You may need to clarify somewhat. There are multiple countries in Europe, multiple cultures, multiple disparate types of legal system let alone implementations of those and multiple peoples that have spent many centuries being enslaved by various "civilisation"s.
I mean, shit slavery was legal in parts of Africa, Asia, the Americas and Australia for years after it was made illegal in at least some parts of Europe.
And there are still lots of places in the world with slavery. But guess what? Few of the masters or slaves speak English
I'll put money on more of the masters (and mistresses) speaking English than the slave though.
Then again, I'd put money on more of both speaking Arabic. But maybe I don't give a fuck what language is spoken. Slavery is bad, and I fully support slaves using lethal force to escape their situation.
Or possibly the quoted error caught him by surprise, he felt a moment of anguish and hung up rather than be humiliated by bursting into tears on the phone.
No passive aggression, no anger (misplaced or otherwise), just strong emotions and maybe even the integrity to try and save a colleague from the embarrassment of having caused them.
Although it is popular of Euro's to pretend that England abolished slavery due to enlightened ideas, the reality is that it happened more from internal pressure from Scots and Irish who viewed slaves as a competitor for low skill jobs.
Now that's utter bollocks. There has been extensive slavery in England but not in the late 18th century, which is when the abolitionist movement started.
Banning the slave trade was an entirely humanitarian endeavour. Slavery did continue across the empire for another three decades but under continual protest and because of economic dependency.
A series of slave rebellions across the empire and the refusal of the US to buy slaves further reduced the economic viability.
Rebellions, yes. Refusal of the US to buy slaves? It was fucking illegal to ship the slaves to the US and the Royal Navy would seize or sink any vessel it found carrying carrying them - British or otherwise.
the implication is that stupid, slow Americans are slow compared to urbane, clever, and noble Europeans
I wouldn't use slow or stupid. Just greedy. But don't pretend that America was anything other than a laggard when it comes to ending slavery.
They having nothing to do with specific instances of slavery but they unquestionably reference the practice.
I think you just agreed with the person to whom you replied. Because they have nothing to do with specific instances, they do indeed have nothing to do with slavery in any country.
I agree that the terms are based on the practice. It's almost as though someone asked, "So I have this [database|process|object] and it entirely and fully controls this other [database|process|object], dictating its work and controlling its output. What's the relationship here between the two of them?" and threw a dictionary at them.
I mean, shit, if you're going to get pissed, ask why it's Master and not Mistress.
Blatant trolling, but I'll just point out that this is a sexist racist retort used by people that lack rationality and can't support their views with evidence or logic.
So if the purpose of the proposed change isn't virtue signalling, what exactly is it?
Find me a fucking slave or former slave that's distressed by the terms. Just one.
Most of the former slaves I'm aware of have far bigger issues to worry about, like mental health, living independently and recovering from physical abuse. They don't give a flying fuck about programming terminology.
The UK system works well. Emergencies are handled immediately, with no charge at the point of use.
Routine doctor visits can happen same day, within a couple of days or within a couple of weeks. Specialist visits can take much longer - usually months.
But.. that's on the NHS. You can also ring any of a dozen private health companies and get an appointment the next day.
Sure, it'll cost money. But the option is there. Often the same specialists are available privately that you'd have seen on the NHS; quicker, but more expensive for you.
It's in the shareholders' interest for him to assure the long term value of their property.
Pursuing short term cash flow at the expense of alienating customers and damaging the company long term is not in the shareholders' interest.
Of course, some shareholders would disagree. They want a big dividend, or intend to sell in a few months, and want short term gains.
So there's no moral obligation at all. There's a moral obligation to pursue shareholder interests, but translating that into 'profiteering is moral' is reprehensible.
forced into accepting a government-dictated return
They wouldn't be. They'd have the option of not investing in a market for which the government has capped returns, or investing in a market in which the government has negotiated returns that allow a healthy profit without detriment to broader society.
Yeah, you really proved him wrong there. But maybe he likes his anus violating. Perhaps he actually wants some of the value adding features that Microsoft offer. Perhaps there's a balance to be sought.
You aren't helping find it. You're just being abusive.
Lucky you if you have the time, funds and energy to go to court to prove it.
Trust me, the way copyrights are abused on existing platforms gives me no fucking faith that a law like this wouldn't be abused at least as badly.
Shit, the EU are mandating illegal material gets taken down in an hour. Good fucking luck proving your comment isn't illegal inside an hour, assuming the ISP or website even lets you know they're removing it.
The EU has seriously fucked up views of IP and it's going to lead to them completely losing control of the internet when they clamp down so hard everybody switches to less governable technologies.
I'll take economic suicide over political suicide.
As it happens the EU trade deals aren't great for the UK as they accommodate the diverse needs of many nations, rather than allowing a focus on things that will benefit the UK. So while the EU have more leverage, the UK has greater focus.
So I'm not worried that it's economic suicide either.
