You know, illegal immigrants didn't write the laws and create all this bullshit. It seems kind of silly to hold them responsible for it. So they live in a corrupt pseudo dictatorship where they can't get by. Obviously they can't afford a lawyer because they have no money. And even if they did, there are quotas on the number of people from each country who can legally immigrate to the US. That basically means that if you're mexican and you want to move to the US, you are boned.
It seems that unthinking people often point them and essentially blame them for the problem even though they were born into it and are powerless to change it (except by coming to the US, illegally, of course, but you have a problem with that for some reason). In fact, the law is what is broken and wrong, not these "illegal" people who have no legal means to better their situation.
"So you would have no problem if someone broke into your house and stole your crap if they did it to feed their families, right?"
This question is disgusting to me. I would rather loose my laptop or my car than let a whole family starve to death. Who wouldn't? I mean, really?!
This is truly a stupid thing you've written here. Do you honestly believe that most people who support illegal immigration wouldn't rather be supporting legal immigration? Do you know what comprehensive immigration reform is? It's first admitting that the existing system is wrong and then trying to fix it. That is what supporters of illegal immigration support. They by no means wish to keep it illegal.
Are illegal immigrants somehow less human than their legal counterparts, and therefore less worthy of our concern and support? You are an asshole if you think so. And don't give me some "they broke the law" bullshit. Everyone breaks the law every day. At least they did it because they were trying to earn a living for themselves and their families. An unjust law is unworthy of the name.
Having achieved fame, she has shed the arty, self-knowing persona of her early period and has come to embody all of the pop life’s worst attributes: egomania, pretension, and self-importance, topped off with a big, steaming pile of histrionics.
sounds pretty thoughtful to me. ..
You know, you don't have to like her music. But this rant, which you think is insightful, is just a bunch of whiny nonsense. There's no need to cut someone down just because she's famous, or to call her fans drones just because you don't like the music they like. Obviously they see something in it you don't see. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them. Different things speak to different people.
Uh, I've never met a construction contractor with no hammer. I have noticed that if you drive a lot of nails, the nailgun is worthwhile, but you will still encounter situations where you need a hammer. The same has not proven true with trains. Trains have rarely rarely (and today never) show benefit over cars for transporting people in the US (typically they cost more, and take more time, and are much less convenient). That's what they mean when they say trains have not been profitable. They're just saying that the train (nailgun in your example) has never been a superior alternative to the car (hammer, in your example), and hence installing a rail line will not be a worthwhile venture.
If you need the car do do your job, and you don't have the car, you will not make more at the job, as you will no longer have it. If you are a construction contractor with no hammer, and you need a hammer to pound in the nails, you aren't going to be making money. Considering tools as a liability is the reason so many managers make such poor decisions when trying to save money. You need to change the way you think.
The problem is that the actual premium people pay is even larger than they realize. I understand that there are a lot of benefits, but the cost is financially is so much larger that it's hard to believe they could have won out without government subsides and anticompetitive behavior. Also, you're talking about trains, but the conspiracy was to eliminate electric trollies, which have very different economics.
Incidentally, I was walking because I found that it was actually faster than the bus if my trip was under about 5 miles depending on the bus routs. That's a testament to just how bad public transportation is in most cities.
How much time do you spend watching television or surfing the internet or reading a book every day? Do you think maybe you could do that on the bus/train? Maybe you will actually have more time, since you can't do that while you're driving.
I used to walk everywhere (that's no small feat in the OC) and I found that even though I was spending hours walking every day, I was able to get more done (than when I had been driving) because I would budget my time and only schedule one or two things to do every day. On top of that, I was healthier and happier walking. Of course, I eventually did have to buy a car, but when I move to the east coast later this year I am planning to dramatically scale back on my driving again.
Next you will tell me that a hammer doesn't make any money for it's owner, or that my computer doesn't make any money for me. It's a tool. You use it. If you need a car to drive to work, you need it to make money at work. Think about it.
There is now general agreement that GM and other companies were indeed actively involved in a largely unpublicized program to purchase many streetcar systems and convert them to buses, which they often supplied. There is also acknowledgment that the Great Depression, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, labor unrest, market forces, rapidly increasing traffic congestion, taxation policies that favored private vehicle ownership, urban sprawl, and general enthusiasm for the automobile played a major or possibly more significant role. One author recently summed the situation up as follows: "Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction."[n 1]
In other words, you can't really say that people chose trains. It's hard to say what would have happened in the absence of this conspiracy. But they definitely had their finger on the scale, so to speak. I believe that were it not for this conspiracy, government subsidies of automobiles and gasoline, and the construction of the interstate freeway system, there's no way cars would have been able to overcome the fiscal disadvantage they bear and overtake electric traction. But who knows, maybe most people would have thought the cars were worth it. They are very sexy.
