They've got us over a barrel, though, when the only semi-affordable quality education in the region is via parochial schools.
If you find out later that your children are preyed upon will that still seem like a good enough reason to commit them to the care of priests?
I went to a catholic boarding school. While only a minority were actually molested and I wasn't personally one of them it was a toxic environment in which I spent my formative years. I think you also underestimate your own ability to influence your children's education and development. Maybe your kids will be ok. If they aren't they will pay a heavy price as will you. Sure there is still risk in secular schools but there isn't the institutional support and cover-up issues that there are with the church. Good luck.
Looks like the catholics have mod points today. Just in case I wasn't clear: the catholic church is an evil organisation. It is way past due time for every member of the church to acknowledge it. Every catholic who supports the church hierarchy in any way, whether by attendance at services, sending their children to catholic schools, donating money or working in catholic organizations is supporting systematic child abuse. This should be proclaimed loudly and often until it is widely considered to be shameful and disgusting to admit to catholicism.
I'm not convinced anyone has a god-given right to weapons.
Leaving aside the issue of "god-given", surely everyone has a right to defend their own life. Whether they have a right to weapons is dependent on whether they need weapons to defend their life.
Being larger and stronger than average, if I attacked someone smaller I could be regarded as a lethal threat. In a one on one encounter, about 80% of the population would need a weapon to defend themselves from me. Since there is no way I can be required to become weaker (although that will eventually happen through age), then a weapons ban in practice means large people and trained fighters have the right to self defense and smaller weaker people do not. I do not find this to be equitable.
Yours may be the first articulation of the 'protect us from tyranny' gun defence I've read which actually makes any kind of logical sense!
Try checking out the Eureka Stockade, a small lightly armed rebellion in Victoria, 1854 (then a British colony, now a state of Australia). To sum up: the rebels lost the battle against the better armed police, won in court due to popular support (jury nullification) 10,000 people marched in support of the first acquittal. Peter Lalor, the leader of the rebellion, was elected to Victoria's Legislative Assembly in 1856.
Not a bad result for people who lost the armed battle in about 10 minutes. In a country with free press and open courts you don't necessarily need overwhelming firepower, just enough to force the government to show it's hand.
As for not wanting people shooting back at police: when they are enforcing law that the majority of the population sees as oppressive then you do. If you get to the point where you do want people to shoot back and you've disarmed the population you are in a very hard place. Also consider that historically the tendency of governments to become oppressive seems more like an inevitability than a "small eventuality".
Actually, a similar system seems to work ok for the Catholic Church
How the fuck can you look at the Catholic Church leadership right now and say to yourself "That seems to work ok". If you mean their leadership structure is spectacularly successful at enabling evil then you have a point but that's not exactly what the rest of us are wanting from our political systems.
I was trying to be polite and discreet. How about if I say "Do you have a reference for your definition of marketing and why should I accept it as better authority than the dictionary?"
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marketing 1. the act of buying or selling in a market.
2. the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling.
ONLY your product itself can convince people they need it. No amount of marketing can make people use your product repeatedly if they do not find it useful in some way.
I think you're trying to split hairs. You're basically claiming that if you advertise a product and someone tries it that marketing stops before the demo. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marketing
1. the act of buying or selling in a market.
2. the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling.
Do you have a better reference? Both of you who replied seem to be just making shit up. In my previous post I was trying to be polite. If you have a reputable reference that supports your definition I'm prepared to be corrected.
But as a society, isn't it better to have 10 guilty and 1 innocent in jail than all 11 free?
That's a serious question, I hope some of you can provide some data or better logical thinking about why this isn't a good idea.
There is a possibility that a criminal may harm me, or the state may harm me.
If a criminal attempts to harm me I may be able to defend myself or escape and get the police to help.
If the state attempts to harm me I will not be able to defend myself.
Therefore, given the choice of more free criminals but a court system that requires rigorous proof, or less free criminals but a state that may punish me though innocent it is better to take my chances against the free criminals.
