Re:Don't build big *concave* glass buildings
on
Building Melts Car
·
· Score: 2
I actually stayed at this place and happened to be sitting in the wrong spot on the pool deck soon after it opened. I quickly found another spot. Hard to believe the same guy would screw up the SAME WAY again.
Don't bother. The leftists here have their talking points. Pointing out that the Democrat party was the party that founded the KKK, created the Jim Crow laws, created gun control specifically to keep blacks from arming and protecting themselves, founded Planned Parenthood as a way to euthanize the black population and had a grand wizard of the KKK in the Senate up to just a few years ago.
The Democratic party did not found the KKK. A former Confederate Cavalry General did - Nathan Bedford Forrest. Look it up. There WERE indeed a group of SOUTHERN Democrats who were against the Civil Rights movement, but between Nixon and Reagan and the 'Dixiecrat' strategy, they are all gone and turned Republican. The Republican party in 1860 was the LIBERAL party. The Dems and Reps switched ideologies not to long after the turn of the 20th century (minus the Dixiecrats). You seriously need to go learn some history.
Yes, the GOP is certainly for minorities in this country considering they just gutted the Voting Rights Act to make discriminating against minority voters much easier.... not.
Any black person, such as Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Alan West or any of the many others who go against their Democratic talking points are "working for the man" and not "real" black folks.
Last I checked, Colin Powell was no longer too high on 'conservatives' and the 'GOP' (given that they lied to him and used him to start a war, then threw him under a bus) - in fact, he voted for Obama. And frankly I defy anyone to logically defend Clarence Thomas. Even his fellow conservatives can't understand what crazy sort of 'logic' the man uses in his nutty 'decisions'.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Say what? I am sure George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be shocked to learn that, considering they founded this country on Liberalism. Oh, and by the way, this is an ad hominem attack that does nothing but prove you are a Rush Limbaugh talking point drone.
So go learn some history that didn't come out of Savage or Limbaugh and then we can talk.
Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.
It's even amazing that the "fixed" prices are not essentially different than Amazon or Alibris or BN. Very clever price fixing indeed.
BS they weren't 'different'. They were SIGNIFICANTLY higher. At least $3 to $5 higher under the 'agency' model, which on a book that was $9.99 is a 30 to 50% price hike.
Except this is clearly bull*hit as the fee to cancel early does NOT go down the closer you are to the end of your 'contract'.
I have no doubt that part of that fee is indeed used for that, but I am absolutely positive that if you are in the last 1/4 of your contract (and hence have paid off all or almost all of your phone), they get almost 100% profit on that money.
The mobile phone companies are evil beyond comprehension. They make Sauron look like a naughty child.
There is no reason that replacing the board and CEO will 'sink the whole company'. And even if there is a fair probability that it WILL, then GOOD.
Punishment must be sufficiently heinous to DETER misbehavior, and it is clear that the total BS fines that corporations get hit with are NOT in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a deterrent.
Look at Barclays. Look at HSBC. Barclays blatantly manipulated LIBOR and violated numerous laws and got a fine that is maybe 50% of 1 quarter's PROFITS. Not revenue... PROFITS... Barely enough to even make a dent in their earnings.
HSBC money laundered drug profits and ran accounts for known terrorists and did this KNOWINGLY, and they are not in any way shape or form looking at a penalty that will destroy the company or put the CEO and his cronies in JAIL. This is the PERFECT CASE for a corporate DEATH PENALTY, where all corporate assets are SEIZED and sold off.
Mark my words, until we have a way to realistically hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds, they will continue to steal from and kill us individuals with IMPUNITY.
We need realistic penalties for corporations, and I don't mine fines. They are useless for the reasons mentioned above.
The only way to get a corporation to behave differently is to hold the people that run it (the CEO, board, President) accountable.
The best way to do that is to give the government the power to outright kick the board and CEO out and replace them with a government determined management team for a set period of time. Call it Corporate Jail. And the people kicked out CANNOT COME BACK to that company to work. Or maybe they could after a set period of time. Probably both punishments would be useful for different offenses.
Yep. That's certainly what happened in Massachusetts with Romneycare.
No, wait, I'm wrong the exact opposite happened. Health care costs in Massachusetts are some of the highest in the nation, and it's BECAUSE of the mandate.
Look, there's a reason Romney has backed away from Romneycare. It was a great idea when he proposed it, but we've tried it now, and it DID. NOT. WORK. Insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results.
