Did it really not occur to you that by being an annoying AC in your response to his sig, you were validating his point of view? Or was that what you were trying to do?
You say he's for personal liberty, but all I see is that he's anti-choice and probably against same sex marriage, too. Where does it stand on things like flag burning? What about religious documents in public (government) buildings? Prayer in schools? Doesn't sound like he's for personal liberty at all!
He's against regulations, but consider that Net Neutrality is a form of regulation. Okay, I'll agree with you. I guess he's not like most republicans in that he's even further to the right.
It sounds like he wants to move us back. He's calling for a return to something. As I look back at American history, I don't really see anything I want to go back to.
What are you smoking? Seriously? You know the corporations do what they do in order to appease their shareholders. They are the aristocracy. They make all the rules. A corporation isn't a living entity. It can't decide to do things -- only people can. And usually, the shareholders demand more return on their investments, and since they're probably already stinking rich, they don't really care how it affects the average American. So yes, the corporations are the aristocracy.
I don't see why, for instace in your DSL example, I should pay more for the 974 feet to my urban Point-of-Presence to support the installation of an extra long run and repeaters for your DSL.
Hey, while we're moving down this line of reasoning: how about a special lane or special highways for people who pay more taxes, thus contribute more to funding the roads. After all, why should they have to pay for the common-use roads everyone else uses, when they could get an ultra-fast one with no traffic jams? Why should they have to pay for your share of the road budget just because they're more successful?
"Poor" people in the US aren't really all that poor. They usually have vehicles and jobs, and aren't starving.
They may not be starving, I agree, but many do not have vehicles. Here in Nashville, we do have MTA (Metro Transit Authority), but the schedules make it difficult to get to work and get back home. I know I had a job once about 15 minutes away by car. I could take a bus there, if I left three hours early, but I couldn't get back home. None of my co-workers could give me a lift, and I couldn't find anyone to carpool with. The poor here DO have a lot more money than people elsewhere in the world, but consider the cost of living is also much, much higher.
They just can't afford the new flat-screen TVs the rest of us can. These are called "working poor". They might support richer people in a way through their efforts, but they're really supporting themselves. They work, get a paycheck, and live off of that.
They make just enough money to get to work every day. I'm not kidding you. The cost of food, clothing, shelter, and transportation JUST to get back to work is dead even with that they're paid, and sometimes even then, it's not enough. If the "richer people" decided to take a little pay cut, these working poor (which is probably most poor people) could have a much higher standard of living.
They don't get a big paycheck because their work is menial and not highly-valued, or else they could go somewhere else and get more pay.
No! Absolutely wrong! Imagine if every cashier decided not to work. Retail would go out of business in a day. Just because their work is 'menial' or doesn't seem to require much skill doesn't mean it's not highly-valued. It's this sentiment that's caused "customer service" in general to take a nose dive. Do you really think someone making six bucks an hour is going to care if they made your sandwich correctly, or if they smile, or if they say "thank you come again"? They have nothing to lose here. Just as easily as there's another employee waiting to replace them, there's another company that pays shitty wages waiting to hire them. Smiling, or paying attention to detail, or anything else they can do isn't going to get them out of the poor house. The only thing that might is education, and that's not going to be available to someone who can barely afford food.
They also usually stay poor because they constantly make stupid decisions, like maxing out their credit cards, having kids they can't afford, not getting an education, getting involved in drugs, etc.
You realize that SOMEONE has to work those shitty paying jobs, right? SOMEONE is always going to be pushed into that wage bracket because there aren't enough 100k a year jobs for every American to have one. Most of them max out their credit cards because they have unexpected expenses and bills. Not flat screen TV's. An education is expensive. Even with all the programs out there to help you, it's expensive. You have to have support from somewhere in order to be able to do it. You can't work for $6 an hour, have to fully support yourself, and go to college all at the same time. Sure, there might be some rare exceptions to that, but for the majority of the "working poor" it's just not possible.
As for the kids, I agree with you there, actually. People who can't support themselves shouldn't be having kids. As for drugs, I can't say I blame a lot of people for turning to drugs. If you life sucked as much as theirs, you might, too. And once that process starts, it's vicious. What people who are addicted to drugs needs is -- wait for it -- medical care. Which you know they won't get because they have no heal insurance. Rince. Repeat.
