Yet how then can the story be confirmed? He slams the French with some pretty bad behavior, but how can I or anyone really believe the story. Why did he choose the French over the Germans in the first place? If he took delivery of 30M in equipment and subsequently shipped it back; did he not then cost his own company some big bucks and delayed productivity of its own?
The story as is does not hold up. It is not a reflection of the whole of France (even if true) and it could be possible the US business man was mainly an arrogant asshole himself. It could be that he was demanding, insulting, uncooperative, and insensitive which resulted in the French company not wanting to deal with him, doing so only out of respect of the purchase. Perhaps they were ultimately glad he walked away from the deal....
See, without facts stories like these posted by ACs have little value to the conversation.
Whew, that got my head spinning almost as much as the first answer. "That sounds like I'm bullshitting after the fact, " Indeed, but you continue here with a distracting example about Bush that in its self, does not make sense. that last sentence then implies you aren't intelligent to be able to change opinion even in the face of facts...doesn't that negate your whole copyright approach?
When politics becomes religion, when dogma, not reason rules the day it does not matter what the party, it is a path to brittleness and eventual destruction. You espouse idea that many democrats would support yet in the same thought process, dismiss them because they are not "conservative". Stop it. Step away from the dogma and really listen to people like I listened (read) to you. I agree with a number of your ideas, I'm going to sign that petition and I do so overlooking some current political ideologue, but because they are good ideas.
Something I read recently by Thomas Jefferson is something I wish we'd so work towards, in short, Though we may differ on opinion, we agree on principle. He used that approach to help a young nation grow and survive. So stop with the pablum political statements defending political dogma; use your intelligence to help shape ideas that may come from all sides.
you mean like Gimli in LOTR. I read the book,watched the movie and wondered who taht short funny character was for it was not Gimli. More like Gimli's brother goofy.
I think it a good idea. There is an aspect to both stories that reflect poorly on the responsibility of media to *report*, not opine and it never hurts to remind them of the difference between reporting and commentary.
I was not going so granular in my variation of a theme. The snow had already fallen, the forces set. My view is reflecting the differences between an external force (misuse of power/fools) and primarily internal force which lay the ground work for breaking. Good points. If you did this I would enjoy reading the results.
See, I think we are just dancing around the same view, but from a different angle. Take your use of the word avalanche. I think a very apt description. If an avalanche occurs on a mountain purely by natural means and some skiers, or town got caught up in it we'd say that was an act of nature. Perhaps some finger pointing about lack of protective means could be made, but as for the start of the fall, nothing but fate.
Now if instead we have some kids out doing something stupid, like wanting to set off big firecrackers and not get caught so they hike out to a remote location, light em up in a known avalanche area, and start a chain reaction that takes out some skiers, a town; they would be responsible, a crime could be pinned for they pulled the pin that started the fall. It does not matter that it might have happened "sometime", they started it. So in the case of the radio hosts, foolish prank was the bang the started the avalanche leading to a person killing themselves. She still might have done it, because of her own inner turmoils, but that does not matter. Fools lit the fuse and we need to hold them responsible in some way so others in the future don't do foolish things.
So too this prosecutor. Swartz may have been on the edge, at some point something else *may* have pushed him over the edge or in time he may have gained control of his inner demons and lived a full life. Instead, the prosecutor pulled the pin by presenting a no win scenario, by abusing power in such a way that Swartz felt he was going to be in the middle of that avalanche and felt he could not survive. The prosecutor shares some of the blame and while not (perhaps) a criminal act, that type of abuse of power cannot be condoned within our society.
It is a real shame he took his life for we'll never know what he felt, what his thoughts were (though having faced that dark hole once in my life I can imagine). People on this thread argue about whether he committed a crime or not, but that is not the root of the story. The root of the story is that he was in a System we want to Trust and that System let us down.
"I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but it helps when they actually read and understand what I plainly wrote."
Well I read both and while you both make good points, I think the aussie did "read" what you wrote and said roughly the same thing. Pinning it on someone or claiming they are responsibly are two ways to say the same thing. The aggressive party carries some responsibility for their actions and if those actions led to a tragic end, then yes, it needs to be pinned on them.
In the case of the nurse, the act was more impromptu, the approach perhaps meant as "lighthearted" but nevertheless still a cruel act. Those radio personalities were, in some part, responsible for the actions of the nurse for it was they who made the final push. Thus their act *was* pinned on them though at worst being fired and hopefully never doing something so stupid again would be the end result.