And now the Supreme Court has sold the nation out, giving the Legislative branch unlimited power over our lives via their "tax" powers. I suppose the upside is, if the electorate fails to correct their mistake in November, there won't be any question who's to blame when the nation falls apart.
In Massachusetts the reverse happened because people could just come in from other states at the last minute when they had a health problem and take advantage. Now that is no longer possible. But nice try.
You get your say every 2, 4 or 6 years with the elections. Of course, those are mostly a crapshoot between bad choices and really bad choices but if we stopped re-electing the same people, then the congresscritters might start to listen to us.
That's effectively NO say. Not when we have only two choices, both of which are pre-vetted and pre-bought by the corporations. The technology exists for real democracy. We should start a new experiment in government. There is no need for a Congress any more. Let all of us vote once a week on the proposed laws.
We are talking ALL of them. Corporations aren't PEOPLE until they can be held accountable the same way PEOPLE are. Let's get a Corporate Death Penalty and Corporate PRISON and then I might consider them really PEOPLE.
Just like the woman who sued McDonalds for $16 million and won for a spilled cup of hot coffee.
Or mabey we should start executing shoplifters and given their entirety of personal possesions to the stores. That would show them!
Learn what the f**k really happened to the woman at McDonalds and then stop posting your ignorant moronic response using that as an example. That is a crap example. The woman had to get multiple skin grafts. Why is the internet full of ignorant morons when the info is just one google query away. Stop being lazy.
So the punishment for a crime depends not on what you did, but on what others did? If you stole a candy bar, you should be punished for the unknown person who stole a diamond necklace?
I agree about do the crime/do the time. But for your crimes, not someone else's. If it is right to fine someone 100 times the value for shoplifting, it is right whether they are the only shoplifter in town or one of a thousand. Making any punishment depend upon how many others are doing it is unfair.
Taking product from a store without paying for it is unfair too. So boo hoo Mr. Thief. You wanted unfair, you got it. I have no problem making people collectively responsible for the collective activities they participate in.
Then you are an idiot with poor logic. Think decimation (killing of 1 in 10 for actions by the legions members) by the Roman army was a reasonable response? How about the collective punishment of the Jews in the Holocaust? Almost by definition, collective punishment is unfair since the degree of damage done by each individual is significantly different in most cases. I agree that punishment must be sufficiently harsh to be a deterrent, but making it collective is going too far.
Yeah, this is a loser for all Americans. The majority of the country didn't want this legislation. It was voted down in congress and they had to resort to some trick to pass it. The entire time the Obama Administration kept saying that this was NOT A TAX... that it was a Mandate. Now the SCOTUS says that it is unconstitutional as a Mandate, but it's ok at a TAX. So the bill that was passed was not only against the wishes of the majority of the people, it doesn't even work the way the minority said it would when it was voted upon.
Not really factually correct. A majority of Americans like a majority of the acts of this law. The 'no preexisting condition' portion is particularly popular as is the 'no lifetime maximum' and the 'no copay for preventative care' portions. The one part that more unpopular with most people is the 'must buy insurance part'. But the rest of it doesn't work without that.
I don't see why people that get government approved insurance don't pay it. If it's a tax and not a shitty way to coerce people into the program then it should apply to everyone.
To only apply it to people that don't get the policies is a bill of attainder.
You are nuts. There are GOBS of taxes that not everyone pays. Do you pay Alternative Minimum Tax? How about the Luxury Tax? Estate tax? etc., etc., etc.,.
Odds are your taxes will go up to support enforcing this program, as will your health insurance costs as they struggle to compete with it.
Insurance rates will likely go up LESS fast since those WITH health insurance have ALWAYS been paying for those WITHOUT. Now we will no longer have to do that in many cases. Of course, healthcare and insurance being what they are, insurance will still go up, just not as fast.
At this point most of the law has already been priced in insurance anyway.
It was argued as a side argument at SCOTUS. basically the argument was that 'this is permissible under the Commerce Clause, but oh, even if it isn't then it is a tax and is permissible as that'. Always smart to give the court multiple possible reasons something can be constitutional as this case clearly shows.
We haven't been 'a government of the people' since at least the 1980s if not the 1890s.
The rise of Corporations as 'people' has completely displaced individuals in having much say in their government. We can provide somewhat of a veto for REALLY bad policy (i.e. SOPA), but the vast majority of our laws are decided without us having ANY SAY WHATSOEVER.
