My apologies; I was not clear. I should've said "please correct me if I'm wrong and clarify." Traditional welfare as (IMHO) most people think of it involves simply providing paychecks to people with few or no conditions. In 1992, I think Clinton made it a promise to end welfare as we know it. Then, if I'm not mistaken, around 96 or 97 it became a much more conditional program/series of programs. There are now various limits depending on the individual. I heard it described by an unfortunate friend who lost his job at a particularly challenging time in his life as, "Like going to a probation officer for the right to eat while trying to get back on your feet."
I think most people are still under the impression that welfare doles out cash indiscriminately to all comers, a misperception along the line of those who think government housing = living entirely without rent.
From what I can tell, welfare as most people argue it doesn't exist in the way they imagine it and hasn't for over 10 years.
For everyone who keeps bringing up welfare in every single political debate no matter what the centerpiece of the story is, I have a question. Are you not aware that welfare -- at least in the sense that most of the population thinks when they hear the term -- does not exist anymore? And hasn't existed for several years?
With all sincerity, please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I missed something and it got brought back recently. Not that I'm aware of, though. I've never seen a redundant moot point quite like welfare debates.
What's all this talk about the book being an unconquerable medium? Have you not seen Amazon's Kindle? It is an absolute masterpiece of... hahahahahaha! Golly, I almost made it through the whole speech with a straight face...
I'm not that much of a... um... smart. And yet, even I think it's kind of funny to see what's 2 places higher according to alexa. Maybe MS needs to take some UI lessons from them? A bazillion preteens can't be wrong! Silverlight needs, at very least, one really loud pop song embedded on every page by default.
A lot of people seem to be debating whether the changes were truly partisan, but I think that's beside the point. I personally don't think the changes add anything of value except for softening the tone to make it more passive or bend factual information into expressing an opinion via language.
Hang on... I just found the wikipedia standard about it: Avoid weasel words.
Partisan or not, I think the standards pretty much clear up whether this was adequate. But given this standard I'd say that the original article before the edits was less partisan as it appears to just be following the guidelines.
Thank you! God I've been dying for the day when I could get someone to actually give me some sources on slashdot as opposed to just talking down to people.
So let's say I now agree with your assessment of the situation about mowers/cars. Now for the argument for convenience and the waiting to be led by the nose. Face it: people are dumb. People are also proud. I know that if I say something, even if it's something in jest that I don't really believe all that fervently, I know my pride still swells up irregardless if that casual, pseudo-joking belief gets challenged. I think most people are similar. There are times we argue something just to argue because someone was a jerk to us.
Now, I personally believe that people will cover the planet in soot and eat ash before they collectively, willingly buddy up with an unlikeable liberal celebrity like Rosie O'Donnell. Why? Because even if she's right on a lot of things, she's very often a jerk. People have to be halfway decent. I actually think that's a bigger factor holding up environmentalism and other liberal causes I believe in. Just being told by someone that you "need to reexamine your assumptions" doesn't change your mind, it just makes you hostile toward the other person and generally jaded against whatever it is they're trying to argue. I mean look at me -- I believe a lot of the same things and even I'm leaning more towards shrugging apathy.
So thanks for providing some sources. You're right, obviously I do need to reexamine my assumptions. But hopefully yourself or any other of our fellow liberals will see this and consider reexamining their approach on such things.
"Unless you're driving an electric vehicle, you're simply wrong, and need to re-examine your assumptions."
With all due respect, it's hard to take you seriously. After insisting that I need to share my sources for why I believe what I believe, it's okay to say I'm "simply wrong" without providing any evidence of your own. I get this a lot in regards to my cynicism on issues like this, so it's nothing new.
I should preface by saying that I'm very much a liberal minded person and am very open to being wrong if the result would be a better environment. But in this case I've seen nothing to prove me otherwise. There are a handful of short articles by lesser known environmental groups that insist that using an electric mower, even one that's drawing from a coal-based power plant, is better. But that's a blanket statement that doesn't take into account the varying environmental concerns of different power companies. And in the case of this car, has anyone provided the stats for how much electricity it needs in order to go those 8 miles? For all you and everyone else on here knows, it could take 3 days of constant charge in order to go the 8 miles. People are just waving the flag for things like this immediately because of what it represents, not what they know about it. I live in the southeast US, and I don't think I'd have a hard time convincing anyone that the power companies down here have less pressure on them to be "clean" than do the ones in, say, California.
