The big problem with welfare is that we don't have the heart to tell people we'll let their children starve if they don't get off their asses and find work.
Investors and/or taxpayers would have to shell out staggering amounts of money to make this happen... what's in it for them?
There's more stuff in "it" for taxpayers than the current complete clusterfuck in the Middle East, and the costs aren't too far off from being equivalent. But that's politically acceptable, for some reason.
They add up to exactly 100%. I put the OS X: 100% line in there to let you know that these are the stats reflecting OS X ONLY. Obviously we have a lot more Windows visitors than OS X, so I wanted to make that clear.
Agreed. So how about spending some money to keep our promises to take care of them AFTER their service is completed.
Why? They applied for a dangerous, dirty job and got paid for it. If you don't feel the existing pay and benefits are enough of an incentive to possibly be killed, DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY.
They should be treated like any other person who is permanently injured...apply for state and federal disability.
impact on the "growth of children's eyes" - Do they end up larger or smaller in the end?
Funny you should mention that, because eye size/growth has a LOT to do with being near or far sighted.
Recent research shows that frequent exposure to strong light (like daylight) inhibits the growth of the eye so that it reaches its correct size, more or less. With too little strong light stimulus, the eye can overgrow (not sure it's spherical growth or oblong growth or what) and cause myopia, aka nearsightedness, due to the retina and lens being the incorrect distance apart. The researchers postulate that kids playing a lot more indoors over the last x years has caused an increase in myopia in the general population.
If I am ever in a situation where it's between my life, and living by leeching off of others, I will rather put a bullet in my head than leech off others.
You are 100% full of shit. Please cite an example of ONE person who's done something like that (and who wasn't 80+ years old). You'll "leech" like the rest when push comes to shove.
But there is a difference between the attention of your neighbors, with whom you have some kind of dynamic relationship, and the whole rest of the world, over whom you have no influence, social or direct.
That difference hasn't existed since the invention of the camera and newspapers.
. . L i k e d t h e s h o w... . . . . l . i . k . e . d . . . t . h . e . . . s . h . o . w..... . . . . . . . l . . i . . k . . e . . d . . . . . t . . h . . e . . . . . s . . h . . o . . w.....
Are you yelling into a large room with a continually receding back wall? Sort of like the Doppler effect.
Why the heck would you move so far away to become a cop? Can't you get a job as a cop pretty much anywhere? Every hamlet/town/city/metropolis in the world has a police force....
In a perfect country, there would be no income taxes and everyone would have to provide for themselves. I shouldn't owe anyone any piece of what I earn.
Ah, but you don't earn in a vacuum. You *cannot* earn in an unstable society; if there are food riots and rampant crime due to complete hopelessness and lawlessness in the lower classes, good luck running a successful business of any kind (other than organized crime). You gain many, MANY indirect benefits from not living in a dysfunctional hellhole like, say, Somalia.
There will ALWAYS be those who do not provide for themselves, and they must be provided for to prevent them from damaging society to a larger degree. Think of it as a cost of doing business. Just like shrinkage, it is cost-prohibitive and damaging to eliminate it entirely, so it must be minimized (as best is possible) and tolerated.
I would argue that it's more that those on the left prefer a pseudo-intellectual justification for their biases, whereas those on the right prefer to go with their gut and "common sense."
It's like rationality vs. religion. At least you can successfully shoot down "pseudo-intellectual" arguments with actually-intellectual arguments, but "common sense" can't be easily falsified.
Driving is inherently a dangerous act, and I think most people accept this at some low level. People die in car accidents all the time. We hear about it on the news all the time. It's a "cost of doing business" (whether that's right or wrong, it's how people feel).
Here's the issue with terrorism: No one expects to die in an office building hit by a plane, so when people feel super-safe and that super-safety is violated, they go nuts. It's the irrational feeling that AT ANY MOMENT, no matter what you're doing, someone could kill you, and no amount of risk-avoidance can stop it.
Feeling out of control = wanting someone to take control (e.g. The gov, men with guns, keep us safe, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
The big problem with welfare is that we don't have the heart to tell people we'll let their children starve if they don't get off their asses and find work.
I'd call that a feature, not a problem (bug).
Investors and/or taxpayers would have to shell out staggering amounts of money to make this happen... what's in it for them?
There's more stuff in "it" for taxpayers than the current complete clusterfuck in the Middle East, and the costs aren't too far off from being equivalent. But that's politically acceptable, for some reason.
They add up to exactly 100%. I put the OS X: 100% line in there to let you know that these are the stats reflecting OS X ONLY. Obviously we have a lot more Windows visitors than OS X, so I wanted to make that clear.
Here are the stats I see on our website (major financial institution):
The remaining 2.73% is crap data.
"Better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent should suffer a trial." and all that.