We are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Plutocratic Oligarchy masquerading as a Plutocratic Republic.
The tough part wouldn't be missing Earth, or spending 6 months in a large can, but missing my family. Video conferencing isn't the same, especially with the time lag. But even so, I reckon I'd still go, if they gave their blessing. I think they'd probably understand, even if they weren't happy about it. Some things are just worth devoting the rest of your life to, even if it turns out to be short.
The thing is, this isn't '6 months in a large can', this is 'the rest of your life in a large can'. I am fairly sure that this mission, if ever constituted as it is documented here, will end in an orgy of violence as at least one of the 'astronauts' goes postal and offs himself and everyone else.
Human beings aren't built to live in a small structure that they can never escape from without dying. Even prisoners in MaxSec prisons get 1hr a day 'outside' to exercise.
I am fairly sure even 'normal' people will go batshit crazy insane if confined like this for years and years and years.
Please tell me you no longer believe that bull*hit.
BTW, I've been to Loch Ness and literally NONE of the locals I talked to at ALL believed that the Loch Ness monster exists. They basically thought it was clearly and obviously total crap thought up just to get tourists up to northern Scotland.
Granted your point about the taxes, but who else you gonna go to for phone service? They ALL SCREW YOU. In Europe the governments don't let the corporations EVERYONE has to use screw the people. In the US the government ACTIVELY CONSPIRES TO help the corporations SCREW US.
You only really have 3 other phone options. T-mobile (best of the worst IMO), AT&T (god help you) and Sprint (CDMA crap).
Virgin Mobile is basically a non-starter in most of the country since their network is shit for coverage (especially 4G, which is only in a very few cities)
I guess there is Cricket also, but they have a lot of the same problems as Virgin Mobile.
I'd rather pay a few the same taxes AND have a government that stops corporations from screwing their captive markets.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually stayed at this place and happened to be sitting in the wrong spot on the pool deck soon after it opened. I quickly found another spot. Hard to believe the same guy would screw up the SAME WAY again.
Don't bother. The leftists here have their talking points. Pointing out that the Democrat party was the party that founded the KKK, created the Jim Crow laws, created gun control specifically to keep blacks from arming and protecting themselves, founded Planned Parenthood as a way to euthanize the black population and had a grand wizard of the KKK in the Senate up to just a few years ago.
The Democratic party did not found the KKK. A former Confederate Cavalry General did - Nathan Bedford Forrest. Look it up. There WERE indeed a group of SOUTHERN Democrats who were against the Civil Rights movement, but between Nixon and Reagan and the 'Dixiecrat' strategy, they are all gone and turned Republican. The Republican party in 1860 was the LIBERAL party. The Dems and Reps switched ideologies not to long after the turn of the 20th century (minus the Dixiecrats). You seriously need to go learn some history.
Yes, the GOP is certainly for minorities in this country considering they just gutted the Voting Rights Act to make discriminating against minority voters much easier.... not.
Any black person, such as Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Alan West or any of the many others who go against their Democratic talking points are "working for the man" and not "real" black folks.
Last I checked, Colin Powell was no longer too high on 'conservatives' and the 'GOP' (given that they lied to him and used him to start a war, then threw him under a bus) - in fact, he voted for Obama. And frankly I defy anyone to logically defend Clarence Thomas. Even his fellow conservatives can't understand what crazy sort of 'logic' the man uses in his nutty 'decisions'.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Say what? I am sure George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be shocked to learn that, considering they founded this country on Liberalism. Oh, and by the way, this is an ad hominem attack that does nothing but prove you are a Rush Limbaugh talking point drone.
So go learn some history that didn't come out of Savage or Limbaugh and then we can talk.
Yeah, that's why the far right voted for the PATRIOT Act in the US. Here's a hint, Fascism is not 'far left', it is 'far right'.
Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.
It's even amazing that the "fixed" prices are not essentially different than Amazon or Alibris or BN. Very clever price fixing indeed.
BS they weren't 'different'. They were SIGNIFICANTLY higher. At least $3 to $5 higher under the 'agency' model, which on a book that was $9.99 is a 30 to 50% price hike.
Are you some Apple fanboi or something?
Except this is clearly bull*hit as the fee to cancel early does NOT go down the closer you are to the end of your 'contract'.
I have no doubt that part of that fee is indeed used for that, but I am absolutely positive that if you are in the last 1/4 of your contract (and hence have paid off all or almost all of your phone), they get almost 100% profit on that money.
