Or, you know, give the money back to the tax-payers and stop fucking spending it - period. Still, I'd rather you pay for your children's education. That's not something that requires the collective effort of the entire nation to accomplish. Defense, however, is. So if it came between subsidizing the education/daycare of your snot-nosed rug-rats versus a navy ship, I'll take the ship.
However, I'd rather they just but that $37b, period.
You're one of those dicks who needs the word "shared infrastructure" explained to them in words of one syllable, via the clue bat.
But you keep your John Galt libertarian-wank fantasies if you want.
I find it bizarre that the US spends a higher percentage of GDP on "healthcare" than Britain, even though we have a National Health Service. Clearly, someone is making a lot of money out of health in America. But the fact that you let insurance companies make money out of providing a natural right means that you are in effect creating insurance jobs rather than looking after people's actual health.
You must have seen another movie than the rest of us.
In our version, the guy giving the "you can't handle the truth"
speech is not one of the good guys...
No, you seem to have missed the point that the notional "good guys" are in fact pretty feeble compared with Jack Nicholson's character. It's a bit like Satan in Paradise Lost, a classic case of deconstructing/undermining the ostensible moral authority of the nominal goodies.
People do want to drive to work, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
Nonsense. I don't want to go to work particularly in the first place, but I have to. I'd much rather be able to walk to work, or get a nice handy bus/train. But I have to go where the work is, and it's not feasible to move every time you change job. Plus a lot of places simply aren't accessible without a car/motorbike.
It is simply untrue that normal people have a free choice about where they work and live.
Yes, clearly the only reasonable solution is for everyone to move (probably to a vastly different neighborhood with completely different safety and cost) every time they change jobs. Certainly there's nothing in the world wiser than applying for a new mortgage every time you have just started a new job.
Also, couples or people living together are only allowed to work within four blocks of one another.
No, but in the case of someone like Musk, I doubt he's going to have to move at short notice to get another temp job at McDonalds on the other side of the State is he?
I get why people move out of cities, I really do. Pollution is higher, it's noisier than the suburbs, the yards are not as big, etc.
And houses in a good area cost five times as much. The idea that people choose to live in suburbs is ridiculous. It's all they can afford. The suburbs of a city are just like living in the city, but further away and more inconenient.
Living in the actual countryside is a different matter, but in that case you have to expect to commute further.
Yeah but if you'd let the free market build the roads they'd have lasted forever. Just look at the Yellow Brick Road., self evidently a symbol of colourful free enterprise as against the monochrome socialism of FDR's new deal.
Or consider buying a motorcycle in the only state in the US where lane splitting is legal. Not only does that reduce congestion for everyone else on the road, it also improves your mental health.
Lane splitting (which I assume means filtering between two lanes on a motorcycle) is not at all good for your mental health.
In the UK, it's OK to filter through slow moving traffic, but I wouldn't want to do so at motorway speeds even if it was legal. When I see fellow bikers weaving in and out of traffic and undertaking (illegally) I feel absolutely no desire to copy them.
Think of all the frustration and loss of value that their selfish DRM systems have caused as they attempt to extract rent from people's needed education.
If free and open source software was used for distributed testing, this could all be avoided.
It is the fact that these are run by people seeking to make a profit that is the problem. If it was a government-run exam, it wouldn't matter if it got fucked up, the government would have to let you do it again.
Open source software can go wrong just the same as DRM'd proprietary software.
Have you ever stopped to wonder how much less privacy you would have from the government if the government controlled Google, Facebook, Amazon, your local porn shop, your corner drug dealer, etc.?
I don't know about you, but I don't put dangerously self-incriminating material on the internet. Although I'm sure if I admitted to a terrorist outrage on facebook, I'd be in just as much trouble whether Mark Zuckenberg or the government was in control, if it was true.
As for drug dealers, if they're illegal then they're obviously not going to be under government control, any more than hitmen are. What is your point there?
In the UK, not only do we have a theory/written test, we also have a practical test which involves more than starting the engine, putting it in drive and going round the block without actually killing ourselves, which I believe is the essential format of the US driving exam.
Schmidt has been flogging this book all over the place. I had to drop a Facebook group to get rid of all the promotion for this.
