My parents always left the keys within reach, but I would have been damned if I could have taken the car anywhere if I wanted to. How's a kid going to take a car anywhere if it's a manual car, mainly if the first gear is engaged as my parents had a habit of doing? If you have the handbrake disengaged and just turn on the key then your engine just going to stall anyways, and if no gears are engaged then you're gonna have to figure how to use the clutch and its associated pedal.
I guess you could make it "these days cars are so simple to drive even a 6 year old can do it".
Is there a named cognitive bias (or something similar) for suddenly liking and missing someone who was universally considered a git prior to his passing? Because that's what happening to Slashdot right now, including me a bit.
Some areas of Africa are currently stable. If I'm not mistaken Kenya is relatively stable, hence why Google seems to be interested in it. Also in France when we call a hotline it doesn't go to India but Tunisia or Morocco, French-speaking countries that have been fairly stable over the last few decades (Tunisia has nothing to envy regarding stability these days). So it's not all that bleak for Africa, mind you there's more to Africa than starving kids, guerilla wars and genocides, but there's many reasons why most of it will be the last to experience what Poland or China have just experienced, one reason being you can't really just put a big computer chip factory in the middle of Mali.
Slip back into poverty?? Like which country? I can't think of any. Outsourcing has evils, but it's probably the fastest (and dirtiest) way to make poor countries rise and level the playing field a bit.
There's something quite amusing going on here. On one hand you say that it's not because something didn't happen yet that it couldn't happen and work well, but on the other hand, you try to argue that you're not for the abolishment of taxes because you haven't said it yet. Therefore allow me to use your argument and say that it's not because you haven't said yet that you're for the abolishment of taxes that it means you're not for it. But regardless of that I asked a very simple question which requires a simple answer, if you're not for the abolishment of taxes, then what do you want?
You're a moron. But I'm bored, so I'll bite. Let's imagine that one of your fellow homo prehistoricus stands up and says "Let's have a democratic constitution, law enforcement, currency, taxes, universal health care, and a space program" and everybody goes "Yay that's a plan let's do it!". Fin.
Are you stupid? No, seriously, are you? What gives a government? What gives it the right to take taxes? You live in a fucking democracy, you dimwit! If there are taxes in every democracy on Earth it's because that's what the people want. And in true democracies people have the government they want, hence their true legitimacy. Takes Barack Obama, you voted in droves for him, because you guys thought he is the one guy to lead you, thus you give him license to do anything he said he'd do when you were deciding who to choose. Therefore he can take legitimately all the taxes he said he'd take during his campaign cause you guys agreed with him. People want taxes, because they're necessary. You can't be stolen if you agree someone to take your money. That's not theft, that's giving. Now obviously there will always be some gits who won't agree, well these can just sod off.
Oh yeah I forgot increased crime. The ramifications tend to be pretty deep with that sort of issues, it's hard to see it all, even when you even try. I've found that when taking all these consequences into consideration the nice and altruistic "what would Jesus do" approach converges with the even the most cynical and down-to-Earth approach, i.e. "let's fight poverty because miserable people make me a sad panda" converges with "poor and unemployed people are a burden/produce much less wealth than they could, let's invest in their education/welfare", so when things get too complicated I think it's safe to ask yourself what would Jesus do.
Actually I think it's possible that you could directly drag the image straight from the browser onto the Photosounder window, once drag and drop is implemented:).
So all taxes are bad, except the one that are part of what you buy, like the gas tax? How does that work for health and education? Why be so vehement about giving a financial participation to the infrastructures and services you benefit, directly or indirectly from? And yeah sorry I didn't know about the gas tax, I'm actually French, and I don't drive.
It's still a tax, right? Or are some taxes okay and not some others? And actually, spot on, I'm both a liberal and a socialist (the western European capitalist kind, not the Marxist kind)
I'm definitely going to implement drag-and-drop in Photosounder because often do I find myself thinking it would be much simpler if I could open file just by dropping the onto the window when I'm browsing for files. However I'm still not sure I understand what your idea is... you want to gave songs as images on your webpage, that people would listen to by opening them with a "mini photosounder"? Would that be a standalone program that would be like the full thing except minus a bunch of stuff, and you would require people who visit your webpage to have a copy of it to listen to it? I'm not sure I get the idea hehe.
What you fail to understand is that while it's costly not to use that money being used for that investment, it's an investment, money gets returned on this, but don't get it wrong, you don't just get money returned by having a larger infrastructure, but you also save money by not having to pay jobless people who produce nothing at doing nothing.
You lose money by borrowing money, you get money back by the benefits of your investment into infrastructure, so far the benefit of the investment depends on if you'll get more money back on from the investment than you lost on the debt interests, but wait, there's more that doesn't instantly springs to the eye. You save money by keeping people afloat, that means by keeping them employed, you make them keep producing value, not only do you do that, but you also give them experience and skills, with which they produce more value (which is why more experienced people make more money), but not only that, you also allow them to invest more in the future, by allowing them to send their kids to better schools than they would if they were broke and unemployed, which in return will make people who'll produce more wealth, and so on...
