Nobody said that it's "okay", but it helps to put the situation in context rather than "OMG they deleted content from your kindle -- CENSORSHIPOMGBBQWTF!!!11!!"
Thank god for regulation and breaking monopolies! We have so much variety and competition, now. Up to as many as three cell providers in an area and up to as many as one broadband provider!
Your post gave me a laugh, since the reason 1984 was disabled remotely was because of copyright issues in that the person who posted it to the store did not have the rights to it and therefore, neither did Amazon. Yes, it was a little hinky in that if it was a physical copy, they probably wouldn't have come to your house to take it away, but if it was a physical copy, they probably wouldn't have reached the point where it had a deal, had a plan for reprint, made it through publishing, was distributed to stores, then sold off the shelves before someone realized there were legal issues.
Also, everything about getting your books electronically can also be applied to all content anywhere and especially over the internet, where every aspect of the interaction is driven by or on commercially motivated resources and systems.
I'm not sure what people are expecting, anyway. The eventual goal of every content producer (even those who create physical products like DVDs, CDs, books, etc) is to charge for every consumption of their product. That's why you have to register your videogames with EA to play them, now. It's not enough to spend $60 on a game or $20 on a book and then let someone else in the household enjoy it, lend it to a friend, or sell it to a used book store. You need to pay $60 for the game or $20 for the book and then everyone else in your household has to. And then your friend. And the used everything can go screw themselves.
No rational person would agree that this is right, but it is the direction we are going and there's nothing we can do about it, as far as I can see.
I don't care about the justifications. The point is, plenty of money is being spent on education and the more we spend, the less we get. The idea that "if we only spend 90% of taxes on education, we'll finally get it right!" is bullshit. Rather than demanding more funding, how about getting your shit together so you can do more with your resources?
Also, I don't have any children, so I'm already paying for your fair share. (And no, don't give me the "but you already got your education so you're just returning the favor derf derf derf" stuff as I left school a month into my first year of highschool to get a GED and made my own way in the tech industry where I've been very fortunate with no thanks to the shitty education system I wasted so many years of my life in).
I have a better idea. Don't breed until you can afford your child's expenses and let everyone else keep their money. Especially since every single educational system in this country has proven that they are both corrupt and irresponsible. Nobody would mind half of all state taxes going to education produced great results. But you can't provide shit results and then hold a knife to the tax-payer's throat saying "well, just give us *more* and we'll totally do it right next time!".
I said 55% to 65%. Currently, Oregon spends 54% on education. Colorado spends about 50% on education. I'm not sure what there is to "call me out" on. California may spend less of their overall budget on education, but there are other states. These are the two I've received end of year fiscal reports in the mail on and which are definitely very loud "pay us more, we don't have enough money to educate children!" states.
A quick skim of a few other states (Wisconsin, etc) seems to show around 30% tends to be the minimum range of funding - still more than any other expenditure on most of their books. By a lot.
You typically receive a breakdown pie-chart of how the taxes are spent each year, by your state (usually around January or February). I haven't looked at every state, but the two that I've lived in most recently have shown education expenses between around 55% to 60% despite the states having frequent loud "we don't spend enough of the money on education and we can't give the students quality schooling, because of it!" contingent. Namely, Oregon and Colorado.
I only did minimal digging around, so I didn't grab it straight from the source, but here's a chart sourced from the state of Oregon that shows 54% spent on education, 17% spent on prisons, 24% spent on human services. Colorado is at about 49% on education. Washington looks to be about 40%. Other states that I've looked at seem to show education as the biggest chunk of expenses and often accounting for around half of all expenses.
In addition, the federal government also budgets for education to supplement this.
As a result, I have always had a difficult time taking complaints of "we don't have enough money!" seriously, when they often consume more tax resources than every other expense, combined.
Yeah, whatever. Mod me down. Mark my words, though, if some teacher cold-cocked you and yelled "NEWTON!" -- that is a lesson you'd remember for the rest of your life.
It's just all so damn sad. I'm falling into a puddle of my own tears. Oh my! I mean, education only makes up around 55% to 65% of state budgets. Why, whatever will those poor destitute people, do? Clearly, they need 100% of all taxes to go to education. Then everything will be perfect and everyone will be well educated and teachers will finally be able to stop living on the street, sleeping in the gutters and living on cans of cat food!
Agreed. How about just answering the phone when I call in for help?
