Exactly. Kelo was a bad decision because it allows local government to implement favoritism that would otherwise be illigal. It doesn't matter if it's seizing poor people's homes to make way for richer people (like in Kelo), keeping out a one business or group because other businesses or groups lobbied to keep it out (like in your example), or taking the town's black church and giving it to the KKK. To paraphrase somone "When they kicked out Wal-Mart, the poor, and the blacks, I said nothing, because I wasn't black, poor, or a Wal-Mart stockholder, and when they came to kick me out, I had no person, or legal recourse, to turn to."
Because the other constitutional rights are not under constant assault.
Ha ha ha! None of the others are under assult!...
Wait, you're right! Nine and Ten aren't under assault, they've been dead for years. And the Fourteenth isn't under assault, "equal rights" really means the same thing as "equal outcomes", just like the "nine crazies" said!
Murderers who are executed can't murder anyone else.
Neither can fetuses that get aborted!
But seriously, anyone being executed has already been isolated from the rest of society for a long time, with little danger to the public, so life in prison is clearly an option. You can't really call yourself a "pro-life" person if you chose death over life when you have a real choice.
I'm going to pay my $29.99 a month for access, and then I'm going to pay higher prices for consumer goods all across the economy because these Internet companies will charge more for online advertising.
Good God man! You pay $29.99 for cable TV, and then you pay more for things all over the place to pay for TV advertising? Oh, the humanity!
When people form a corporation, they usually have a specific purpose in mind. When they form a business corporation, the purpose is to generate money for the people who own the corporation. So, yes, the entire reason that businesses exist is to make money.
Other corporations have different purposes - my town is incorporated in order to act as a local government, my credit union is incorporated in order to provide cheap banking services, the local university is incorporated in order to do university stuff, etc.
I would tell him to suck my crotch.
Your sex life is your business. Enjoy your blowjob.
Can't make a profit employing people at a living wage. Sounds like management has a problem of insufficient huevos.
Can't earn a living wage in a free market? Sounds like someone's lazy.
Oh, wait! Ad hominem attacks don't foster good discussions. Sorry about that.
teaching this in grade school, that business people lie through their teeth and can't be trusted at all
Just so I'm clear on this, did they really say that you had a job for life? Or was this just a "permanant position" as opposed to a "temporary position"? There's a big difference.
[New language] won't become extinct the way English did. English was only spoken by a billion people who could barely make it to the moon. But now that humans have colonized the solar system, and a few are at Alpha Centauri, and have a trillion people speaking [new language]! How could it possibly go extinct?
Seriously - Latin was the official language of a quarter of the population of the human race for several generations, and it died off without a meteor strike. Do you really think that English will be taught in China (etc.) if the US stops being a hyperpower? French was the international language for quite a while, and English supplanted it fairly quickly.
English will probably influence the evolution of language for a long time, but to say that it will be here forever is pure hubris.
None of which is relevant. People's secrets get exposed during the course of investigations - end of story. How does linking you to a crime scene through some new system differ from doing the same thing with old-fashioned police work?
I challenge you, however, to find anywhere that I have attempted to convince you that God exists. So please stop claiming that I'm trying to convince you.
You aren't trying to convince me that God exists, but you are trying to convince me that it's reasonable (not delusional) to believe in God. Right?
No, because you said you know that he might. So just what are you trying to say here? What courtesy is it that you want me to grant?
There could be aliens visiting the earth right now. I don't think there are, for several different reasons, but there could be - I could be reasoning poorly and I certainly don't know everything. But then there are people who are absolutly convinced that there are aliens here. What do I get when I look at their reasons?
First, their testable evidence is non-existant - no publicly available alien beings, corpses, spaceships or technology - and the ones offered up are clearly faked or cases of mistaking normal things for alien. Second, the indirect evidence, (telepathic contact, abductions, etc) is all "fluffy", emotion-laden, and exactly the kind of thing that people are good at confabulating (subconciously tricking themselves into believing). Third, culture strongly influences the reports of aliens - they tend to look like the ones popular in the sci-fi of the place and era of the sighting.
What are a UFO abductee and I supposed to get from each other? Well, if he's reasonable, I should be able to convince him that it's possible that his abduction experience was the result of falling asleep watching the X-Files and the power of suggestion. On the other hand, he might be able to convince me that some of his evidence isn't as untrustworthy as it first appeared.
And that's all I'm asking of you. To admit that it's possible, however incredably unlikely it may be, that you could be mistaken.
The idea that God isn't there is just to terrifying for you. Are you projecting, perhaps?
You were making (somewhat insulting) assumptions about my motives, I was just replying in kind. I don't really think you're terrified, but you shouldn't think that "[I] want to view it as arrogance because that lets [me] off the hook", either.
In a free country, you're allowed to do anything that isn't specifically prohibited. Currently I can do X. Your're saying I shouldn't be allowed to do X. That's taking away a right to do something.