The sad part is, if you polled the American people today, I bet 80% would disagree with that statement.
After all, that guy just *looks* shady, I bet he did *something*! /sigh
Agreed. So how about spending some money to keep our promises to take care of them AFTER their service is completed.
Why? They applied for a dangerous, dirty job and got paid for it. If you don't feel the existing pay and benefits are enough of an incentive to possibly be killed, DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY.
They should be treated like any other person who is permanently injured...apply for state and federal disability.
Funniest comment of the new year. Kudos to you sir.
impact on the "growth of children's eyes" - Do they end up larger or smaller in the end?
Funny you should mention that, because eye size/growth has a LOT to do with being near or far sighted.
Recent research shows that frequent exposure to strong light (like daylight) inhibits the growth of the eye so that it reaches its correct size, more or less. With too little strong light stimulus, the eye can overgrow (not sure it's spherical growth or oblong growth or what) and cause myopia, aka nearsightedness, due to the retina and lens being the incorrect distance apart. The researchers postulate that kids playing a lot more indoors over the last x years has caused an increase in myopia in the general population.
http://www.trcb.com/health-and-fitness/eyes-vision/myopia-exposure-to-sunlight-for-two-hours-daily-help-avoid-myopia-3651.htm
+1 Steve Martin
If I am ever in a situation where it's between my life, and living by leeching off of others, I will rather put a bullet in my head than leech off others.
You are 100% full of shit. Please cite an example of ONE person who's done something like that (and who wasn't 80+ years old). You'll "leech" like the rest when push comes to shove.
Yeah, because the government does such a great job of innovation.
*cough* ARPANET *cough*
But there is a difference between the attention of your neighbors, with whom you have some kind of dynamic relationship, and the whole rest of the world, over whom you have no influence, social or direct.
That difference hasn't existed since the invention of the camera and newspapers.
Tiering != QoS
Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with QoS.
Please at least read the wikipedia article before posting.
Programming is APPLIED computer science (part of it, anyway).
An IDE is a tool that makes the application of said computer science concepts in real-world applications easier than without it.
number theory : computer science
using math to solve problems : programming
IDE : slide rule/calculator
But at master's level, you have to design algorithms that can benefit from parallelism in the underlying hardware architecture.
Bah, that's what platform developers are for. Poor bastards.
You and I watched a video and came to different conclusions.
Yes, because you weren't paying close attention. Or do you think, based on the video, that an RPG was fired?
. . L i k e d t h e s h o w... ..... .....
. . . . l . i . k . e . d . . . t . h . e . . . s . h . o . w
. . . . . . . l . . i . . k . . e . . d . . . . . t . . h . . e . . . . . s . . h . . o . . w
Are you yelling into a large room with a continually receding back wall? Sort of like the Doppler effect.
Why the heck would you move so far away to become a cop? Can't you get a job as a cop pretty much anywhere? Every hamlet/town/city/metropolis in the world has a police force....
Not trying to be a dick, genuinely curious.
In a perfect country, there would be no income taxes and everyone would have to provide for themselves. I shouldn't owe anyone any piece of what I earn.
Ah, but you don't earn in a vacuum. You *cannot* earn in an unstable society; if there are food riots and rampant crime due to complete hopelessness and lawlessness in the lower classes, good luck running a successful business of any kind (other than organized crime). You gain many, MANY indirect benefits from not living in a dysfunctional hellhole like, say, Somalia.
There will ALWAYS be those who do not provide for themselves, and they must be provided for to prevent them from damaging society to a larger degree. Think of it as a cost of doing business. Just like shrinkage, it is cost-prohibitive and damaging to eliminate it entirely, so it must be minimized (as best is possible) and tolerated.
Meh, it's just a broken scouter, nothing to wake yourself over.
I would argue that it's more that those on the left prefer a pseudo-intellectual justification for their biases, whereas those on the right prefer to go with their gut and "common sense."
It's like rationality vs. religion. At least you can successfully shoot down "pseudo-intellectual" arguments with actually-intellectual arguments, but "common sense" can't be easily falsified.
Peoria! I just know from reading your posts you're in Springfield. It was on PJStar earlier today.
Driving is inherently a dangerous act, and I think most people accept this at some low level. People die in car accidents all the time. We hear about it on the news all the time. It's a "cost of doing business" (whether that's right or wrong, it's how people feel).
Here's the issue with terrorism: No one expects to die in an office building hit by a plane, so when people feel super-safe and that super-safety is violated, they go nuts. It's the irrational feeling that AT ANY MOMENT, no matter what you're doing, someone could kill you, and no amount of risk-avoidance can stop it.
Feeling out of control = wanting someone to take control (e.g. The gov, men with guns, keep us safe, etc).
It's stupid, very very stupid, but I understand.
So what happened with the mayor today? Suicide?