In the case of Swartz, the prosecution also owns responsibility for the end result and grossly abused power. Swartz's death should be pinned on them as an abusive act. As many others have commented on this thread, the charges were grossly unbalanced to the crime, every other party had backed off, and a responsible professional would have worked to find a positive solution. Perhaps Swartz would have killed himself over something else; in this case he was presented with no other options but fear of two unknowns. One was enter the prison system for 30+ years (and all the hell that can be), be fined so much that he would never be more then a common laborer (after getting out of prison and assuming he could even get hired somewhere). The other unknown was death, and while terminal, it presented the better future.
When people are given power (radio voice or government prosecutor) then they are also given a greater responsibility to employ that power. Either party did not know the vitim would commit suicide, but at the least they needed and need to realize they abused their power, their responsibility. At the least the prosecutor should be fired and a public review held on plea bargain guidelines, that would now be the responsible thing for those in higher power to perform. Yes, the actions need to be "pinned" to those responsible.
So I am assuming you are a NASA employee that was privy to all this data and meeting time? It would be interesting to see some of the papers written on the topic. Even if you are right at least someone today is still trying to think outside the box instead of a constant nay say approach.
We saved the Apollo 13 astronauts by being creative, thinking outside the box, and not caving to a no, can't be done attitude. Sad thing is, we never even tried. Keep your negativity, I'm sticking with the idea that we can actually be creative and do things.
I would hope your thought is modded up. I had similar thoughts over the many years of both the Shuttle program and ISS. My goodness, those tanks could have been lifted that last leg and been retro-fitted as living or cargo space. Even if they did one out of ten the station would be far more robust.
Logistics would be an issue in the beginning, but imagine just one tank turned into a hydroponics farm, another manufacturing. Somewhere along the line We stopped thinking big.
Clearly you have not watched practically every cop/law TV show ever made. Good guys set up scheme to catch small fry goombas. After intense interrogation where said goomba seems to have either waived rights or just is stupid they get he or she to flip on a big guy. Good guys then set up sting using goomba to lead them to big fish. After a quick gun battle or other dramatic scene big fish is caught, end of show...or is it. Just as they take Big Fish away he or she says "I can give your even Bigger Fish if you let me go". Now at this point it goes one of two ways. The first is that the really good guys say "lock em up" while the lesser more practical guys say "Okay talk, but you do jail time". The second is just as Big Fish starts to talk POW, bullet to the body, everyone scrambles and a mystery is left open.
Brazil is just putting into practice what American audiences have figure out long ago. If you want to save the rainforest, catch the goombas in action by making a great cover story as fish bait. I can't wait to see this series on TNT next year sandwiched in between Mentalist, Castle, Rizzoli and Isles (aka Tits and Ass), the defunct but fantastic Numb3rs, Law and Order*4, Monk...the list goes on. What ever happened to good SciFi shows...where was I?
No, not really, not for a social media site that just came into being a few years ago. You accentuate the point I was making about narcissism and narcissistic behavior. If I am being "creepy" how will I know unless someone outside my own head tells me. What am I doing well? Well I would think positive feedback would reflect that better then some chart. One person will look in the mirror and say "how wonderful am I" while another will look and remark "I must be a horrible person". Both are right, both are wrong.
The analogy falls short for the coach is outside the team, watching. If you had said the coach watched films of himself interacting with his own players I'd see more connection. Until there is outside corroboration, I cannot be objective about any aspect of my behavior other then a general sense of being true to who I am.
Another poster did make a valid point that looking at links could bring about information not normally known from daily use. By the same token had this article not been presented I doubt he would have made the same effort and those two people would still not know each other (or would care).
Talk about narcissism. I cannot fathom why I would take precious time analyzing my own data just to discover I posted 101 times, three with pictures, only 10 with comments (nobody likes me). We have gone beyond the me generation to now the I generation. Only I matter, everyone bow to your god I Am. Just finished reading a great short story in Analog (The Snack) that reflected the result of this attitude permeating our lives. No thanks, I'll take Ignorance is Bliss for 2000 Alex.
Can't you see the unholy hell that immortality would unleash on a civilization that is just starting to wake up to ideas of conservation and natural resource management? Or on a related note, how immortality would be handed out, managed and exploited under fascism
Because in this new utopian fascist state, meglomanical CEOs don't get a rats ass about fanbase, people, or common sense. They care about power and the ability to project it. They don't even consider the ramifications (mentioned in other posts), but just for what *they* get out of the struggle. Business is a necessary evil, but sadly in the past few decades Evil has been more the modis operendi.
Though not a Marxist myself, I think he was on to something when he said Capitalists will gladly sell the rope that will hang them. Karl had the right thought, wrong group. A capitalist wont sell the rope to hang themselves, they will figure out how to sell rope to executioners to hang others. Greedists, they are so full of themselves they will figure the rope will break or the King will save them from the hangman so will bargain the best rate for the rope.
