You are demonstrating nicely that the poor are more wretched there than here. If you are hungry you have to line up at a soup kitchen instead of eating sausages rather than steak, you need to use communal shelters instead of having money to pay the rent and you only get treated in emergencies. Maybe I was exaggerating a little for effect but it had the desired effect - you have just shown that your poverty IS more extreme - and that is the impression I was talking about. Your whole argument was calling for LESS social security. You want to make it harder for people at the very time that more people will be needing help. With that plan I'd be expecting a sharp increase in your already high crime rate.
Poverty is relative. you are comparing it to the third world, I am comparing it to the western world - are you part of the west or not?. There are overwhelming statistics involving people suffering in the US due to not being able to afford health insurance, rent or even food that you won't find in the rest of the western world (there may be some other western countries people could quote that are as bad but none that I know of). What we call poverty is not the same as what you call it. Here everybody is assured of enough money to live unless they are busted ripping off the system, the same is true in most of europe. Poverty in the US means not eating, no shelter and no healthcare; in most of the western world it means having just enough to eat, basic accomodation and public doctors - totally different level of poverty. I didn't say rampant, I said extreme; those two words have totally different meanings. Pointing at Africa to justify your appalling record is a strawman argument.
What you are proposing is throwing the baby out with the bath water - a small percentage of people will exploit welfare so let's deny it to everybody. You point the finger at some people that abuse the system and say to hell with everybody unless they are disabled. I repeat - I am appalled.
No, the really rich just need to pay a higher scale to cover it proportionally. I also said I don't mind paying a few dollars so you are certainly not accurately representing my logic at all.
If you have people happily living in relative poverty for generations then you have much deeper social problems there. But I suppose that is obvious. You have astronomical crime rates, still allow the state to murder criminals and allow poverty at a level not tolerated by the rest of the western world. Everybody that returns from visiting the US have said the same thing to me - the most enduring impression they had was that of extreme poverty with homeless people sick and dying in the street while others drive by in cars the size of small apartments. It certainly turned me off visiting there i can tell you.
You are still coming back to the same thing again and again and trying to dress it up as some twisted form of fair play - you think what is in your wallet is more important than having compassion for your fellow man. Quite frankly, I'm appalled. I find it quite distasteful. I really hope the coming economic storm tempers your attitude towards those less fortunate than yourself.
But some people don't have the ability/aptitude to even make enough to subsist. These people do not deserve to die. About 90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population (or thereabouts); it's right and proper that they should relinquish some of that money they have hoarded to support the population that they have exploited with their greed.
And you also have to realise that VERY few people receiving welfare do it for extended periods of time if they don't have to. Welfare provides enough for basic needs like food and shelter (and we have a public health system), it isn't the conditions that many people will endure for long. The vast majority of people on welfare are on it because they need it and I do not begrudge them some quality of life just because I have to pay a couple of dollars in tax to do it. If that means a few people get to live in relative poverty willingly then so be it, I don't think they should die either. There will always be unemployed and there will always be some people that don't want to work and are willing to live on a bare subsistence wage. As one of our PM's once said - "we should marry these two groups together".
My example of musicians, artists and charity volunteers seems to have been completely lost on you. I was trying to demonstrate that there are many advantages of living in a compassionate society that aren't immediately obvious.
We look after each other over here. We just booted out an arsehole prime minister in a landslide election that was trying to dilute welfare and turn us into the US. You may remember him, Bush's last act was to give the little prick a medal. Good riddance to him.
Australia actually. Over here we have always had a "look after the underdog" mentality and don't think it's right to throw people to the wolves simply because they didn't have the ability to get rich. Personally I am glad that is the case, I find the "make money or die" perspective quite obscene, not everybody has the ability or aptitude to make money and that has no bearing on their worth to society. In fact I know lots of musicians and artists that did their best work while on the dole (unemployment benefits) and enriched us all. I also know several people on welfare that do great charity work. Making money is hardly a method of assigning worth imo and it certainly shouldn't decide whether a person lives or dies. But hey, I'm not an American, as you say, we think differently.
