Most western countries have unemployment benefits conditional to actively searching for a new job.
Which comes out of your paycheck when you are working. Which is limited in the amount it pays, and the amount of time it will work. Quite different from socialized healthcare, which would allow people to do nothing to take care of their own health and then spread the costs to everyone else.
Oh, and it also doesn't pay if I got myself fired!
Yes; you figure you can benefit from one but not another. That is why you want common defense - which, let's be honest here, means that people might be required to actually die for you - but aren't willing to pay a single penny to help others. That is indeed a huge difference between these forms of cooperation, at least as far as you are concerned.
Yup. People only ever work together willingly when each party will benefit. There's no benefit to me in "helping" another not die because they've made bad choices all their life. You have the freedom to eat whatever you like; you also have the freedom to suffer the consequences of those actions on your own. I chose to live a healthier lifestyle. I shouldn't be stolen from because you do not, I get nothing in return.
And I won't help defend you or your rights or property. Have fun in the jungle.
Have fun dying from heart disease you could have easily prevented. You fail to understand freedom; you and I are free to agree to help defend each other from a third, outside party. There's an equal exchange. What you want is the right to be irresponsible and then have ME clean up after you. Honestly, why would I want to do that?
How is it a strawman to suggest that we let libertarians and their ilk to get what they want; namely, a place with no oversight whatsoever by the government or any other such entity ?
The strawman is comparing healthcare to national defense, and then saying because I don't want one, we shouldn't have the other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Unless, of course, what you really want is a society based entirely on what you think you need and screw everyone else ? Which, I suppose, pretty much is the libertarian ideology...
I want a society in which I am largely left alone. The one our founders intended. Where we are united in protecting everyone's rights, and that's it. Not paying for the irresponsiblity others.
If you're fat, stop eating so much and hit the gym.
The real trickery, just like the "fat free" label, companies DO NOT have to list ingredients below a certain percentage PER SERVING.
Serving sizes are not allowed to be arbitrarly made up by manufactors either. See the link, again. And what are you, 12? Your mommy still packing pudding in your lunch? Christ man..
Your loaf of bread likely has 16-24 servings in it. What do you honestly think the chances are that there is HFCS in there?
Zero. Looking beyond the nutrition panel, they must also list ingredients. Which is how I discovered there's no HFCS in it. Of course just because something is listed as "Sugar" doesn't mean it's HFCS. You see, wheat bread also has sugar in it naturally.
I am happy you lost that much weight, but that is by no means proof of your argument. At all. Especially when evidence to the contrary is right in front of my face, and everyone elses. I can always provide images of my proof... where is yours?
Ha. Look at the average American diet. Portions are huge, people are eating more and more, and doing less and less. I have loads of doctors on my side. Studies have shown that the people that lose the most weight and keep it off WRITE DOWN THEIR DIET. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Last I checked, there is no Soviet Union. Also, I think that's why we have the Second Amendment.. to be able to protect ourselves from others.
Your argument is simply retarded. No matter what stupid thing people do, everyone should be FORCED to help them? Should I be able to act like an idiot, get myself fired, and then expect my neighbors to pay for my basic necessities? Why don't I do just that... then I can jsut sit around all goddamn day while YOU work to feed me.
Cooperating for the common defense is one thing, but fucking stuffing your fat face so full of donuts that it kills you is quite another. I'm not going to "coopearate" in any way shape or from; stop eating so much.
Your argument is a strawman by the way; come back when you have a valid one.
We have a problem with High-Fructose corn syrup in EVERYTHING, including your vitamins.
Wrong, and also irrelevent. My vitamins don't have it, nor the bread I buy, nor the pasta I buy. I didn't look at the ingredients when choosing them either.
We have high fat foods able to claim they are "fat free" by making a two tablespoon cup of pudding "4 servings".
Also false. Ever notice that no matter what brand cheese you buy, the serving size is 28g? Or pasta is 56g dry? It's not coincidence.
