I love your pedantic rhetoricals. They give you a the air of superiority. Well played.
"No, it's worse than insurance," was in reference to the grandparent's comment, "My company offers insurance benefits too, but they don't pay all of the cost."
So if we're breaking this down in fine detail as seems your want, the statement that it is worse than insurance implies that something for free is worse than something you pay for.
In case I didn't make it clear in my original post, my tone was intended to be playful.
I agree in principle, but the devil is always in the details. Do a little mental gymnastics and see if you can come up with a law for what citizens can and can't do in a given situation. My guess is within minutes you'll have a lot of outlier situations.
And, yes, I'm totally cool with requiring a law degree before you can wear a uniform. Think about how awesome it would be to have police officers worthy of the badge for a change.
I'm as annoyed as the next guy when a cop shows his ignorance and arrogance when manipulating the law to make his job easier, but the idea that cops should have law degrees is a little "pie-in-the-sky" if you ask me. Even lawyers don't know the laws on the spot. Have you seen some of the crazy statutes passed? There are exceptions, loopholes, etc. that are so difficult to understand, that lawyers spend huge amounts of time trying to understand them before informing their clients about them, and that is ALL they do. A cop has a few other responsibilities.
Now having one lawyer who is an expert on criminal law and local statutes available for the police to call, when confronted with something confusing, or when a citizen cites a law that protects their actions wouldn't be too difficult or costly. Then, as long as the situation was safe, they could radio in for clarification on that law.
After a really quick Google search, I couldn't find the ad, but I remember when Clint Eastwood was running for office, the networks wouldn't show his movies because they were scared the other candidates would ask for equal time, and since Eastwood didn't pay to have the movies run, they'd have to do it for free.
Imagine TNT having to let each candidate pontificate for two hours. I can't even stand the thirty second ads.
Elon Musk started SpaceX because he wants mankind to be a multi-planet species. He's not an idiot and wants to be profitable, but he is willing to sink a lot of that profit into doing something historic and necessary for our survival. It goes against every grain of my being to think someone is really willing to put his money where his mouth is, but it seem Elon Musk might be the exception that proves mankind's greed.
Let me introduce you to my 8 year old daughter. She had quite a lot of fun trying to solve the maze problem and come up with an algorithm to do it. She was interested in the problem, trying to teach her the syntax of a programming language would have made the problem less accessible, I doubt she would have enjoyed it.
Same for my 9 year old daughter. After the maze we moved on to write a program to count to 100 by intervals.
Seeing my daughter excited about programming like that was awesome. A little less cool, but infinitely more shocking, was that when she showed my wife her programs, describing them in detail, my wife's eyes didn't glaze over, like they do when I talk about coding.
l? A large portion of what gets voted on is just "issue bills," and those are usually treated as if they're black and white concepts anyway. In the end, all this guy needs to do is efficiently and fairly distill the essence of each bill into a few bullet points that people can easily say "Yea" or "Nay" on.
Who gets to distill it down to a few bullet points? That is precisely the reason that so many complicated bills get treated like black and white issues. The point of an elected official is to actually spend the time considering the complex and nuanced nature of the issue.
That is the problem with with using polls so much. The people being polled don't generally have the first clue about the topic being debated. We are supposed to be sending wise men and women to run our governments using measured reason and wisdom.
How about a skip ahead 30 seconds. There are boring parts of TV shows that take about 30 seconds. The fact that most commercials are sold in 30 seconds increments is only an odd coincident.
Do you believe individuals simply float on a wave of historical forces, and the *lucky ones* inevitability say it was their hard work that got them where they are?
No. I believe the people who are successful generally work very hard for their success. They persevere in the face of extreme difficulty and use their talents to great effect. I never discounted hard work. I'm saying that not every person that works hard will eventually rise out of poverty. There are many other contributing factors.
Do I spend or save? Do I get things done or do I procrastinate? Do I watch TV or go exercise? Do I read a book or surf the Internet? Do I work hard at school to get more education or do I go hang out with my friends? Do I spend time with my family or do I pursue things for my own gratification?
The fact that you chose these questions as your examples suggests that you don't understand many of the choices people living in poverty have to make.
And then it's never explained who is going to be taking the freedoms and what freedoms are going to be taken.
Most people would rather be scared than right. That's why so many conservatives are saying Obama wants to make all your decisions about healthcare. You know, just like he took over the whole US car industry, designing cars from the Oval Office and such nonsense.
