No. You're allowed to give your girlfriend money, and you don't have to pretend it is a loan. Spelling out the arrangement does not make it illegal, even if she only "loves" you for your money and the lifestyle that being your girlfriend provides. Prostitution is where a specific sex act is traded for money or other valuables. Being your girlfriend for money is legal, regardless of the sex involved. The reality is that it actually gets really complicated to have that relationship in a legal way if it is really just about the sex and the money. How do you know how much money to give, how much sex to demand? Even at a crass, transactional level it requires a certain amount of trust, communication, patience, and time to work all that out; at which point it is perhaps a more normal relationship than you realize.
Informing people that they still have most of their rights, but you're only telling them what contraceptive choices to make if they make the "wrong" choice in your eyes... that is total BS. The problem is the employer trying to make that choice FOR the employee.
"There is no war on women... [we're not taking ALL their rights, after all]"
That is not an argument likely to win in the long run.
Uhm, I didn't say it is like slavery, I said it is like the set of things that includes slavery and indentured servitude. How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer? How is wage suppression via collusion that involves locking employees to one employer NOT like indentured servitude?
Your attack on my statement is idiotic, you don't even address my point. You take the far edge of my point, and claim it is the far point. Duh. I stand by what I said, and I declare your attack to be faulty in form, content, and intent.
The idea of Greenwald was to trickle the stories out so they last years and he can get the most attention for his career. That started with 3-6 months of lies, where poorly written and misleading training PDFs were paraded out before they even started to trickle the documents talking about actual programs. Of course that reduced the effectiveness of the leaks to inform the public. That is a no-brainer.
It won't "become" the norm, it is the norm, and it already was the norm.
Many of us who are "on the left" were warning of all this when the "Patriot Act" was first proposed; it is not some secret thing the NSA did. It is something that Congress did right in public, put the permissions right into law, and wishy-washy voters just said, "ah, gee, we can trust `em" even though their next sentence was, "drown the government, the government only can do evil, blah blah blah."
I hate to go all Rumsfeldian on you, but a known known does not negate a known unknown. We already know we don't know what Europe did.
We simply need more public intelligence in order to convert the known unknown to a known known before we can make any judgements about which is better, or even the ways that they may be different.
I didn't really read what you wrote, but posts that whine about moderation, or tell people how to moderate, are obviously junk posts and worthy of downvotes. And it basically proves whatever else they said probably was from the same perspective, so also probably sucked.
They'll still be shipping the materials, the byproducts, doing maintenance, etc. Very little of that changes by moving the manufacturing into the store.
You can actually measure the entire effect on jobs simply by the net efficiency of the process. Inefficiency = Jobs. IF putting the printer into the store is more efficient than putting it in a factory, then there will be jobs lost. But the same amount of raw materials needs to get moved either way. With the printer in the store, you have smaller shipments of those materials than now, so that at least partially makes up for the shipping the product to the store. And then you're packaging the materials smaller than now, so that partially makes up for not having to package the products as much. It is not obvious to me that the efficiency actually improves unless you have some sort of Star Trek replicator that only needs electricity.
The rest of us will go down to Kinkos and pick up our completed part.
So true! The stores will be saved by the short-term thinking of the human species. Of course everybody could wait 1 day for the local mail, but they won't! Just like mail-order film processing when I was a kid. I could spend 2 weeks allowance and get my film developed TODAY or I could spend 1 weeks allowance and get them processed by mail... in 2 weeks. I'd have been more likely to save the money, then get them locally, (waiting the same amount of time!) than to just spend the money up front and wait.
People would rather drive somewhere in rush hour than wait until tomorrow. Stores are safe all the up until free energy and Star Trek Economics arrive. And they'll still go to the cafeteria to order pre-printed meals from the menu instead of printing their own at home.
No, people are producing low quality plastics with the same general dimensions as traditional products, but with much lower quality and less choice of structural characteristics, for more money. But they can do it themselves, so they're having a lot of fun with it.
I can already print my own shoe by printing patterns on a 2D printer, cutting them out, and sewing them together. Few people do it. Even the poor rarely do it. The custom insert will be cheaper, so that is what most people will have. Even if the production costs are the same, that will be true.
Seems more likely that the machine that can print the custom products would still be in the same factories, but the shoe store would be different and involve scanners and such things. Maybe some shoe stores would have the printer right there in the store. But putting the machine in the home, along with all the input materials, waste handling, etc., would be much more expensive, and take up a lot of space. Plus, it would mostly be sitting idle. Only the rich could do afford a manufacturing machine that is going to sit idle, the market will ensure that regardless of the particulars. And the rich won't see value in having a bunch of manufacturing in their home. They'll either want to go to a fancy store that takes the measurements, or else have somebody visit their home with the scanner part and deliver the shoes later.
So in the end it is just a different style of machine in the factory, not a new way for regular people to make their own stuff. Obviously for the hobbyist and do-it-yourselfer with a home shop it is a big exciting improvement/toy.