I tend to agree (as one who started in '99), but another trend has been the type of articles presented. I seem to remember when there were more DIY articles and articles related to science, both complex and basic. The last few years/. has been dominated by mobile news, patent wars, legal wrangling, and sometimes stuff that really Does Not Matter to geeks on a tech blog.
So while the posting has gotten... simplified... the choice of articles by the editors has encouraged shouting matches (good for business) and less intelligent discourse. I stick around, because every now and then a gem still shines through the muck and I get to learn a little more about the world. There's no cure for/., it will go the same route as every business sucked in by money, but what I ponder is what will be the next variant of tech conversation that balances thoughtful articles with interesting and amusing discussion.
What a view...Its Google's money. When Google became a business it made a contract with the United States of America, the State of California, and I would figure the city of where ever they are located. The contract was that these Government entities would provide infrastructure, services, and resources in exchange for a percentage (a tax) on the profits. When Google, or any business, attempts to cheat the system they in turn break that contract and as such I have no issue with the Government going after them for that percentage is actually Their Money, not Google's.
I am not against Capitalism for I can agree that it can be a great engine for innovation. A company that pays back to the foundation should get the full support of a community. That argument that paying taxes hurts profits thus killing jobs is asinine. Current profits are not rolled into local job creation, but transferred into financial machines meant to create and concentrate wealth. If profits were truly rolled back into a company, if taxes were paid as required it would not be the end of a company for people will still need/want to buy their goods, but it will move more money around the economy which in turns means that rich people can still get rich, mayhap a little slower, but the broader base can enjoy a better life living in a better world. This is not Robin Hood, this is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and this is not redistribution of wealth. It is the basic idea of a company honoring a contract it entered into with the Government and the people.
I like Google, I like their products, I even have a nephew that works there, but I am okay if the Government went after them hard if their attitude is "We don't need to pay taxes in this country". Yes, yes you do.
Actually, it is spot on. Microsot and Google want all the benefits of making money in the US, because of all the advantages found in the US like... people. They don't want to really do business in the Grand Caymens for the exact opposite, lack of people. Yet the current tax code allows them to utilize every positive aspect of the US society without paying for it, using the Gran Caymens to "pretend" tehir making money there. Business wise, smart, long term thinking wise...stupid.
Even in the states Microsoft avoids paying Washington State taxes by headquartering in Nevada. So Seattle has to foot the bill for Microsoft's rather large foot print on the infrastructure without the company paying a dime. Certainly the employees have to pay, but MS its self also uses city/state resources. I think it was Lennin that said Capitalists will sell us the rope to hang themselves...the sad reality is that Capitalists (Greedists) will sell the rope to hang the rest of us while they move on.
while that is a big picture view, I'd think taking an attitude that while we are the top species, we'd at least consider the idea that pooping in our own house is not a good thing to do.
Unless you've figured out a fountain of youth formula, I was not referring to emotion but fact. Fact, each and everyone of us will get old(er) and/or are already at the age where outside care may be needed. None of us can escape death, it is the mark of a society as to how we take care of the elderly and how we handle death.
The numbers are not impossible, they just don't conform to the Military-industrial, gentrified government we've created. We are happy to cut medicare, create gaping holes in the social security net so thousands or more can die possibly painful, undignified deaths, yet pour billions, billions into security systems that have not save one extra life. We seem okay with letting people starve, or perhaps bring back indentured servitude so we can pay for increased military machines that do little in fighting an urban, intrenched enemy force.
In 1945 we ended War on two fronts, brought home more then a million soldiers and put them to either work or education through programs like the VA Bill or Works programs that help build th American infrastructure we have today. There is not a nation on this planet (and I mean nation, not gang) that could attack us with out having major retribution occur with the current military we have today. We spend more then the next 11 countries in national defense...and those countries are our allies. We fight terrorists in a way that just breeds more terrorists, yet we justify the need to spend more money on new toys. I am all for a strong, but smart America, not the fat, bloated pig we've become.
The numbers are impossible, because you believe the only way the US can be "Number One" in the world is to let Greed run rampant and have the ability to crush fire ants with a bulldozer.
" Ronald Reagan cut income taxes, EVERY class got stronger."
Hows that work. Did a little digging, granted these are gross numbers, but in 1979, just before RR someone in the 20th percentile made @ $19,274. Halfway through RR term he then made $17,927 and by the end of RR term he was back to 19,830. Net increase of wages in 8 years, $2,000. Amazing.