So because they are beyond reproduction years it's ok to let them die in the street? Nice type.
So you think the government can simply not pay money into pensions why? Too many pensioners? So the government will stop paying this growing segment of society? Don't they vote?
It's the private retirement funds that are screwed, that's why a govt funded one is vital. Maybe it's different where you live but here everybody votes and if the govt ever tried to stop pension payments they'd be out on their arse before the ink was dry on the bill.
Hey, you've forgot about fractional reserve banking. Somebody deposits this $100 in cash created by the Fed into their bank and then that bank can loan out $1000 in notary currency and charge 5% (or w/e) for that too. The Fed only creates the initial $100. Oh what a tangled web we weave........
Sure it's not a binary state of gay or straight but where you hit on the curve naturally is still a product of genetics. From there you can be pushed somewhat towards either end of the curve by environment resulting in behaviour aberrant to your natural disposition but you do have a natural position on the curve where you would live your life if assholes didn't try to dictate what you should or shouldn't be.
But you DID accept debt, you just paid if off quickly, it still existed even if you did get in before interest was due. It's the fact that you used the credit system that gave you a good rating. You are playing the game, you may be playing it a bit smarter than the average bear but you are still playing.... and leaving the associated trace.
That is hardly the point. The government said time and time again that the list was ONLY to block kiddy porn. They were busted telling lies, pure and simple.
The government have lost the backing of the minor parties and the independents that they needed to get the bill through the senate so it is dead in the water. The publishing of the list had a bit to do with that. What the German govt seems to be worried about is that the truth got out and it influenced the outcome of a government's efforts. Makes you wonder what they have to hide doesn't it?
Now why does all this sound oddly familiar? How many of you have seen shops advertise amazing specials only to find that when you get there they are all gone (even if you are the first one through the door)? "Sorry sir, we've sold out of those but we do have a similar product here you may want to see.",
I saw Telecom privatised from the inside, it was one of the ugliest things I've ever witnessed in my life. The brainwashing ("changing the culture" as they called it) was perverse. They took a group of public servants whose main interest was providing a service and twisted their minds to focus on profits only.
The lies and deceptions that accompanied it all were no better. For example, the prices were falling in real terms faster before privatisation than after it because most of the new exchanges had just paid for themselves. Instead of the lower effective overhead going back into the network or into customers pockets it went into shareholder's pockets. The press focused on the price reductions without referencing the falls that were already happening. Pure spin doctoring. It will come as no surprise to you to learn that the very first resellers were AAP (Australian Associated Press). In fact they used a loophole in the act to effectively resell space on their private networks before it was actually legalised.
The other thing that has occurred is a lack of routine maintenance. That is one thing that private companies rarely do but government departments always do. Speak to any tech or liney working in the field that was around in the Telecom days as well and he will tell you the same thing - things only get fixed when they break now. Now it's all about time and not about quality; get in and out as fast as possible. Private companies like going back later to fix things so they can make a buck, a public servant doesn't give a crap about the money - he just doesn't want to do go back and do more work, end of story. His boss doesn't care either, he wants good performance stats not good profit figures.
The unions told everybody these sorts of things would happen and it has all come to pass. Bowing to the great god of privatisation fills the pockets of the greedy, it does not improve the lot of the public regardless of how much the media try to spin it that way. Some things should be owned by the people (basically ALL essential services). The cables and pipes on government land in the streets should always be owned by the people. Privatise what is hooked up to them sure, but the actual infrastructure, no. Unfortunately though there is too much money spent on PR to convince the average idiot voter that he is better off if some corporation is able to suck money out of things instead of owning it himself. Apparently they prefer to swallow ads like mindless sheep than to retain the ability to hold the providers of their essential services accountable.
That site is a parody site yes? The moon doesn't fall is quoted as some sort of proof? ermm, it doesn't fly away and seems to obey the necessary aspects of angular momentum accordingly. Please tell me it's a parody site, it's getting so hard to tell these days. I mean to say, there are ID sites that seriously seem to suggest that The Flinstones is a documentary so I just can't tell any more.
