I meet so many people claiming to be atheist who say god doesn't exist and then attempt to impress that belief onto you by citing where they think science proves religion wrong because they found natural ways to understand nature without the need of a creator or God. I call them evangelical atheist and there are absolutely a lot of them out there.
Now that may be the belief you hold, in that you do not claim the antithesis and it may be the experience you have where you are minding your own business and someone attempts to shoehorn your existence into some predefined little box they can use to their advantage somehow. But in the rest of the world, it's a bidirectional thing where it is sometimes quite different than what you seem to experience.
I can understand the entire distrust compassion thing in ways not to be in conflict.
You see, it is sort of like Greeks bearing gifts so to say (trojan horse). People doing evil can hide behind compassion and compassion in and of itself can have bad outcomes even with good intentions. Lets say we had a group of people who were discriminated again for a long time in history because of the color of their skin or some social status their ancestors once held. Now lets say some well meaning and compassionate politicians decided to take care of them and built high rise apartments for all of them who were having trouble paying their rent to live in. Sounds good and compassionate right? except now you have a concentration of people having difficulty with jobs in one area that has a limited amount of jobs. Sure they can use public transportation which causes their commute to increase by 2 or more hours a day for low paying work so instead, we give them a stipend for their welfare which is increased for each child they have when they cannot find work. This ends up increasing the population concentration problems and exponentially increases the unemployable of most living in this condensed area.
So in this example compassion housed, feed, and clothed a number of people. But it also made it difficult for them to do most of that for themselves by making a living on their own. Sure people overcome it, but others find it too difficult to do so. I think this was an unintended consequence and I'm not sure the problems or issues are still present like they were in the mid 70s and 80s but you can see how devious plotters could have intended things to turn out that way also.
So perhaps what he means is not limited to distrust people feeling for others, but the actions done in the name of compassion. A hand out or a hand up. They both start with hands reaching in compassion.
A big reason why a technical solution like doesn't work (isn't accepted by the masses) is because it requires someone knowing the location of the phones. In this article, it says it checks the location specifically to determine who the likely driver is. I'm not going to give a third party who is not strictly regulated in how and what can be done with this information permission to track my location 24/7 in order to tell if I'm driving my car or someone else is just to disable communications.
For the most part, people can safely do it. Well, in a technical sense it is less safe than not texting while driving but so many people do it without incident each and every day that they consider it safe enough for them to do it.
It is a lot like driving with one hand verses two at the ten and two positions. Many people can safely drive with one hand but it is safer to be in the ten and two positions with two hands which is why we need to do it to pass most driving tests.
It doesn't matter if they change or not. The costs of dealing with those changes are almost the same so the point that the costs would be negligible compared to not changing is still valid.
What is actually happening when someone pays someone else for a ride has been regulated for quite some time now (limousine and taxis). Certainly longer than Uber or Ride Sharing which is actually a taxicab business with limitations has existed. California even created a separate regulation class for the ride sharing but it doesn't cover multiple fares at the same time which is why they need to get more permits.
I would say this is more of an example of government regulation and the mindset that wants every business regulated. This entire concept of ride sharing which in practice is the same as taxi/coach/livery has been regulated for quite a long time already. Except in this instance, the state of California actually created a separate regulation class to allow Uber and so on to exist within the framework of regulation the state demanded. This is also where the problem seems to arise, the niche hole they created shoe horned them into a little spot which they are trying to get around now. But what they want to do also places them into another already regulated category so they need to either get the law changed or get permits for the other category also.
Before this, they would have been considered either a taxi cab or limousine service and regulated under a different set of rules in California.
It may be the richest person getting to set the rules for everyone else, but in California, it seems that the public was demanding it also at one time. I'm not sure why when people demand business be regulated but are shocked that when they act like businesses, they end up being regulated too.
And I am saying that there are consequences to not following the laws. Some of them are pretty nasty too. Either be prepared to meet those consequences, find a way to change the laws, or follow the laws- or even do a combination of that.
This is what happens when you get a culture that wants to regulate every business heavily. You will find that when people act like businesses, they become regulated.
You do realize that they are already regulated and have gotten permits to operate in California right? They won the battle by complying with the law. I don't think this supports your supposition much though.
Revolting against England was illegal, yet we did it anyway.
And people got killed, imprisoned, and tortured for doing it too. Lets not pretend the revolutionary war was not a war and England turned a blind eye and let it happen.