I am young and don't have a lot of money (just bought my first house a while back). I just needed a mower of some sort. Got one off craigslist for $30. I was lucky -- it's a fairly newer model that doesn't chug a lot of gas. Some people tell me an electric mower would be better. Would I be opposed to using one if it were similarly available to me price-wise? Not at all. But they're not available cheaply and the advantages of using one haven't been shown to me to be much more than miniscule at best.
There's a bottom line here that the especially passionate environmentalists have a hard time accepting -- and that's that the argument for compassion is not good enough for most people, much less most Americans. I believe that whatever the more "environmentally friendly" thing is in any given argument -- whether it be lawn mowers or cars -- has to be cheaper or at least comparable in price, similarly usable, and proven to be advantageous to an all but spectacularly obvious extent. Such things haven't been shown to me for either the mower or the car. You can't just say to someone who is in a cynical state like me: "Just go do some serious research and you'll find out the truth." The majority of people -- even if politically neutral -- will just shrug at that argument and keep using their internal combustion mower like I am. We have nothing to prove. But if people want change from someone like me, they have to prove something to us. All I seem to get when I mention arguments like mine are scowls and disdain, but no facts or evidence that a change in that area of my lifestyle will be of any advantage to anyone else, much less to the environment as a whole. But I do get told that it'll cost me more, be less convenient, and be of negligible advantage. When that changes, or if you can show otherwise for now, then come talk to me.
...your local power company gets all of your energy from inefficient, weakly regulated coal power plants. I considered an electric lawnmower for my yard, but then discovered that it would cost me pretty much the same and pollute the environment to an equal extent. So why bother?
I'm as liberal as they come, but I'm also a cynical bastard. Hard to get excited about a car that goes 8 miles and ultimately pollutes as much as my car when it goes 8 miles. 'Cept it can go much further. On only one gallon of $4/gallon gas.
Dude. I'm on your side. Pay attention. It's a mix of sarcasm and cynicism. It's this little thing people do around here. You must be new. Welcome to slashdot.
One thing you can always count on whenever there's an article about how bad someone else has it: and that's those heartless "I wash my hands of this and feel no sadness/guilt over it whatsoever" kind of posts I mentioned originally.
Bring on the heartless, self-absorbed, unfeeling they-still-make-more-money-than-some-other-parts-o f-the-world-and-they-choose-to-do-this-so-why-shou ld-we-feel-sorry-for-them posts.
As in... sensationalistic, no? "OpenOffice.org for Mac OS X Released! OMG! LOL! WTF?" Except that it barely works yet. "It only displays words in binary or wingdings... no actual text yet. Also, it may give you dysentery." These slashdot headlines sure are knee-jerk excited over the smallest things.
And just to go ahead and respond to the obligatory joke: no, I am not new here. I just have a really, really bad memory.:)
Special version of MAME with on-screen controls will hopefully soon follow. I don't know if I'd pay $5000 for state-of-the-art applications and functionality... but if I can play Galaga with touch-screen controls I might change my tune.
I love AC's - you guys always put a smile on my face. Show me in my original post where I was telling anyone how they must live, where I said that someone shouldn't be allowed to do a job, and where I said we're forcing anything on anybody.
Your anger and hair-trigger temperment are delicious to me. I always know that I'm on to something when people get so mad; clearly it's a manifestation of their guilt and lack of understanding on a topic. Helps remind me that I'm on the right track whenever people are this defensive. And when they hide, of course. Yummy.
I just google all of those terms and found absolutely nothing to indicate that anything I said was in the slightest bit wrong. Call me crazy for not digging beyond the first 5 pages of results. Maybe I missed something. How about you give me some specific links to indicate such and I will quite gladly read them.
The most interesting thing I found while searching those terms is that Americans spend only 10% of their income on food while the Chinese spend around 30%. So that means even LESS money in their pocket. How exactly do these google searches help your argument?
And we're not talking about Bumblefuckistan (damn if this place isn't a favorite straw-man location for people to use in limp arguments) - we're talking about China. A real country. You can make up imaginary places where $1000 a year is enough to feed a family of four in a less-than-squallid house with at least halfway decent medical care, but until you show me something adequate your argument kind of falls flat, wouldn't you say? Heck, let's just assume for food. Let's be generous and say these diggers make $5000 a year. Take out the 30% they spend on food. That leaves around $3,300. Take a look-see through the searches you suggested to me and let me know if $3,300 is adequate for a human being to live in any sort of condition that goes beyond simply surviving.