But since you're willing to reply, what makes the post you origionally responded to so stupid? Isn't that how it usually works, we make things as safe as we can without making them too expensive to afford?
Often people make the "rational" argument, eg "The bottom line is", when really they're saying "Suck it up, we're in charge, and we're going to continue to reap the benefits of our economic advantage over you."
Couldn't agree more.
Things that are hard to assign a value to, eg security, clean water, etc, are down played, while thing easy to analyze economically, eg the price of commodities, are given priority.
Well, sometimes it works the opposite way - "how can you put a price on a person's life?" and all that. I don't think we're ever going to get our priorities perfectly straightened out.
I think he meant "you cannot govern based on you immidiate, short-sighted feelings" as opposed to governing based on a more pragmatic and rationally thought out system.
No - one point of a medical plan is to even out costs, so that you pay a modest, guaranteed amount, rather than taking a 1% chance of being screwed over. Another point is to even out your expences, so you don't spend $0 for a decade and then have $50,000 in medical expences in one year.
Otherwise you die because you aren't rich.
Poeple die for all sorts of reasons, most of which aren't their fault. Poverty is one of them.
That's not how a society is suppsoed to work, nor is healthcare.
A cure for cancer that costs a hundred trillion dollars will not be covered by any plan anywhere on earth, while a $.01 cure would be covered by all. At some point, it's just too expensive.
As for society, that may not be how you want things to work, but you aren't the only one who gets a "vote". Some of us have different ideas, and you can't just ignore them.
More importantly, if I'm driving behind or beside your car in bad weather, am I willing to bet you're a better driver than a computer? I think not.
No, don't be silly. (Assuming the computer is a well-programmed one.)
Furthermore, the statistics prove that if your car does have those safety features, you're foolish not to keep them turned on 100% of the time
And that's where you go off the deep end. Are you really saying that there's never been a time ever that's it's been a good idea to turn off a safty device?
I willing to bet you're a better driver than a computer?
Are you willing to bet that the people who made that safety devices thought to every possible senario?
yet some people argue that they should be able to turn those safety features off.
Of course. If the computer dies I don't want to starve to death because my seatbelt won't unbuckle, and I really don't want the airbag to go off while I'm putting in a new radio.
It's an emotional argument, not a logical one.
And yet you use an emotional "Road vs Iraq" argument yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazing, isn't it?
Exactly. Kelo was a bad decision because it allows local government to implement favoritism that would otherwise be illigal. It doesn't matter if it's seizing poor people's homes to make way for richer people (like in Kelo), keeping out a one business or group because other businesses or groups lobbied to keep it out (like in your example), or taking the town's black church and giving it to the KKK. To paraphrase somone "When they kicked out Wal-Mart, the poor, and the blacks, I said nothing, because I wasn't black, poor, or a Wal-Mart stockholder, and when they came to kick me out, I had no person, or legal recourse, to turn to."
Ha ha ha! None of the others are under assult! ...
Wait, you're right! Nine and Ten aren't under assault, they've been dead for years. And the Fourteenth isn't under assault, "equal rights" really means the same thing as "equal outcomes", just like the "nine crazies" said!
Neither can fetuses that get aborted!
But seriously, anyone being executed has already been isolated from the rest of society for a long time, with little danger to the public, so life in prison is clearly an option. You can't really call yourself a "pro-life" person if you chose death over life when you have a real choice.
Good God man! You pay $29.99 for cable TV, and then you pay more for things all over the place to pay for TV advertising? Oh, the humanity!
When people form a corporation, they usually have a specific purpose in mind. When they form a business corporation, the purpose is to generate money for the people who own the corporation. So, yes, the entire reason that businesses exist is to make money.
Other corporations have different purposes - my town is incorporated in order to act as a local government, my credit union is incorporated in order to provide cheap banking services, the local university is incorporated in order to do university stuff, etc.
I would tell him to suck my crotch.
Your sex life is your business. Enjoy your blowjob.
Can't make a profit employing people at a living wage. Sounds like management has a problem of insufficient huevos.
Can't earn a living wage in a free market? Sounds like someone's lazy.
Oh, wait! Ad hominem attacks don't foster good discussions. Sorry about that.
Just so I'm clear on this, did they really say that you had a job for life? Or was this just a "permanant position" as opposed to a "temporary position"? There's a big difference.
[New language] won't become extinct the way English did. English was only spoken by a billion people who could barely make it to the moon. But now that humans have colonized the solar system, and a few are at Alpha Centauri, and have a trillion people speaking [new language]! How could it possibly go extinct?
Seriously - Latin was the official language of a quarter of the population of the human race for several generations, and it died off without a meteor strike. Do you really think that English will be taught in China (etc.) if the US stops being a hyperpower? French was the international language for quite a while, and English supplanted it fairly quickly.
English will probably influence the evolution of language for a long time, but to say that it will be here forever is pure hubris.
Any reason you included that last link? It seems to be more of a political screed than an economics discussion.