I didn't bother to read the entirety of your ideological drivel, but do you know what added value is? The point that salaries are less than the value created by the employee, which is why companies hire people and pay them salaries?
You only want to pay for what you use. Right. Let's say that you're wooden house in the ghetto catches on fire. But you're broke, like, short of $2. Should the fire department let your house burn to the ground because you can't pay for what you use (their fire extinction services) or should you go into personal bankrupt to repay them?
But the other person makes a better case than I do. If you want a free-for-all society, your country won't be the most powerful or influential in the world, nor even the 30th. Why? Because then only the kids whose parents could afford them a decent education would get a decent education, and of these kids, only some of those who got a decent education will be able to make enough money to afford their own kids a decent education, until you're back to a situation like in the 16th century where only the rich elite knows how to read and write. That's just one example. You'll let people die of cancer or even the flu just because they can't afford the cure on their own, which their could with universal health care provided with your tax money. There's so many examples and reasons why no taxes would mean the downfall of your civilisation.
What country has abolished taxes? None? Why? Because a country needs taxes to work, it's the most obvious thing in the world.
OMG, how fucking full of shit must you guys be. You focus on what happens when you don't pay your taxes, while completely avoiding the question of why you should pay taxes. If you don't want to pay for none of what the government spends money on move to the fucking jungle, they don't have roads that require tax money to be maintained there.
Unless you want to choose which chunks of road you use to pay maintenance for?
Cry me a river. Oh no, the government will demand me money so we can sustain our way of life by having infrastructure, health care, free education, garbage collection and so on.. You reap the benefits of the taxes you pay, even if the richer you are, the less you reap. Poor people reap the most compared to what they pay, because they're poor.
Not wanting to pay taxes when you're not poor is basically saying "fuck off poor kids, that's my money, you gotta get your own". Which is logically defendable, but arguably also makes you a heartless greedy egoistical apathic bastard.
Oh I see, so if we don't take your money as taxes to build hospitals, schools and roads, then you're gonna do it yourself, out of your own pocket? I so totally believe you.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it... I have a choice not to go to McDonald's... do I have a choice not to go to war?
I got ate by an alligator off playing Pitfall!
A six year old is perfectly capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong without being wrapped in cotton wool.
lol.
This lol was brought to you by some guy who at the age of 13 tried to backflip in his bedroom by running up the wall, using crutches as a support.
My parents always left the keys within reach, but I would have been damned if I could have taken the car anywhere if I wanted to. How's a kid going to take a car anywhere if it's a manual car, mainly if the first gear is engaged as my parents had a habit of doing? If you have the handbrake disengaged and just turn on the key then your engine just going to stall anyways, and if no gears are engaged then you're gonna have to figure how to use the clutch and its associated pedal.
I guess you could make it "these days cars are so simple to drive even a 6 year old can do it".
Is there a named cognitive bias (or something similar) for suddenly liking and missing someone who was universally considered a git prior to his passing? Because that's what happening to Slashdot right now, including me a bit.
Some areas of Africa are currently stable. If I'm not mistaken Kenya is relatively stable, hence why Google seems to be interested in it. Also in France when we call a hotline it doesn't go to India but Tunisia or Morocco, French-speaking countries that have been fairly stable over the last few decades (Tunisia has nothing to envy regarding stability these days). So it's not all that bleak for Africa, mind you there's more to Africa than starving kids, guerilla wars and genocides, but there's many reasons why most of it will be the last to experience what Poland or China have just experienced, one reason being you can't really just put a big computer chip factory in the middle of Mali.
Slip back into poverty?? Like which country? I can't think of any. Outsourcing has evils, but it's probably the fastest (and dirtiest) way to make poor countries rise and level the playing field a bit.
There's something quite amusing going on here. On one hand you say that it's not because something didn't happen yet that it couldn't happen and work well, but on the other hand, you try to argue that you're not for the abolishment of taxes because you haven't said it yet. Therefore allow me to use your argument and say that it's not because you haven't said yet that you're for the abolishment of taxes that it means you're not for it. But regardless of that I asked a very simple question which requires a simple answer, if you're not for the abolishment of taxes, then what do you want?
You're a moron. But I'm bored, so I'll bite. Let's imagine that one of your fellow homo prehistoricus stands up and says "Let's have a democratic constitution, law enforcement, currency, taxes, universal health care, and a space program" and everybody goes "Yay that's a plan let's do it!". Fin.
It's not logically invalid. That it has never happened despite people like you pushing the idea means that the idea is widely considered unviable.
You don't want to abolish taxes? Then what, tell me.
