Rich people put more or less the same amount of money back into the economy as their poor counterparts do. Which is to say pretty much all of it. They simply do it through investments rather than consumable goods and services purchases.
Invested money allows the company you've invested with to grow their business, hire workers, purchase needed consumables themselves, and provide more goods and services to consumers. Money stuffed in a bank vault gets invested by the bank and does the same. About the only thing you can do with money that doesn't put it right back out into the economy is stuff it in your mattress.
I'm not saying things can't get a bit lopsided and make the fiscal landscape unpleasant. I'm just saying that this idea that money going to the rich somehow takes it out of the economy is patently absurd and utterly false.
That's not a democracy. In a democracy whatever 50.000001% of the people prefer, the rest are just freaking stuck with. It's even worse in a representative democracy, witness the healthcare bill that just passed with a solid majority of the people not wanting it.
Opensource is more along the lines of barely structured anarchy. If you don't like how someone does something you either fork their code or find someone else who already has, and do things however you like. The only rules telling you what you can and cannot do are the license the code is released under. Almost all actual creative control is left to the individual, unless they voluntarily surrender it for the sake of convenience.
Honestly, I think we trend towards libertarianism more than anything else around here. The underlying reasoning being something along the lines of: politicians are almost exclusively corrupt morons and I don't want them telling me what to do on any topic.
Means that neither intrusive conservatism nor intrusive liberalism are well received, by in large. Holding a controversial view goes over well enough but espousing the need to push it onto others, not so much.
Sorry, have to disagree there. I say fairly controversial (read: anything remotely approaching a conservative viewpoint) things all the time but I make sure to do it either eloquently enough or humorously enough that I've been modded down so little I can count the negative point comments on one hand.
You're a funny guy, AC. Keep on sucking up that Berkeley propaganda so I can keep being amused.
Oil? You're still seriously believing that noise? Do you even remotely understand how oil markets work? We could be completely cut off of oil from Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia and still get every drop we need. Prices wouldn't even fluctuate that much. Twit.
Psychotic? Nah, that's simply how most people tend to react to treachery. There's a reason it's the only crime spelled out in the Constitution and the death penalty is explicitly allowed therein.
Seriously, go back to the Huffington Post or moveon. Over here at/. you have to be able to think for yourself if you don't want your ass kicked in a flamewar.
I didn't say it was sinister, no more than politics as usual is anyway. And yeah, they're saying what they want to know but the why they'd never say openly and truthfully. That's my only real objection, being lied to yet again.
The ACLU might have been an altruistic, fight-the-good-fight organization at one time but nowadays they're just another part of the political machine of the far left. They have far more in common ideologically with anarchists and socialists (contradictory, I know, but that's people for you) than with your average Democrat voter.
Seems like it, yeah, but the ACLU rarely does anything for the reasons they give publicly. Follow their record and it's easy to see they've devolved into just another radical leftist organization. This case in particular is easily identifiable as a fishing expedition. I don't particularly mind them trying to fish for information, free country and all that, but calling it something other than what it is annoys the hell out of me.
Also taken badly out of context. Those words were written right before we performed a hell of a lot of killing, so either you completely failed to understand who was being spoken to and why or you just want to argue for your point and don't give a damn if your underlying reasons are remotely relevant.
You know, I really fucking hate it when people try and put words in my mouth. I never once said the word terrorist. Never mentioned Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or any other nation we've conducted operations in. I said nothing whatsoever about justification for any of the conflicts, yet you seem to want to argue about that. Fuck off. Find someone who's already talking about those to argue with.
I define a battlefield as any place where one side of a conflict decides to attack another. If you know that where folks we are trying to kill hang out can become a battlefield at any time, it's pretty fucking stupid to be in those areas, yeah? If you get blown up accidentally while doing humanitarian work, well you knew the risks when you went there. If you went there to aid the enemy, well you got what you deserved.
More to the point, how is this different than any weapon capable of being aimed? Any time a soldier/marine/etc... points a weapon at someone, they are targeting that individual for execution. Is the ACLU's beef seriously that it's not fair to be able to kill our enemies without giving them the chance to kill us?
As to killing US citizens, screw em. If they're innocent bystandars, they sure picked a fucked up place to bystand and should be nominated for a Darwin award. If they're not, then they were traitors and my only regret is that we can't bring them back and execute them several more times.
Yeah but since this is/. you have to go the extra step and think of some of the creative uses you could put those to. For instance, say your neighbor's kid keeps waking you up by playing outside your window every morning.
Slashdot Mirror
A well thought out and detailed response. Obviously I must now rethink my position.
Rich people put more or less the same amount of money back into the economy as their poor counterparts do. Which is to say pretty much all of it. They simply do it through investments rather than consumable goods and services purchases.
Invested money allows the company you've invested with to grow their business, hire workers, purchase needed consumables themselves, and provide more goods and services to consumers. Money stuffed in a bank vault gets invested by the bank and does the same. About the only thing you can do with money that doesn't put it right back out into the economy is stuff it in your mattress.
I'm not saying things can't get a bit lopsided and make the fiscal landscape unpleasant. I'm just saying that this idea that money going to the rich somehow takes it out of the economy is patently absurd and utterly false.