I'm actually not arguing and don't consider this to be a debate of any substance because nobody has yet provided me with any sort of refutation that has any weight. It's just the same reactionary, defensive stuff we always hear. I love to learn, so I'm curious about any and all data you may have access to that I'm overlooking. The only thing I was able to find on repeated pages was the international cities comparison: http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm - which seems to have major US and Chinese cities sprinkled throughout fairly evenly.
Do you have any information on the cost of living of rural areas of China? Something that indicates that their overall cost of living is at least 12x cheaper than the comparable cost of living here in the states? It doesn't have to be an online link (though I know people prefer that as a way to "win" an argument fairly quickly) - I have some great libraries in my area in NC. Honestly, I'm not being confrontational on this - someone point me to a source that shows that I shouldn't be concerned about third world countries where people make $4 a day digging through my garbage because they actually have it so much better than I realize. I'll read whatever you recommend to me and I'll apologize if any of you are right.
Are you (and all of your other fellow apologists in this thread) really THAT callous? Even if those workers made that maximum of $4 per day, I still make more in one month than they do in a year. And I'm a 26 year old who graduated with a BA in ENGLISH. Grades were so-so. You honestly don't think there's something wrong with the world when inequities like that exist solely based on situations we have no say in? Birth place, ethnicity, et cetera? Inequities that are further exascerbated by utterly soulless and unfeeling self-righteous tools who can't seem to see past the tips of their own noses?
Okay, we get it, someone being paid to do horrible and potentially life-shortening work makes more than the average worker in their region. But that does not make it right. In fact, it's one of the weakest (and sadly one of the most common) arguments I've ever seen. I don't think I've ever seen someone make an excusatory argument like that that was in the slightest bit convincing. It always sounds, to me at least, like those people that shrug off the rape of a young woman because the way she dressed meant she "was asking for it."
If you honestly do not care about the plight of your fellow human beings, that's fine - but at least be honest with yourself that that's what you believe. Don't try to rationalize it, because the fact that the richest nations in the world can't wipe their own asses is not something that I think can ever be truly rationalized except by the most cold and materialistic of people.
And I know, I know, call me a communist or a socialist or whatever little ditty makes your heart dance at any given moment, but if giving a crap about other people is considered to be such , then I can live with it. So thanks for the compliment. I do hate, however, that any indication of caring about other people in modern America and wanting to help them has become a "bad" thing in the eyes of so many of my peers. Screw community, screw equality, let's all look out for number one.
All that being said, I do not have a ready-made solution for those regions that are so poor that jobs like these are the only ones available. I don't, however, think that means the apologists automatically "win" this debate. I think it means that people need to hunker down and FIND a better solution, instead of just shrugging it off.
Why is all of this a bad way to think? If you don't care about others, please keep in mind that nobody is trying to force you to participate. Worst case scenario in this particular situation, you just have to drop off your computer waste at point A instead of point B for it to be shipped/processed to some OTHER place that you'll also never lay eyes on or personally deal with in any way - so what's the problem?
...progressions in medicine help people heal better. You heard it here first - on DNN, your Duh News Network.
I remember playing Oregon trail and having family members in the game die of diarrhea. They may have called such an ailment "death" way back when, but you know what I call it? Saturday.
Yeah - congratulations! You have your dignity... but no job.
I'd like to think I'd do the same thing, but since I've never been put in such a situation I can't really say. Which weighs more: my self-respect or my mortgage? Tough call. If I had a wife or a... what're those things called... child - that'd be an even tougher call. He's got his pride... but I've got a steak dinner waiting for me tonight. And plus, my self-delusion is a great substitute for any pride I may have sold.
Ever read "The Unbearable Lightness of Being?" I think I could say that I'd go from being a doctor to a window-washer to stick to my guns if the enemy were indeed an entire government. But if it's just a matter of advertising dollars, is it really worth it? Is it even possible to go through the entirety of life in the modern world without some kind of concession?
Mostly just thinking out loud here... not advocating one way or the other. Good topic. Good discussion. Time for steak.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Have you seen the idle section?
Well that was awfully nice of you to post about it on a prominent website.
ANd no, guy, I'm not going to help you out with how and why.
The familiar sound of someone with nothing to contribute.
My apologies; I was not clear. I should've said "please correct me if I'm wrong and clarify." Traditional welfare as (IMHO) most people think of it involves simply providing paychecks to people with few or no conditions. In 1992, I think Clinton made it a promise to end welfare as we know it. Then, if I'm not mistaken, around 96 or 97 it became a much more conditional program/series of programs. There are now various limits depending on the individual. I heard it described by an unfortunate friend who lost his job at a particularly challenging time in his life as, "Like going to a probation officer for the right to eat while trying to get back on your feet."