"Structurally deficient" does NOT mean there is a known safety risk, or that they predict it will randomly fall down. It means that they have reduced weigh or traffic limits to ensure safety.
In this case, the warning was not that the hill was structurally deficient, and needed lower weight limits. The warning was that it was going to fail catastrophically and kill a bunch of people.
So your example of the Nederlands shows that in fact something can be done, and maybe the cities will still be there.
I agree it is not likely to happen before disaster, but once disaster strikes, property values will go down, and then proper dikes can be built. So even the disaster scenario doesn't require the city to disappear.
Or even, worked nearby and rented a house and had no reason to believe it wasn't safe, and no reason to invest in a study or report.
The whole "if they know the risks" stuff breaks down fast, because owning a residence probably means they have a Right to let others live there with them. So for the "knowing their risks" stuff, they'd still have to have their rights restricted in a way where everybody that comes onto the property has also had the risks explained to them. And people who can't understand the risks would need to be banned outright, for example people with developmental disabilities who would never understand the risks. There are lots and lots of issues that crawl out of that box.
That is why we have permits, and you're supposed to only build in safe structures; so that people can use structures normally and to avoid all those sticky issues where people who did NOT knowingly accept the risk are the ones who get killed.
You'd also need to suspend any right to utilities, unless all the utility workers have accepted the risk. You'd need to restrict mail delivery. You'd need to notify shipping companies, pizza delivery people, everybody. It doesn't seem at all reasonable to put all these people at unknown risk just because the owner accepted the risk.
Odd, I thought that they'd been claiming that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years.
That's because instead of listening to the predictions, you waved your hands without even knowing what the predictions were.
I can pretty much find that in literature easily enough, including that: No glaciers by 2000, no snow falls by 2000, and 2010 in europe, no polar ice caps, and a whole pile of other things.
What you failed to realize is that those were not the predictions of mainstream climate science, but of wackos were paraded in front of you as straw men. I call you on your bullshit and invite you to look up that "literature."
Slashdot Mirror
No. You're allowed to give your girlfriend money, and you don't have to pretend it is a loan.
Spelling out the arrangement does not make it illegal, even if she only "loves" you for your money and the lifestyle that being your girlfriend provides.
Prostitution is where a specific sex act is traded for money or other valuables. Being your girlfriend for money is legal, regardless of the sex involved.
The reality is that it actually gets really complicated to have that relationship in a legal way if it is really just about the sex and the money. How do you know how much money to give, how much sex to demand? Even at a crass, transactional level it requires a certain amount of trust, communication, patience, and time to work all that out; at which point it is perhaps a more normal relationship than you realize.
Informing people that they still have most of their rights, but you're only telling them what contraceptive choices to make if they make the "wrong" choice in your eyes... that is total BS. The problem is the employer trying to make that choice FOR the employee.
"There is no war on women... [we're not taking ALL their rights, after all]"
That is not an argument likely to win in the long run.
So then it makes sense, Darth Vader is running so that he can implement Emperor Putin's will.
In Neo-Soviet Russia, force uses you!
Uhm, I didn't say it is like slavery, I said it is like the set of things that includes slavery and indentured servitude. How is it NOT like indentured servitude if your employer's competitors have all agreed with your employer that you're not allowed to work for them, that you have to stay with your current employer? How is wage suppression via collusion that involves locking employees to one employer NOT like indentured servitude?
Your attack on my statement is idiotic, you don't even address my point. You take the far edge of my point, and claim it is the far point. Duh. I stand by what I said, and I declare your attack to be faulty in form, content, and intent.
The pendulum swings both directions. I recommend thinking bigger.
The idea of Greenwald was to trickle the stories out so they last years and he can get the most attention for his career. That started with 3-6 months of lies, where poorly written and misleading training PDFs were paraded out before they even started to trickle the documents talking about actual programs. Of course that reduced the effectiveness of the leaks to inform the public. That is a no-brainer.
It won't "become" the norm, it is the norm, and it already was the norm.
Many of us who are "on the left" were warning of all this when the "Patriot Act" was first proposed; it is not some secret thing the NSA did. It is something that Congress did right in public, put the permissions right into law, and wishy-washy voters just said, "ah, gee, we can trust `em" even though their next sentence was, "drown the government, the government only can do evil, blah blah blah."
I hate to go all Rumsfeldian on you, but a known known does not negate a known unknown. We already know we don't know what Europe did.
We simply need more public intelligence in order to convert the known unknown to a known known before we can make any judgements about which is better, or even the ways that they may be different.
While there are legitimate problems, I don't think derping all over yourself offers any sort of solution, alternative, or progress.
And when their culture of lies and secrecy was started, in WWII when we'd secretly broken our enemies codes, it might have even been true.
For employees it is evil a sort of substitute for slaves and indentured servants.
I didn't really read what you wrote, but posts that whine about moderation, or tell people how to moderate, are obviously junk posts and worthy of downvotes. And it basically proves whatever else they said probably was from the same perspective, so also probably sucked.
