Yes, taxation is social responsibility. Taking care of the poor is social responsibility. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs are a social responsibility. I am for all of these, within the margins of a balanced and sustainable budget.
If there are so very few issues worth voting on, perhaps you could give us a list?
I did not include the word "worth" in my post. I am led to assume that you react emotionally and/or perceive content where none exists. These are often referred to as delusions.
The very few issues I was referring to, specifically, were the referendums that you find on voting polls at polling places. The rest is left up to elected representatives.
As to why Americans fear and hate Socialism many of us have been thoroughly indoctrinated about the supposed evils of it. It's called "moral hazard". Socialism leads to welfare queens, to lazy deadbeats who just lie about doing nothing constructive
Personally, I've not been indoctrinated to believe this. I have seen it in my own family. Specifically in viewing my mother and her boyfriend. My mother worked for decades until her felony conviction, at which point she discovered that "depression" can land you on collecting Social Security benefits. She has done nothing to contribute to society since, and has been not only a financial drain on society but has also had many, many direct draining effects on local courts, police, fire, medical and city counsel. I, on the other hand, "suffering" from many of the same issues as she, have found that by contributing to society, and bringing in my own income, motivated by the ability to earn more for my efforts if I work a bit harder/longer, I can alleviate any potential cost I might inflict to others by producing for or otherwise servicing society. Having my efforts taxed adds more money to government coffers, and having my own income prevents those coffers from needing to be stretched to support me as well. Capitalism is about people working to better themselves and society, whereas Socialism is about averaging everything out. Socialism removes the motivation to put forth effort and to produce more and/or more efficiently.
There is a fundamental problem with how economics is taught in America, and I suspect that you may be miseducated as a result of it.
Both of my parents are felons. I grew up on food stamps, wearing girls' jeans (I am male), and with persistent moth infestations in both my father's and my mother's homes. Neither of my parents had health insurance. I grew up in high school living off of social security. I went through college on a mostly-free ride, and came out with only $5,000 worth of student loans.
I pay my taxes. I take fewer deductions on my taxes than I am capable, and I do not mind the institution of taxation. It is necessary. In fact, I actively argue with my those I encounter who think that the free market is a valid replacement for vital government services. I do not, however, believe that my effort is up for claim by everyone else. Voting is not for telling me what to do with the reimbursement I receive for performing a service for others, gifts I receive, or whatever lack-of-estate my family might leave me.
No, that is not what voting is for. That is what personal responsibility is for. Voting is for electing people and collectively deciding directly on very few issues that involve all of our society. The money that I earn does not fall into that category. What I make and do with my money is none of your fucking business.
and "multiplayer servers shall remain active for at least 3 years".
I have a problem with this guideline. I really do. There should, in all cases of multiplayer networked capability, be a direct connection ability and/or a server program that you can download and install. This was pretty standard not too long ago, where you could set up a private server if you wanted to. It should be standard again. If you buy something, the product should not have a lifespan the ends with no usability. It should end with no further support, where the user can install and tweak and run in 20+ years.
The videos are clearly edited to make people look more like assholes. You can see time gaps in the first one linked in TFA, and the later ones are edited a bit less obviously.
On the first part, I think you got that backwards. The quote said that "you get an infinitesimal chance of not receiving mail from them again" Reworded: the change of you not getting mail from them again just became infinitesimal. You are arguing against the quote, and instead reinforcing it.
Wouldn't some sort of citation that backs that claim up be more appropriate than a snarky "Let me Google that for you" link, especially since none of the top links in Google seem to immediately reveal any credit to your claim?
You have to wonder how strongly people felt about the question. Try it with taxes or abortion or something that a lot of people actually give a damn about. Unfortunately, despite all I've ever said to people, censorship never enters the give-a-damn category for the general populace.
"David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998) [...]"
Actually, the parenthetical claim is clearly saying that the absolute warmest years for the entire planet have been since 1998. The claim is an example of poor writing. Just because the meaning can be inferred does not mean that it should be necessary to do so. The possibility of inferring the meaning does not excuse the writer from the onus of clear and precise communication.
I just broke mine down as well. I currently do a similar plan: $80 service, $30 for unlimited text, $10 for 2nd smartphone, $30 for 1st smartphone's data plan (unlimited), $25 for second's 2GB data = $175 subtotal, $196.50 with taxes.
I just combed through our phone minutes' usage, and this was surprisingly close, even went over in a month when we got engaged. Data we use is about 1.5 GB/mo between us. But, data is sold in lots of 250 MB (which each of us exceeds) and $25 or $30 for 2 GB or my grandfathered-in unlimited. There is a lot of waste in data purchase here. As for text messages, my fiancée is a texter, so unlimited is necessary.
Now, on the new plan, it's $40 service (not $80, $90 with second phone), but up to $130 for two phones. But no texting plan charge. So it's really $130 vs $120. Now let's look at data. Currently, I pay $55 for a lot of data that I don't use. For the same I could get probably 5 GB for $60, which is excessive for our use case. 3GB is fine even if I get tablets in on it, so let's say $30 for data, making it $160 (new) vs. $175 (current). So, maybe the new plan is a bit cheaper, maybe more expensive, depending. I think so far it's fair for a shared plan.