I think most people are still under the impression that welfare doles out cash indiscriminately to all comers, a misperception along the line of those who think government housing = living entirely without rent.
From what I can tell, welfare as most people argue it doesn't exist in the way they imagine it and hasn't for over 10 years.
For everyone who keeps bringing up welfare in every single political debate no matter what the centerpiece of the story is, I have a question. Are you not aware that welfare -- at least in the sense that most of the population thinks when they hear the term -- does not exist anymore? And hasn't existed for several years?
With all sincerity, please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I missed something and it got brought back recently. Not that I'm aware of, though. I've never seen a redundant moot point quite like welfare debates.
What's all this talk about the book being an unconquerable medium? Have you not seen Amazon's Kindle? It is an absolute masterpiece of... hahahahahaha! Golly, I almost made it through the whole speech with a straight face...
I'm not that much of a... um... smart. And yet, even I think it's kind of funny to see what's 2 places higher according to alexa. Maybe MS needs to take some UI lessons from them? A bazillion preteens can't be wrong! Silverlight needs, at very least, one really loud pop song embedded on every page by default.
Actually, I think the summary is wrong.
"Computerworld has an interview with Craig Newmark about the history of Craigslist and it's growth over the years"
=
"Computerworld has an interview with Craig Newmark about the history of Craigslist and it is growth over the years"
I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but if someone's going to openly defend the error I just can't resist. It's (as in it is) a weakness.
A lot of people seem to be debating whether the changes were truly partisan, but I think that's beside the point. I personally don't think the changes add anything of value except for softening the tone to make it more passive or bend factual information into expressing an opinion via language.
Hang on... I just found the wikipedia standard about it: Avoid weasel words.
Partisan or not, I think the standards pretty much clear up whether this was adequate. But given this standard I'd say that the original article before the edits was less partisan as it appears to just be following the guidelines.
Killer Blondes from Outer Space!
Thank you! God I've been dying for the day when I could get someone to actually give me some sources on slashdot as opposed to just talking down to people.
So let's say I now agree with your assessment of the situation about mowers/cars. Now for the argument for convenience and the waiting to be led by the nose. Face it: people are dumb. People are also proud. I know that if I say something, even if it's something in jest that I don't really believe all that fervently, I know my pride still swells up irregardless if that casual, pseudo-joking belief gets challenged. I think most people are similar. There are times we argue something just to argue because someone was a jerk to us.
Now, I personally believe that people will cover the planet in soot and eat ash before they collectively, willingly buddy up with an unlikeable liberal celebrity like Rosie O'Donnell. Why? Because even if she's right on a lot of things, she's very often a jerk. People have to be halfway decent. I actually think that's a bigger factor holding up environmentalism and other liberal causes I believe in. Just being told by someone that you "need to reexamine your assumptions" doesn't change your mind, it just makes you hostile toward the other person and generally jaded against whatever it is they're trying to argue. I mean look at me -- I believe a lot of the same things and even I'm leaning more towards shrugging apathy.
So thanks for providing some sources. You're right, obviously I do need to reexamine my assumptions. But hopefully yourself or any other of our fellow liberals will see this and consider reexamining their approach on such things.
"Unless you're driving an electric vehicle, you're simply wrong, and need to re-examine your assumptions."
With all due respect, it's hard to take you seriously. After insisting that I need to share my sources for why I believe what I believe, it's okay to say I'm "simply wrong" without providing any evidence of your own. I get this a lot in regards to my cynicism on issues like this, so it's nothing new.
I should preface by saying that I'm very much a liberal minded person and am very open to being wrong if the result would be a better environment. But in this case I've seen nothing to prove me otherwise. There are a handful of short articles by lesser known environmental groups that insist that using an electric mower, even one that's drawing from a coal-based power plant, is better. But that's a blanket statement that doesn't take into account the varying environmental concerns of different power companies. And in the case of this car, has anyone provided the stats for how much electricity it needs in order to go those 8 miles? For all you and everyone else on here knows, it could take 3 days of constant charge in order to go the 8 miles. People are just waving the flag for things like this immediately because of what it represents, not what they know about it. I live in the southeast US, and I don't think I'd have a hard time convincing anyone that the power companies down here have less pressure on them to be "clean" than do the ones in, say, California.