That's not a democracy. In a democracy whatever 50.000001% of the people prefer, the rest are just freaking stuck with. It's even worse in a representative democracy, witness the healthcare bill that just passed with a solid majority of the people not wanting it.
Opensource is more along the lines of barely structured anarchy. If you don't like how someone does something you either fork their code or find someone else who already has, and do things however you like. The only rules telling you what you can and cannot do are the license the code is released under. Almost all actual creative control is left to the individual, unless they voluntarily surrender it for the sake of convenience.
That supervision can (should?) involve disclosure
Not to civilians it shouldn't. At least not without being either not remotely timely or heavily redacted.
I would have went with Schlitz, Natural Light, or Milwaukee's Best for Windows but then I'm just a dick sometimes.
Just the normal five but I count on them in binary, so I can go as high as 31 decimal. Oh and to the AC below, 4 on my right hand to you, buddy.
Honestly, I think we trend towards libertarianism more than anything else around here. The underlying reasoning being something along the lines of: politicians are almost exclusively corrupt morons and I don't want them telling me what to do on any topic.
Means that neither intrusive conservatism nor intrusive liberalism are well received, by in large. Holding a controversial view goes over well enough but espousing the need to push it onto others, not so much.
Sorry, have to disagree there. I say fairly controversial (read: anything remotely approaching a conservative viewpoint) things all the time but I make sure to do it either eloquently enough or humorously enough that I've been modded down so little I can count the negative point comments on one hand.
You obviously don't know kittehs that well. It will be they can has this cheezburger and that cheezburger at the same time.
They'd just use quantum superpositions to take up even more of the bed or to lay in two sunbeams at once anyway.
Tell that to the copyright lobbyists.
You're a funny guy, AC. Keep on sucking up that Berkeley propaganda so I can keep being amused.
Oil? You're still seriously believing that noise? Do you even remotely understand how oil markets work? We could be completely cut off of oil from Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia and still get every drop we need. Prices wouldn't even fluctuate that much. Twit.
Psychotic? Nah, that's simply how most people tend to react to treachery. There's a reason it's the only crime spelled out in the Constitution and the death penalty is explicitly allowed therein.
Seriously, go back to the Huffington Post or moveon. Over here at /. you have to be able to think for yourself if you don't want your ass kicked in a flamewar.
I didn't say it was sinister, no more than politics as usual is anyway. And yeah, they're saying what they want to know but the why they'd never say openly and truthfully. That's my only real objection, being lied to yet again.
The ACLU might have been an altruistic, fight-the-good-fight organization at one time but nowadays they're just another part of the political machine of the far left. They have far more in common ideologically with anarchists and socialists (contradictory, I know, but that's people for you) than with your average Democrat voter.
Seems like it, yeah, but the ACLU rarely does anything for the reasons they give publicly. Follow their record and it's easy to see they've devolved into just another radical leftist organization. This case in particular is easily identifiable as a fishing expedition. I don't particularly mind them trying to fish for information, free country and all that, but calling it something other than what it is annoys the hell out of me.
Also taken badly out of context. Those words were written right before we performed a hell of a lot of killing, so either you completely failed to understand who was being spoken to and why or you just want to argue for your point and don't give a damn if your underlying reasons are remotely relevant.
That or a smart one, depends on which side you're on as to which way your opinion is going to tend towards.
You know, I really fucking hate it when people try and put words in my mouth. I never once said the word terrorist. Never mentioned Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or any other nation we've conducted operations in. I said nothing whatsoever about justification for any of the conflicts, yet you seem to want to argue about that. Fuck off. Find someone who's already talking about those to argue with.
I define a battlefield as any place where one side of a conflict decides to attack another. If you know that where folks we are trying to kill hang out can become a battlefield at any time, it's pretty fucking stupid to be in those areas, yeah? If you get blown up accidentally while doing humanitarian work, well you knew the risks when you went there. If you went there to aid the enemy, well you got what you deserved.
More to the point, how is this different than any weapon capable of being aimed? Any time a soldier/marine/etc... points a weapon at someone, they are targeting that individual for execution. Is the ACLU's beef seriously that it's not fair to be able to kill our enemies without giving them the chance to kill us?
As to killing US citizens, screw em. If they're innocent bystandars, they sure picked a fucked up place to bystand and should be nominated for a Darwin award. If they're not, then they were traitors and my only regret is that we can't bring them back and execute them several more times.
Yeah but since this is /. you have to go the extra step and think of some of the creative uses you could put those to. For instance, say your neighbor's kid keeps waking you up by playing outside your window every morning.
"Gah, fucking kid!"
*reorients laser networking device that's been slightly modified*
$sudo ifup zap0
*chuckles maniacally*
On the up side though, nobody will be jacking your wifi signal. Including you if you shield the interior walls too.
Duct tape is always useful.
Televised execution by means of midgets with machetes. Sorry, that was insensitive. Little people with machetes.
Give the guy a break, he could just be stupid.
Or he could be following the longstanding tradition of not knowing what the hell you're talking about when bitching on the Internet.
Two words: Cage Match
No, the reason you shouldn't sue is that suing someone because they pissed you off makes you an asshat.