Now let's put tablets into play. On my current plan, it's be somewhere like $35, but let's say $30 based on this. I have an iPad. I have an iPhone. iOS devices really only shine with internet access. My iPad is only Wi-Fi because I don't want to shell out $30 more per month due to data that I never use the entirety of plus whatever device connection charge there will be. But I don't use it as much because I can't whip it out and go to Google without searching for WiFi, or worse, asking my friends for their WiFi passwords. With the new plan, it would be $10 per tablet. It'll be a lot more tempting to get an Android tablet, Win 8 or the next iPad OMG NEW pwnie if I can take $10 and pool it with the same data. In the end, I can tack on $10 for a new device to get $170 vs. $205. Say I want one for me and one for her (I *might* need another GB now); $195 vs $235. Without the 4th GB of data, it would would be $180 vs $235. Wow.
I'd post a tabular comparison if/. allowed tables.
I second comic books. I found them on my own, then discovered my dad still had all his Marvel comics from the late 70's to early 80's. It was a good bonding experience and all that. Comics are short, easy to understand for ages 7-12, have extended vocabulary and can be thematically complex. The problem, though, would be shifting from words and pictures to just words.
Anyway - so NCLB sucks; that's not news. What would you have them do instead?
Roll it back to how it was before NCLB. Standardized tests into the wind, maybe one every 2 years (how I had them up until 2002). If a system doesn't work, roll it back to the old version, then fix it.
However, this is true for satellite or cable television: you have to pay for those advertisements as well, and more people are obviously willing to let advertising subsidize their bill, or else HBO, Showtime, etc. would have a wider subscriber base.
I do agree, however, that I should not have to pay for advertising to be delivered to me. I'm just raising a valid point about advertising in paid service media.
Slashdot Mirror
It is easier by far to kill a tiger with a gun than with a rock.
The what and the what and the what?
The Congress. While not strictly a Department, it sure as shit is embarrassing.
Social responsibility, ever heard of it?
Yes, taxation is social responsibility. Taking care of the poor is social responsibility. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs are a social responsibility. I am for all of these, within the margins of a balanced and sustainable budget.
If there are so very few issues worth voting on, perhaps you could give us a list?
I did not include the word "worth" in my post. I am led to assume that you react emotionally and/or perceive content where none exists. These are often referred to as delusions.
The very few issues I was referring to, specifically, were the referendums that you find on voting polls at polling places. The rest is left up to elected representatives.
As to why Americans fear and hate Socialism many of us have been thoroughly indoctrinated about the supposed evils of it. It's called "moral hazard". Socialism leads to welfare queens, to lazy deadbeats who just lie about doing nothing constructive
Personally, I've not been indoctrinated to believe this. I have seen it in my own family. Specifically in viewing my mother and her boyfriend. My mother worked for decades until her felony conviction, at which point she discovered that "depression" can land you on collecting Social Security benefits. She has done nothing to contribute to society since, and has been not only a financial drain on society but has also had many, many direct draining effects on local courts, police, fire, medical and city counsel. I, on the other hand, "suffering" from many of the same issues as she, have found that by contributing to society, and bringing in my own income, motivated by the ability to earn more for my efforts if I work a bit harder/longer, I can alleviate any potential cost I might inflict to others by producing for or otherwise servicing society. Having my efforts taxed adds more money to government coffers, and having my own income prevents those coffers from needing to be stretched to support me as well. Capitalism is about people working to better themselves and society, whereas Socialism is about averaging everything out. Socialism removes the motivation to put forth effort and to produce more and/or more efficiently.
There is a fundamental problem with how economics is taught in America, and I suspect that you may be miseducated as a result of it.
Both of my parents are felons. I grew up on food stamps, wearing girls' jeans (I am male), and with persistent moth infestations in both my father's and my mother's homes. Neither of my parents had health insurance. I grew up in high school living off of social security. I went through college on a mostly-free ride, and came out with only $5,000 worth of student loans.
I pay my taxes. I take fewer deductions on my taxes than I am capable, and I do not mind the institution of taxation. It is necessary. In fact, I actively argue with my those I encounter who think that the free market is a valid replacement for vital government services. I do not, however, believe that my effort is up for claim by everyone else. Voting is not for telling me what to do with the reimbursement I receive for performing a service for others, gifts I receive, or whatever lack-of-estate my family might leave me.
In short, fuck you and your assumption.
No, that is not what voting is for. That is what personal responsibility is for. Voting is for electing people and collectively deciding directly on very few issues that involve all of our society. The money that I earn does not fall into that category. What I make and do with my money is none of your fucking business.
"189. Let others keep their reputation...you keep their latinum."