None of which is relevant. People's secrets get exposed during the course of investigations - end of story. How does linking you to a crime scene through some new system differ from doing the same thing with old-fashioned police work?
In other cases, gun crime has risen enormously. This tells me that there's more to this than just "guns increase/decrease crime rates".
You have a very peculiar way of interpreting the phrase "gun ownership".
You like one system, we like another. Go live in the country you like the most and quit being an ass.
Then you're using the word 'shitty' in a different way than I would.
Sacrificing safety so that poor people can afford cars is misguided ... That includes setting sub-standard safety levels
The question is "Where do we set the standard?". Zero safety is scary, perfect safety would mean that we can't afford anything.
Great movie.
You aren't trying to convince me that God exists, but you are trying to convince me that it's reasonable (not delusional) to believe in God. Right?
No, because you said you know that he might. So just what are you trying to say here? What courtesy is it that you want me to grant?
There could be aliens visiting the earth right now. I don't think there are, for several different reasons, but there could be - I could be reasoning poorly and I certainly don't know everything. But then there are people who are absolutly convinced that there are aliens here. What do I get when I look at their reasons?
First, their testable evidence is non-existant - no publicly available alien beings, corpses, spaceships or technology - and the ones offered up are clearly faked or cases of mistaking normal things for alien. Second, the indirect evidence, (telepathic contact, abductions, etc) is all "fluffy", emotion-laden, and exactly the kind of thing that people are good at confabulating (subconciously tricking themselves into believing). Third, culture strongly influences the reports of aliens - they tend to look like the ones popular in the sci-fi of the place and era of the sighting.
What are a UFO abductee and I supposed to get from each other? Well, if he's reasonable, I should be able to convince him that it's possible that his abduction experience was the result of falling asleep watching the X-Files and the power of suggestion. On the other hand, he might be able to convince me that some of his evidence isn't as untrustworthy as it first appeared.
And that's all I'm asking of you. To admit that it's possible, however incredably unlikely it may be, that you could be mistaken.
The idea that God isn't there is just to terrifying for you. Are you projecting, perhaps?
You were making (somewhat insulting) assumptions about my motives, I was just replying in kind. I don't really think you're terrified, but you shouldn't think that "[I] want to view it as arrogance because that lets [me] off the hook", either.
It's no more a red herring than your question.
I'm not taking anything away from anyone.
In a free country, you're allowed to do anything that isn't specifically prohibited. Currently I can do X. Your're saying I shouldn't be allowed to do X. That's taking away a right to do something.
But since you're willing to reply, what makes the post you origionally responded to so stupid? Isn't that how it usually works, we make things as safe as we can without making them too expensive to afford?
Couldn't agree more.
Things that are hard to assign a value to, eg security, clean water, etc, are down played, while thing easy to analyze economically, eg the price of commodities, are given priority.
Well, sometimes it works the opposite way - "how can you put a price on a person's life?" and all that. I don't think we're ever going to get our priorities perfectly straightened out.
Who gave you the right to take it away from me?
I think he meant "you cannot govern based on you immidiate, short-sighted feelings" as opposed to governing based on a more pragmatic and rationally thought out system.
No - one point of a medical plan is to even out costs, so that you pay a modest, guaranteed amount, rather than taking a 1% chance of being screwed over. Another point is to even out your expences, so you don't spend $0 for a decade and then have $50,000 in medical expences in one year.
Otherwise you die because you aren't rich.
Poeple die for all sorts of reasons, most of which aren't their fault. Poverty is one of them.
That's not how a society is suppsoed to work, nor is healthcare.
A cure for cancer that costs a hundred trillion dollars will not be covered by any plan anywhere on earth, while a $.01 cure would be covered by all. At some point, it's just too expensive.
As for society, that may not be how you want things to work, but you aren't the only one who gets a "vote". Some of us have different ideas, and you can't just ignore them.
Neither does yours. Most of us try to deal with the real world - even the sucky parts.
No, don't be silly. (Assuming the computer is a well-programmed one.)
Furthermore, the statistics prove that if your car does have those safety features, you're foolish not to keep them turned on 100% of the time
And that's where you go off the deep end. Are you really saying that there's never been a time ever that's it's been a good idea to turn off a safty device?
I willing to bet you're a better driver than a computer?
Are you willing to bet that the people who made that safety devices thought to every possible senario?
yet some people argue that they should be able to turn those safety features off.
Of course. If the computer dies I don't want to starve to death because my seatbelt won't unbuckle, and I really don't want the airbag to go off while I'm putting in a new radio.
It's an emotional argument, not a logical one.
And yet you use an emotional "Road vs Iraq" argument yourself.
whining ... idiots ... sit on their compter 18 hours per day ... Get off the fucking chair and get a life
At least when I use slashdot to vent my frustrations I don't whine about being modded down for it.
If it was in the contract, fine. If this was not clearly stated ahead of time, they should have been sued.