Take that big pile of money, and divide it up among the 330M people as a UBI, and you get more than $10K per person per year.
Immediately the person that gets really poorly and needs more than $20k in medical care is in serious shit, because Medicare/Medicaid don't work on average payouts, they work on paying as needed and stay affordable because of the majority of people needing much less care.
Unless you mandate that everybody buys private medical cover, but then the poor have no income left for food/accommodation/etc.
No, land belongs to those that can prevent others taking it from them.
Sure, I hold title in my house and the land it's built on. I'm still fucked if the Government decide to take it from me.
Much as I pay taxes on my income, because whether I like how they're spent or not I'm in deep shit if I don't pay them.
I still don't want them being handed out to anybody and everybody that lives in the same country. I like my community offering a safety net to those that need it but I also expect those that can to contribute towards it.
Giving me a share would be utterly fucking pointless. You'd be giving me my own money back, less the overheads of bureaucracy. Just charge me less in tax to start with.
If you have nothing but the person in bed with you, and you've gone to bed early because it's dark and you can't afford candles, what do you think is going to happen?
Not to mention a lag effect between procreation and its impact on food resources.
They also have better health outcomes as well, and live longer.
Only at a population level. A lot of Americans like the idea that they're getting better care than they would get from the state* in Europe, and pay extensively for it.
It's the ones that can't pay that drag the averages down.
*of course, they could pay for the same care in Europe that they get now. Private health options are still available..
Or he could work 6-8 months, buy a big fuck-off house and sign up with an old school media company that would love to have someone with strong presenting, editing and audience engagement skills.
It'll fund him a decent lifestyle, especially now he's already got the house, and give him far more workable hours and a social life.
Slashdot Mirror
Europe
You may need to clarify somewhat. There are multiple countries in Europe, multiple cultures, multiple disparate types of legal system let alone implementations of those and multiple peoples that have spent many centuries being enslaved by various "civilisation"s.
I mean, shit slavery was legal in parts of Africa, Asia, the Americas and Australia for years after it was made illegal in at least some parts of Europe.
And there are still lots of places in the world with slavery. But guess what? Few of the masters or slaves speak English
I'll put money on more of the masters (and mistresses) speaking English than the slave though.
Then again, I'd put money on more of both speaking Arabic. But maybe I don't give a fuck what language is spoken. Slavery is bad, and I fully support slaves using lethal force to escape their situation.
Those alternatives are commonly used to describe things that are not master/slave relationships.
Lets not break everything, if that's ok?
Or possibly the quoted error caught him by surprise, he felt a moment of anguish and hung up rather than be humiliated by bursting into tears on the phone.
No passive aggression, no anger (misplaced or otherwise), just strong emotions and maybe even the integrity to try and save a colleague from the embarrassment of having caused them.
the first legally recognized permanent slave (in contrast to term indentured servant) in America was a white man
John Punch and John Casor weren't white. Perhaps you have a reference for this that I've been unable to find?
Although it is popular of Euro's to pretend that England abolished slavery due to enlightened ideas, the reality is that it happened more from internal pressure from Scots and Irish who viewed slaves as a competitor for low skill jobs.
Now that's utter bollocks. There has been extensive slavery in England but not in the late 18th century, which is when the abolitionist movement started.
Banning the slave trade was an entirely humanitarian endeavour. Slavery did continue across the empire for another three decades but under continual protest and because of economic dependency.
A series of slave rebellions across the empire and the refusal of the US to buy slaves further reduced the economic viability.
Rebellions, yes. Refusal of the US to buy slaves? It was fucking illegal to ship the slaves to the US and the Royal Navy would seize or sink any vessel it found carrying carrying them - British or otherwise.
the implication is that stupid, slow Americans are slow compared to urbane, clever, and noble Europeans
I wouldn't use slow or stupid. Just greedy. But don't pretend that America was anything other than a laggard when it comes to ending slavery.
Have you noticed how power is always take by the male from the female? Never the other way around.
We use AC in this country, but nice try.
They having nothing to do with specific instances of slavery but they unquestionably reference the practice.
I think you just agreed with the person to whom you replied. Because they have nothing to do with specific instances, they do indeed have nothing to do with slavery in any country.
I agree that the terms are based on the practice. It's almost as though someone asked, "So I have this [database|process|object] and it entirely and fully controls this other [database|process|object], dictating its work and controlling its output. What's the relationship here between the two of them?" and threw a dictionary at them.
I mean, shit, if you're going to get pissed, ask why it's Master and not Mistress.
Blatant trolling, but I'll just point out that this is a sexist racist retort used by people that lack rationality and can't support their views with evidence or logic.
So if the purpose of the proposed change isn't virtue signalling, what exactly is it?
Find me a fucking slave or former slave that's distressed by the terms. Just one.
Most of the former slaves I'm aware of have far bigger issues to worry about, like mental health, living independently and recovering from physical abuse. They don't give a flying fuck about programming terminology.