Are you suggesting that we should face the same? Get enough people together to support you and try it.
Neither. It is a case of a state regulating a commercial activity which this definitely is. California is heavy handed on regulation but I'm not sure this would be much different elsewhere. I'm sure there has been some incident or something happen in the past in which California decided to regulate like this, or it could be some incident someone theorized about when the laws and regulations were being passed.
And before someone says it's their car, the regulation does not prevent them from picking up extra people and not charging them. It appears the problem is in picking up extra people and charging each person a portion or separate fees. You own a stove and microwave and can make dinner for any number of people, but when you ask them to pay for their meals, it becomes a commercial activity and subject to regulation. This is not really any different. Except there may be better or more sound reasoning behind some of the health code regulations.
Not much more than it would when Windows was redesigned in 7 or 8.
That's the problem with constantly changing the UI on windows releases. We saw it when going from 98/ME/2000 to XP and again from XP to 7 and again with 8. There will be a support influx with each change so I'm not sure it is of any concern.
Sort of.. But there is more to the story. It appears that most of the complaints were with OpenOffice.org capability. But neither, the migration to MS or decision to stick it out is set in stone as far as I am aware.
No, I know what you appear to think the emails said. I also know the email you are eliptically refering to had nothing to do with:
And yet when taken at their word without the background and context, it points to another direction. You can claim any statement is ultimately true and worth or just and proper, the problem is in how it appears to people. Take Mitt Romney's 47% quote for instance, it is purely proper in the context of how to spend campaign contributions to say that 47% of the people would never vote for him so they need to convince the other 53% and that in no way means those 47% are ignored or will be ignored if elected, but how did the public receive it? There is your problem, just like it was Romeny's problem.
The post I wrote was about people politically co-opting the science or the presentation of the science and being skeptical because of that instead of big oil paying for studies and crap. I mean hell, a democrat senator said he colluded with James Hansen during their 1988 presentation to congress in order to pick the historically hottest week for the presentation and then disable the AC systems in order to give the presentation more weight and when asked about it, Hansen said it was appropriate and justified because of how he felt the cause needed pushed.
Like I said, The distrust is not all about money backing something. The distrust is also in the politicking involved. Those emails could have said Jesus was coming and it wouldn't have made a difference to what I said because the politicking and appearances of them. The content simply isn't important, what is important is how it appeared to some.
Within the state perhaps, but the picking is in bringing these companies to the states instead of others.
I do agree that it distorts the market though. It gives the illusion that these taxes and fees are necessary in the first place just to be forgiven when attracting someone from outside the system. If any state can actually give these subsidies and tax breaks, it is a sure sign they are taxing and charging too much already.
Further, if you have read The Federalist Papers you will see both how naive Madison, Hamilton and Day were on the tax issue, as well as their ideas on taxes in general. They square, more or less, with how things are done in that those who make more should pay more not as a form of punishment but only because they can.
You have to remember there was no income tax at the federal level back then. The argument was against the states paying the taxes based on the values of land owned within them. What they were pushing was that the tax was equally divided among it's populous with the division of slaves only being three fifths. So the government would say we need to raise $1000 in taxes, it would then present a bill to each of the states for their share based on the number of people living in those states. The states would then tax the people and pay it. Under the articles of confederation, the states would have to assess the value of all lands, buildings, and other improvements within their boundaries and then tax the owners based on a portion needed to pay the federal taxes. They were also pushing for the ability to tax imports and exports.
As to taxing the rich, see above. It's not a punishment, regardless of what some on the left will say, but only the fact that they can afford to pay more without that extra money affecting their lifestyles. Compare someone making $50K/year who has a 2% increase in their federal tax rate to someone making $250K/year. That 2% impacts them significantly more than the second person even though the amount is more in the latter case.
And the argument is convincingly made that $1000 is less than $5000. The antithesis of the impacts on lifestyles is that if more people had an impact on their lifestyle, they would be on the government to spend what is only necessary and avoid waste. In fact, that is one of the premises behind these so called fair tax schemes- people will be exposed to the cost of their wants from government and choose only the ones really necessary while avoiding the rent seekers and dependents.