Rule of Acquisition
Oh and I think you meant vile.. A vial is something you use in your chemistry lab! ;)
Sir, I wish I had mod points to give you!
and "multiplayer servers shall remain active for at least 3 years".
I have a problem with this guideline. I really do. There should, in all cases of multiplayer networked capability, be a direct connection ability and/or a server program that you can download and install. This was pretty standard not too long ago, where you could set up a private server if you wanted to. It should be standard again. If you buy something, the product should not have a lifespan the ends with no usability. It should end with no further support, where the user can install and tweak and run in 20+ years.
It's so awful it isn't even worthy of MST3K treatment.
How about a RiffTrax? They're the same MST3K guys, BTW.
Those who volunteer are clearly stupid or suicidal. Both disqualify them for participation.
"That's some catch."
The videos are clearly edited to make people look more like assholes. You can see time gaps in the first one linked in TFA, and the later ones are edited a bit less obviously.
On the first part, I think you got that backwards. The quote said that "you get an infinitesimal chance of not receiving mail from them again" Reworded: the change of you not getting mail from them again just became infinitesimal. You are arguing against the quote, and instead reinforcing it.
Because it smells fresher than normal air. It's good to be the President.
Wouldn't some sort of citation that backs that claim up be more appropriate than a snarky "Let me Google that for you" link, especially since none of the top links in Google seem to immediately reveal any credit to your claim?
You have to wonder how strongly people felt about the question. Try it with taxes or abortion or something that a lot of people actually give a damn about. Unfortunately, despite all I've ever said to people, censorship never enters the give-a-damn category for the general populace.
I strongly hope that you don't suggest this to be true of versions of iOS as well.
Now let's see it do the Kessel Run
Or rather this one being the coconut-laden discussion.
Where did you get the thing about coconut-laden swallow anyway? Was that a line from a movie or something?
Are you... are you being... serious?
Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
the quote in question
"David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998) [...]"
Actually, the parenthetical claim is clearly saying that the absolute warmest years for the entire planet have been since 1998. The claim is an example of poor writing. Just because the meaning can be inferred does not mean that it should be necessary to do so. The possibility of inferring the meaning does not excuse the writer from the onus of clear and precise communication.
I just broke mine down as well. I currently do a similar plan: $80 service, $30 for unlimited text, $10 for 2nd smartphone, $30 for 1st smartphone's data plan (unlimited), $25 for second's 2GB data = $175 subtotal, $196.50 with taxes.
/. allowed tables.
I just combed through our phone minutes' usage, and this was surprisingly close, even went over in a month when we got engaged. Data we use is about 1.5 GB/mo between us. But, data is sold in lots of 250 MB (which each of us exceeds) and $25 or $30 for 2 GB or my grandfathered-in unlimited. There is a lot of waste in data purchase here. As for text messages, my fiancée is a texter, so unlimited is necessary.
Now, on the new plan, it's $40 service (not $80, $90 with second phone), but up to $130 for two phones. But no texting plan charge. So it's really $130 vs $120. Now let's look at data. Currently, I pay $55 for a lot of data that I don't use. For the same I could get probably 5 GB for $60, which is excessive for our use case. 3GB is fine even if I get tablets in on it, so let's say $30 for data, making it $160 (new) vs. $175 (current). So, maybe the new plan is a bit cheaper, maybe more expensive, depending. I think so far it's fair for a shared plan.
Now let's put tablets into play. On my current plan, it's be somewhere like $35, but let's say $30 based on this. I have an iPad. I have an iPhone. iOS devices really only shine with internet access. My iPad is only Wi-Fi because I don't want to shell out $30 more per month due to data that I never use the entirety of plus whatever device connection charge there will be. But I don't use it as much because I can't whip it out and go to Google without searching for WiFi, or worse, asking my friends for their WiFi passwords. With the new plan, it would be $10 per tablet. It'll be a lot more tempting to get an Android tablet, Win 8 or the next iPad OMG NEW pwnie if I can take $10 and pool it with the same data. In the end, I can tack on $10 for a new device to get $170 vs. $205. Say I want one for me and one for her (I *might* need another GB now); $195 vs $235. Without the 4th GB of data, it would would be $180 vs $235. Wow.
I'd post a tabular comparison if
I second comic books. I found them on my own, then discovered my dad still had all his Marvel comics from the late 70's to early 80's. It was a good bonding experience and all that. Comics are short, easy to understand for ages 7-12, have extended vocabulary and can be thematically complex. The problem, though, would be shifting from words and pictures to just words.
Anyway - so NCLB sucks; that's not news. What would you have them do instead?
Roll it back to how it was before NCLB. Standardized tests into the wind, maybe one every 2 years (how I had them up until 2002). If a system doesn't work, roll it back to the old version, then fix it.
However, this is true for satellite or cable television: you have to pay for those advertisements as well, and more people are obviously willing to let advertising subsidize their bill, or else HBO, Showtime, etc. would have a wider subscriber base.
I do agree, however, that I should not have to pay for advertising to be delivered to me. I'm just raising a valid point about advertising in paid service media.