The people who support the "people on welfare" are the middle class, who also contribute most of the tax revenues. Now why anyone would want
I'd happily be a black, gay, gun-worshipping, golden-shower-loving, nazi memeber of the KKK if I could have as much money as Bill Gates. Because then, none of it would matter, would it? By saying "we're all minorities", you're trying to say "all minorities are created equally". That's just not the case. We have the freedom to do pretty much whatever we want in the USA, with a few exceptions. It's the money that matters. Right now, we have a government controlled by the minority: the upper class. Almost every single member of congress is independently wealthy, or otherwise affluent. Is that coincidence?
I think the people who came up with democracy had it right: Sortition.
It's a joke not to say what the have in the USA is a plutocracy. Elections are just deciding which rich fuck we hate the least. Or rather, which wolf is going to eat us most humanely.
Which I find amusing, because the poor DO work for the benefit of others. The problem is that they usually mean they don't want to work to support "people on welfare" when what they're actually doing is supporting the executives and shareholders of whatever company they work for. I'd feel a whole lot better knowing I was working to "support" someone dirt poor than someone who has multiple homes, a yacht, and generally whatever else they want.
I don't know it's fair to call it a "lower-class" belief, though. The richest people don't work at all, and they like it that way. A lot of them are actively against "entitlement" programs, but are perfectly happy with their companies paying low wages to people just above poverty in order to help their bottom line. (another vacation home sounds good!)
I think what's a "lower-class" phenomenon is that they just don't realize that they DO work to support everyone else -- and, surprise surprise, it's not the people on welfare. It's the rich folk with all the power who, for the most part, couldn't give a damn about the plight of the poor. (sarcasm) They earned their money, after all. This is American, anyone can get rich if they try hard enough... (/sarcasm)
10,000k? I don't think their entire security team combined makes one hundred million dollars. We don't really know -- maybe the security team is great, but either understaffed, or unheeded by the people responsible for fixing the bugs. It might not be the individuals, it might be the bureaucracy.
By way of illustration, the rate of hospital-originating resistance Staph infections is much higher in the US than in Europe, where they test pretty much everyone...
A lot of people in the U.S.A. are too poor buy healthcare (or afford their premiums if they have it.) After all, the tests would just cost more money for the insurance companies, and who wants to hurt the stockholders checkbook with all this extra expense?! How is that fair?! Resistant bacteria is just the price we have to pay for a thriving economy!
1) I work for a small business. So do a couple of my friends. None of us are making it rich, but we're paid well enough to get by. As a small business, the owners have to actually look at us every day. They see us as real people, not just a number on their bottom line. So they pay us as such. I think that's probably the case for most small businesses.
2) Where does the money come from? The people who have it! Yes, the rich have to become less rich in order for the poor to become less poor. Yes, the shareholders will have to turn less of a profit off their investment. The idea of "letting your money work for you" is a crock. It's basically saying "letting someone else do your work for you". It's the same as a monarchy where the king can tell everyone what to do.
Yeah, but the market is a tool to make the rich richer. It's not a thing that can stop and say, "hey, this is a human being here, and they deserve a decent life." You, however, CAN do that. And shame on you if you don't. Yes, I absolutely think the shareholders should take a big cut in their profits to pay their stockers more. Why? Because the stockers are actually doing the work, unlike the shareholders. How is anything else fair? How is it any different to have a monarchy where you have a "royal bloodline" and they can command the peasants? How is it any different than owning a slave? It's not. The powerful still control the peasants, and this farce of a democracy we have allows it.
Thousands if not millions of people have to work stocking supermarkets. What makes her any better than anyone else? What would be truly fair is if supermarket-stockers made a fair living wage. Hey, if people could work freely and not have to stress over feeding their kids, we might see a lot more artwork come from people that would otherwise be too downtrodden to be creative.
As long as you can afford to continue litigating for the truth, you'll probably eventually get it. Oh yes. That's absolutely a process I have faith in.:-P
Try using "Microsoft Update" instead of "Windows Update". If that doesn't work, fixing this (I've done it before) is a big PITA. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember it was hard to figure out.:-(
Well, how much work is each clock cycle doing? I'd think a Core 2 duo with one core disabled running at 200mhz would probably blow the Pentium 1 away. That's just speculation, though. But I do know the Core 2 gets more work done per cycle than previous generations. The same is true for AMD chips, too. So we haven't only made them faster in terms of clock, but we've made each clock cycle do more work.