Reagan's tax cuts ballooned the deficit while at the same time he was waging a spending war with the USSR. GHB may have killed his political career by raising taxes, but he was smart enough to see that cut and spend was killing this country...quickly.
Clinton raised taxes. He also overhauled welfare and worked very hard as a world leader to keep us out of large military conflict, by using diplomacy and when needed, targeted action to contain threats to the US. He had increased revenue enough that even had there been a slight recession in 2000, the government could have smartly spent its way out by putting the surplus back into the country through stimulus and R&D.
GWB, well he cut taxes, income for our 20 percentile drops back to pre-Clintion levels (less tax revenue as well), he engages in not one but two very costly wars and not only turns a budget surplus into a major deficit, he once again balloons the national debt. Net loss to the 20th, down $2000.
Please do not state that Ronald Reagan did good by this country, because he cut taxes. Instead state that he did good by this country when he realized his mistake and began to raise taxes again. If even one Tea Party member or politician raises the specter of Reagan they need to take a long look at his whole presidency. In today's world, he would be denounced as a RINO and run out in a primary. Other then the bump that was GHB, Nixon was the last sane republican President in this country (and I can't believe I'm saying that but for what he can be compared to today).
First, if you are going to challenge others to do research, please be so kind as to show yours to back up your statements. So far what I've read from you has been almost all vague fundamentalist opinion.
The world you speak of where people were so altruistic and helpful, where villages came together to help each other out is exactly what those progressives and liberals have been trying to bring back. The problem with looking back and trying to compare it to today is that the numbers just don't work. The United States of America is not a small country anymore, it has grown into a very large country with very large and real global issues. You cannot run a large country like a small one. Population density has dramatically changed since times when small towns had to be somewhat self reliant. (population density from 1790) Life expectancy has risen rather dramatically as well.
So you have a growing population, longer life...how do you propose we take care of all these people? Hopeful charity? Part of the role of Government is to smooth out the dips during rough times. it is also to help promote beneficial rises to "fill the coffers" so to speak for the next dip. It is very hard for a community to invest in helping the poor and needy when they don't have the capability to do so.
If we are on the edge of social collapse, it is more because the government did not perform its role in protecting society from economic threats. People or business that cared little about the population of the country, but just took its monetary resources and left it wounded. Government, at its best, should limit the effect of greed on society; channel it, use it to protect the Society, grow the Society, and allow the Society to be free enough to live with dignity, freedom, and happiness.
every year that people like you blather on and on about "security" and "think of the old people", paving the road all the way to hell with your good intentions.
And yet, each and everyone of us will be one of those "old people" looking for some security as we age.
That is the fact that I think the progressives don't understand. They really do not realize that more taxes isn't a solution at all,
And cutting taxes has worked out real well...
I figure you for someone who's pretty well off, have a good retirement fund, maybe some kids (or the glimmer down the road) to help as you age. Life is pretty good so what is everyone else's problem? You most likely don't pay any attention to the janitor that cleans the office building you go to, limited education, limited income and certainly limited options when (or if) he/she retires. Maybe one day you might go over to the Janitor and tell them to go crawl in a hole and die, because YOU don't want to provide any safety net for him or her. YOU secretly would love to have most of the impoverished, unfit, and uneducated just some how magically disappear as you have no desire to help provide some modicum of assistance they themselves cannot provide.
In the US, when tax rates were above 70%, we had some pretty good domestic growth. Please do not try to tell me that raising taxes is the death knell of innovation and business. As one small business owner told me recently, if taxes went up he would consider hiring to (1) expand his business because (2) instead of the Government getting his money from his profits, he would rather pay a worker. A tax cut would do nothing...nothing to inspire him to expand. He would just buy more goods, mostly made outside this country.
The fact that fundamentalists like you don't get is that when you have a population of 300 million, you cannot just make them go away and if you cut to much to fast; well look at Greece to see how well that is going. If you could get the idiots out of Washington then a formula of raising taxes, raising revenue through job creation, reducing spending waste, and then cutting spending wisely may turn the financial direction of this country. First we need to change the Moral and Ethical direction and your comments sadly reflect the wrong direction.
tldr; When the population is starving and desperate, when they have nothing to lose they will look to those who put them there and it wont be pretty. When the population is comfortable, reasonably secure and hopeful for a future, they don't give a damn what the Gentry does. I prefer the latter.
Had I mod points I would have modded you troll+. A new ranking that acknowledges the ability to get someone to read, follow 0 point threads, and laugh at the same time. I only saw your post, had to open and follow the parents back up...The human brain is an endless source of word combinations.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet how then can the story be confirmed? He slams the French with some pretty bad behavior, but how can I or anyone really believe the story. Why did he choose the French over the Germans in the first place? If he took delivery of 30M in equipment and subsequently shipped it back; did he not then cost his own company some big bucks and delayed productivity of its own?