Should have used that 2 dollars to get a pencil and paper and make a plan, then spend his time implementing his plan. In 5 years when he goes from nothing to middle class, he can then donate more money, and eat.
This is a canard that helps us sleep at night. If only poor people worked harder or planned ahead, they would dig themselves out of poverty. For every story you find where this is successful, I could show you 100 people who worked as hard, planned as well, and ended up still poor. Bad planning or a bad work ethic is not what makes people poor. It's a confluence of factors that are by and large out of the individual's control.
To suggest otherwise simplifies a very complex and important global issue. Certainly there are elements of any population that just don't work hard, but that is generally not the case. You can argue that it isn't your place to help someone out of poverty; you can say that poverty is inevitable, but to allay your fears or guilt by claiming a person with only two dollars should write a five year plan to solve his woes and provide for others is extremely overly-simplified, don't you think? His idea of charity is not stupid. It is noble. We could compromise and say foolhardy if you wish. Nevertheless, kindness to another human being, whether you think people who do so are indoctrinated by religion or just plain caring, is something beautiful.
I know I'm blowing against the wind, but I'd suggest you tone down the name calling too. I know, I know...this is/., but I'm a romantic and believe people can have a civil discourse on important issues.
You are splitting hairs. They make money on Nexus sales, but Nexus sales makes up a fraction of the overall Android market. Compare this with Apple, that makes 100% of iPhones, and you see that one is an ad company while the other is a hardware company.
It stands to reason that Apple would make more from the manufacturing of the phone.
You are thinking of situational irony, but the traditional definition of situational irony involves a reversal of common expectations. To make it appropriate for/., consider someone who wears a tinfoil hat to protect himself that is then struck by lightening. You could argue that you would expect to find a knife with that much flatware, but it's a stretch. Now, if you were to have ten thousand boxes of mixed flatware, including forks and spoons, then maybe...
Of course, I'm now splitting hairs, at least I would be if I could find a damn knife...ba dum bump. Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week.
Yes, some people might die in space. Then again, a great many people die each year in automotive traffic as well as get killed by commuter rail services or even urban "light rail" transit systems. Does that stop those transportation devices from ever being used after those deaths? Why is spaceflight any different?
For no other reason than the fireball is bigger and more cameras are watching.
Slashdot Mirror
It is!?!
Thank God, I thought all those Extenze and V!agra ads came from sites my wife had been surfing. I feel so much better now.
Good point, but only if Google doesn't offer life insurance as well. I'm not nearly smart enough to work for Google though, so I can't speak to that.
I love your pedantic rhetoricals. They give you a the air of superiority. Well played.
"No, it's worse than insurance," was in reference to the grandparent's comment, "My company offers insurance benefits too, but they don't pay all of the cost."
So if we're breaking this down in fine detail as seems your want, the statement that it is worse than insurance implies that something for free is worse than something you pay for.
In case I didn't make it clear in my original post, my tone was intended to be playful.
Enjoy the day.
Let me get this straight. This is worse than insurance because you have to pay taxes on it right?
So you only get a large portion of the generous benefit that is rarely offered by other employers.
Those bastards.
I agree in principle, but the devil is always in the details. Do a little mental gymnastics and see if you can come up with a law for what citizens can and can't do in a given situation. My guess is within minutes you'll have a lot of outlier situations.
I'm as annoyed as the next guy when a cop shows his ignorance and arrogance when manipulating the law to make his job easier, but the idea that cops should have law degrees is a little "pie-in-the-sky" if you ask me. Even lawyers don't know the laws on the spot. Have you seen some of the crazy statutes passed? There are exceptions, loopholes, etc. that are so difficult to understand, that lawyers spend huge amounts of time trying to understand them before informing their clients about them, and that is ALL they do. A cop has a few other responsibilities.
Now having one lawyer who is an expert on criminal law and local statutes available for the police to call, when confronted with something confusing, or when a citizen cites a law that protects their actions wouldn't be too difficult or costly. Then, as long as the situation was safe, they could radio in for clarification on that law.
After a really quick Google search, I couldn't find the ad, but I remember when Clint Eastwood was running for office, the networks wouldn't show his movies because they were scared the other candidates would ask for equal time, and since Eastwood didn't pay to have the movies run, they'd have to do it for free.