So maybe they are 100x "faster" in terms of how quickly they can compute x thing.
Who would have thought the green "statement" they made with their votes actually kept one of the worlds (now) most high profile environmentalists out of office. I agree with you totally. I'd love a system with runoff voting, or something that lets you vote for you who really want, without giving way for the person you absolutely DON'T want. But face it, that's not the system we have. Do the best you can with what you've got. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush... The REAL way to make progress is exactly what you said. Vote for 2rd parties in local government. You've got to do it from the ground up.
Slashdot Mirror
Did it really not occur to you that by being an annoying AC in your response to his sig, you were validating his point of view? Or was that what you were trying to do?
You say he's for personal liberty, but all I see is that he's anti-choice and probably against same sex marriage, too. Where does it stand on things like flag burning? What about religious documents in public (government) buildings? Prayer in schools? Doesn't sound like he's for personal liberty at all!
He's against regulations, but consider that Net Neutrality is a form of regulation. Okay, I'll agree with you. I guess he's not like most republicans in that he's even further to the right.
It sounds like he wants to move us back. He's calling for a return to something. As I look back at American history, I don't really see anything I want to go back to.
I looked at his website. Sounds like the same stuff all the other republicans are saying. How is he any different?
What are you smoking? Seriously? You know the corporations do what they do in order to appease their shareholders. They are the aristocracy. They make all the rules. A corporation isn't a living entity. It can't decide to do things -- only people can. And usually, the shareholders demand more return on their investments, and since they're probably already stinking rich, they don't really care how it affects the average American. So yes, the corporations are the aristocracy.
Exactly. If it's a $50 pill, but cost them only $2 to make, then they're writing $50 off their taxes for a $2 investment. They just made money.
Well, that somewhat defeats the purpose of getting a laptop: convenience.
I'm with you on this one. I'd like to see a serious rebuttal without just dismissing it out-of-hand as racism.
Which you would have seen if you had been using the new update button!
They may not be starving, I agree, but many do not have vehicles. Here in Nashville, we do have MTA (Metro Transit Authority), but the schedules make it difficult to get to work and get back home. I know I had a job once about 15 minutes away by car. I could take a bus there, if I left three hours early, but I couldn't get back home. None of my co-workers could give me a lift, and I couldn't find anyone to carpool with. The poor here DO have a lot more money than people elsewhere in the world, but consider the cost of living is also much, much higher.
They make just enough money to get to work every day. I'm not kidding you. The cost of food, clothing, shelter, and transportation JUST to get back to work is dead even with that they're paid, and sometimes even then, it's not enough. If the "richer people" decided to take a little pay cut, these working poor (which is probably most poor people) could have a much higher standard of living.
No! Absolutely wrong! Imagine if every cashier decided not to work. Retail would go out of business in a day. Just because their work is 'menial' or doesn't seem to require much skill doesn't mean it's not highly-valued. It's this sentiment that's caused "customer service" in general to take a nose dive. Do you really think someone making six bucks an hour is going to care if they made your sandwich correctly, or if they smile, or if they say "thank you come again"? They have nothing to lose here. Just as easily as there's another employee waiting to replace them, there's another company that pays shitty wages waiting to hire them. Smiling, or paying attention to detail, or anything else they can do isn't going to get them out of the poor house. The only thing that might is education, and that's not going to be available to someone who can barely afford food.
You realize that SOMEONE has to work those shitty paying jobs, right? SOMEONE is always going to be pushed into that wage bracket because there aren't enough 100k a year jobs for every American to have one. Most of them max out their credit cards because they have unexpected expenses and bills. Not flat screen TV's. An education is expensive. Even with all the programs out there to help you, it's expensive. You have to have support from somewhere in order to be able to do it. You can't work for $6 an hour, have to fully support yourself, and go to college all at the same time. Sure, there might be some rare exceptions to that, but for the majority of the "working poor" it's just not possible.
As for the kids, I agree with you there, actually. People who can't support themselves shouldn't be having kids. As for drugs, I can't say I blame a lot of people for turning to drugs. If you life sucked as much as theirs, you might, too. And once that process starts, it's vicious. What people who are addicted to drugs needs is -- wait for it -- medical care. Which you know they won't get because they have no heal insurance. Rince. Repeat.