Something like 43% of working Americans pay no federal income taxes and quite a few get back more than they paid in. It's kind of like having skin in the game. When they pay- when they are the owners, they tend to take better care of things. It's because when it breaks and comes out of your pocket, you notice it more than when someone just replaces it. If more people paid federal income taxes (Not social security or medicaid taxes), they might have more of an interest in their governance.
If we're going to lower taxes we need to make across the board cuts. There are no sacred cows. Reduce the Social Security programs, cut out military projects, stop most food and fuel subsidies, remove tax loopholes and tax benefits to a bare minimum (mortgage deduction, depreciation, etc), and so on.
It's a little more complicated then across the board cuts, but yes, all of the above need reductions.
They wont do a damned thing they haven't already done.
The problem with the breast wasn't that she showed them but where the showing happened. It happened on a station that was supposed to not show it at all due to federal regulations. When that station failed to prevent its showing, (which was entirely possible due to a broadcadt delay specifically designed to deal with stuff like that) they became upset. Its no different than you going to a library for study and getting pissed because they decided to hold a pep rally there. Except there us no federal agency restricting access to the library with control over the behavior of the participants like there is with broadcast channels.
I don't think it really matters. The FCC has to pull legal stunts which will likely be overturned in court just to get the jurisdiction to cover the internet let alone regulate it.
The bigger problem is netneutrality isn't a single issue. Ask a dozen random people and you will get half a dozen or more answers. Even the politicians who you would expect to be somewhat versed in the subject before they speak on it will have different answers. This likely means that the FCC will be under pressure from them just as much as isps. They might dven pass a law before a court rejects the FCCs regulation of it.
AS proof of that, i invite people to explain what net neutrality means and whether or not there can be fast lanes with it (yes, there can but you will see people disagree).
There are rules in place so people can know where to go without being offended. Guess what, when those rules are ignored and people are offended, they act offended and demand something be done about it. Even the game has a delay for the TV editors to change views, angles and do on. Even if the nipple slip qas an accident, the live coverage could have switched cameras without broadcasting the nipple. They didn't, people got offended, the FCc enforced the rules. Its that simple.
I see.. whenever you point something out with this topic someone has to downmod anything that doesn't toe the line. I guess it is no wonder there is a concensus if all dissent is buried and hidden.
The problem is though, it just adds to the list of crap that makes people think something is not right with the global warming theory. Keep it up and eventually the die hard fanatics will start questioning why it is neccesary to hide all comments you don't agree with in order to push climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? When has this ever happened?
If only this were true in practice.
I meet so many people claiming to be atheist who say god doesn't exist and then attempt to impress that belief onto you by citing where they think science proves religion wrong because they found natural ways to understand nature without the need of a creator or God. I call them evangelical atheist and there are absolutely a lot of them out there.
Now that may be the belief you hold, in that you do not claim the antithesis and it may be the experience you have where you are minding your own business and someone attempts to shoehorn your existence into some predefined little box they can use to their advantage somehow. But in the rest of the world, it's a bidirectional thing where it is sometimes quite different than what you seem to experience.
I can understand the entire distrust compassion thing in ways not to be in conflict.
You see, it is sort of like Greeks bearing gifts so to say (trojan horse). People doing evil can hide behind compassion and compassion in and of itself can have bad outcomes even with good intentions. Lets say we had a group of people who were discriminated again for a long time in history because of the color of their skin or some social status their ancestors once held. Now lets say some well meaning and compassionate politicians decided to take care of them and built high rise apartments for all of them who were having trouble paying their rent to live in. Sounds good and compassionate right? except now you have a concentration of people having difficulty with jobs in one area that has a limited amount of jobs. Sure they can use public transportation which causes their commute to increase by 2 or more hours a day for low paying work so instead, we give them a stipend for their welfare which is increased for each child they have when they cannot find work. This ends up increasing the population concentration problems and exponentially increases the unemployable of most living in this condensed area.
So in this example compassion housed, feed, and clothed a number of people. But it also made it difficult for them to do most of that for themselves by making a living on their own. Sure people overcome it, but others find it too difficult to do so. I think this was an unintended consequence and I'm not sure the problems or issues are still present like they were in the mid 70s and 80s but you can see how devious plotters could have intended things to turn out that way also.
So perhaps what he means is not limited to distrust people feeling for others, but the actions done in the name of compassion. A hand out or a hand up. They both start with hands reaching in compassion.