This is a truly stupid way to think. You're basically just picking through to choose people who have the same interests and habits as yourself under the assumption that they would be more reasonable than everyone else. I've got news for you, everyone does stupid shit. You can't tell who's going to make a mistake just based on what sort of person they seem to be based on your own myopic world view. I reality, everyone is going to let you down at some time or another. You have to work with people individually rather than painting with such a broad brush.
I don't think it's entirely fair to blame Facebook for the irrational behavior of our overlords. But if everybody puts all there shit on there, eventually it will get to the point where those assholes won't have anybody to work for them anymore. So they'll have to bite the bullet and get real. That would be a good thing in end.
I don't know where you learned to write in English, but you couldn't possibly be more wrong about how to use capitalization. You've basically got it completely backwards by implying that the more there are of something the more it's ok to capitalize the word. You capitalize a word when it refers to a specific object (if it's a proper noun). So for people who believe there is only one god, it is written "God". If you believe that there are many gods, or no gods, or that the concept is in some way fundamentally flawed, you don't need to capitalize it. But you also shouldn't treat it as a proper noun, as such usage would be confusing.
Drunk is when you are impaired, buzzed is when you can feel the effects of the alcohol, but are not impaired. For example, a buzzed driver has been drinking, but has a reasonable expectation of passing a breathalyzer/sobriety test, while a drunk driver should not reasonably expect to pass. So yes, drunk is drunk, but buzzed is not drunk.
If you held on to the copy, you can keep it since it is DRM free. It won't disappear, and you can manually sync it between your devices. But you will no longer be able to download it from iCloud if you stop paying the $25/year.
How will this work with the songs ripped off my friends bands CD that are not available on iTunes (im not clear on that... can I still use this service?).
It will upload and store the songs it can't match. And yes, I am pretty sure you have to pay the $25 for as long as you want to use the service. But that makes sense, as apple is agreeing to store the songs it can't match.
I already looked up the unemployment rates. I'm afraid you're the one who hasn't done any homework, saying "Some US commentators are putting the actual US unemployment rate at around 20%" without saying what that means, or looking a relevant statistic for france to compare it to. Do you think I'm just going to say "well, some guy on the internet mad a half-ass claim based son something he heard somewhere so I guess that nullifies the actual, published, statistics". I am not an idiot.
Thats meaningless, as the unemployment rate in france can suffer from the same criticisms and is calculated the same way. You've got to compare apples to apples, or else you're just talking out your ass (which commentators are prone to doing).
All these things need to be protected In order to promote reasonable discourse. If you take anything off the table you risk marginalizing legitimate viewpoints and ending discussion. Expression is much more important than people's desire to go through life un-challenged and un-offended. Anything can be considered offensive or subversive or dangerous or pornographic by the right person. You have to accept the viewpoints of others if you are really want to peacefully coexist with them. Just because people don't say something doesn't mean they didn't think it, and it's better to know what someone thinks than to stop them from talking, even if they are just trying to offend you. Too much goes unsaid already.
Not saying anything about it particular to this case, just that its so very overused its become tiring. Pretty much anything can be justified, including urinating on religious symbols and taking images of them (and yes that happened).
I'm not sure what you point is then. It's not like there's anything wrong with that
Is anyone else tired of this whole "Freedom of Speech" excuse which always seems to crop up every single time?
Anytime someone gets in trouble just for expressing themselves, you mean? I think a lot of people get tired of hearing about "authorities" trying to stop people from expressing themselves. I suspect you are the only one who is tired of the "excuse" that people need to be able to express themselves in order for society to function.
On an unrelated note, if this kind of thing really does bother you, why did you even read the fucking summary?
Also, contrast the life of the average Frenchman to ours. They live longer, have more free time, have medical and JOBS.
Actually, the unemployment rate in France is higher than in the US (9.5% vs. 8.7%), and it is very difficult for young people to find jobs there. If you recall, there was a major bout of riots in 2009 over it, and smaller riots have been occurring since then.