I am young and don't have a lot of money (just bought my first house a while back). I just needed a mower of some sort. Got one off craigslist for $30. I was lucky -- it's a fairly newer model that doesn't chug a lot of gas. Some people tell me an electric mower would be better. Would I be opposed to using one if it were similarly available to me price-wise? Not at all. But they're not available cheaply and the advantages of using one haven't been shown to me to be much more than miniscule at best.
There's a bottom line here that the especially passionate environmentalists have a hard time accepting -- and that's that the argument for compassion is not good enough for most people, much less most Americans. I believe that whatever the more "environmentally friendly" thing is in any given argument -- whether it be lawn mowers or cars -- has to be cheaper or at least comparable in price, similarly usable, and proven to be advantageous to an all but spectacularly obvious extent. Such things haven't been shown to me for either the mower or the car. You can't just say to someone who is in a cynical state like me: "Just go do some serious research and you'll find out the truth." The majority of people -- even if politically neutral -- will just shrug at that argument and keep using their internal combustion mower like I am. We have nothing to prove. But if people want change from someone like me, they have to prove something to us. All I seem to get when I mention arguments like mine are scowls and disdain, but no facts or evidence that a change in that area of my lifestyle will be of any advantage to anyone else, much less to the environment as a whole. But I do get told that it'll cost me more, be less convenient, and be of negligible advantage. When that changes, or if you can show otherwise for now, then come talk to me.
...your local power company gets all of your energy from inefficient, weakly regulated coal power plants. I considered an electric lawnmower for my yard, but then discovered that it would cost me pretty much the same and pollute the environment to an equal extent. So why bother?
I'm as liberal as they come, but I'm also a cynical bastard. Hard to get excited about a car that goes 8 miles and ultimately pollutes as much as my car when it goes 8 miles. 'Cept it can go much further. On only one gallon of $4/gallon gas.
Dude. I'm on your side. Pay attention. It's a mix of sarcasm and cynicism. It's this little thing people do around here. You must be new. Welcome to slashdot.
= nested&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=235499&cid=1920 5901&pid=19205901
I learned a long time ago not to try to argue compassion with people on here and other internet forums, because the people who agree with you don't need convincing and the people who don't agree with you will just yell at you for being a liberal/hippie/commie. And yet occasionally I still try it because I'm a stubborn bastard. Observe: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1&mode
One thing you can always count on whenever there's an article about how bad someone else has it: and that's those heartless "I wash my hands of this and feel no sadness/guilt over it whatsoever" kind of posts I mentioned originally.
Bring on the heartless, self-absorbed, unfeeling they-still-make-more-money-than-some-other-parts-o f-the-world-and-they-choose-to-do-this-so-why-shou ld-we-feel-sorry-for-them posts.
As in... sensationalistic, no? "OpenOffice.org for Mac OS X Released! OMG! LOL! WTF?" Except that it barely works yet. "It only displays words in binary or wingdings... no actual text yet. Also, it may give you dysentery." These slashdot headlines sure are knee-jerk excited over the smallest things.
:)
And just to go ahead and respond to the obligatory joke: no, I am not new here. I just have a really, really bad memory.
Special version of MAME with on-screen controls will hopefully soon follow. I don't know if I'd pay $5000 for state-of-the-art applications and functionality... but if I can play Galaga with touch-screen controls I might change my tune.
According to my job's favorite Big Brother - Websense - the site is blocked.
Reason: The Websense category "Illegal or Questionable" is filtered.
I love AC's - you guys always put a smile on my face. Show me in my original post where I was telling anyone how they must live, where I said that someone shouldn't be allowed to do a job, and where I said we're forcing anything on anybody.
Your anger and hair-trigger temperment are delicious to me. I always know that I'm on to something when people get so mad; clearly it's a manifestation of their guilt and lack of understanding on a topic. Helps remind me that I'm on the right track whenever people are this defensive. And when they hide, of course. Yummy.
I just google all of those terms and found absolutely nothing to indicate that anything I said was in the slightest bit wrong. Call me crazy for not digging beyond the first 5 pages of results. Maybe I missed something. How about you give me some specific links to indicate such and I will quite gladly read them.
The most interesting thing I found while searching those terms is that Americans spend only 10% of their income on food while the Chinese spend around 30%. So that means even LESS money in their pocket. How exactly do these google searches help your argument?