The story as is does not hold up. It is not a reflection of the whole of France (even if true) and it could be possible the US business man was mainly an arrogant asshole himself. It could be that he was demanding, insulting, uncooperative, and insensitive which resulted in the French company not wanting to deal with him, doing so only out of respect of the purchase. Perhaps they were ultimately glad he walked away from the deal....
See, without facts stories like these posted by ACs have little value to the conversation.
Whew, that got my head spinning almost as much as the first answer. "That sounds like I'm bullshitting after the fact, " Indeed, but you continue here with a distracting example about Bush that in its self, does not make sense. that last sentence then implies you aren't intelligent to be able to change opinion even in the face of facts...doesn't that negate your whole copyright approach?
When politics becomes religion, when dogma, not reason rules the day it does not matter what the party, it is a path to brittleness and eventual destruction. You espouse idea that many democrats would support yet in the same thought process, dismiss them because they are not "conservative". Stop it. Step away from the dogma and really listen to people like I listened (read) to you. I agree with a number of your ideas, I'm going to sign that petition and I do so overlooking some current political ideologue, but because they are good ideas.
Something I read recently by Thomas Jefferson is something I wish we'd so work towards, in short, Though we may differ on opinion, we agree on principle. He used that approach to help a young nation grow and survive. So stop with the pablum political statements defending political dogma; use your intelligence to help shape ideas that may come from all sides.
you mean like Gimli in LOTR. I read the book,watched the movie and wondered who taht short funny character was for it was not Gimli. More like Gimli's brother goofy.
I think it a good idea. There is an aspect to both stories that reflect poorly on the responsibility of media to *report*, not opine and it never hurts to remind them of the difference between reporting and commentary.
I was not going so granular in my variation of a theme. The snow had already fallen, the forces set. My view is reflecting the differences between an external force (misuse of power/fools) and primarily internal force which lay the ground work for breaking. Good points. If you did this I would enjoy reading the results.
See, I think we are just dancing around the same view, but from a different angle. Take your use of the word avalanche. I think a very apt description. If an avalanche occurs on a mountain purely by natural means and some skiers, or town got caught up in it we'd say that was an act of nature. Perhaps some finger pointing about lack of protective means could be made, but as for the start of the fall, nothing but fate.
Now if instead we have some kids out doing something stupid, like wanting to set off big firecrackers and not get caught so they hike out to a remote location, light em up in a known avalanche area, and start a chain reaction that takes out some skiers, a town; they would be responsible, a crime could be pinned for they pulled the pin that started the fall. It does not matter that it might have happened "sometime", they started it. So in the case of the radio hosts, foolish prank was the bang the started the avalanche leading to a person killing themselves. She still might have done it, because of her own inner turmoils, but that does not matter. Fools lit the fuse and we need to hold them responsible in some way so others in the future don't do foolish things.
So too this prosecutor. Swartz may have been on the edge, at some point something else *may* have pushed him over the edge or in time he may have gained control of his inner demons and lived a full life. Instead, the prosecutor pulled the pin by presenting a no win scenario, by abusing power in such a way that Swartz felt he was going to be in the middle of that avalanche and felt he could not survive. The prosecutor shares some of the blame and while not (perhaps) a criminal act, that type of abuse of power cannot be condoned within our society.
It is a real shame he took his life for we'll never know what he felt, what his thoughts were (though having faced that dark hole once in my life I can imagine). People on this thread argue about whether he committed a crime or not, but that is not the root of the story. The root of the story is that he was in a System we want to Trust and that System let us down.
"I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but it helps when they actually read and understand what I plainly wrote."
Well I read both and while you both make good points, I think the aussie did "read" what you wrote and said roughly the same thing. Pinning it on someone or claiming they are responsibly are two ways to say the same thing. The aggressive party carries some responsibility for their actions and if those actions led to a tragic end, then yes, it needs to be pinned on them.
In the case of the nurse, the act was more impromptu, the approach perhaps meant as "lighthearted" but nevertheless still a cruel act. Those radio personalities were, in some part, responsible for the actions of the nurse for it was they who made the final push. Thus their act *was* pinned on them though at worst being fired and hopefully never doing something so stupid again would be the end result.
In the case of Swartz, the prosecution also owns responsibility for the end result and grossly abused power. Swartz's death should be pinned on them as an abusive act. As many others have commented on this thread, the charges were grossly unbalanced to the crime, every other party had backed off, and a responsible professional would have worked to find a positive solution. Perhaps Swartz would have killed himself over something else; in this case he was presented with no other options but fear of two unknowns. One was enter the prison system for 30+ years (and all the hell that can be), be fined so much that he would never be more then a common laborer (after getting out of prison and assuming he could even get hired somewhere). The other unknown was death, and while terminal, it presented the better future.