Just think if we would have followed the French's lead on Iraq, we wouldn't have invaded and wasted trillions of dollars in a war that we get absolutely NOTHING from. Leave it to the Right wingers to smear them after they didn't play ball with them.
I don't think we should have invaded Iraq (and I didn't think so at the time), but did you know that France had strong economic ties to Iraq at the time that probably contributed to their decision to oppose the war? It would be similar to the US opposing war on Saudi Arabia, or the UAE (which we certainly would). Those kind of decisions are made the same way in France as they are in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, enforcing an unjust law is unjust. Obviously.
You know, illegal immigrants didn't write the laws and create all this bullshit. It seems kind of silly to hold them responsible for it. So they live in a corrupt pseudo dictatorship where they can't get by. Obviously they can't afford a lawyer because they have no money. And even if they did, there are quotas on the number of people from each country who can legally immigrate to the US. That basically means that if you're mexican and you want to move to the US, you are boned.
It seems that unthinking people often point them and essentially blame them for the problem even though they were born into it and are powerless to change it (except by coming to the US, illegally, of course, but you have a problem with that for some reason). In fact, the law is what is broken and wrong, not these "illegal" people who have no legal means to better their situation.
"So you would have no problem if someone broke into your house and stole your crap if they did it to feed their families, right?"
This question is disgusting to me. I would rather loose my laptop or my car than let a whole family starve to death. Who wouldn't? I mean, really?!
I'm pretty sure that's the point. Give them a taste of their own medicine, so to speak.
This is truly a stupid thing you've written here. Do you honestly believe that most people who support illegal immigration wouldn't rather be supporting legal immigration? Do you know what comprehensive immigration reform is? It's first admitting that the existing system is wrong and then trying to fix it. That is what supporters of illegal immigration support. They by no means wish to keep it illegal.
Are illegal immigrants somehow less human than their legal counterparts, and therefore less worthy of our concern and support? You are an asshole if you think so. And don't give me some "they broke the law" bullshit. Everyone breaks the law every day. At least they did it because they were trying to earn a living for themselves and their families. An unjust law is unworthy of the name.
sounds pretty thoughtful to me. . .
You know, you don't have to like her music. But this rant, which you think is insightful, is just a bunch of whiny nonsense. There's no need to cut someone down just because she's famous, or to call her fans drones just because you don't like the music they like. Obviously they see something in it you don't see. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them. Different things speak to different people.
Uh, I've never met a construction contractor with no hammer. I have noticed that if you drive a lot of nails, the nailgun is worthwhile, but you will still encounter situations where you need a hammer. The same has not proven true with trains. Trains have rarely rarely (and today never) show benefit over cars for transporting people in the US (typically they cost more, and take more time, and are much less convenient). That's what they mean when they say trains have not been profitable. They're just saying that the train (nailgun in your example) has never been a superior alternative to the car (hammer, in your example), and hence installing a rail line will not be a worthwhile venture.
If you need the car do do your job, and you don't have the car, you will not make more at the job, as you will no longer have it. If you are a construction contractor with no hammer, and you need a hammer to pound in the nails, you aren't going to be making money. Considering tools as a liability is the reason so many managers make such poor decisions when trying to save money. You need to change the way you think.
The problem is that the actual premium people pay is even larger than they realize. I understand that there are a lot of benefits, but the cost is financially is so much larger that it's hard to believe they could have won out without government subsides and anticompetitive behavior. Also, you're talking about trains, but the conspiracy was to eliminate electric trollies, which have very different economics.
Incidentally, I was walking because I found that it was actually faster than the bus if my trip was under about 5 miles depending on the bus routs. That's a testament to just how bad public transportation is in most cities.
How much time do you spend watching television or surfing the internet or reading a book every day? Do you think maybe you could do that on the bus/train? Maybe you will actually have more time, since you can't do that while you're driving.
I used to walk everywhere (that's no small feat in the OC) and I found that even though I was spending hours walking every day, I was able to get more done (than when I had been driving) because I would budget my time and only schedule one or two things to do every day. On top of that, I was healthier and happier walking. Of course, I eventually did have to buy a car, but when I move to the east coast later this year I am planning to dramatically scale back on my driving again.
Next you will tell me that a hammer doesn't make any money for it's owner, or that my computer doesn't make any money for me. It's a tool. You use it. If you need a car to drive to work, you need it to make money at work. Think about it.