Your post is amusing to me, because using labels as they are now, and adding exericse, I've been able to lose almost 80lbs of fat, and build muscle.
The problem isn't misleading labels; it's that people aren't looking at them and measuring their food.
I am so sick of this "silver bullet" cause of obesity, corn syrup. I hate to break it to you, but roe or cane sugar is only "more healthy" if it's not processed, which most sugar sold is. Finally, fat has more than double the calories as sugar, and our diet is LOADED with fat. The fact is, people eat too much food, and exercise too little.
Huh? I think you need to be smacked. Would you evenly split your grocery bill evenly with someone that eats three times as much as you do? I sure as hell wouldn't.
I fail to see what's wrong with that. If you can't take basic care of your own health, I fail to see why I should have to pay for your laziness. I'd love for fatter people to have to pay more or be dropped entirely from health insurance.
Many life insurance plans take your lifestyle into account; smoking, current health, age. Why should health insurance be any different?
Want to save money on healthcare? Force people to take responsiblity for thier day to day health themselves.
Really? This is how you feel? So were you planning on being a raging asshole or racist on one of their forums? Is it that hard to control you language on a site that doesn't allow it? Seems rather stupid to me.
I think you missed my point. At rate, that doesn't really mean anything for Linux; Apple is gaining much more than Linux. I think even that will change though; the economy is down, people won't buy an overpriced computer that they can't use most of their software with (w/o buying Windows anyway... in which case, I fail to see the point).
It was intended to slow down an invasion, by requiring an attack through Belgium. That France fell so quickly, I would argue it utterly failed. My point of view is as backed by a majority.. read the section I linked, and you'll see I'm in pretty good company with this view.
Right, because not a single American fought in the Revolutionary war.
Oh, and I think with the US liberating the French from the Nazis in WW2, we can call things even. Oh, did you forget the "abject stupidity" of the Maginot Line?
Huh? Whoever said the goal was to get people to stop using drugs? The goal is to end the violence, save the huge taxpayer cost, and stop the other dangers (such as cutting coke with rat poison), not to get people to stop.
I'll give you my closing argument. Who sets the "tone" of this nation? Is it the media? Is it the president? A combination?
I think with 300 million people, the chances of everyone having the same "tone" are pretty much nonexistent.
The Republican party hates education. Educated people are elitist who live in anti-American big cities. They actually use this talking point, though excluding the "educated" part and letting you connect the dots. You think that sets a positive tone that encourages people to stay in school? I don't.
I think you'd need to back that up. Yes, clearly urban areas are more Democrat, and rural are more Republican. I think Reps imply many things, but I don't think it's ever popped into my mind that they hate educated people. Maybe atheists and non-whites..
At any rate, I think it comes down to parents, who are the biggest influence in their kids life, to set the "tone" and encourage them to stay in school.
Government spending aside, I'd rather have a president who sets a positive tone for our nation and gives us all something to strive for. The past eight years, all we've gotten was "freedom fries", "homeland security", and all kinds of anti-intellectual hogwash.
Well, I think the entire problem here is government spending. The question should not be "how should the government spend tax money," it should be "what right does it really have to take taxes to begin with?"
Beyond simpler things, like roads, communications infrastructure, research, and regulating companies (NOT, individuals, and not sole-propraterships) I'm not sure the government should be doing much of anything at all. It's not governments job to make sure I don't blow my money gambling or on hookers or on comic books. It's not their job to ensure I have easy access to credit so I can buy a house.
Their job is providing only a foundation for civilization (roads, etc) and preventing people from trampling each other's rights.
Believe me, I'd rather Obama over McCain, but I'd really like to see Ron Paul in there. Except for his stance on Roe v Wade, I think he's on track. Take apart most of government, pay off our national debt, and let EVERYONE keep what they earn.
Would it be safe to assume that by subsidizing education via some government method, more people would be educated?
Given the alarming stupidity of the last few years of HS graduates, I would say no, that's not a safe assumption at all.