I have had great experiences with support persons at my bank. They answer the phone reasonably swiftly and are very polite when we talk and they always seem to do as much as they can to truly help me instead of just get me off the phone. Put more effort into that and less into playing with the latest darling technology of the hipsteratti.
The problem is that when you assume the role of making editorial decisions, you have to be consistent and you assume a certain level of responsibility. I think people who spread this bullshit hurt a lot of people by spreading confusion and prolonging their suffering through a life of self loathing. However, stupid as it may be, the app has every right to exist and people have every right to use it or not use it. The problem is that if you accept one off-putting or even vile thing, who are you to refuse another?
Your religious bullshit is only relevant to people who subscribe to your religious bullshit. Kind of the way depicting Mohammed is some sort of "holy sin" . . . but YOU probably don't care about that because YOU don't subscribe to that faith. Likewise, I don't subscribe to your faith, either and so I don't give a fuck about your hangups. If your faith has an issue with you being gay, don't be gay. Or don't subscribe to that faith. Or be gay and be religious and be conflicted. That's your deal. How other people live their lives is irrelevant and none of your concern.
Since marriage has nothing to do with religion, but is a process in which two people are certified by a state official in the eyes of the government and the law as a unified entity with shared responsibilities and accountability, I don't see what anyone's hangups are. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure the same person applies the same state seal to marriage licenses as to filing joint corporations. Someone's religious bullshit aside (and, again, not part of the equation, since religion has nothing to do with a legal marriage), I don't see how anyone can take issue with it. If one believes "gay marriage" shouldn't be officiated, then they must logically also believe that gay people can't go into business and form corporations. Or, for that matter, sign any contracts whatsoever.
Right, because physiologically and biologically ingrained urges and the fundamental basis of your sexuality and personality are exactly like having a craving for burritos or trying not to step on cracks in sidewalks.
If someone is gay and unhappy about it, it's because they're beaten down by a society that crushes them from early on in life for something that shouldn't matter to anyone but themselves. Why else do you think that the two common reactions to life for gay people are to either be latent, repressed, spiteful, hateful, anti-gay politicians and activists or militant, out-there, hardcore pro-gay?
And don't think for a minute that if the "straight life-style" was under the same scrutiny and judgement that you and I wouldn't tend to react in much the same ways.
It's a free world and you have the right to subscribe to some ridiculous "make me like vagina" propaganda if you like. Just like you have the right to mutilate yourself with the assistance of a plastic surgeon, because you're not happy with yourself. But in both cases, you're most likely just fine . . . separated from the bigoted light of society.
What do the particular details of your bullshit idiocy matter? Specific quotes from a piece of text aren't very relevant when the fundamental problem with the whole thing is IT'S ALL FUCKING IMAGINARY.
I mean, seriously, believe whatever the hell you want to believe. That's your right. But I have no intellectual obligation to know your crazy religious bullshit intimately and exhaustively to justify not believing in your crazy shit. I don't need to know every lyric to every fucking Justin Bieber song to know that I don't give a fuck about Justin Bieber. The only people who care about pedantic religious bullshit are pedantic religious bullshitters.
It's not a matter of "curing" homosexuality. It's a matter of our society not truly embracing the fundamental foundations of our country. Namely, the right to pursuit of your own happiness. Autonomy. The right to determine your own path in life, so long as you bring no direct negative consequence to an unwilling person.
Anyway, some self loathing gay men try to compensate by founding "ministries" like this and bashing the gay out of others in the hopes that it hides their own cock-hunger. Others become politicians -- the kind of politicians that sponsor extremely hateful legislation that undermines the pursuit of one's own way in the world.
Rational people just don't put that much energy and attention into something like that if it isn't a direct personal "demon" that they're fighting. Rational people just say "I don't want a cock in my ass, so the best way for me to avoid it is not to take a cock in the ass" and if other people want a cock in their asses, that's their business. And people carry on.
It's unfortunate that people like that can't just accept who they are and live a fulfilling life. Instead, they spend their whole life hiding it and aiding the very people and organizations that make their own life a living hell. A sort of vicious circle. Until someone uncovers their secret, of course. And then they go into cock-rehab (like Ted Haggart did . . . and Larry Craig, if I recall?).
That's just crazy. Everyone knows god doesn't bless you in return for money. He does it in return for you drinking his son's blood and eating his bones and then saying a bunch of hail mary's while obsessively fondling a string of cheap beads. Unless you wear clothing made of mixed textiles or are in the presence of a menstruating woman, of course. Then there's nothing he can do for you.