Marketing is a tool to grow business. It's not HOW you grow your business. You grow your business by convincing more people that they need your product. I hope you see the difference.
Isn't "convincing more people that they need your product" called marketing? I'm not understanding the difference you're trying to point out.
Just because you put yourself in that position doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for you. It's only internet sympathy though, it won't harm you. You are right, you should have taken the job. You misjudged. Don't let it shake your confidence so much that you settle for too much less permanently. Your market value was below your estimation, you need to build it up again. Sounds like you're getting on with it. Good luck.
When you talk about free markets, since it is a term that has been in use for quite some time, it will be assumed that you are talking about the traditional use of that term, not one tailored to your individual interpretation of what free means. Countries that are considered free have never been those without laws. Have a look at the freedom index and note that Iceland is considered free, despite having laws and Somalia is not considered free despite their being no effective government to make laws. Your definition of free being the absence of law is a purely theoretical idea and is not taken seriously in the real world.
The freedom referred to as a free market is not a complete lack of restraint on any type of activity. It is a lack of price regulation and monopolies, the freedom to find other suppliers or buyers. The structure of courts, police etc. makes large scale free markets possible. In this way free markets are dependent on government. You can read about it in Wealth of Nations or you could keep your own individual definition and argue against that I suppose.
Americans haven't realized that any law affecting businesses or consumers is by definition the opposite of a free market.
This is totally incorrect. Have you read Adam Smith's work? The free market he described did not exist in the absence of government. Without laws against the use of force and fraud there is no large scale free market, only anarchy. Without enforcement of contracts there is no free market. An efficient free market requires informed buyers, so consumer protection laws can be pro-free market, such as Australian law requiring ingredients of food products to be on the label. Trademark law allows you as a customer to know the reputation of who you are buying from, another pro-free market measure.
The idea that a free market means no laws affecting businesses or customers at all is not found in "The Wealth of Nations" or any other seminal work on free market economics that I'm aware of.
I will probably never retire of find another woman again as I thought I was too good to take any job.
You are in your 30s, your life is not over. You're going through a hard time right now but many people go through a period of unemployment when it looks like they have no prospects and many marriages fail. It is painful, you have my sympathy. I've gone through some hard times myself and things are often not as hopeless as they seem while you are going through them.
It doesn't have to be. My experience is that educated people don't care what you do for a living but if you are capable of interesting conversation. I work in a trade but have spent a couple of decades reading, thinking over and discussing topics that have little or no relevance to my work. I have no trouble making friends with educated people, including a university professor I am still in contact with who gives me reading recommendations (free education!). We discuss politics, the nature of education, propaganda, anything. He didn't expect that out of a guy he met taking stumps out of his yard but it doesn't stop him talking to me.
I have met some really interesting people working in their yards, many of them educated professionals. I like to work on contract so I can stop and talk if a good conversation gets going. Maybe I'm not the average manual worker but I say you don't have to shut your mind down just because you don't do intellectual work and you can associate with people of any profession if you want.
But, when your working life is over, what have you really accomplished besides earning a wage? Why attend university at all?
As someone who hasn't had much formal education but has done my best to educate myself, it seems to me that you are taking an overly mercenary approach to education and neglecting the personal benefits of developing your mind. Any job is better done with intelligence, why should people prefer to be uneducated just because their job doesn't require it? The world doesn't stop being interesting just because you have a mundane job. Thinking is a good thing, even if you don't need to do much of it to earn a living.
Lots of educated workers on here complain about their conditions and employment environment. They don't have to sweat at work but they probably have to wear a tie and sit inside all day. Many have signed contracts assigning ownership of their creativity to their employer. That would feel like a nightmare to me. I'd love to have more education but if I used that education to subject myself to corporate employment I wouldn't consider it much of an achievement.
Im not clear here, unlocking is specifically for joining a new carrier, correct? TFS indicates that fulfilling your contract would allow you to unlock your phone, and if you havent fulfilled your contract Im not seeing how you could have unlocked your phone anyways without breaking contract.