I think the people who came up with democracy had it right: Sortition.
It's a joke not to say what the have in the USA is a plutocracy. Elections are just deciding which rich fuck we hate the least. Or rather, which wolf is going to eat us most humanely.
Which I find amusing, because the poor DO work for the benefit of others. The problem is that they usually mean they don't want to work to support "people on welfare" when what they're actually doing is supporting the executives and shareholders of whatever company they work for. I'd feel a whole lot better knowing I was working to "support" someone dirt poor than someone who has multiple homes, a yacht, and generally whatever else they want.
I don't know it's fair to call it a "lower-class" belief, though. The richest people don't work at all, and they like it that way. A lot of them are actively against "entitlement" programs, but are perfectly happy with their companies paying low wages to people just above poverty in order to help their bottom line. (another vacation home sounds good!)
I think what's a "lower-class" phenomenon is that they just don't realize that they DO work to support everyone else -- and, surprise surprise, it's not the people on welfare. It's the rich folk with all the power who, for the most part, couldn't give a damn about the plight of the poor. (sarcasm) They earned their money, after all. This is American, anyone can get rich if they try hard enough... (/sarcasm)
10,000k? I don't think their entire security team combined makes one hundred million dollars. We don't really know -- maybe the security team is great, but either understaffed, or unheeded by the people responsible for fixing the bugs. It might not be the individuals, it might be the bureaucracy.
At least most of those third part apps actually run on Windows. Which is why I think so many people use it.
Two things:
1) I work for a small business. So do a couple of my friends. None of us are making it rich, but we're paid well enough to get by. As a small business, the owners have to actually look at us every day. They see us as real people, not just a number on their bottom line. So they pay us as such. I think that's probably the case for most small businesses.
2) Where does the money come from? The people who have it! Yes, the rich have to become less rich in order for the poor to become less poor. Yes, the shareholders will have to turn less of a profit off their investment. The idea of "letting your money work for you" is a crock. It's basically saying "letting someone else do your work for you". It's the same as a monarchy where the king can tell everyone what to do.
Yeah, but the market is a tool to make the rich richer. It's not a thing that can stop and say, "hey, this is a human being here, and they deserve a decent life." You, however, CAN do that. And shame on you if you don't. Yes, I absolutely think the shareholders should take a big cut in their profits to pay their stockers more. Why? Because the stockers are actually doing the work, unlike the shareholders. How is anything else fair? How is it any different to have a monarchy where you have a "royal bloodline" and they can command the peasants? How is it any different than owning a slave? It's not. The powerful still control the peasants, and this farce of a democracy we have allows it.
Thousands if not millions of people have to work stocking supermarkets. What makes her any better than anyone else? What would be truly fair is if supermarket-stockers made a fair living wage. Hey, if people could work freely and not have to stress over feeding their kids, we might see a lot more artwork come from people that would otherwise be too downtrodden to be creative.
As long as you can afford to continue litigating for the truth, you'll probably eventually get it. Oh yes. That's absolutely a process I have faith in. :-P
Where I'm from, most pumps even require you to pre-pay.
Try using "Microsoft Update" instead of "Windows Update". If that doesn't work, fixing this (I've done it before) is a big PITA. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember it was hard to figure out. :-(
And some people who have HIV have never had unprotected sex in their lives.
Well, how much work is each clock cycle doing? I'd think a Core 2 duo with one core disabled running at 200mhz would probably blow the Pentium 1 away. That's just speculation, though. But I do know the Core 2 gets more work done per cycle than previous generations. The same is true for AMD chips, too. So we haven't only made them faster in terms of clock, but we've made each clock cycle do more work.
So maybe they are 100x "faster" in terms of how quickly they can compute x thing.
Who would have thought the green "statement" they made with their votes actually kept one of the worlds (now) most high profile environmentalists out of office. I agree with you totally. I'd love a system with runoff voting, or something that lets you vote for you who really want, without giving way for the person you absolutely DON'T want. But face it, that's not the system we have. Do the best you can with what you've got. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush... The REAL way to make progress is exactly what you said. Vote for 2rd parties in local government. You've got to do it from the ground up.