The mobile phone companies are evil beyond comprehension. They make Sauron look like a naughty child.
There is no reason that replacing the board and CEO will 'sink the whole company'. And even if there is a fair probability that it WILL, then GOOD.
Punishment must be sufficiently heinous to DETER misbehavior, and it is clear that the total BS fines that corporations get hit with are NOT in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a deterrent.
Look at Barclays. Look at HSBC. Barclays blatantly manipulated LIBOR and violated numerous laws and got a fine that is maybe 50% of 1 quarter's PROFITS. Not revenue... PROFITS... Barely enough to even make a dent in their earnings.
HSBC money laundered drug profits and ran accounts for known terrorists and did this KNOWINGLY, and they are not in any way shape or form looking at a penalty that will destroy the company or put the CEO and his cronies in JAIL. This is the PERFECT CASE for a corporate DEATH PENALTY, where all corporate assets are SEIZED and sold off.
Mark my words, until we have a way to realistically hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds, they will continue to steal from and kill us individuals with IMPUNITY.
We need realistic penalties for corporations, and I don't mine fines. They are useless for the reasons mentioned above.
The only way to get a corporation to behave differently is to hold the people that run it (the CEO, board, President) accountable.
The best way to do that is to give the government the power to outright kick the board and CEO out and replace them with a government determined management team for a set period of time. Call it Corporate Jail. And the people kicked out CANNOT COME BACK to that company to work. Or maybe they could after a set period of time. Probably both punishments would be useful for different offenses.
Thank the pro-corporate GOP SCOTUS judges for that one.
If it was up to them, we serfs would be outright OWNED by our corporate masters.
Insurance rates will likely go up LESS fast since
Yep. That's certainly what happened in Massachusetts with Romneycare.
No, wait, I'm wrong the exact opposite happened. Health care costs in Massachusetts are some of the highest in the nation, and it's BECAUSE of the mandate.
Look, there's a reason Romney has backed away from Romneycare. It was a great idea when he proposed it, but we've tried it now, and it DID. NOT. WORK. Insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results.
And now the Supreme Court has sold the nation out, giving the Legislative branch unlimited power over our lives via their "tax" powers. I suppose the upside is, if the electorate fails to correct their mistake in November, there won't be any question who's to blame when the nation falls apart.
In Massachusetts the reverse happened because people could just come in from other states at the last minute when they had a health problem and take advantage. Now that is no longer possible. But nice try.
You get your say every 2, 4 or 6 years with the elections. Of course, those are mostly a crapshoot between bad choices and really bad choices but if we stopped re-electing the same people, then the congresscritters might start to listen to us.
That's effectively NO say. Not when we have only two choices, both of which are pre-vetted and pre-bought by the corporations. The technology exists for real democracy. We should start a new experiment in government. There is no need for a Congress any more. Let all of us vote once a week on the proposed laws.
We are talking ALL of them. Corporations aren't PEOPLE until they can be held accountable the same way PEOPLE are. Let's get a Corporate Death Penalty and Corporate PRISON and then I might consider them really PEOPLE.
because its unreasonable, thats why!
Just like the woman who sued McDonalds for $16 million and won for a spilled cup of hot coffee.
Or mabey we should start executing shoplifters and given their entirety of personal possesions to the stores. That would show them!
Learn what the f**k really happened to the woman at McDonalds and then stop posting your ignorant moronic response using that as an example. That is a crap example. The woman had to get multiple skin grafts. Why is the internet full of ignorant morons when the info is just one google query away. Stop being lazy.
So the punishment for a crime depends not on what you did, but on what others did? If you stole a candy bar, you should be punished for the unknown person who stole a diamond necklace?
I agree about do the crime/do the time. But for your crimes, not someone else's. If it is right to fine someone 100 times the value for shoplifting, it is right whether they are the only shoplifter in town or one of a thousand. Making any punishment depend upon how many others are doing it is unfair.
Taking product from a store without paying for it is unfair too. So boo hoo Mr. Thief. You wanted unfair, you got it. I have no problem making people collectively responsible for the collective activities they participate in.
Then you are an idiot with poor logic. Think decimation (killing of 1 in 10 for actions by the legions members) by the Roman army was a reasonable response? How about the collective punishment of the Jews in the Holocaust? Almost by definition, collective punishment is unfair since the degree of damage done by each individual is significantly different in most cases. I agree that punishment must be sufficiently harsh to be a deterrent, but making it collective is going too far.