Yeah, because the next guy will be really different.
That's what was amusing about this past election. All these fucking naive idiots acting like the world was going to change. Shocker for you, as long as all people base their votes on is "but what's it going to do for ME!" rather than principal, all we're going to get is douche bags. It's always "who believes the same mythology as me?" and "who is going to support or push my religion over the others" and "who is going to give me free health care" and "who is going to give me free education" and "who is going to give me more social security". It's never about "who supports fundamental rights like privacy, speech, and one's pursuit of happiness?".
That's idiotic. Forward progress IS budget cuts. What fucking kind of budget do you work with where it's considered PROGRESS because you saved less and spent more? Progress would be having the balls to tell all these whiny bitches to fuck off when you have to cut their programs. Everyone has a special interest and pet program so if you cut things, someone's always going to be pissed. But that's the price you have to pay so that you don't have to pay the price. Pissing off a few whiny twats seems worth it to avoid being a trillion dollars over budget and 15 trillion in deficit.
I don't think you understand how any of this works. People who make more money DO pay "at least the same percentage in taxes of that income than normal people do". First of all, the top 10% of tax payers account for more than 50% of all taxes. And we're not talking millionaires. We're talking regular dudes with regular jobs who maybe make a little over six figures and bust their hump in thankless daily drudgery just like everyone else. Second, if you make $15k or $25k or $30k, you belong in a bracket that pays a much lower percentage than those who make more money. If you make only $75k, you pay something like 28% in taxes. If you make $15k, you pay . . . what, 10%? Correct me if I'm wrong in my math, but I think 28 is higher than 10. Even without a higher percentage, it'd be more money. 10% of $100k is a fuck of a lot more than 10% of $10k. And 28% of $100k is waaay more than 10% of $10k. Where is it that these people aren't paying their fair share, again? It sounds like they're the ones footing the bill for the other 90% of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody said that it's "okay", but it helps to put the situation in context rather than "OMG they deleted content from your kindle -- CENSORSHIPOMGBBQWTF!!!11!!"
Thank god for regulation and breaking monopolies! We have so much variety and competition, now. Up to as many as three cell providers in an area and up to as many as one broadband provider!
Your post gave me a laugh, since the reason 1984 was disabled remotely was because of copyright issues in that the person who posted it to the store did not have the rights to it and therefore, neither did Amazon. Yes, it was a little hinky in that if it was a physical copy, they probably wouldn't have come to your house to take it away, but if it was a physical copy, they probably wouldn't have reached the point where it had a deal, had a plan for reprint, made it through publishing, was distributed to stores, then sold off the shelves before someone realized there were legal issues.
Also, everything about getting your books electronically can also be applied to all content anywhere and especially over the internet, where every aspect of the interaction is driven by or on commercially motivated resources and systems.
I'm not sure what people are expecting, anyway. The eventual goal of every content producer (even those who create physical products like DVDs, CDs, books, etc) is to charge for every consumption of their product. That's why you have to register your videogames with EA to play them, now. It's not enough to spend $60 on a game or $20 on a book and then let someone else in the household enjoy it, lend it to a friend, or sell it to a used book store. You need to pay $60 for the game or $20 for the book and then everyone else in your household has to. And then your friend. And the used everything can go screw themselves.
No rational person would agree that this is right, but it is the direction we are going and there's nothing we can do about it, as far as I can see.
I don't care about the justifications. The point is, plenty of money is being spent on education and the more we spend, the less we get. The idea that "if we only spend 90% of taxes on education, we'll finally get it right!" is bullshit. Rather than demanding more funding, how about getting your shit together so you can do more with your resources?
Also, I don't have any children, so I'm already paying for your fair share. (And no, don't give me the "but you already got your education so you're just returning the favor derf derf derf" stuff as I left school a month into my first year of highschool to get a GED and made my own way in the tech industry where I've been very fortunate with no thanks to the shitty education system I wasted so many years of my life in).
I have a better idea. Don't breed until you can afford your child's expenses and let everyone else keep their money. Especially since every single educational system in this country has proven that they are both corrupt and irresponsible. Nobody would mind half of all state taxes going to education produced great results. But you can't provide shit results and then hold a knife to the tax-payer's throat saying "well, just give us *more* and we'll totally do it right next time!".