Do you benefit directly or indirectly from our ability to stay competitive in the global market? If less of our children are educated, will their generation have an easier or harder time finding quality work? Will the society they live in be better or worse because of taxpayer subsided education?
Well, if you really believe that, then what about the other factors that go into a childs education? It's not just funding that determines if a child gets an education. Maybe they aren't paying attention because they're being given too much sugar. So why don't I get a say in your kids dietary habits? Exercise has been shown to have a positive effect on the learning process... maybe I should now dictate how much your kid exercises. I can't ensure that your kid in your house is being made to study properly... maybe we should now turn all schools into boarding schools, so that I can be sure my investment is being maximized.
Further, add into the formula the requirement to receive any kind of government tax credit, the student would have to give back a certain amount of community service. Would you benefit directly or indirectly from that?
It depends. How will it affect the insurance rates of the entities running the community service programs when the kid is hit by a car and the parents sue said entity?
Indeed. I'm in the 33% bracket, and my wife and I together don't even have a 6 figure income.. and Obama think it's MY responsibity to "life up" the guy behind me? Fuck that. I'm still paying student loans from college, and so is my mom. Where are the people to lift US up??
Well, I AM a book author and I can tell you writers do average about $5,000 per year.
The figures I posted were writers for TV shows. Anyway, the US Dept. of Labor disagrees with you.
Stephen King and Dean Koontz are hardly the average author, by the way.
I never claimed they were; they are exceptionally good writers. Which is my point; good writers will command a larger salary, just with any other profession. My point was that a lot of people try to be writers, but they really aren't. Sorry..
Half of all the money I earn goes right back to the government for taxes.
You must have another job, and make more at it that I do in my job. The government steals 33% of my income. But your tax burden is not relevent here.
Authors are also expected to do their own promotion. Only the really prominent authors get significant push from their publishers. The rest of us are strictly DIY.
Well, I'm sure Steven King had to start there too, don't you think? Its not an easy thing to do, make a living off of art. Again, sorry, but that's how it is. It's like movies. Ever see those made by SciFi movies? They're fun to watch, but because they're bad. I'm amazed people can keep affording to make such movies, yet they do.
And actually, most authors are in another line of work. I think it's something less than 5% of authors who are able to support themselves on their fiction. The rest of us have day jobs.
Which tells me most authors aren't really that good... at least if they never "make it." But I doubt King was handed a publishing contract the day he was born.
I haven't decided what to think about book piracy. I know my books have been pirated, but I don't know if those represent sales lost to me.
Perhaps you should try publishing yourself. Give a book away for free in pdf, see what the feedback is.
I do know that I was mighty P.O'd when Google decided it could scan and post books that were still in print and selling
As well you should be.
without asking question one to the person who held the copyright.
Well, wouldn't that be your publisher?
To my knowledge, they weren't offering to share the ad revenue with the authors.
Sounds like a problem with your publishing contract. That's what the TV writers strike was about, if you'll recall. They wanted a share of revenue from their work going online, and they got it. And good for them, they should.
Slashdot Mirror
Most western countries have unemployment benefits conditional to actively searching for a new job.
Which comes out of your paycheck when you are working. Which is limited in the amount it pays, and the amount of time it will work. Quite different from socialized healthcare, which would allow people to do nothing to take care of their own health and then spread the costs to everyone else.
Oh, and it also doesn't pay if I got myself fired!
Yes; you figure you can benefit from one but not another. That is why you want common defense - which, let's be honest here, means that people might be required to actually die for you - but aren't willing to pay a single penny to help others. That is indeed a huge difference between these forms of cooperation, at least as far as you are concerned.
Yup. People only ever work together willingly when each party will benefit. There's no benefit to me in "helping" another not die because they've made bad choices all their life. You have the freedom to eat whatever you like; you also have the freedom to suffer the consequences of those actions on your own. I chose to live a healthier lifestyle. I shouldn't be stolen from because you do not, I get nothing in return.