There are other reasons to unlock your phone that don't have to do with breaking the contract. You might want to make/receive some calls without using your regular number. With an unlocked phone you can buy another sim and swap them. Your partners phone might be broken and you want to use their sim because they're expecting an important call.
In Australia phones sold on contract come unlocked, prepaid phones come locked to the network. Since they have a contract I'm not sure what US companies think they are achieving by locking the phones. Mostly inconvenience for themselves and their customers AFAICT. It seems like restriction just for the sake of restriction.
For another "sample size of one" I don't take D supplements but I feel like crap if I stay indoors all day and don't get sunlight, which I assume is caused by lack of vitamin D. Really crap as in would require a diagnosis if I couldn't solve the problem myself.
Laughter and joking are not inappropriate responses to depression and mental health issues if you can get those affected to laugh with you. It's only lame jokes that are evil.
You claim to be trying to make a rational, fact-based argument, but you seem to be trying to inject emotions into the argument as much as possible. Choose one or the other, or at least admit you are trying to use emotion to frame the argument.
You could brush up on your reading comprehension before criticizing. I have reviewed my last two posts and I think it is abundantly clear that I am appealing to people's emotions. I don't need to admit it, I've explicitly stated it already. Did you watch the video and could you personally confiscate that woman's guns and look her in the eye as you did so? If so, what would you say to her to convince her it was good policy? Put forth your purely logical arguments if you think they will allay her terror. If your logic can't withstand the viewing of a video it isn't that strong.
Slashdot Mirror
sending their children to catholic schools
They've got us over a barrel, though, when the only semi-affordable quality education in the region is via parochial schools.
If you find out later that your children are preyed upon will that still seem like a good enough reason to commit them to the care of priests?
I went to a catholic boarding school. While only a minority were actually molested and I wasn't personally one of them it was a toxic environment in which I spent my formative years. I think you also underestimate your own ability to influence your children's education and development. Maybe your kids will be ok. If they aren't they will pay a heavy price as will you. Sure there is still risk in secular schools but there isn't the institutional support and cover-up issues that there are with the church. Good luck.
Captcha: hostage
Looks like the catholics have mod points today. Just in case I wasn't clear: the catholic church is an evil organisation. It is way past due time for every member of the church to acknowledge it. Every catholic who supports the church hierarchy in any way, whether by attendance at services, sending their children to catholic schools, donating money or working in catholic organizations is supporting systematic child abuse. This should be proclaimed loudly and often until it is widely considered to be shameful and disgusting to admit to catholicism.
I'm not convinced anyone has a god-given right to weapons.
Leaving aside the issue of "god-given", surely everyone has a right to defend their own life. Whether they have a right to weapons is dependent on whether they need weapons to defend their life.
Being larger and stronger than average, if I attacked someone smaller I could be regarded as a lethal threat. In a one on one encounter, about 80% of the population would need a weapon to defend themselves from me. Since there is no way I can be required to become weaker (although that will eventually happen through age), then a weapons ban in practice means large people and trained fighters have the right to self defense and smaller weaker people do not. I do not find this to be equitable.
Yours may be the first articulation of the 'protect us from tyranny' gun defence I've read which actually makes any kind of logical sense!
Try checking out the Eureka Stockade, a small lightly armed rebellion in Victoria, 1854 (then a British colony, now a state of Australia). To sum up: the rebels lost the battle against the better armed police, won in court due to popular support (jury nullification) 10,000 people marched in support of the first acquittal. Peter Lalor, the leader of the rebellion, was elected to Victoria's Legislative Assembly in 1856.
Not a bad result for people who lost the armed battle in about 10 minutes. In a country with free press and open courts you don't necessarily need overwhelming firepower, just enough to force the government to show it's hand.
As for not wanting people shooting back at police: when they are enforcing law that the majority of the population sees as oppressive then you do. If you get to the point where you do want people to shoot back and you've disarmed the population you are in a very hard place. Also consider that historically the tendency of governments to become oppressive seems more like an inevitability than a "small eventuality".