When people are given power (radio voice or government prosecutor) then they are also given a greater responsibility to employ that power. Either party did not know the vitim would commit suicide, but at the least they needed and need to realize they abused their power, their responsibility. At the least the prosecutor should be fired and a public review held on plea bargain guidelines, that would now be the responsible thing for those in higher power to perform. Yes, the actions need to be "pinned" to those responsible.
So I am assuming you are a NASA employee that was privy to all this data and meeting time? It would be interesting to see some of the papers written on the topic. Even if you are right at least someone today is still trying to think outside the box instead of a constant nay say approach.
We saved the Apollo 13 astronauts by being creative, thinking outside the box, and not caving to a no, can't be done attitude. Sad thing is, we never even tried. Keep your negativity, I'm sticking with the idea that we can actually be creative and do things.
I would hope your thought is modded up. I had similar thoughts over the many years of both the Shuttle program and ISS. My goodness, those tanks could have been lifted that last leg and been retro-fitted as living or cargo space. Even if they did one out of ten the station would be far more robust.
Logistics would be an issue in the beginning, but imagine just one tank turned into a hydroponics farm, another manufacturing. Somewhere along the line We stopped thinking big.
Clearly you have not watched practically every cop/law TV show ever made. Good guys set up scheme to catch small fry goombas. After intense interrogation where said goomba seems to have either waived rights or just is stupid they get he or she to flip on a big guy. Good guys then set up sting using goomba to lead them to big fish. After a quick gun battle or other dramatic scene big fish is caught, end of show...or is it. Just as they take Big Fish away he or she says "I can give your even Bigger Fish if you let me go". Now at this point it goes one of two ways. The first is that the really good guys say "lock em up" while the lesser more practical guys say "Okay talk, but you do jail time". The second is just as Big Fish starts to talk POW, bullet to the body, everyone scrambles and a mystery is left open.
Brazil is just putting into practice what American audiences have figure out long ago. If you want to save the rainforest, catch the goombas in action by making a great cover story as fish bait. I can't wait to see this series on TNT next year sandwiched in between Mentalist, Castle, Rizzoli and Isles (aka Tits and Ass), the defunct but fantastic Numb3rs, Law and Order*4, Monk...the list goes on. What ever happened to good SciFi shows...where was I?
No, not really, not for a social media site that just came into being a few years ago. You accentuate the point I was making about narcissism and narcissistic behavior. If I am being "creepy" how will I know unless someone outside my own head tells me. What am I doing well? Well I would think positive feedback would reflect that better then some chart. One person will look in the mirror and say "how wonderful am I" while another will look and remark "I must be a horrible person". Both are right, both are wrong.
The analogy falls short for the coach is outside the team, watching. If you had said the coach watched films of himself interacting with his own players I'd see more connection. Until there is outside corroboration, I cannot be objective about any aspect of my behavior other then a general sense of being true to who I am.
Another poster did make a valid point that looking at links could bring about information not normally known from daily use. By the same token had this article not been presented I doubt he would have made the same effort and those two people would still not know each other (or would care).
Talk about narcissism. I cannot fathom why I would take precious time analyzing my own data just to discover I posted 101 times, three with pictures, only 10 with comments (nobody likes me). We have gone beyond the me generation to now the I generation. Only I matter, everyone bow to your god I Am. Just finished reading a great short story in Analog (The Snack) that reflected the result of this attitude permeating our lives. No thanks, I'll take Ignorance is Bliss for 2000 Alex.
wait, is this another one of those interview questions?
Can't you see the unholy hell that immortality would unleash on a civilization that is just starting to wake up to ideas of conservation and natural resource management? Or on a related note, how immortality would be handed out, managed and exploited under fascism
ftfy
Capitalism left the building a while ago.
Because in this new utopian fascist state, meglomanical CEOs don't get a rats ass about fanbase, people, or common sense. They care about power and the ability to project it. They don't even consider the ramifications (mentioned in other posts), but just for what *they* get out of the struggle. Business is a necessary evil, but sadly in the past few decades Evil has been more the modis operendi.
Though not a Marxist myself, I think he was on to something when he said Capitalists will gladly sell the rope that will hang them. Karl had the right thought, wrong group. A capitalist wont sell the rope to hang themselves, they will figure out how to sell rope to executioners to hang others. Greedists, they are so full of themselves they will figure the rope will break or the King will save them from the hangman so will bargain the best rate for the rope.