This is precisely the absurdity of it all. Any song, video or program on a computer is simply a number (albeit in binary). What they have effectively done is copyright a number - I want to copyright the number 5! (sorry, i mean 101) And does Douglas Adams own 42?
I know that lawyers try to twist it around so it doesn't look this way but in fact it is. Isn't this one of RMS's arguments to illustrate the absurdity of copyright law as applied to applications? I'm afraid that we have all fallen through the looking glass. Can somebody please send me the red pill? I want out!
Slashdot Mirror
Where are my moderator points when I need them? Well said my man.
You are demonstrating nicely that the poor are more wretched there than here. If you are hungry you have to line up at a soup kitchen instead of eating sausages rather than steak, you need to use communal shelters instead of having money to pay the rent and you only get treated in emergencies. Maybe I was exaggerating a little for effect but it had the desired effect - you have just shown that your poverty IS more extreme - and that is the impression I was talking about. Your whole argument was calling for LESS social security. You want to make it harder for people at the very time that more people will be needing help. With that plan I'd be expecting a sharp increase in your already high crime rate.
What you are proposing is throwing the baby out with the bath water - a small percentage of people will exploit welfare so let's deny it to everybody. You point the finger at some people that abuse the system and say to hell with everybody unless they are disabled. I repeat - I am appalled.
If you have people happily living in relative poverty for generations then you have much deeper social problems there. But I suppose that is obvious. You have astronomical crime rates, still allow the state to murder criminals and allow poverty at a level not tolerated by the rest of the western world. Everybody that returns from visiting the US have said the same thing to me - the most enduring impression they had was that of extreme poverty with homeless people sick and dying in the street while others drive by in cars the size of small apartments. It certainly turned me off visiting there i can tell you.
You are still coming back to the same thing again and again and trying to dress it up as some twisted form of fair play - you think what is in your wallet is more important than having compassion for your fellow man. Quite frankly, I'm appalled. I find it quite distasteful. I really hope the coming economic storm tempers your attitude towards those less fortunate than yourself.
And you also have to realise that VERY few people receiving welfare do it for extended periods of time if they don't have to. Welfare provides enough for basic needs like food and shelter (and we have a public health system), it isn't the conditions that many people will endure for long. The vast majority of people on welfare are on it because they need it and I do not begrudge them some quality of life just because I have to pay a couple of dollars in tax to do it. If that means a few people get to live in relative poverty willingly then so be it, I don't think they should die either. There will always be unemployed and there will always be some people that don't want to work and are willing to live on a bare subsistence wage. As one of our PM's once said - "we should marry these two groups together".
My example of musicians, artists and charity volunteers seems to have been completely lost on you. I was trying to demonstrate that there are many advantages of living in a compassionate society that aren't immediately obvious.
We look after each other over here. We just booted out an arsehole prime minister in a landslide election that was trying to dilute welfare and turn us into the US. You may remember him, Bush's last act was to give the little prick a medal. Good riddance to him.
Australia actually. Over here we have always had a "look after the underdog" mentality and don't think it's right to throw people to the wolves simply because they didn't have the ability to get rich. Personally I am glad that is the case, I find the "make money or die" perspective quite obscene, not everybody has the ability or aptitude to make money and that has no bearing on their worth to society. In fact I know lots of musicians and artists that did their best work while on the dole (unemployment benefits) and enriched us all. I also know several people on welfare that do great charity work. Making money is hardly a method of assigning worth imo and it certainly shouldn't decide whether a person lives or dies. But hey, I'm not an American, as you say, we think differently.
So you think the government can simply not pay money into pensions why? Too many pensioners? So the government will stop paying this growing segment of society? Don't they vote?
It's the private retirement funds that are screwed, that's why a govt funded one is vital. Maybe it's different where you live but here everybody votes and if the govt ever tried to stop pension payments they'd be out on their arse before the ink was dry on the bill.