From the excerpts I've read, this vision of the future is rather banal. It's a 1950s middle-management view of the future. Better collaborative PowerPoint-type presentations in the "cloud", better meeting and travel scheduling, stuff like that. In their future, people still wear suits, have meetings, and go to work, but in self-driving cars. It sounds like something AT&T and GM would have presented at the 1964 World's Fair.
Yes, because in fact the internet will totally transform society, render capitalism obsolete and usher in a new world of unlimited universal wealth, an end to all physical constraints, and a chance for everyone to achieve Maslow's "self-actualization" as their only life goal. No one will have to do boring old work because there will be universal credit, free housing and food, and free trips by internet to Mars on holiday.
I mean, look at Twitter! Facebook! It's like a revolution in human communication. Each day there are literally millions of Shakespeares sharing their vision with the whole world. Already thanks to the internet you can hear within a few seconds that dozens of foreign looking people have been identified on reddit/4chan as terrorists.
For people outside the continent of America, anything south of the USA generally gets called "South America". I know that geographically Mexico is in North America, Ecuador in Central America and Chile in South America, but most of the time people (here in the UK at least) would class all three as non-USA and therefore South America.
Similarly, no one except a geography geek would ever refer to Canada as North American.
Whatever your opinion of the philosophy of anarchism, it is silly to say that it doesn't depend on cooperation.
Anarchists disrupt the current government because they want to replace it with a system composed of volunteers willingly co-operating without any external power structure forcing them to.
I think you've fallen into the trap of confusing anarchy with anarchism.
Why does the alternative to anarchy need to be the most bloated and intrusive government (in economic terms) in human history?
It's about memes spreading. If you argue political philosophy, you've already become a nonsentient cog in meme reproduction.
Speak for yourself. Unless you call all human communication unthinking meme-transmission, political philosophy is as subject to sensible debate as anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, you know, give the money back to the tax-payers and stop fucking spending it - period. Still, I'd rather you pay for your children's education. That's not something that requires the collective effort of the entire nation to accomplish. Defense, however, is. So if it came between subsidizing the education/daycare of your snot-nosed rug-rats versus a navy ship, I'll take the ship.
However, I'd rather they just but that $37b, period.
You're one of those dicks who needs the word "shared infrastructure" explained to them in words of one syllable, via the clue bat.
But you keep your John Galt libertarian-wank fantasies if you want.
I find it bizarre that the US spends a higher percentage of GDP on "healthcare" than Britain, even though we have a National Health Service. Clearly, someone is making a lot of money out of health in America. But the fact that you let insurance companies make money out of providing a natural right means that you are in effect creating insurance jobs rather than looking after people's actual health.
Yes, but the only thing anyone remembers from what is a pretty mediocre film is Jack Nicholson's "you can't handle the truth" speech.
You must have seen another movie than the rest of us. In our version, the guy giving the "you can't handle the truth" speech is not one of the good guys...
No, you seem to have missed the point that the notional "good guys" are in fact pretty feeble compared with Jack Nicholson's character. It's a bit like Satan in Paradise Lost, a classic case of deconstructing/undermining the ostensible moral authority of the nominal goodies.
Dumbass, that was a scene from "A Few Good Men", released in 1992.
Thank you, Lt. Obvious.
I really like Team America: World Police too. Oh, wait...
People do want to drive to work, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
Nonsense. I don't want to go to work particularly in the first place, but I have to. I'd much rather be able to walk to work, or get a nice handy bus/train. But I have to go where the work is, and it's not feasible to move every time you change job. Plus a lot of places simply aren't accessible without a car/motorbike.
It is simply untrue that normal people have a free choice about where they work and live.
Yes, clearly the only reasonable solution is for everyone to move (probably to a vastly different neighborhood with completely different safety and cost) every time they change jobs. Certainly there's nothing in the world wiser than applying for a new mortgage every time you have just started a new job.
Also, couples or people living together are only allowed to work within four blocks of one another.
No, but in the case of someone like Musk, I doubt he's going to have to move at short notice to get another temp job at McDonalds on the other side of the State is he?
I get why people move out of cities, I really do. Pollution is higher, it's noisier than the suburbs, the yards are not as big, etc.
And houses in a good area cost five times as much. The idea that people choose to live in suburbs is ridiculous. It's all they can afford. The suburbs of a city are just like living in the city, but further away and more inconenient.
Living in the actual countryside is a different matter, but in that case you have to expect to commute further.
Better still, why doesn't he use the infinite energy of his ego to power a Star Trek transporter system between his house and office?
