Define where the poverty line is. The average family that is living completly off the rest of society has at least one car, cable TV, a VCR, a telephone, heat in the winter, and airconditioning in the summer.( I know a lot of people in the north don't have AC because they don't need it and a lot of people in large cities don't drive, this is the average)
People in poverty are generally defined in the US as the bottom 20%. That is why the number of children is always around 20% give or take a few depending on demographic distribution. I don't care what you do it is impossible to eliminate the bottom 20%. The bottom 20% of the US happed to live better lives than most of the warlords in Afganistan. I would say people who complain about how bad there life is while wearing $120 shoes and $80 shirts have no idea how good there life really is or how much better it would be if they stopped expecting others to support them and earned their own way through life. I have no sympathy for somebody you had a kid at 15, dropped out of school, and now expects me to work hard and support them. Most(not all) people in poverty are there because they made poor decisions in life. In other words they earned their hard life through there own stupid decisions. People need to learn that there are consequences to every decision they make and each person is responsible for their own desicions.
You can only cut back so much before you just don't have enough resources to get the job done. Some things can't be done halfway. In space flight doing something halfway gets you the challenger and columbia accidents.
Actually in north alabama we use an optical voting system where you fill in the area and a machine scans it on the spot, you actually feed it in yourself. If the machine can't read the votes they give you a new form and you fill it out again. That prevents the cross out of one or arrows drawn etc... Much cheaper than all this diebold stuff but you still have the avantages of it.
Actually, I am the man in the factory. I don't even know basic. What I am is working my way through college. I'm a computer tech that troubleshoots problems in a small computer production division. We have a low volume specilized market. The run from 60 to 160 pounds. I have this job because I took it upon myself to learn basic computer skills. I'm working to improve myself such that not everybody can do my job. Resulting in my being a greater worth to the company. Thus I will get paid more. To make it simple I'm working real hard to earn myself a better life. Not to mention removing the rewards for hard work removes the motivation to work hard. If I knew that no matter how hard I work I would never get ahead of the guy down the hall who shows up and leaves exactly on time and does only enough to not get fired. Why would I do more than that? What would be the point? To improve the lives of those who do the minimum? If you say there should be rewards for the people who work hard then you are expressing the essence of capitalism. You did mention the problem with communism in your post. Though its a great theory it is so easy for a corrupt person to grab control that it has happened every time.
Ahhh, yes. If You ensure that nobody has anything to gain then they will all do it well. Or they just won't do it at all. How come every so called communist state never got around to distributing everything equally? They have managed to make most of the population equally miserable though. Ahhh the wonderful thought of knowing that no matter how hard I work I will not improve my situation any. How motivating! Capitalism is only bad if your too lazy to earn a good living.
There are no group of people who more oppose freedom of expression that those who trumpet "diversity" and "tolerance". For example there was a court case in the US where a school had a presentation about homosexuality billed as "diversity". Surprise, surprise, only approved points of view were allowed to be shown.
I'll point out that no country has the legel protections for its citizens that the US does. The US still runs on the principal that power is granted to the government by the people. Rights are are defined as inseperable from the person. Most Europeans I have read seem to approach rights as something granted by the government. The US is the far out extremist compared to almost every other country in our theory of government. To submit ourselves to the judgement of those other countrys is to dilute our theory of government. How can we while believing that power flows from the bottom up put ourselves under people who believe that power flows from the top down?
In addition the US Constitution declares itself to be the law of the land. The constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal(military actions short of delcaring war). This is why UN and ICC support cannot be required for the US to preform military actions. To require that would undermine the very bedrock of our governmental system.
In the article he mentions that not all the questions he lists were on the test. I believe he inserted the question to provide comcic relief and to illustrate the depth and length of the questioning.
When dealing with NSA level stuff they better use that they were not sure as a reason to reject an applicant. They shouldn't be giving their level of information to somebody that they arn't sure about.
Of course mandating that all phones be able to recieve the same sim card can cause problems. What happens when the current sim card format becomes a limiting factor on phone improvment? Do all the cell phone makers have to get together to agree on a new standard? Why would they? In the US if someone comes up with "THE NEXT BIG FEATURE" that requires a new sim card they just design the new sim card. Then they have a marketing edge. Thus everybody has an incentive to always improve the product even if current standards would inhibit the improvment.