I tend to agree (as one who started in '99), but another trend has been the type of articles presented. I seem to remember when there were more DIY articles and articles related to science, both complex and basic. The last few years /. has been dominated by mobile news, patent wars, legal wrangling, and sometimes stuff that really Does Not Matter to geeks on a tech blog.
So while the posting has gotten ... simplified... the choice of articles by the editors has encouraged shouting matches (good for business) and less intelligent discourse. I stick around, because every now and then a gem still shines through the muck and I get to learn a little more about the world. There's no cure for /., it will go the same route as every business sucked in by money, but what I ponder is what will be the next variant of tech conversation that balances thoughtful articles with interesting and amusing discussion.
What a view...Its Google's money. When Google became a business it made a contract with the United States of America, the State of California, and I would figure the city of where ever they are located. The contract was that these Government entities would provide infrastructure, services, and resources in exchange for a percentage (a tax) on the profits. When Google, or any business, attempts to cheat the system they in turn break that contract and as such I have no issue with the Government going after them for that percentage is actually Their Money, not Google's.
I am not against Capitalism for I can agree that it can be a great engine for innovation. A company that pays back to the foundation should get the full support of a community. That argument that paying taxes hurts profits thus killing jobs is asinine. Current profits are not rolled into local job creation, but transferred into financial machines meant to create and concentrate wealth. If profits were truly rolled back into a company, if taxes were paid as required it would not be the end of a company for people will still need/want to buy their goods, but it will move more money around the economy which in turns means that rich people can still get rich, mayhap a little slower, but the broader base can enjoy a better life living in a better world. This is not Robin Hood, this is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and this is not redistribution of wealth. It is the basic idea of a company honoring a contract it entered into with the Government and the people.
I like Google, I like their products, I even have a nephew that works there, but I am okay if the Government went after them hard if their attitude is "We don't need to pay taxes in this country". Yes, yes you do.
Actually, it is spot on. Microsot and Google want all the benefits of making money in the US, because of all the advantages found in the US like ... people. They don't want to really do business in the Grand Caymens for the exact opposite, lack of people. Yet the current tax code allows them to utilize every positive aspect of the US society without paying for it, using the Gran Caymens to "pretend" tehir making money there. Business wise, smart, long term thinking wise...stupid.
Even in the states Microsoft avoids paying Washington State taxes by headquartering in Nevada. So Seattle has to foot the bill for Microsoft's rather large foot print on the infrastructure without the company paying a dime. Certainly the employees have to pay, but MS its self also uses city/state resources. I think it was Lennin that said Capitalists will sell us the rope to hang themselves...the sad reality is that Capitalists (Greedists) will sell the rope to hang the rest of us while they move on.
Whooosh!!!
...I'm so sorry...
Honey Boo Boo, Lim, and Snooki can walk on my moon anytime they want
[it's the media, they made me think that, blame them, not me for the loss of brain function]
while that is a big picture view, I'd think taking an attitude that while we are the top species, we'd at least consider the idea that pooping in our own house is not a good thing to do.
Unless you've figured out a fountain of youth formula, I was not referring to emotion but fact. Fact, each and everyone of us will get old(er) and/or are already at the age where outside care may be needed. None of us can escape death, it is the mark of a society as to how we take care of the elderly and how we handle death.
The numbers are not impossible, they just don't conform to the Military-industrial, gentrified government we've created. We are happy to cut medicare, create gaping holes in the social security net so thousands or more can die possibly painful, undignified deaths, yet pour billions, billions into security systems that have not save one extra life. We seem okay with letting people starve, or perhaps bring back indentured servitude so we can pay for increased military machines that do little in fighting an urban, intrenched enemy force.
In 1945 we ended War on two fronts, brought home more then a million soldiers and put them to either work or education through programs like the VA Bill or Works programs that help build th American infrastructure we have today. There is not a nation on this planet (and I mean nation, not gang) that could attack us with out having major retribution occur with the current military we have today. We spend more then the next 11 countries in national defense...and those countries are our allies. We fight terrorists in a way that just breeds more terrorists, yet we justify the need to spend more money on new toys. I am all for a strong, but smart America, not the fat, bloated pig we've become.
The numbers are impossible, because you believe the only way the US can be "Number One" in the world is to let Greed run rampant and have the ability to crush fire ants with a bulldozer.
" Ronald Reagan cut income taxes, EVERY class got stronger."
Hows that work. Did a little digging, granted these are gross numbers, but in 1979, just before RR someone in the 20th percentile made @ $19,274. Halfway through RR term he then made $17,927 and by the end of RR term he was back to 19,830. Net increase of wages in 8 years, $2,000. Amazing.