Then don't build the on and off ramps. Problem solved. Road will last longer, too.
Like that Doctor Who episode with Father Dougal in a cat mask, spending the whole of your life in a traffic jam with no way out?
Yeah but if you'd let the free market build the roads they'd have lasted forever. Just look at the Yellow Brick Road., self evidently a symbol of colourful free enterprise as against the monochrome socialism of FDR's new deal.
Isn't the fix to move businesses somewhere more sensible and so reduce the number of people commuting? What's so magic about California?
Or consider buying a motorcycle in the only state in the US where lane splitting is legal. Not only does that reduce congestion for everyone else on the road, it also improves your mental health.
( http://www.gixxer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-288070.html )
Lane splitting (which I assume means filtering between two lanes on a motorcycle) is not at all good for your mental health.
In the UK, it's OK to filter through slow moving traffic, but I wouldn't want to do so at motorway speeds even if it was legal. When I see fellow bikers weaving in and out of traffic and undertaking (illegally) I feel absolutely no desire to copy them.
Or, like the owner of my company, occasionally fly his helicopter from home to office.
Yes, sometimes there really is no other way of saying "I'm a highly paid douchebag with a vastly inflated sense of my own importance".
Think of all the frustration and loss of value that their selfish DRM systems have caused as they attempt to extract rent from people's needed education.
If free and open source software was used for distributed testing, this could all be avoided.
It is the fact that these are run by people seeking to make a profit that is the problem. If it was a government-run exam, it wouldn't matter if it got fucked up, the government would have to let you do it again.
Open source software can go wrong just the same as DRM'd proprietary software.
Have you ever stopped to wonder how much less privacy you would have from the government if the government controlled Google, Facebook, Amazon, your local porn shop, your corner drug dealer, etc.?
I don't know about you, but I don't put dangerously self-incriminating material on the internet. Although I'm sure if I admitted to a terrorist outrage on facebook, I'd be in just as much trouble whether Mark Zuckenberg or the government was in control, if it was true.
As for drug dealers, if they're illegal then they're obviously not going to be under government control, any more than hitmen are. What is your point there?
In the UK, not only do we have a theory/written test, we also have a practical test which involves more than starting the engine, putting it in drive and going round the block without actually killing ourselves, which I believe is the essential format of the US driving exam.
Pearson Vue also administer the theory component of the UK driving test.
It's not mentioned in TFA, does anybody know if there were affected also?
I always wondered how I managed to score 65 out of 50 in my theory test.
You can achieve a college-level education by watching free online videos.
No you can't.
I mean, I'm sure you can if you're a genius. But if you're a genius you could just as easily teach yourself from books.
Schmidt has been flogging this book all over the place. I had to drop a Facebook group to get rid of all the promotion for this.
From the excerpts I've read, this vision of the future is rather banal. It's a 1950s middle-management view of the future. Better collaborative PowerPoint-type presentations in the "cloud", better meeting and travel scheduling, stuff like that. In their future, people still wear suits, have meetings, and go to work, but in self-driving cars. It sounds like something AT&T and GM would have presented at the 1964 World's Fair.
Yes, because in fact the internet will totally transform society, render capitalism obsolete and usher in a new world of unlimited universal wealth, an end to all physical constraints, and a chance for everyone to achieve Maslow's "self-actualization" as their only life goal. No one will have to do boring old work because there will be universal credit, free housing and food, and free trips by internet to Mars on holiday.
I mean, look at Twitter! Facebook! It's like a revolution in human communication. Each day there are literally millions of Shakespeares sharing their vision with the whole world. Already thanks to the internet you can hear within a few seconds that dozens of foreign looking people have been identified on reddit/4chan as terrorists.
Internet? Meh.
It's ironic like rain on your wedding day, i.e. not ironic at all.
Similarly, no one except a geography geek would ever refer to Canada as North American.
Anarchists disrupt the current government because they want to replace it with a system composed of volunteers willingly co-operating without any external power structure forcing them to.
I think you've fallen into the trap of confusing anarchy with anarchism.
Why does the alternative to anarchy need to be the most bloated and intrusive government (in economic terms) in human history?
It's about memes spreading. If you argue political philosophy, you've already become a nonsentient cog in meme reproduction.
Speak for yourself. Unless you call all human communication unthinking meme-transmission, political philosophy is as subject to sensible debate as anything else.