I have T-mobile and I have never had problems with their customer service. The only coverage problems I've had are when I get real far out in the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Define where the poverty line is. The average family that is living completly off the rest of society has at least one car, cable TV, a VCR, a telephone, heat in the winter, and airconditioning in the summer.( I know a lot of people in the north don't have AC because they don't need it and a lot of people in large cities don't drive, this is the average) People in poverty are generally defined in the US as the bottom 20%. That is why the number of children is always around 20% give or take a few depending on demographic distribution. I don't care what you do it is impossible to eliminate the bottom 20%. The bottom 20% of the US happed to live better lives than most of the warlords in Afganistan. I would say people who complain about how bad there life is while wearing $120 shoes and $80 shirts have no idea how good there life really is or how much better it would be if they stopped expecting others to support them and earned their own way through life. I have no sympathy for somebody you had a kid at 15, dropped out of school, and now expects me to work hard and support them. Most(not all) people in poverty are there because they made poor decisions in life. In other words they earned their hard life through there own stupid decisions. People need to learn that there are consequences to every decision they make and each person is responsible for their own desicions.
You can only cut back so much before you just don't have enough resources to get the job done. Some things can't be done halfway. In space flight doing something halfway gets you the challenger and columbia accidents.
Actually in north alabama we use an optical voting system where you fill in the area and a machine scans it on the spot, you actually feed it in yourself. If the machine can't read the votes they give you a new form and you fill it out again. That prevents the cross out of one or arrows drawn etc... Much cheaper than all this diebold stuff but you still have the avantages of it.
Actually, I am the man in the factory. I don't even know basic. What I am is working my way through college. I'm a computer tech that troubleshoots problems in a small computer production division. We have a low volume specilized market. The run from 60 to 160 pounds. I have this job because I took it upon myself to learn basic computer skills. I'm working to improve myself such that not everybody can do my job. Resulting in my being a greater worth to the company. Thus I will get paid more. To make it simple I'm working real hard to earn myself a better life. Not to mention removing the rewards for hard work removes the motivation to work hard. If I knew that no matter how hard I work I would never get ahead of the guy down the hall who shows up and leaves exactly on time and does only enough to not get fired. Why would I do more than that? What would be the point? To improve the lives of those who do the minimum? If you say there should be rewards for the people who work hard then you are expressing the essence of capitalism. You did mention the problem with communism in your post. Though its a great theory it is so easy for a corrupt person to grab control that it has happened every time.
Ahhh, yes. If You ensure that nobody has anything to gain then they will all do it well. Or they just won't do it at all. How come every so called communist state never got around to distributing everything equally? They have managed to make most of the population equally miserable though. Ahhh the wonderful thought of knowing that no matter how hard I work I will not improve my situation any. How motivating! Capitalism is only bad if your too lazy to earn a good living.
There are no group of people who more oppose freedom of expression that those who trumpet "diversity" and "tolerance". For example there was a court case in the US where a school had a presentation about homosexuality billed as "diversity". Surprise, surprise, only approved points of view were allowed to be shown.
I'll point out that no country has the legel protections for its citizens that the US does. The US still runs on the principal that power is granted to the government by the people. Rights are are defined as inseperable from the person. Most Europeans I have read seem to approach rights as something granted by the government. The US is the far out extremist compared to almost every other country in our theory of government. To submit ourselves to the judgement of those other countrys is to dilute our theory of government. How can we while believing that power flows from the bottom up put ourselves under people who believe that power flows from the top down? In addition the US Constitution declares itself to be the law of the land. The constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal(military actions short of delcaring war). This is why UN and ICC support cannot be required for the US to preform military actions. To require that would undermine the very bedrock of our governmental system.
In the article he mentions that not all the questions he lists were on the test. I believe he inserted the question to provide comcic relief and to illustrate the depth and length of the questioning.
When dealing with NSA level stuff they better use that they were not sure as a reason to reject an applicant. They shouldn't be giving their level of information to somebody that they arn't sure about.
This is a great idea untill you need the information the person is handing you.
Of course mandating that all phones be able to recieve the same sim card can cause problems. What happens when the current sim card format becomes a limiting factor on phone improvment? Do all the cell phone makers have to get together to agree on a new standard? Why would they? In the US if someone comes up with "THE NEXT BIG FEATURE" that requires a new sim card they just design the new sim card. Then they have a marketing edge. Thus everybody has an incentive to always improve the product even if current standards would inhibit the improvment.
I have T-mobile and I have never had problems with their customer service. The only coverage problems I've had are when I get real far out in the country.