A big reason why a technical solution like doesn't work (isn't accepted by the masses) is because it requires someone knowing the location of the phones. In this article, it says it checks the location specifically to determine who the likely driver is. I'm not going to give a third party who is not strictly regulated in how and what can be done with this information permission to track my location 24/7 in order to tell if I'm driving my car or someone else is just to disable communications.
For the most part, people can safely do it. Well, in a technical sense it is less safe than not texting while driving but so many people do it without incident each and every day that they consider it safe enough for them to do it.
It is a lot like driving with one hand verses two at the ten and two positions. Many people can safely drive with one hand but it is safer to be in the ten and two positions with two hands which is why we need to do it to pass most driving tests.
It doesn't matter if they change or not. The costs of dealing with those changes are almost the same so the point that the costs would be negligible compared to not changing is still valid.
I don't think it even gets this far.
What is actually happening when someone pays someone else for a ride has been regulated for quite some time now (limousine and taxis). Certainly longer than Uber or Ride Sharing which is actually a taxicab business with limitations has existed. California even created a separate regulation class for the ride sharing but it doesn't cover multiple fares at the same time which is why they need to get more permits.
I would say this is more of an example of government regulation and the mindset that wants every business regulated. This entire concept of ride sharing which in practice is the same as taxi/coach/livery has been regulated for quite a long time already. Except in this instance, the state of California actually created a separate regulation class to allow Uber and so on to exist within the framework of regulation the state demanded. This is also where the problem seems to arise, the niche hole they created shoe horned them into a little spot which they are trying to get around now. But what they want to do also places them into another already regulated category so they need to either get the law changed or get permits for the other category also.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Before this, they would have been considered either a taxi cab or limousine service and regulated under a different set of rules in California.
It may be the richest person getting to set the rules for everyone else, but in California, it seems that the public was demanding it also at one time. I'm not sure why when people demand business be regulated but are shocked that when they act like businesses, they end up being regulated too.
And I am saying that there are consequences to not following the laws. Some of them are pretty nasty too. Either be prepared to meet those consequences, find a way to change the laws, or follow the laws- or even do a combination of that.
This is what happens when you get a culture that wants to regulate every business heavily. You will find that when people act like businesses, they become regulated.
You do realize that they are already regulated and have gotten permits to operate in California right? They won the battle by complying with the law. I don't think this supports your supposition much though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
And people got killed, imprisoned, and tortured for doing it too. Lets not pretend the revolutionary war was not a war and England turned a blind eye and let it happen.
Are you suggesting that we should face the same? Get enough people together to support you and try it.
Neither. It is a case of a state regulating a commercial activity which this definitely is. California is heavy handed on regulation but I'm not sure this would be much different elsewhere. I'm sure there has been some incident or something happen in the past in which California decided to regulate like this, or it could be some incident someone theorized about when the laws and regulations were being passed.
And before someone says it's their car, the regulation does not prevent them from picking up extra people and not charging them. It appears the problem is in picking up extra people and charging each person a portion or separate fees. You own a stove and microwave and can make dinner for any number of people, but when you ask them to pay for their meals, it becomes a commercial activity and subject to regulation. This is not really any different. Except there may be better or more sound reasoning behind some of the health code regulations.
Not much more than it would when Windows was redesigned in 7 or 8.
That's the problem with constantly changing the UI on windows releases. We saw it when going from 98/ME/2000 to XP and again from XP to 7 and again with 8. There will be a support influx with each change so I'm not sure it is of any concern.
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/201...
Sort of.. But there is more to the story. It appears that most of the complaints were with OpenOffice.org capability. But neither, the migration to MS or decision to stick it out is set in stone as far as I am aware.
The correct word would be American. Both USians and USers are idiotic and incorrect. I'm sorry you don't like fact, but facts are facts.
And yet when taken at their word without the background and context, it points to another direction. You can claim any statement is ultimately true and worth or just and proper, the problem is in how it appears to people. Take Mitt Romney's 47% quote for instance, it is purely proper in the context of how to spend campaign contributions to say that 47% of the people would never vote for him so they need to convince the other 53% and that in no way means those 47% are ignored or will be ignored if elected, but how did the public receive it? There is your problem, just like it was Romeny's problem.
The post I wrote was about people politically co-opting the science or the presentation of the science and being skeptical because of that instead of big oil paying for studies and crap. I mean hell, a democrat senator said he colluded with James Hansen during their 1988 presentation to congress in order to pick the historically hottest week for the presentation and then disable the AC systems in order to give the presentation more weight and when asked about it, Hansen said it was appropriate and justified because of how he felt the cause needed pushed.