And I won't help defend you or your rights or property. Have fun in the jungle.
Have fun dying from heart disease you could have easily prevented. You fail to understand freedom; you and I are free to agree to help defend each other from a third, outside party. There's an equal exchange. What you want is the right to be irresponsible and then have ME clean up after you. Honestly, why would I want to do that?
How is it a strawman to suggest that we let libertarians and their ilk to get what they want; namely, a place with no oversight whatsoever by the government or any other such entity ?
The strawman is comparing healthcare to national defense, and then saying because I don't want one, we shouldn't have the other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Unless, of course, what you really want is a society based entirely on what you think you need and screw everyone else ? Which, I suppose, pretty much is the libertarian ideology...
I want a society in which I am largely left alone. The one our founders intended. Where we are united in protecting everyone's rights, and that's it. Not paying for the irresponsiblity others.
If you're fat, stop eating so much and hit the gym.
Funny, because Amish people use computers. Seriously. They also purchase things from "the English."
Just saying "wrong" gives you NO creditability.
Just saying HFCS is in EVERYTHING gives you none as well.
Looking at the long-winded list of crap in this bottle of Centrum... there it is! "Less than .1% High Fructose Corn Syrup".
Huh.. well the One-A-Day men's I checked has none. So therefore, HFCS is not in everything, is it?
Imagine what is in those flintstone vitamins.
Funny, I took those as a kid, everyday, growing up. I was never fat. At least not until I started eating a lot of fried and other fat filled foods.
I am looking at Publix brand Double Chocolate pudding snack in my lunch. 2 Tablespoons, 4 servings.
And guess what, it's not random! http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-lab18.html
The real trickery, just like the "fat free" label, companies DO NOT have to list ingredients below a certain percentage PER SERVING.
Serving sizes are not allowed to be arbitrarly made up by manufactors either. See the link, again. And what are you, 12? Your mommy still packing pudding in your lunch? Christ man..
Your loaf of bread likely has 16-24 servings in it. What do you honestly think the chances are that there is HFCS in there?
Zero. Looking beyond the nutrition panel, they must also list ingredients. Which is how I discovered there's no HFCS in it. Of course just because something is listed as "Sugar" doesn't mean it's HFCS. You see, wheat bread also has sugar in it naturally.
I am happy you lost that much weight, but that is by no means proof of your argument. At all. Especially when evidence to the contrary is right in front of my face, and everyone elses. I can always provide images of my proof... where is yours?
Ha. Look at the average American diet. Portions are huge, people are eating more and more, and doing less and less. I have loads of doctors on my side. Studies have shown that the people that lose the most weight and keep it off WRITE DOWN THEIR DIET. Gee, I wonder why that is?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25573436/
Oh, and you've not provided any evidence.. just spouted some nonsense you heard from someone else.
Last I checked, there is no Soviet Union. Also, I think that's why we have the Second Amendment.. to be able to protect ourselves from others.
Your argument is simply retarded. No matter what stupid thing people do, everyone should be FORCED to help them? Should I be able to act like an idiot, get myself fired, and then expect my neighbors to pay for my basic necessities? Why don't I do just that... then I can jsut sit around all goddamn day while YOU work to feed me.
Cooperating for the common defense is one thing, but fucking stuffing your fat face so full of donuts that it kills you is quite another. I'm not going to "coopearate" in any way shape or from; stop eating so much.
Your argument is a strawman by the way; come back when you have a valid one.
Quite a few? In what state? I've honestly never come across such a house, and i've helped build a H4H house...
We have a problem with High-Fructose corn syrup in EVERYTHING, including your vitamins.
Wrong, and also irrelevent. My vitamins don't have it, nor the bread I buy, nor the pasta I buy. I didn't look at the ingredients when choosing them either.
We have high fat foods able to claim they are "fat free" by making a two tablespoon cup of pudding "4 servings".