In other words, you can't really say that people chose trains. It's hard to say what would have happened in the absence of this conspiracy. But they definitely had their finger on the scale, so to speak. I believe that were it not for this conspiracy, government subsidies of automobiles and gasoline, and the construction of the interstate freeway system, there's no way cars would have been able to overcome the fiscal disadvantage they bear and overtake electric traction. But who knows, maybe most people would have thought the cars were worth it. They are very sexy.
This is a truly stupid way to think. You're basically just picking through to choose people who have the same interests and habits as yourself under the assumption that they would be more reasonable than everyone else. I've got news for you, everyone does stupid shit. You can't tell who's going to make a mistake just based on what sort of person they seem to be based on your own myopic world view. I reality, everyone is going to let you down at some time or another. You have to work with people individually rather than painting with such a broad brush.
I don't think it's entirely fair to blame Facebook for the irrational behavior of our overlords. But if everybody puts all there shit on there, eventually it will get to the point where those assholes won't have anybody to work for them anymore. So they'll have to bite the bullet and get real. That would be a good thing in end.
A nuclear bomb comtains much less fissile material than a nuclear reactor, so there is less fallout and it is more widely dispersed.
I don't know where you learned to write in English, but you couldn't possibly be more wrong about how to use capitalization. You've basically got it completely backwards by implying that the more there are of something the more it's ok to capitalize the word. You capitalize a word when it refers to a specific object (if it's a proper noun). So for people who believe there is only one god, it is written "God". If you believe that there are many gods, or no gods, or that the concept is in some way fundamentally flawed, you don't need to capitalize it. But you also shouldn't treat it as a proper noun, as such usage would be confusing.
Drunk is when you are impaired, buzzed is when you can feel the effects of the alcohol, but are not impaired. For example, a buzzed driver has been drinking, but has a reasonable expectation of passing a breathalyzer/sobriety test, while a drunk driver should not reasonably expect to pass. So yes, drunk is drunk, but buzzed is not drunk.
If you held on to the copy, you can keep it since it is DRM free. It won't disappear, and you can manually sync it between your devices. But you will no longer be able to download it from iCloud if you stop paying the $25/year.
It will upload and store the songs it can't match. And yes, I am pretty sure you have to pay the $25 for as long as you want to use the service. But that makes sense, as apple is agreeing to store the songs it can't match.
I already looked up the unemployment rates. I'm afraid you're the one who hasn't done any homework, saying "Some US commentators are putting the actual US unemployment rate at around 20%" without saying what that means, or looking a relevant statistic for france to compare it to. Do you think I'm just going to say "well, some guy on the internet mad a half-ass claim based son something he heard somewhere so I guess that nullifies the actual, published, statistics". I am not an idiot.
Thats meaningless, as the unemployment rate in france can suffer from the same criticisms and is calculated the same way. You've got to compare apples to apples, or else you're just talking out your ass (which commentators are prone to doing).
All these things need to be protected In order to promote reasonable discourse. If you take anything off the table you risk marginalizing legitimate viewpoints and ending discussion. Expression is much more important than people's desire to go through life un-challenged and un-offended. Anything can be considered offensive or subversive or dangerous or pornographic by the right person. You have to accept the viewpoints of others if you are really want to peacefully coexist with them. Just because people don't say something doesn't mean they didn't think it, and it's better to know what someone thinks than to stop them from talking, even if they are just trying to offend you. Too much goes unsaid already.
I'm not sure what you point is then. It's not like there's anything wrong with that
Anytime someone gets in trouble just for expressing themselves, you mean? I think a lot of people get tired of hearing about "authorities" trying to stop people from expressing themselves. I suspect you are the only one who is tired of the "excuse" that people need to be able to express themselves in order for society to function.
On an unrelated note, if this kind of thing really does bother you, why did you even read the fucking summary?
Actually, the unemployment rate in France is higher than in the US (9.5% vs. 8.7%), and it is very difficult for young people to find jobs there. If you recall, there was a major bout of riots in 2009 over it, and smaller riots have been occurring since then.
I don't think we should have invaded Iraq (and I didn't think so at the time), but did you know that France had strong economic ties to Iraq at the time that probably contributed to their decision to oppose the war? It would be similar to the US opposing war on Saudi Arabia, or the UAE (which we certainly would). Those kind of decisions are made the same way in France as they are in the US.