Reagan's tax cuts ballooned the deficit while at the same time he was waging a spending war with the USSR. GHB may have killed his political career by raising taxes, but he was smart enough to see that cut and spend was killing this country...quickly.
Clinton raised taxes. He also overhauled welfare and worked very hard as a world leader to keep us out of large military conflict, by using diplomacy and when needed, targeted action to contain threats to the US. He had increased revenue enough that even had there been a slight recession in 2000, the government could have smartly spent its way out by putting the surplus back into the country through stimulus and R&D.
GWB, well he cut taxes, income for our 20 percentile drops back to pre-Clintion levels (less tax revenue as well), he engages in not one but two very costly wars and not only turns a budget surplus into a major deficit, he once again balloons the national debt. Net loss to the 20th, down $2000.
Please do not state that Ronald Reagan did good by this country, because he cut taxes. Instead state that he did good by this country when he realized his mistake and began to raise taxes again. If even one Tea Party member or politician raises the specter of Reagan they need to take a long look at his whole presidency. In today's world, he would be denounced as a RINO and run out in a primary. Other then the bump that was GHB, Nixon was the last sane republican President in this country (and I can't believe I'm saying that but for what he can be compared to today).
First, if you are going to challenge others to do research, please be so kind as to show yours to back up your statements. So far what I've read from you has been almost all vague fundamentalist opinion.
The world you speak of where people were so altruistic and helpful, where villages came together to help each other out is exactly what those progressives and liberals have been trying to bring back. The problem with looking back and trying to compare it to today is that the numbers just don't work. The United States of America is not a small country anymore, it has grown into a very large country with very large and real global issues. You cannot run a large country like a small one. Population density has dramatically changed since times when small towns had to be somewhat self reliant. (population density from 1790) Life expectancy has risen rather dramatically as well.
So you have a growing population, longer life...how do you propose we take care of all these people? Hopeful charity? Part of the role of Government is to smooth out the dips during rough times. it is also to help promote beneficial rises to "fill the coffers" so to speak for the next dip. It is very hard for a community to invest in helping the poor and needy when they don't have the capability to do so.
If we are on the edge of social collapse, it is more because the government did not perform its role in protecting society from economic threats. People or business that cared little about the population of the country, but just took its monetary resources and left it wounded. Government, at its best, should limit the effect of greed on society; channel it, use it to protect the Society, grow the Society, and allow the Society to be free enough to live with dignity, freedom, and happiness.
Unfortunately, Greed won.
every year that people like you blather on and on about "security" and "think of the old people", paving the road all the way to hell with your good intentions.
And yet, each and everyone of us will be one of those "old people" looking for some security as we age.
That is the fact that I think the progressives don't understand. They really do not realize that more taxes isn't a solution at all,
And cutting taxes has worked out real well...
I figure you for someone who's pretty well off, have a good retirement fund, maybe some kids (or the glimmer down the road) to help as you age. Life is pretty good so what is everyone else's problem? You most likely don't pay any attention to the janitor that cleans the office building you go to, limited education, limited income and certainly limited options when (or if) he/she retires. Maybe one day you might go over to the Janitor and tell them to go crawl in a hole and die, because YOU don't want to provide any safety net for him or her. YOU secretly would love to have most of the impoverished, unfit, and uneducated just some how magically disappear as you have no desire to help provide some modicum of assistance they themselves cannot provide.
In the US, when tax rates were above 70%, we had some pretty good domestic growth. Please do not try to tell me that raising taxes is the death knell of innovation and business. As one small business owner told me recently, if taxes went up he would consider hiring to (1) expand his business because (2) instead of the Government getting his money from his profits, he would rather pay a worker. A tax cut would do nothing...nothing to inspire him to expand. He would just buy more goods, mostly made outside this country.
The fact that fundamentalists like you don't get is that when you have a population of 300 million, you cannot just make them go away and if you cut to much to fast; well look at Greece to see how well that is going. If you could get the idiots out of Washington then a formula of raising taxes, raising revenue through job creation, reducing spending waste, and then cutting spending wisely may turn the financial direction of this country. First we need to change the Moral and Ethical direction and your comments sadly reflect the wrong direction.
tldr; When the population is starving and desperate, when they have nothing to lose they will look to those who put them there and it wont be pretty. When the population is comfortable, reasonably secure and hopeful for a future, they don't give a damn what the Gentry does. I prefer the latter.
Had I mod points I would have modded you troll+. A new ranking that acknowledges the ability to get someone to read, follow 0 point threads, and laugh at the same time. I only saw your post, had to open and follow the parents back up...The human brain is an endless source of word combinations.