Babylon 5 was soapy as hell. People who liked it liked it because it is more... "right wing."
So are junk posts
They'll still be shipping the materials, the byproducts, doing maintenance, etc. Very little of that changes by moving the manufacturing into the store.
You can actually measure the entire effect on jobs simply by the net efficiency of the process. Inefficiency = Jobs. IF putting the printer into the store is more efficient than putting it in a factory, then there will be jobs lost. But the same amount of raw materials needs to get moved either way. With the printer in the store, you have smaller shipments of those materials than now, so that at least partially makes up for the shipping the product to the store. And then you're packaging the materials smaller than now, so that partially makes up for not having to package the products as much. It is not obvious to me that the efficiency actually improves unless you have some sort of Star Trek replicator that only needs electricity.
The rest of us will go down to Kinkos and pick up our completed part.
So true! The stores will be saved by the short-term thinking of the human species. Of course everybody could wait 1 day for the local mail, but they won't! Just like mail-order film processing when I was a kid. I could spend 2 weeks allowance and get my film developed TODAY or I could spend 1 weeks allowance and get them processed by mail... in 2 weeks. I'd have been more likely to save the money, then get them locally, (waiting the same amount of time!) than to just spend the money up front and wait.
People would rather drive somewhere in rush hour than wait until tomorrow. Stores are safe all the up until free energy and Star Trek Economics arrive. And they'll still go to the cafeteria to order pre-printed meals from the menu instead of printing their own at home.
No, people are producing low quality plastics with the same general dimensions as traditional products, but with much lower quality and less choice of structural characteristics, for more money. But they can do it themselves, so they're having a lot of fun with it.
I can already print my own shoe by printing patterns on a 2D printer, cutting them out, and sewing them together. Few people do it. Even the poor rarely do it. The custom insert will be cheaper, so that is what most people will have. Even if the production costs are the same, that will be true.
Seems more likely that the machine that can print the custom products would still be in the same factories, but the shoe store would be different and involve scanners and such things. Maybe some shoe stores would have the printer right there in the store. But putting the machine in the home, along with all the input materials, waste handling, etc., would be much more expensive, and take up a lot of space. Plus, it would mostly be sitting idle. Only the rich could do afford a manufacturing machine that is going to sit idle, the market will ensure that regardless of the particulars. And the rich won't see value in having a bunch of manufacturing in their home. They'll either want to go to a fancy store that takes the measurements, or else have somebody visit their home with the scanner part and deliver the shoes later.
So in the end it is just a different style of machine in the factory, not a new way for regular people to make their own stuff. Obviously for the hobbyist and do-it-yourselfer with a home shop it is a big exciting improvement/toy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
"Structurally deficient" does NOT mean there is a known safety risk, or that they predict it will randomly fall down. It means that they have reduced weigh or traffic limits to ensure safety.
In this case, the warning was not that the hill was structurally deficient, and needed lower weight limits. The warning was that it was going to fail catastrophically and kill a bunch of people.
So your example of the Nederlands shows that in fact something can be done, and maybe the cities will still be there.
I agree it is not likely to happen before disaster, but once disaster strikes, property values will go down, and then proper dikes can be built. So even the disaster scenario doesn't require the city to disappear.
That isn't the formula; mostly you pay more to live some place dangerous.
Or even, worked nearby and rented a house and had no reason to believe it wasn't safe, and no reason to invest in a study or report.
The whole "if they know the risks" stuff breaks down fast, because owning a residence probably means they have a Right to let others live there with them. So for the "knowing their risks" stuff, they'd still have to have their rights restricted in a way where everybody that comes onto the property has also had the risks explained to them. And people who can't understand the risks would need to be banned outright, for example people with developmental disabilities who would never understand the risks. There are lots and lots of issues that crawl out of that box.
That is why we have permits, and you're supposed to only build in safe structures; so that people can use structures normally and to avoid all those sticky issues where people who did NOT knowingly accept the risk are the ones who get killed.
You'd also need to suspend any right to utilities, unless all the utility workers have accepted the risk. You'd need to restrict mail delivery. You'd need to notify shipping companies, pizza delivery people, everybody. It doesn't seem at all reasonable to put all these people at unknown risk just because the owner accepted the risk.
Odd, I thought that they'd been claiming that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years.
That's because instead of listening to the predictions, you waved your hands without even knowing what the predictions were.
I can pretty much find that in literature easily enough, including that: No glaciers by 2000, no snow falls by 2000, and 2010 in europe, no polar ice caps, and a whole pile of other things.
What you failed to realize is that those were not the predictions of mainstream climate science, but of wackos were paraded in front of you as straw men. I call you on your bullshit and invite you to look up that "literature."
Exactly. Did the developers make perfectly clear to the buyers what risks were involved? If so they're off the hook, if not...
I'd say if they were clear about the risks, that is manslaughter. If they lied about the risks, murder 2.
Climatologists were warning of an impending ice age during the Johnson administration.
Liar liar, pants on fire!