I said 55% to 65%. Currently, Oregon spends 54% on education. Colorado spends about 50% on education. I'm not sure what there is to "call me out" on. California may spend less of their overall budget on education, but there are other states. These are the two I've received end of year fiscal reports in the mail on and which are definitely very loud "pay us more, we don't have enough money to educate children!" states.
A quick skim of a few other states (Wisconsin, etc) seems to show around 30% tends to be the minimum range of funding - still more than any other expenditure on most of their books. By a lot.
You typically receive a breakdown pie-chart of how the taxes are spent each year, by your state (usually around January or February). I haven't looked at every state, but the two that I've lived in most recently have shown education expenses between around 55% to 60% despite the states having frequent loud "we don't spend enough of the money on education and we can't give the students quality schooling, because of it!" contingent. Namely, Oregon and Colorado.
I only did minimal digging around, so I didn't grab it straight from the source, but here's a chart sourced from the state of Oregon that shows 54% spent on education, 17% spent on prisons, 24% spent on human services. Colorado is at about 49% on education. Washington looks to be about 40%. Other states that I've looked at seem to show education as the biggest chunk of expenses and often accounting for around half of all expenses.
In addition, the federal government also budgets for education to supplement this.
Oregon Tax Dollars: Where do they come from and where do they go?
Colorado Tax Expenses Breakdown
Washington Tax Expense Breakdown
As a result, I have always had a difficult time taking complaints of "we don't have enough money!" seriously, when they often consume more tax resources than every other expense, combined.
Do the needful.
Yeah, whatever. Mod me down. Mark my words, though, if some teacher cold-cocked you and yelled "NEWTON!" -- that is a lesson you'd remember for the rest of your life.
It's just all so damn sad. I'm falling into a puddle of my own tears. Oh my! I mean, education only makes up around 55% to 65% of state budgets. Why, whatever will those poor destitute people, do? Clearly, they need 100% of all taxes to go to education. Then everything will be perfect and everyone will be well educated and teachers will finally be able to stop living on the street, sleeping in the gutters and living on cans of cat food!
I agree. Punch them in the face and yell NEWTON, BITCH!
No. They absorb that shit and transform it into Hello Kitty and hentai.
Agreed. How about just answering the phone when I call in for help?
I have had great experiences with support persons at my bank. They answer the phone reasonably swiftly and are very polite when we talk and they always seem to do as much as they can to truly help me instead of just get me off the phone. Put more effort into that and less into playing with the latest darling technology of the hipsteratti.
The problem is that when you assume the role of making editorial decisions, you have to be consistent and you assume a certain level of responsibility. I think people who spread this bullshit hurt a lot of people by spreading confusion and prolonging their suffering through a life of self loathing. However, stupid as it may be, the app has every right to exist and people have every right to use it or not use it. The problem is that if you accept one off-putting or even vile thing, who are you to refuse another?
Your religious bullshit is only relevant to people who subscribe to your religious bullshit. Kind of the way depicting Mohammed is some sort of "holy sin" . . . but YOU probably don't care about that because YOU don't subscribe to that faith. Likewise, I don't subscribe to your faith, either and so I don't give a fuck about your hangups. If your faith has an issue with you being gay, don't be gay. Or don't subscribe to that faith. Or be gay and be religious and be conflicted. That's your deal. How other people live their lives is irrelevant and none of your concern.
Since marriage has nothing to do with religion, but is a process in which two people are certified by a state official in the eyes of the government and the law as a unified entity with shared responsibilities and accountability, I don't see what anyone's hangups are. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure the same person applies the same state seal to marriage licenses as to filing joint corporations. Someone's religious bullshit aside (and, again, not part of the equation, since religion has nothing to do with a legal marriage), I don't see how anyone can take issue with it. If one believes "gay marriage" shouldn't be officiated, then they must logically also believe that gay people can't go into business and form corporations. Or, for that matter, sign any contracts whatsoever.
Right, because physiologically and biologically ingrained urges and the fundamental basis of your sexuality and personality are exactly like having a craving for burritos or trying not to step on cracks in sidewalks.
If someone is gay and unhappy about it, it's because they're beaten down by a society that crushes them from early on in life for something that shouldn't matter to anyone but themselves. Why else do you think that the two common reactions to life for gay people are to either be latent, repressed, spiteful, hateful, anti-gay politicians and activists or militant, out-there, hardcore pro-gay?