Actually, a similar system seems to work ok for the Catholic Church
How the fuck can you look at the Catholic Church leadership right now and say to yourself "That seems to work ok". If you mean their leadership structure is spectacularly successful at enabling evil then you have a point but that's not exactly what the rest of us are wanting from our political systems.
I was trying to be polite and discreet. How about if I say "Do you have a reference for your definition of marketing and why should I accept it as better authority than the dictionary?"
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marketing
1. the act of buying or selling in a market.
2. the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling.
ONLY your product itself can convince people they need it. No amount of marketing can make people use your product repeatedly if they do not find it useful in some way.
I think you're trying to split hairs. You're basically claiming that if you advertise a product and someone tries it that marketing stops before the demo. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marketing
1. the act of buying or selling in a market.
2. the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling.
Do you have a better reference? Both of you who replied seem to be just making shit up. In my previous post I was trying to be polite. If you have a reputable reference that supports your definition I'm prepared to be corrected.
But as a society, isn't it better to have 10 guilty and 1 innocent in jail than all 11 free? That's a serious question, I hope some of you can provide some data or better logical thinking about why this isn't a good idea.
There is a possibility that a criminal may harm me, or the state may harm me.
If a criminal attempts to harm me I may be able to defend myself or escape and get the police to help.
If the state attempts to harm me I will not be able to defend myself.
Therefore, given the choice of more free criminals but a court system that requires rigorous proof, or less free criminals but a state that may punish me though innocent it is better to take my chances against the free criminals.
Marketing is a tool to grow business. It's not HOW you grow your business. You grow your business by convincing more people that they need your product. I hope you see the difference.
Isn't "convincing more people that they need your product" called marketing? I'm not understanding the difference you're trying to point out.
New young Chewbacca to be played by Joaquin Phoenix.
FTFY
Can't say how it would work for an alcoholic, but I'd imagine it'd be very effective on somebody who is concerned about becoming one.
Not likely to work on alcoholics. When an alcoholic drinks, they are already ignoring the consequences of their actions.
Just because you put yourself in that position doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for you. It's only internet sympathy though, it won't harm you. You are right, you should have taken the job. You misjudged. Don't let it shake your confidence so much that you settle for too much less permanently. Your market value was below your estimation, you need to build it up again. Sounds like you're getting on with it. Good luck.
When you talk about free markets, since it is a term that has been in use for quite some time, it will be assumed that you are talking about the traditional use of that term, not one tailored to your individual interpretation of what free means. Countries that are considered free have never been those without laws. Have a look at the freedom index and note that Iceland is considered free, despite having laws and Somalia is not considered free despite their being no effective government to make laws. Your definition of free being the absence of law is a purely theoretical idea and is not taken seriously in the real world.
The freedom referred to as a free market is not a complete lack of restraint on any type of activity. It is a lack of price regulation and monopolies, the freedom to find other suppliers or buyers. The structure of courts, police etc. makes large scale free markets possible. In this way free markets are dependent on government. You can read about it in Wealth of Nations or you could keep your own individual definition and argue against that I suppose.
Americans haven't realized that any law affecting businesses or consumers is by definition the opposite of a free market.
This is totally incorrect. Have you read Adam Smith's work? The free market he described did not exist in the absence of government. Without laws against the use of force and fraud there is no large scale free market, only anarchy. Without enforcement of contracts there is no free market. An efficient free market requires informed buyers, so consumer protection laws can be pro-free market, such as Australian law requiring ingredients of food products to be on the label. Trademark law allows you as a customer to know the reputation of who you are buying from, another pro-free market measure.
The idea that a free market means no laws affecting businesses or customers at all is not found in "The Wealth of Nations" or any other seminal work on free market economics that I'm aware of.
I will probably never retire of find another woman again as I thought I was too good to take any job.
You are in your 30s, your life is not over. You're going through a hard time right now but many people go through a period of unemployment when it looks like they have no prospects and many marriages fail. It is painful, you have my sympathy. I've gone through some hard times myself and things are often not as hopeless as they seem while you are going through them.