Imagine TNT having to let each candidate pontificate for two hours. I can't even stand the thirty second ads.
Chuck Norris types with million dollar machines...
Killiling machines!
Are you seriously telling me that a public post on Twitter of the musings of a computer program equates to publishing scientific data?
You're funny. Come back more often.
The programmers are the ones who decided to broadcast its mistakes over Twitter.
Elon Musk started SpaceX because he wants mankind to be a multi-planet species. He's not an idiot and wants to be profitable, but he is willing to sink a lot of that profit into doing something historic and necessary for our survival. It goes against every grain of my being to think someone is really willing to put his money where his mouth is, but it seem Elon Musk might be the exception that proves mankind's greed.
Same for my 9 year old daughter. After the maze we moved on to write a program to count to 100 by intervals.
Seeing my daughter excited about programming like that was awesome. A little less cool, but infinitely more shocking, was that when she showed my wife her programs, describing them in detail, my wife's eyes didn't glaze over, like they do when I talk about coding.
Who gets to distill it down to a few bullet points? That is precisely the reason that so many complicated bills get treated like black and white issues. The point of an elected official is to actually spend the time considering the complex and nuanced nature of the issue.
That is the problem with with using polls so much. The people being polled don't generally have the first clue about the topic being debated. We are supposed to be sending wise men and women to run our governments using measured reason and wisdom.
How about a skip ahead 30 seconds. There are boring parts of TV shows that take about 30 seconds. The fact that most commercials are sold in 30 seconds increments is only an odd coincident.
No. I believe the people who are successful generally work very hard for their success. They persevere in the face of extreme difficulty and use their talents to great effect. I never discounted hard work. I'm saying that not every person that works hard will eventually rise out of poverty. There are many other contributing factors.
The fact that you chose these questions as your examples suggests that you don't understand many of the choices people living in poverty have to make.
Most people would rather be scared than right. That's why so many conservatives are saying Obama wants to make all your decisions about healthcare. You know, just like he took over the whole US car industry, designing cars from the Oval Office and such nonsense.
This is a canard that helps us sleep at night. If only poor people worked harder or planned ahead, they would dig themselves out of poverty. For every story you find where this is successful, I could show you 100 people who worked as hard, planned as well, and ended up still poor. Bad planning or a bad work ethic is not what makes people poor. It's a confluence of factors that are by and large out of the individual's control.
To suggest otherwise simplifies a very complex and important global issue. Certainly there are elements of any population that just don't work hard, but that is generally not the case. You can argue that it isn't your place to help someone out of poverty; you can say that poverty is inevitable, but to allay your fears or guilt by claiming a person with only two dollars should write a five year plan to solve his woes and provide for others is extremely overly-simplified, don't you think? His idea of charity is not stupid. It is noble. We could compromise and say foolhardy if you wish. Nevertheless, kindness to another human being, whether you think people who do so are indoctrinated by religion or just plain caring, is something beautiful.
I know I'm blowing against the wind, but I'd suggest you tone down the name calling too. I know, I know...this is /., but I'm a romantic and believe people can have a civil discourse on important issues.
Bad deeds do not erase the good. Nor the other way around.
Yep. I totally agree. It just isn't pertinent to the point I was making.
You are splitting hairs. They make money on Nexus sales, but Nexus sales makes up a fraction of the overall Android market. Compare this with Apple, that makes 100% of iPhones, and you see that one is an ad company while the other is a hardware company.
It stands to reason that Apple would make more from the manufacturing of the phone.
You are thinking of situational irony, but the traditional definition of situational irony involves a reversal of common expectations. To make it appropriate for /., consider someone who wears a tinfoil hat to protect himself that is then struck by lightening. You could argue that you would expect to find a knife with that much flatware, but it's a stretch. Now, if you were to have ten thousand boxes of mixed flatware, including forks and spoons, then maybe...
Of course, I'm now splitting hairs, at least I would be if I could find a damn knife...ba dum bump. Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week.
Tragically, the impact of that song continues to this day. While (re)introducing irony to tenth graders, I asked if anyone knew what irony was.
"It's like having ten thousand spoons when you need a knife," yelled one of my little scholars.
For God's sake, they built it for the babies.
Not true. I had a friend once who used anecdotes very successfully.
For no other reason than the fireball is bigger and more cameras are watching.