And we're not talking about Bumblefuckistan (damn if this place isn't a favorite straw-man location for people to use in limp arguments) - we're talking about China. A real country. You can make up imaginary places where $1000 a year is enough to feed a family of four in a less-than-squallid house with at least halfway decent medical care, but until you show me something adequate your argument kind of falls flat, wouldn't you say? Heck, let's just assume for food. Let's be generous and say these diggers make $5000 a year. Take out the 30% they spend on food. That leaves around $3,300. Take a look-see through the searches you suggested to me and let me know if $3,300 is adequate for a human being to live in any sort of condition that goes beyond simply surviving.
I'm actually not arguing and don't consider this to be a debate of any substance because nobody has yet provided me with any sort of refutation that has any weight. It's just the same reactionary, defensive stuff we always hear. I love to learn, so I'm curious about any and all data you may have access to that I'm overlooking. The only thing I was able to find on repeated pages was the international cities comparison: http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm - which seems to have major US and Chinese cities sprinkled throughout fairly evenly.
Do you have any information on the cost of living of rural areas of China? Something that indicates that their overall cost of living is at least 12x cheaper than the comparable cost of living here in the states? It doesn't have to be an online link (though I know people prefer that as a way to "win" an argument fairly quickly) - I have some great libraries in my area in NC. Honestly, I'm not being confrontational on this - someone point me to a source that shows that I shouldn't be concerned about third world countries where people make $4 a day digging through my garbage because they actually have it so much better than I realize. I'll read whatever you recommend to me and I'll apologize if any of you are right.
Are you (and all of your other fellow apologists in this thread) really THAT callous? Even if those workers made that maximum of $4 per day, I still make more in one month than they do in a year. And I'm a 26 year old who graduated with a BA in ENGLISH. Grades were so-so. You honestly don't think there's something wrong with the world when inequities like that exist solely based on situations we have no say in? Birth place, ethnicity, et cetera? Inequities that are further exascerbated by utterly soulless and unfeeling self-righteous tools who can't seem to see past the tips of their own noses?
Okay, we get it, someone being paid to do horrible and potentially life-shortening work makes more than the average worker in their region. But that does not make it right. In fact, it's one of the weakest (and sadly one of the most common) arguments I've ever seen. I don't think I've ever seen someone make an excusatory argument like that that was in the slightest bit convincing. It always sounds, to me at least, like those people that shrug off the rape of a young woman because the way she dressed meant she "was asking for it."
If you honestly do not care about the plight of your fellow human beings, that's fine - but at least be honest with yourself that that's what you believe. Don't try to rationalize it, because the fact that the richest nations in the world can't wipe their own asses is not something that I think can ever be truly rationalized except by the most cold and materialistic of people.
And I know, I know, call me a communist or a socialist or whatever little ditty makes your heart dance at any given moment, but if giving a crap about other people is considered to be such , then I can live with it. So thanks for the compliment. I do hate, however, that any indication of caring about other people in modern America and wanting to help them has become a "bad" thing in the eyes of so many of my peers. Screw community, screw equality, let's all look out for number one.
All that being said, I do not have a ready-made solution for those regions that are so poor that jobs like these are the only ones available. I don't, however, think that means the apologists automatically "win" this debate. I think it means that people need to hunker down and FIND a better solution, instead of just shrugging it off.
Why is all of this a bad way to think? If you don't care about others, please keep in mind that nobody is trying to force you to participate. Worst case scenario in this particular situation, you just have to drop off your computer waste at point A instead of point B for it to be shipped/processed to some OTHER place that you'll also never lay eyes on or personally deal with in any way - so what's the problem?
...progressions in medicine help people heal better. You heard it here first - on DNN, your Duh News Network. I remember playing Oregon trail and having family members in the game die of diarrhea. They may have called such an ailment "death" way back when, but you know what I call it? Saturday.
Yeah - congratulations! You have your dignity... but no job.
I'd like to think I'd do the same thing, but since I've never been put in such a situation I can't really say. Which weighs more: my self-respect or my mortgage? Tough call. If I had a wife or a... what're those things called... child - that'd be an even tougher call. He's got his pride... but I've got a steak dinner waiting for me tonight. And plus, my self-delusion is a great substitute for any pride I may have sold.
Ever read "The Unbearable Lightness of Being?" I think I could say that I'd go from being a doctor to a window-washer to stick to my guns if the enemy were indeed an entire government. But if it's just a matter of advertising dollars, is it really worth it? Is it even possible to go through the entirety of life in the modern world without some kind of concession?
Mostly just thinking out loud here... not advocating one way or the other. Good topic. Good discussion. Time for steak.
I wouldn't pick up the sword OR make piece. It'd probably just be a flesh wound.
Yeah but can you really trust a work-related study from the University of Not Safe for Work?