You're only assuming that the act he was bragging about was illegal.
As I said, if you have evidence, throw it to the FBI. No rush, I can wait.
. I am not attempting to get Trump arrested and not claiming he committed a crime.
So wait. You're not claiming he did anything illegal, but
this is most certainly not normal activity and not legal activity
you're saying that what he did is not legal.
I don't think you understand what you're claiming.
Profit is the most important aspect
Is it fuck. Cash flow matters much much more, for a start.
I see no issue with exploiting this.
As we've seen already in my reply, your judgement is terrible and should not be trusted.
Maximising profits and creating value are very different things.
A very simple example for you : Amazon is an incredibly valuable business. It grew by intentionally not making a profit.
The UK system works well. Emergencies are handled immediately, with no charge at the point of use.
Routine doctor visits can happen same day, within a couple of days or within a couple of weeks.
Specialist visits can take much longer - usually months.
But.. that's on the NHS. You can also ring any of a dozen private health companies and get an appointment the next day.
Sure, it'll cost money. But the option is there. Often the same specialists are available privately that you'd have seen on the NHS; quicker, but more expensive for you.
It's in the shareholders' interest for him to assure the long term value of their property.
Pursuing short term cash flow at the expense of alienating customers and damaging the company long term is not in the shareholders' interest.
Of course, some shareholders would disagree. They want a big dividend, or intend to sell in a few months, and want short term gains.
So there's no moral obligation at all. There's a moral obligation to pursue shareholder interests, but translating that into 'profiteering is moral' is reprehensible.
forced into accepting a government-dictated return
They wouldn't be. They'd have the option of not investing in a market for which the government has capped returns, or investing in a market in which the government has negotiated returns that allow a healthy profit without detriment to broader society.
Which is far from reprehensible.
Yeah, you really proved him wrong there. But maybe he likes his anus violating. Perhaps he actually wants some of the value adding features that Microsoft offer. Perhaps there's a balance to be sought.
You aren't helping find it. You're just being abusive.
Lucky you if you have the time, funds and energy to go to court to prove it.
Trust me, the way copyrights are abused on existing platforms gives me no fucking faith that a law like this wouldn't be abused at least as badly.
Shit, the EU are mandating illegal material gets taken down in an hour. Good fucking luck proving your comment isn't illegal inside an hour, assuming the ISP or website even lets you know they're removing it.
The EU has seriously fucked up views of IP and it's going to lead to them completely losing control of the internet when they clamp down so hard everybody switches to less governable technologies.
If you have evidence of serious sexual assault I'm pretty confident there are certain members of the FBI that would love to hear from you.
What was that? No evidence? Libel much?
I'll take economic suicide over political suicide.
As it happens the EU trade deals aren't great for the UK as they accommodate the diverse needs of many nations, rather than allowing a focus on things that will benefit the UK. So while the EU have more leverage, the UK has greater focus.
So I'm not worried that it's economic suicide either.
No, this effects anybody that wants to post anything on the internet on any site, including their own shitty little one.
It's a fucked up policy and hopefully the UK will leave the EU early enough to avoid this one.
Take that big pile of money, and divide it up among the 330M people as a UBI, and you get more than $10K per person per year.
Immediately the person that gets really poorly and needs more than $20k in medical care is in serious shit, because Medicare/Medicaid don't work on average payouts, they work on paying as needed and stay affordable because of the majority of people needing much less care.
Unless you mandate that everybody buys private medical cover, but then the poor have no income left for food/accommodation/etc.
A land belongs to the people who live on it.
No, land belongs to those that can prevent others taking it from them.
Sure, I hold title in my house and the land it's built on. I'm still fucked if the Government decide to take it from me.
Much as I pay taxes on my income, because whether I like how they're spent or not I'm in deep shit if I don't pay them.
I still don't want them being handed out to anybody and everybody that lives in the same country. I like my community offering a safety net to those that need it but I also expect those that can to contribute towards it.
Giving me a share would be utterly fucking pointless. You'd be giving me my own money back, less the overheads of bureaucracy. Just charge me less in tax to start with.
Oh, wait. That's exactly how it works.
If you have nothing but the person in bed with you, and you've gone to bed early because it's dark and you can't afford candles, what do you think is going to happen?
Not to mention a lag effect between procreation and its impact on food resources.
They also have better health outcomes as well, and live longer.
Only at a population level. A lot of Americans like the idea that they're getting better care than they would get from the state* in Europe, and pay extensively for it.
It's the ones that can't pay that drag the averages down.
*of course, they could pay for the same care in Europe that they get now. Private health options are still available..
Or he could work 6-8 months, buy a big fuck-off house and sign up with an old school media company that would love to have someone with strong presenting, editing and audience engagement skills.
It'll fund him a decent lifestyle, especially now he's already got the house, and give him far more workable hours and a social life.
Better than being a 22yo millionaire suicide.