Also false. Ever notice that no matter what brand cheese you buy, the serving size is 28g? Or pasta is 56g dry? It's not coincidence.
Your post is amusing to me, because using labels as they are now, and adding exericse, I've been able to lose almost 80lbs of fat, and build muscle.
The problem isn't misleading labels; it's that people aren't looking at them and measuring their food.
I am so sick of this "silver bullet" cause of obesity, corn syrup. I hate to break it to you, but roe or cane sugar is only "more healthy" if it's not processed, which most sugar sold is. Finally, fat has more than double the calories as sugar, and our diet is LOADED with fat. The fact is, people eat too much food, and exercise too little.
Huh? I think you need to be smacked. Would you evenly split your grocery bill evenly with someone that eats three times as much as you do? I sure as hell wouldn't.
I fail to see what's wrong with that. If you can't take basic care of your own health, I fail to see why I should have to pay for your laziness. I'd love for fatter people to have to pay more or be dropped entirely from health insurance.
Many life insurance plans take your lifestyle into account; smoking, current health, age. Why should health insurance be any different?
Want to save money on healthcare? Force people to take responsiblity for thier day to day health themselves.
Great, and when our good doctors flee for better pay elsewhere, and we now have five hour waits the norm, what will we do then?
And when did it become okay to say, "I don't like this law, so I'm just going to ignore it." Idiot.
Depends. If the law is truely unjust, it's your duty as an American citizen to ignore it. Maybe you need to read up on our Founders.
Really? This is how you feel? So were you planning on being a raging asshole or racist on one of their forums? Is it that hard to control you language on a site that doesn't allow it? Seems rather stupid to me.
Ok... but what about the 1/4" plywood on which the vinyl hangs?
I see you're familar with Apple products.
I think you missed my point. At rate, that doesn't really mean anything for Linux; Apple is gaining much more than Linux. I think even that will change though; the economy is down, people won't buy an overpriced computer that they can't use most of their software with (w/o buying Windows anyway... in which case, I fail to see the point).
So, have you used it as an actual browser, to visit real sites, or just to see some bars and that was it?
I have, and it renders in line with FF for all sites I've tried so far.
It was intended to slow down an invasion, by requiring an attack through Belgium. That France fell so quickly, I would argue it utterly failed. My point of view is as backed by a majority.. read the section I linked, and you'll see I'm in pretty good company with this view.
No, it's not amazing. Vista is raising at more than 100%. The old "my sales are up x%" gimmic is just that; a gimmic.
Out of curiousity, have you tried IE8 beta?
Right, because not a single American fought in the Revolutionary war.
Oh, and I think with the US liberating the French from the Nazis in WW2, we can call things even. Oh, did you forget the "abject stupidity" of the Maginot Line?
Huh? Whoever said the goal was to get people to stop using drugs? The goal is to end the violence, save the huge taxpayer cost, and stop the other dangers (such as cutting coke with rat poison), not to get people to stop.
I'll give you my closing argument. Who sets the "tone" of this nation? Is it the media? Is it the president? A combination?
I think with 300 million people, the chances of everyone having the same "tone" are pretty much nonexistent.
The Republican party hates education. Educated people are elitist who live in anti-American big cities. They actually use this talking point, though excluding the "educated" part and letting you connect the dots. You think that sets a positive tone that encourages people to stay in school? I don't.
I think you'd need to back that up. Yes, clearly urban areas are more Democrat, and rural are more Republican. I think Reps imply many things, but I don't think it's ever popped into my mind that they hate educated people. Maybe atheists and non-whites..
At any rate, I think it comes down to parents, who are the biggest influence in their kids life, to set the "tone" and encourage them to stay in school.
Government spending aside, I'd rather have a president who sets a positive tone for our nation and gives us all something to strive for. The past eight years, all we've gotten was "freedom fries", "homeland security", and all kinds of anti-intellectual hogwash.