Hey, you've forgot about fractional reserve banking. Somebody deposits this $100 in cash created by the Fed into their bank and then that bank can loan out $1000 in notary currency and charge 5% (or w/e) for that too. The Fed only creates the initial $100. Oh what a tangled web we weave ........
Well the population will surely stop growing if you let people die in the street won't it? Good alternative plan you have there.
Sure it's not a binary state of gay or straight but where you hit on the curve naturally is still a product of genetics. From there you can be pushed somewhat towards either end of the curve by environment resulting in behaviour aberrant to your natural disposition but you do have a natural position on the curve where you would live your life if assholes didn't try to dictate what you should or shouldn't be.
Perhaps the UK has anti-discrimination laws?
But you DID accept debt, you just paid if off quickly, it still existed even if you did get in before interest was due. It's the fact that you used the credit system that gave you a good rating. You are playing the game, you may be playing it a bit smarter than the average bear but you are still playing .... and leaving the associated trace.
The government have lost the backing of the minor parties and the independents that they needed to get the bill through the senate so it is dead in the water. The publishing of the list had a bit to do with that. What the German govt seems to be worried about is that the truth got out and it influenced the outcome of a government's efforts. Makes you wonder what they have to hide doesn't it?
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
Same shit, different day.
The US remake of Red Dwarf was an abomination, I'd rather go on a date with a gelf.
Well it's the children of today that will suffer - serves 'em right for not getting off my lawn!
Ah, like a giant toupee?
It's just the old "get 'em in the door" strategy.
The lies and deceptions that accompanied it all were no better. For example, the prices were falling in real terms faster before privatisation than after it because most of the new exchanges had just paid for themselves. Instead of the lower effective overhead going back into the network or into customers pockets it went into shareholder's pockets. The press focused on the price reductions without referencing the falls that were already happening. Pure spin doctoring. It will come as no surprise to you to learn that the very first resellers were AAP (Australian Associated Press). In fact they used a loophole in the act to effectively resell space on their private networks before it was actually legalised.
The other thing that has occurred is a lack of routine maintenance. That is one thing that private companies rarely do but government departments always do. Speak to any tech or liney working in the field that was around in the Telecom days as well and he will tell you the same thing - things only get fixed when they break now. Now it's all about time and not about quality; get in and out as fast as possible. Private companies like going back later to fix things so they can make a buck, a public servant doesn't give a crap about the money - he just doesn't want to do go back and do more work, end of story. His boss doesn't care either, he wants good performance stats not good profit figures.
The unions told everybody these sorts of things would happen and it has all come to pass. Bowing to the great god of privatisation fills the pockets of the greedy, it does not improve the lot of the public regardless of how much the media try to spin it that way. Some things should be owned by the people (basically ALL essential services). The cables and pipes on government land in the streets should always be owned by the people. Privatise what is hooked up to them sure, but the actual infrastructure, no. Unfortunately though there is too much money spent on PR to convince the average idiot voter that he is better off if some corporation is able to suck money out of things instead of owning it himself. Apparently they prefer to swallow ads like mindless sheep than to retain the ability to hold the providers of their essential services accountable.
That site is a parody site yes? The moon doesn't fall is quoted as some sort of proof? ermm, it doesn't fly away and seems to obey the necessary aspects of angular momentum accordingly. Please tell me it's a parody site, it's getting so hard to tell these days. I mean to say, there are ID sites that seriously seem to suggest that The Flinstones is a documentary so I just can't tell any more.
Okay, now apply that to a computer program. It IS a unique number.
I know that lawyers try to twist it around so it doesn't look this way but in fact it is. Isn't this one of RMS's arguments to illustrate the absurdity of copyright law as applied to applications? I'm afraid that we have all fallen through the looking glass. Can somebody please send me the red pill? I want out!
You have to believe in gravity, it's the law!!
What is this NCAA of which you speak?
Your TV/DVR could find shows that you would like but didn't know to ask for
That's what TiVo is supposed to do but somehow it thinks all you want to watch is crap.