And don't think for a minute that if the "straight life-style" was under the same scrutiny and judgement that you and I wouldn't tend to react in much the same ways.
It's a free world and you have the right to subscribe to some ridiculous "make me like vagina" propaganda if you like. Just like you have the right to mutilate yourself with the assistance of a plastic surgeon, because you're not happy with yourself. But in both cases, you're most likely just fine . . . separated from the bigoted light of society.
What do the particular details of your bullshit idiocy matter? Specific quotes from a piece of text aren't very relevant when the fundamental problem with the whole thing is IT'S ALL FUCKING IMAGINARY.
I mean, seriously, believe whatever the hell you want to believe. That's your right. But I have no intellectual obligation to know your crazy religious bullshit intimately and exhaustively to justify not believing in your crazy shit. I don't need to know every lyric to every fucking Justin Bieber song to know that I don't give a fuck about Justin Bieber. The only people who care about pedantic religious bullshit are pedantic religious bullshitters.
It's not a matter of "curing" homosexuality. It's a matter of our society not truly embracing the fundamental foundations of our country. Namely, the right to pursuit of your own happiness. Autonomy. The right to determine your own path in life, so long as you bring no direct negative consequence to an unwilling person.
Anyway, some self loathing gay men try to compensate by founding "ministries" like this and bashing the gay out of others in the hopes that it hides their own cock-hunger. Others become politicians -- the kind of politicians that sponsor extremely hateful legislation that undermines the pursuit of one's own way in the world.
Rational people just don't put that much energy and attention into something like that if it isn't a direct personal "demon" that they're fighting. Rational people just say "I don't want a cock in my ass, so the best way for me to avoid it is not to take a cock in the ass" and if other people want a cock in their asses, that's their business. And people carry on.
It's unfortunate that people like that can't just accept who they are and live a fulfilling life. Instead, they spend their whole life hiding it and aiding the very people and organizations that make their own life a living hell. A sort of vicious circle. Until someone uncovers their secret, of course. And then they go into cock-rehab (like Ted Haggart did . . . and Larry Craig, if I recall?).
I'm just impressed that he understood that "you're" is a contraction.
That's just crazy. Everyone knows god doesn't bless you in return for money. He does it in return for you drinking his son's blood and eating his bones and then saying a bunch of hail mary's while obsessively fondling a string of cheap beads. Unless you wear clothing made of mixed textiles or are in the presence of a menstruating woman, of course. Then there's nothing he can do for you.
Because bashing an imaginary being is exactly like bashing a real live human being.
Yeah, because the next guy will be really different.
That's what was amusing about this past election. All these fucking naive idiots acting like the world was going to change. Shocker for you, as long as all people base their votes on is "but what's it going to do for ME!" rather than principal, all we're going to get is douche bags. It's always "who believes the same mythology as me?" and "who is going to support or push my religion over the others" and "who is going to give me free health care" and "who is going to give me free education" and "who is going to give me more social security". It's never about "who supports fundamental rights like privacy, speech, and one's pursuit of happiness?".
That's idiotic. Forward progress IS budget cuts. What fucking kind of budget do you work with where it's considered PROGRESS because you saved less and spent more? Progress would be having the balls to tell all these whiny bitches to fuck off when you have to cut their programs. Everyone has a special interest and pet program so if you cut things, someone's always going to be pissed. But that's the price you have to pay so that you don't have to pay the price. Pissing off a few whiny twats seems worth it to avoid being a trillion dollars over budget and 15 trillion in deficit.
I don't think you understand how any of this works. People who make more money DO pay "at least the same percentage in taxes of that income than normal people do". First of all, the top 10% of tax payers account for more than 50% of all taxes. And we're not talking millionaires. We're talking regular dudes with regular jobs who maybe make a little over six figures and bust their hump in thankless daily drudgery just like everyone else. Second, if you make $15k or $25k or $30k, you belong in a bracket that pays a much lower percentage than those who make more money. If you make only $75k, you pay something like 28% in taxes. If you make $15k, you pay . . . what, 10%? Correct me if I'm wrong in my math, but I think 28 is higher than 10. Even without a higher percentage, it'd be more money. 10% of $100k is a fuck of a lot more than 10% of $10k. And 28% of $100k is waaay more than 10% of $10k. Where is it that these people aren't paying their fair share, again? It sounds like they're the ones footing the bill for the other 90% of the country.