The US has a civil space program because people who want space development, for various reasons - national pride, science, etc - find it easier to use taxpayers money than to actually convince people to fund it voluntarily.
It's right to have a space program, it's wrong to force people to pay for it if they don't want it.
I also find it odd that so many americans find the very idea (of workers gathering together to form a stronger position for bargaining with employers) somehow offensive.
This is not what unions are about. Unions negociate political privileges that force (and I mean force, as in policeman with a gun) employers to use union labor, that prevent employer for legitimately firing an employee based on union membership, etc.
Unions are not natural labor cartel, they're politically protected, coercive labor cartels.
Dijkstra mocks concerns about the lack of "programming tools". I think he is wrong on this one. Refactoring can be thought of as a programming tool, and it is a very useful one.
Should taxpayers back car makers first of all. Propping up failing industries with cash is like trying to fight gravity by throwing things up in the air. Should productive people pay for the calamitous ruin produced by government backed union thugs? So politicians bought michigan votes and now it's time to pay, only the payers will be the people living in the US. Uh uh.
Should we pay for the cars of the wealthy... ooooooh the wealthy. Yeah right, this is about the wealthy. Wait, no. Actually this is about the fucking Marxists who believe in unions, who believe in a socialized banking system.
Taxpayer should not back anything, and that includes the most bankrupt and morally corrupt company of all, the US government. Who will bail out the US government? Ponder this.
I'm fucking pissed off by the morons who keep cheering at every election for a candidate or the other. Oh yea, sure politics is screwed and power corrupts... but but, *this* guy, he's for real, you'll see.
We need change, but not political change. In politics, change means, more shit than before. Political change is for the worth.
Wake up, it's not about the people in charge, the problems lie with the incentives and yes, democracy itself.
To clarify myself, I do not have a particular stance on global warming itself. I do not know climatology. I do believe however that
a) Appeal to consensus are irrelevant, scientific truth comes from repeated and verified experiments, not consensus.
b) Whether it is man made or not is an ethical puppet to distract attention. What's done done.
c) Most of the politics and economics surrounding global warming are flawed. That much I can tell. Even the worst prediction of the IPCC are quite tame compared to other disasters likely to happen, and they are dwarfed by the difference that even 0.5% of growth and technological progress a year makes on the same timescale.
Most of the global warming debate is really an attack on industrialization and global trade under the guise of environmentalism. (And no it doesn't mean there's no global warming, and no it doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it, but so far the debate has been mostly a trojan horse for political ideology).
Slashdot Mirror
The US has a civil space program because people who want space development, for various reasons - national pride, science, etc - find it easier to use taxpayers money than to actually convince people to fund it voluntarily.
It's right to have a space program, it's wrong to force people to pay for it if they don't want it.
evil does not justify evil
You're wrong, that's five word.
This is not what unions are about. Unions negociate political privileges that force (and I mean force, as in policeman with a gun) employers to use union labor, that prevent employer for legitimately firing an employee based on union membership, etc.
Unions are not natural labor cartel, they're politically protected, coercive labor cartels.
Oh yeah. Good minimum wage definitely protects the insiders, that is union workers. The rest of the people can go unemployed heh ? Screw them.
An employer can't even refuse to do business with them, it's illegal. Union are thug gangs.
No actually it's about allowing the government to control the ISP's routers.
Such as ? Beware, it has to be a con for the genes.
Somehow freedom of speech, freedom of expression don't apply to radio according to you?
It will be disguised as "net neutrality".
Reading the envelope doesn't mean opening the letter.
You're imposing your subjective moral value about "price fairness" on "industrial sharks".
Everything is content on the Internet. Net Neutrality is a regulation of content, a particular one, but a regulation of content nonetheless.
To people who think antitrust law are not really harmful because they are used rarely, this should be a reminder.
(those who think they are helpful, I'm not even talking to you)
Dijkstra mocks concerns about the lack of "programming tools". I think he is wrong on this one. Refactoring can be thought of as a programming tool, and it is a very useful one.
Yup.
"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency." Vladimir Lenin
Should taxpayers back car makers first of all. Propping up failing industries with cash is like trying to fight gravity by throwing things up in the air. Should productive people pay for the calamitous ruin produced by government backed union thugs? So politicians bought michigan votes and now it's time to pay, only the payers will be the people living in the US. Uh uh.
Should we pay for the cars of the wealthy... ooooooh the wealthy. Yeah right, this is about the wealthy. Wait, no. Actually this is about the fucking Marxists who believe in unions, who believe in a socialized banking system.
Taxpayer should not back anything, and that includes the most bankrupt and morally corrupt company of all, the US government. Who will bail out the US government? Ponder this.
But... but it's O-ba-ma...
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/57241.html
Yup this guy is also a strong drug warrior.
You thought Obama would be nice on drugs? Think again.
I'm fucking pissed off by the morons who keep cheering at every election for a candidate or the other. Oh yea, sure politics is screwed and power corrupts... but but, *this* guy, he's for real, you'll see.
We need change, but not political change. In politics, change means, more shit than before. Political change is for the worth.
Wake up, it's not about the people in charge, the problems lie with the incentives and yes, democracy itself.
If it moves tax it.
If it still moves, tax it more.
If it's stopped moving, subsidize it.
To clarify myself, I do not have a particular stance on global warming itself. I do not know climatology. I do believe however that
a) Appeal to consensus are irrelevant, scientific truth comes from repeated and verified experiments, not consensus.
b) Whether it is man made or not is an ethical puppet to distract attention. What's done done.
c) Most of the politics and economics surrounding global warming are flawed. That much I can tell. Even the worst prediction of the IPCC are quite tame compared to other disasters likely to happen, and they are dwarfed by the difference that even 0.5% of growth and technological progress a year makes on the same timescale.
Most of the global warming debate is really an attack on industrialization and global trade under the guise of environmentalism.
(And no it doesn't mean there's no global warming, and no it doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it, but so far the debate has been mostly a trojan horse for political ideology).
There is already a wealth of political will for global warming, whats lacking is evidence ..
There, fixed that for you.
I'll try but it doesn't really fit
The single point of failure is centralized government.
The meter is there because we rely on it to evaluate threats, to finance a good chunk of science, etc.
We continue to pay taxes.
We can reduce the risk of extinction by reducing all forms of centralization, starting with government.
Then again I have an anarchist bias.
No, most likely 0 people are of average intelligence. And, no 50% aren't necessarily below either.
He is not necessarily the victim of a crime, but has probably been emotionally abused by Scientology.
Doesn't mean he's not a victim. Victims are not angels, you can be both a victim and do bad things.
Now that would be totally awesome.