Are you stupid? No, seriously, are you? What gives a government? What gives it the right to take taxes? You live in a fucking democracy, you dimwit! If there are taxes in every democracy on Earth it's because that's what the people want. And in true democracies people have the government they want, hence their true legitimacy. Takes Barack Obama, you voted in droves for him, because you guys thought he is the one guy to lead you, thus you give him license to do anything he said he'd do when you were deciding who to choose. Therefore he can take legitimately all the taxes he said he'd take during his campaign cause you guys agreed with him. People want taxes, because they're necessary. You can't be stolen if you agree someone to take your money. That's not theft, that's giving. Now obviously there will always be some gits who won't agree, well these can just sod off.
Oh yeah I forgot increased crime. The ramifications tend to be pretty deep with that sort of issues, it's hard to see it all, even when you even try. I've found that when taking all these consequences into consideration the nice and altruistic "what would Jesus do" approach converges with the even the most cynical and down-to-Earth approach, i.e. "let's fight poverty because miserable people make me a sad panda" converges with "poor and unemployed people are a burden/produce much less wealth than they could, let's invest in their education/welfare", so when things get too complicated I think it's safe to ask yourself what would Jesus do.
Actually I think it's possible that you could directly drag the image straight from the browser onto the Photosounder window, once drag and drop is implemented :).
So all taxes are bad, except the one that are part of what you buy, like the gas tax? How does that work for health and education? Why be so vehement about giving a financial participation to the infrastructures and services you benefit, directly or indirectly from? And yeah sorry I didn't know about the gas tax, I'm actually French, and I don't drive.
It's still a tax, right? Or are some taxes okay and not some others? And actually, spot on, I'm both a liberal and a socialist (the western European capitalist kind, not the Marxist kind)
So? Does that somehow make you a martyr?
I'm definitely going to implement drag-and-drop in Photosounder because often do I find myself thinking it would be much simpler if I could open file just by dropping the onto the window when I'm browsing for files. However I'm still not sure I understand what your idea is... you want to gave songs as images on your webpage, that people would listen to by opening them with a "mini photosounder"? Would that be a standalone program that would be like the full thing except minus a bunch of stuff, and you would require people who visit your webpage to have a copy of it to listen to it? I'm not sure I get the idea hehe.
Every "business as usual" program always works. Sorry troll, that's all I'll throw at you for food today.
What you fail to understand is that while it's costly not to use that money being used for that investment, it's an investment, money gets returned on this, but don't get it wrong, you don't just get money returned by having a larger infrastructure, but you also save money by not having to pay jobless people who produce nothing at doing nothing.
You lose money by borrowing money, you get money back by the benefits of your investment into infrastructure, so far the benefit of the investment depends on if you'll get more money back on from the investment than you lost on the debt interests, but wait, there's more that doesn't instantly springs to the eye. You save money by keeping people afloat, that means by keeping them employed, you make them keep producing value, not only do you do that, but you also give them experience and skills, with which they produce more value (which is why more experienced people make more money), but not only that, you also allow them to invest more in the future, by allowing them to send their kids to better schools than they would if they were broke and unemployed, which in return will make people who'll produce more wealth, and so on...
I didn't bother to read the entirety of your ideological drivel, but do you know what added value is? The point that salaries are less than the value created by the employee, which is why companies hire people and pay them salaries?
You only want to pay for what you use. Right. Let's say that you're wooden house in the ghetto catches on fire. But you're broke, like, short of $2. Should the fire department let your house burn to the ground because you can't pay for what you use (their fire extinction services) or should you go into personal bankrupt to repay them?
But the other person makes a better case than I do. If you want a free-for-all society, your country won't be the most powerful or influential in the world, nor even the 30th. Why? Because then only the kids whose parents could afford them a decent education would get a decent education, and of these kids, only some of those who got a decent education will be able to make enough money to afford their own kids a decent education, until you're back to a situation like in the 16th century where only the rich elite knows how to read and write. That's just one example. You'll let people die of cancer or even the flu just because they can't afford the cure on their own, which their could with universal health care provided with your tax money. There's so many examples and reasons why no taxes would mean the downfall of your civilisation.
What country has abolished taxes? None? Why? Because a country needs taxes to work, it's the most obvious thing in the world.
OMG, how fucking full of shit must you guys be. You focus on what happens when you don't pay your taxes, while completely avoiding the question of why you should pay taxes. If you don't want to pay for none of what the government spends money on move to the fucking jungle, they don't have roads that require tax money to be maintained there.
Unless you want to choose which chunks of road you use to pay maintenance for?
OK, all of your point are defendable, but the "Be successful" one, come on now you're just trolling.
Cry me a river. Oh no, the government will demand me money so we can sustain our way of life by having infrastructure, health care, free education, garbage collection and so on.. You reap the benefits of the taxes you pay, even if the richer you are, the less you reap. Poor people reap the most compared to what they pay, because they're poor.
Not wanting to pay taxes when you're not poor is basically saying "fuck off poor kids, that's my money, you gotta get your own". Which is logically defendable, but arguably also makes you a heartless greedy egoistical apathic bastard.
Oh I see, so if we don't take your money as taxes to build hospitals, schools and roads, then you're gonna do it yourself, out of your own pocket? I so totally believe you.