Like I said, The distrust is not all about money backing something. The distrust is also in the politicking involved. Those emails could have said Jesus was coming and it wouldn't have made a difference to what I said because the politicking and appearances of them. The content simply isn't important, what is important is how it appeared to some.
Within the state perhaps, but the picking is in bringing these companies to the states instead of others.
I do agree that it distorts the market though. It gives the illusion that these taxes and fees are necessary in the first place just to be forgiven when attracting someone from outside the system. If any state can actually give these subsidies and tax breaks, it is a sure sign they are taxing and charging too much already.
You have to remember there was no income tax at the federal level back then. The argument was against the states paying the taxes based on the values of land owned within them. What they were pushing was that the tax was equally divided among it's populous with the division of slaves only being three fifths. So the government would say we need to raise $1000 in taxes, it would then present a bill to each of the states for their share based on the number of people living in those states. The states would then tax the people and pay it. Under the articles of confederation, the states would have to assess the value of all lands, buildings, and other improvements within their boundaries and then tax the owners based on a portion needed to pay the federal taxes. They were also pushing for the ability to tax imports and exports.
And the argument is convincingly made that $1000 is less than $5000. The antithesis of the impacts on lifestyles is that if more people had an impact on their lifestyle, they would be on the government to spend what is only necessary and avoid waste. In fact, that is one of the premises behind these so called fair tax schemes- people will be exposed to the cost of their wants from government and choose only the ones really necessary while avoiding the rent seekers and dependents.
Something like 43% of working Americans pay no federal income taxes and quite a few get back more than they paid in. It's kind of like having skin in the game. When they pay- when they are the owners, they tend to take better care of things. It's because when it breaks and comes out of your pocket, you notice it more than when someone just replaces it. If more people paid federal income taxes (Not social security or medicaid taxes), they might have more of an interest in their governance.
It's a little more complicated then across the board cuts, but yes, all of the above need reductions.
What do you mean by this? Companies do not get a vote- they can contribute to campaigns and the people behind them can vote, but the companies do not.
You are much the problem as anyone else. Its evident from your Reagan comment that you injected for no appearant reason.
Maybe none of this is surprising because realuty has many more shades that you let on about.
They wont do a damned thing they haven't already done.
The problem with the breast wasn't that she showed them but where the showing happened. It happened on a station that was supposed to not show it at all due to federal regulations. When that station failed to prevent its showing, (which was entirely possible due to a broadcadt delay specifically designed to deal with stuff like that) they became upset. Its no different than you going to a library for study and getting pissed because they decided to hold a pep rally there. Except there us no federal agency restricting access to the library with control over the behavior of the participants like there is with broadcast channels.
I don't think it really matters. The FCC has to pull legal stunts which will likely be overturned in court just to get the jurisdiction to cover the internet let alone regulate it.
The bigger problem is netneutrality isn't a single issue. Ask a dozen random people and you will get half a dozen or more answers. Even the politicians who you would expect to be somewhat versed in the subject before they speak on it will have different answers. This likely means that the FCC will be under pressure from them just as much as isps. They might dven pass a law before a court rejects the FCCs regulation of it.
AS proof of that, i invite people to explain what net neutrality means and whether or not there can be fast lanes with it (yes, there can but you will see people disagree).
It had nothing to do with that and you know it.
There are rules in place so people can know where to go without being offended. Guess what, when those rules are ignored and people are offended, they act offended and demand something be done about it. Even the game has a delay for the TV editors to change views, angles and do on. Even if the nipple slip qas an accident, the live coverage could have switched cameras without broadcasting the nipple. They didn't, people got offended, the FCc enforced the rules. Its that simple.
I see.. whenever you point something out with this topic someone has to downmod anything that doesn't toe the line. I guess it is no wonder there is a concensus if all dissent is buried and hidden.
The problem is though, it just adds to the list of crap that makes people think something is not right with the global warming theory. Keep it up and eventually the die hard fanatics will start questioning why it is neccesary to hide all comments you don't agree with in order to push climate change.
Looks to me that you know exactly where to troll and you have already started.
How you got any of that shit from anything i said is beyond me. Do yourself a favor and move on. There is nothing for you here.