Yeah, this is a loser for all Americans. The majority of the country didn't want this legislation. It was voted down in congress and they had to resort to some trick to pass it. The entire time the Obama Administration kept saying that this was NOT A TAX ... that it was a Mandate. Now the SCOTUS says that it is unconstitutional as a Mandate, but it's ok at a TAX. So the bill that was passed was not only against the wishes of the majority of the people, it doesn't even work the way the minority said it would when it was voted upon.
Not really factually correct. A majority of Americans like a majority of the acts of this law. The 'no preexisting condition' portion is particularly popular as is the 'no lifetime maximum' and the 'no copay for preventative care' portions. The one part that more unpopular with most people is the 'must buy insurance part'. But the rest of it doesn't work without that.
If you don't think government is driven by profit, you're dreaming.
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. P. J. O'Rourke
I don't see why people that get government approved insurance don't pay it. If it's a tax and not a shitty way to coerce people into the program then it should apply to everyone.
To only apply it to people that don't get the policies is a bill of attainder.
You are nuts. There are GOBS of taxes that not everyone pays. Do you pay Alternative Minimum Tax? How about the Luxury Tax? Estate tax? etc., etc., etc.,.
Get a clue.
I got MY healthcare.
You and your family can take a FLYING LEAP.
The most selfish American generation says SCREW YOU!!
Thanks for sharing the GOP platform on this.
Because half the country is convinced that allowing giant corporations to profit off the sick is the only non-"socialist" option.
Yes, the half that are fecking morons. Aka the GOP half. And most of them are over 65 and on MEDICARE!!!! Talk about absolute hypocrisy.
Odds are your taxes will go up to support enforcing this program, as will your health insurance costs as they struggle to compete with it.
Insurance rates will likely go up LESS fast since those WITH health insurance have ALWAYS been paying for those WITHOUT. Now we will no longer have to do that in many cases. Of course, healthcare and insurance being what they are, insurance will still go up, just not as fast.
At this point most of the law has already been priced in insurance anyway.
It was argued as a side argument at SCOTUS. basically the argument was that 'this is permissible under the Commerce Clause, but oh, even if it isn't then it is a tax and is permissible as that'. Always smart to give the court multiple possible reasons something can be constitutional as this case clearly shows.
We haven't been 'a government of the people' since at least the 1980s if not the 1890s.
The rise of Corporations as 'people' has completely displaced individuals in having much say in their government. We can provide somewhat of a veto for REALLY bad policy (i.e. SOPA), but the vast majority of our laws are decided without us having ANY SAY WHATSOEVER.
We are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Plutocratic Oligarchy masquerading as a Plutocratic Republic.
The tough part wouldn't be missing Earth, or spending 6 months in a large can, but missing my family. Video conferencing isn't the same, especially with the time lag. But even so, I reckon I'd still go, if they gave their blessing. I think they'd probably understand, even if they weren't happy about it. Some things are just worth devoting the rest of your life to, even if it turns out to be short.
The thing is, this isn't '6 months in a large can', this is 'the rest of your life in a large can'. I am fairly sure that this mission, if ever constituted as it is documented here, will end in an orgy of violence as at least one of the 'astronauts' goes postal and offs himself and everyone else.
Human beings aren't built to live in a small structure that they can never escape from without dying. Even prisoners in MaxSec prisons get 1hr a day 'outside' to exercise.
I am fairly sure even 'normal' people will go batshit crazy insane if confined like this for years and years and years.
Please tell me you no longer believe that bull*hit.
BTW, I've been to Loch Ness and literally NONE of the locals I talked to at ALL believed that the Loch Ness monster exists. They basically thought it was clearly and obviously total crap thought up just to get tourists up to northern Scotland.
It helps Verizon RAPE their customers for more money, which is the only point of this whole thing.
Granted your point about the taxes, but who else you gonna go to for phone service? They ALL SCREW YOU. In Europe the governments don't let the corporations EVERYONE has to use screw the people. In the US the government ACTIVELY CONSPIRES TO help the corporations SCREW US.
You only really have 3 other phone options. T-mobile (best of the worst IMO), AT&T (god help you) and Sprint (CDMA crap).
Virgin Mobile is basically a non-starter in most of the country since their network is shit for coverage (especially 4G, which is only in a very few cities)
I guess there is Cricket also, but they have a lot of the same problems as Virgin Mobile.
I'd rather pay a few the same taxes AND have a government that stops corporations from screwing their captive markets.