It doesn't have to be. My experience is that educated people don't care what you do for a living but if you are capable of interesting conversation. I work in a trade but have spent a couple of decades reading, thinking over and discussing topics that have little or no relevance to my work. I have no trouble making friends with educated people, including a university professor I am still in contact with who gives me reading recommendations (free education!). We discuss politics, the nature of education, propaganda, anything. He didn't expect that out of a guy he met taking stumps out of his yard but it doesn't stop him talking to me.
I have met some really interesting people working in their yards, many of them educated professionals. I like to work on contract so I can stop and talk if a good conversation gets going. Maybe I'm not the average manual worker but I say you don't have to shut your mind down just because you don't do intellectual work and you can associate with people of any profession if you want.
But, when your working life is over, what have you really accomplished besides earning a wage? Why attend university at all?
As someone who hasn't had much formal education but has done my best to educate myself, it seems to me that you are taking an overly mercenary approach to education and neglecting the personal benefits of developing your mind. Any job is better done with intelligence, why should people prefer to be uneducated just because their job doesn't require it? The world doesn't stop being interesting just because you have a mundane job. Thinking is a good thing, even if you don't need to do much of it to earn a living.
Lots of educated workers on here complain about their conditions and employment environment. They don't have to sweat at work but they probably have to wear a tie and sit inside all day. Many have signed contracts assigning ownership of their creativity to their employer. That would feel like a nightmare to me. I'd love to have more education but if I used that education to subject myself to corporate employment I wouldn't consider it much of an achievement.
Didn't you read? He was in a seminary, he obviously had God's help.
What carrier in Australia is selling locked phones on contract? As far as I'm aware the only locked phones are prepaid.
There is a difference between laughing with someone, and laughing at them.
The joke in question:
It would be great to see this addressed by our community through some outreach and awareness programs
I assume these programs would be released under the GPL, or some other open-source license?
How malicious! How cruel! Oh the humanity!
I seriously doubt that anyone is going to be humiliated or offended by that joke. Get a grip.
Im not clear here, unlocking is specifically for joining a new carrier, correct? TFS indicates that fulfilling your contract would allow you to unlock your phone, and if you havent fulfilled your contract Im not seeing how you could have unlocked your phone anyways without breaking contract.
There are other reasons to unlock your phone that don't have to do with breaking the contract. You might want to make/receive some calls without using your regular number. With an unlocked phone you can buy another sim and swap them. Your partners phone might be broken and you want to use their sim because they're expecting an important call.
In Australia phones sold on contract come unlocked, prepaid phones come locked to the network. Since they have a contract I'm not sure what US companies think they are achieving by locking the phones. Mostly inconvenience for themselves and their customers AFAICT. It seems like restriction just for the sake of restriction.
For another "sample size of one" I don't take D supplements but I feel like crap if I stay indoors all day and don't get sunlight, which I assume is caused by lack of vitamin D. Really crap as in would require a diagnosis if I couldn't solve the problem myself.
Laughter and joking are not inappropriate responses to depression and mental health issues if you can get those affected to laugh with you. It's only lame jokes that are evil.
Women commit 1/10th the amount of violent crimes that men do. Unless there are sneaky ways to murder people, I don't think your conclusion holds.
Persuade a man to do it. Women are also more likely to get sympathy from a jury.
You claim to be trying to make a rational, fact-based argument, but you seem to be trying to inject emotions into the argument as much as possible. Choose one or the other, or at least admit you are trying to use emotion to frame the argument.
You could brush up on your reading comprehension before criticizing. I have reviewed my last two posts and I think it is abundantly clear that I am appealing to people's emotions. I don't need to admit it, I've explicitly stated it already. Did you watch the video and could you personally confiscate that woman's guns and look her in the eye as you did so? If so, what would you say to her to convince her it was good policy? Put forth your purely logical arguments if you think they will allay her terror. If your logic can't withstand the viewing of a video it isn't that strong.