Well, I think the entire problem here is government spending. The question should not be "how should the government spend tax money," it should be "what right does it really have to take taxes to begin with?"
Beyond simpler things, like roads, communications infrastructure, research, and regulating companies (NOT, individuals, and not sole-propraterships) I'm not sure the government should be doing much of anything at all. It's not governments job to make sure I don't blow my money gambling or on hookers or on comic books. It's not their job to ensure I have easy access to credit so I can buy a house.
Their job is providing only a foundation for civilization (roads, etc) and preventing people from trampling each other's rights.
Believe me, I'd rather Obama over McCain, but I'd really like to see Ron Paul in there. Except for his stance on Roe v Wade, I think he's on track. Take apart most of government, pay off our national debt, and let EVERYONE keep what they earn.
Would it be safe to assume that by subsidizing education via some government method, more people would be educated?
Given the alarming stupidity of the last few years of HS graduates, I would say no, that's not a safe assumption at all.
Do you benefit directly or indirectly from our ability to stay competitive in the global market? If less of our children are educated, will their generation have an easier or harder time finding quality work? Will the society they live in be better or worse because of taxpayer subsided education?
Well, if you really believe that, then what about the other factors that go into a childs education? It's not just funding that determines if a child gets an education. Maybe they aren't paying attention because they're being given too much sugar. So why don't I get a say in your kids dietary habits? Exercise has been shown to have a positive effect on the learning process... maybe I should now dictate how much your kid exercises. I can't ensure that your kid in your house is being made to study properly... maybe we should now turn all schools into boarding schools, so that I can be sure my investment is being maximized.
Further, add into the formula the requirement to receive any kind of government tax credit, the student would have to give back a certain amount of community service. Would you benefit directly or indirectly from that?
It depends. How will it affect the insurance rates of the entities running the community service programs when the kid is hit by a car and the parents sue said entity?
Indeed. I'm in the 33% bracket, and my wife and I together don't even have a 6 figure income.. and Obama think it's MY responsibity to "life up" the guy behind me? Fuck that. I'm still paying student loans from college, and so is my mom. Where are the people to lift US up??
Well, I AM a book author and I can tell you writers do average about $5,000 per year.
The figures I posted were writers for TV shows. Anyway, the US Dept. of Labor disagrees with you.
Stephen King and Dean Koontz are hardly the average author, by the way.
I never claimed they were; they are exceptionally good writers. Which is my point; good writers will command a larger salary, just with any other profession. My point was that a lot of people try to be writers, but they really aren't. Sorry..
Half of all the money I earn goes right back to the government for taxes.
You must have another job, and make more at it that I do in my job. The government steals 33% of my income. But your tax burden is not relevent here.
Authors are also expected to do their own promotion. Only the really prominent authors get significant push from their publishers. The rest of us are strictly DIY.
Well, I'm sure Steven King had to start there too, don't you think? Its not an easy thing to do, make a living off of art. Again, sorry, but that's how it is. It's like movies. Ever see those made by SciFi movies? They're fun to watch, but because they're bad. I'm amazed people can keep affording to make such movies, yet they do.
And actually, most authors are in another line of work. I think it's something less than 5% of authors who are able to support themselves on their fiction. The rest of us have day jobs.
Which tells me most authors aren't really that good... at least if they never "make it." But I doubt King was handed a publishing contract the day he was born.
I haven't decided what to think about book piracy. I know my books have been pirated, but I don't know if those represent sales lost to me.
Perhaps you should try publishing yourself. Give a book away for free in pdf, see what the feedback is.
I do know that I was mighty P.O'd when Google decided it could scan and post books that were still in print and selling
As well you should be.
without asking question one to the person who held the copyright.
Well, wouldn't that be your publisher?
To my knowledge, they weren't offering to share the ad revenue with the authors.
Sounds like a problem with your publishing contract. That's what the TV writers strike was about, if you'll recall. They wanted a share of revenue from their work going online, and they got it. And good for them, they should.