in their salaries. Part of
the costs of the R&D and QA mentioned above.
Nonsense. Capitalism is probably the best way to allocate economic values most of the time.
It is not a wonder drug that fixes everything. Profit motivates people to produce things
that are wanted. In this case, profit appears to bave motivated people to withhold things
that others need. Is it communist to care more about people that profits? Then color me
communist.
And there is a difference between "needing" something and "wanting" something. Roughly,
if you will die without it, it is a need, and if not, a want. I would put a life saving
drug in the need category. So, this is not a want, as you put it, but a need. Should
these people just roll over and die? What kind of allocation of values make it so that
the premise that "it is OK that they die, otherwise we will not make enough" acceptable?
In what way was your post about freedom? And how does being modded down prove your point?
You appear to have gotten your wish about being modded down. I disapprove
that you were modded down for your opinion, but I dont have a lot of sympathy.
Another thing. As long a the price it was going to be sold at was above the marginal
costs of another pill, that would have meant profits to the company. Can you see
how, in trying to drive too hard a bargain, holding people's lives in ransom,
they have failed to make that profit? The shareholders should not be pleased.
Also, in doing this, they have opened themselves to bad PR, damaging the brand,
which may result in lowered sales later. Another point on which the shareholders
should not be pleased.
But there was never much money in the third world anyway...
So, the big drug companies were never very likely to put much
effort into anti-parasitics.
We swapped out the ram, so that was not it.
Must be the "map cap" motherboard.
Thanks!
Look.
Hans shot first. Case closed.
NT4.0 was a bit broken itself...
I was writing a component to track files in a system, and we
were not to use a DB for this. So, we stored them in the file
system. I wrote a stress tester for this component, which
caused it to write files like mad. Long story short, after
all the activity, the machine appeared to be OK. Next reboot,
however, it would die. Repeatable. Very repeatable.
Fixed in the next SP.
Course, recently, we just decommissioned a DB server, 2003
server, MSSQL 2000, if I ran a script against the DB
that was "too stressfull", the machine would power off,
no entry in the event log, no warning, no nothing.
OS was not hung, there was nothing, except a need to
power the machine back on.
Good point. Teach me to pipe up without looking harder. :-)
I believe that the labels were intended to be above each of
the free calls, rather than below.
I have yet to see such a thing.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Takes care of the "Christian" part.
There are laws other than tax enforced unpon penalty of imprisonment or death.
What is OK to enforce, and what is not, and why?
Seems to me that this is anarchy at bottom.
How does this tie in, except in Canada? Has anyone in the US
called for that? Is it a reasonable expectation, and why do
you think so?
But, you know, if all we have are little nut crackers,
how can we ensure that our standing army is not too
overbearing?
A: Doenst the bear need to consent?
B: Watch the claw!
It looks *good* on you, though.
I spoke with Charles Hammerton about this, and you are neglecting many aspects.
He might have had the hammer for home defence. There is nothing
wrong with some sport hammering from time to time. Of course, we
believe that hammers should be licensed, and background checks done
before a hammer can be purchased. Training is, of course, very
important, and hammers should never be left where children could
harm themselves with them. If appropriate, a hammer lock can
be had at any high school that teaches wrestling.
Dont forget about the constitution, and the right to bear hammers.
Responsible hammer ownership is a right, and should not be infringed
by a few nut cases.
As Charles said "you can have my hammer, when you pry it from my cold,
dead fingers".
very deterministic.
repent your sin!