Because no service the government provides for people is not being abused, and the easier it to abuse, the more people are doing it. It's impossible for handouts to NOT be abused, even when you give food stamps that have limited purpose uses, people sell it for pennies on the dollar to buy drugs/alcohol/tobacco.
I consider myself a libertarian, but also believe that you can't just let people go without the basic necessities... however, the only really acceptable way is one that can't be abused. If that means you do something like converting closed military bases into basic shelter, and serve quality food at regular meal times, and provide bulk/cheap clothing, instead of handing out money, then so be it. Provide public transportation so people can get to work and work their way out of the "poor house," help them all you want - but people have to put effort into it, and if they're caught abusing the system, then they should be on their own. Internet access is NOT a basic necessity unless you're a slashnerd... plenty of people of means still live without it.
Risk our lives if we don't have to (to accomplish the goal). I completely disagree with your reasoning, as drones simply haven't been around long enough to state they are ineffectual at forcing anyone into submission. No, you can't surrender to a drone, but we're not talking about surrendering and being taken as a prisoner of war, we're talking about the other side picking up the phone (or using whatever means of communication) to capitulate. A general doesn't go up to a private from the other army to surrender - they communicate with the general of the opposing army.
No... because then people ask questions closer and closer to the truth, and when the denying finally starts, the questioners know they are close to the truth.
That doesn't make any sense... if we were attacking robots, or other drones, with our drones, you'd have a point that there'd be no incentive to stop, it would just go on forever while the military industrial complex raked in the taxpayer dollars - but the idea is to force the OTHER side into submission, and they are suffering human casualties while we can carry on "forever" without human loss. It's absurd to think we should risk "our" lives if we don't have to. There's no "fairness" here, there's no concept of equal risk... if you believe you're on the right side, then you must do what you need to in order to win, not be "fair."
Already posted or I'd mod you up. 75 attacks, mostly non-lethal; there are places in Australia and South Africa where they could really use something like this (as they are already spending a lot of money on it); it's a pointless waste applied to U.S. beaches. But hey, shark attacks are great news stories, and with a couple of generations tainted by Jaws and similar movies, it's all about the emotional factor.
Re:Coast Guard chopper pilot once said....
on
Droning For Sharks
·
· Score: 2
It's just proof that you don't need this surveillance... shark attacks on people, especially in the U.S., are so rare that pursuing this technology is like pursuing anti-lightening hat technology... it's pointless. It's one of those things where people's perceptions are skewed because of movies like Jaws and "Shark Week" on discovery.... every once in a while someone gets bit, usually non-lethally, and it's incredibly rare, but makes a great news story. It's another case of "wrap us all in bubble wrap so we can't get hurt" absurdity.
Except that's just one beach, one area covered by a drone - lifeguards save a LOT of people; how many people get bitten by sharks? It's like investing in something to keep you from getting struck my lightening. Australia and parts of Africa might have real shark problems, the U.S. doesn't.
No, he's wrong and you're right, actually.... eliminating outliers, women aren't really interested in tech jobs - especially when at the ages they need to be interested in STEM - the puberty years. Men and women have different physiology, it's not just the "naughty bits" that are different - certain parts of women's brains are larger than men's, and vice-versa. It's not that anyone is better or worse, it's that we're different. Of course, when women are doing tech jobs they should be paid similarly to men, so I'm not justifying different treatment - but women generally actually do steer clear of STEM (generally) as a function of their physiology.
I'm betting it includes the entire HVAC system, not just the computers controlling it. 20 years is ancient for heating/AC, it's probably terribly inefficient.
I don't like to suffer - removing any admin rights would solve a things, but just cause other problems - and wouldn't stop the toolbars and changes to searches. So I can fix it up once every few months, or have her annoy me on a weekly (or even daily) basis to install certain software and updates (like iTunes and such). It's a lose-lose situation.
Not really - it's easy enough to change the default search on IE to google from bing, and it's easy enough to change the default search on google Chrome to bing (or even ask, if that's what you really want). There's no hypocrisy there in saying ask is malware - it most definitely is.
...and that extra crap is software designed to keep you from getting rid of what they installed. That's malware. Google isn't malware. Neither is Bing... they both "play fair."
I experience that with my wife. She's got a reasonably nice desktop for doing what she does (nothing important) but complains it runs slow. It was screaming fast once upon a time, so I go and run and rerun all the anti-virus software and malware removers, remove have the extensions that have installed themselves, reboot a few times in the process, and it's screaming fast again. The most toolbars I've counted was at least 6, and the search is almost always stuck on something undesirable.
Latest Consumer Reports magazine focuses on "Made in America," and mentions that hundreds of companies have brought manufacturing back to the U.S., including a lot foreign companies (like BMW), so it's not really surprising.
But the modelers argue that this really wasn't a failure, because their predictions served as worst-case scenarios that mobilized international efforts.
OK, at the risk of being down-modded, I agree with you - the people modding you down don't understand what the scam is, and it's not that global warming doesn't exist.
I have to (mostly) agree with you; I think a lot of people appreciate art a lot more than the GP are giving us credit for, but when the government funds something like the NEA, they're encouraging anybody who wants to make a living, no matter how talentless, to try to grab a piece of that government funding. It happens at local levels, too, where cities use tax money to fund local artists - all well intentioned, but if the local artists couldn't succeed without government funding, there's probably a good reason.
I really disagree - we very highly value artistic expression; the problem is that all else aside, if you asked people what they wanted to be, far too many would say they wanted to be an artist of some sort (writer, actor, musician, photographer, "model"), but far too few of them actually have the talent to succeed in that field. So we've actually had a couple of generations of "follow your dreams" that have led to a lot of disappointment for a lot of untalented people.
As for the amateurs (myself included), they should feel free to artistically express themselves anyway they want - but they shouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it.
Bad credit. You'd need to pay cash for a car or pay outrageous interest rates; same thing for buying a house. Although they're not supposed to, some employers will also check out the credit rating of potential employees, but I don't believe that's actually legal.
Well said - like healthcare, when government subsidizes it then demand grows, when demand grows so does the cost. It's not rocket science, but like most things there are alternative ways you can do things less expensively. I'm not suggesting certains things not be subsidized, but although the consequences might be unintended, they certainly shouldn't be unexpected.
Slashdot Mirror
Because no service the government provides for people is not being abused, and the easier it to abuse, the more people are doing it. It's impossible for handouts to NOT be abused, even when you give food stamps that have limited purpose uses, people sell it for pennies on the dollar to buy drugs/alcohol/tobacco.
I consider myself a libertarian, but also believe that you can't just let people go without the basic necessities... however, the only really acceptable way is one that can't be abused. If that means you do something like converting closed military bases into basic shelter, and serve quality food at regular meal times, and provide bulk/cheap clothing, instead of handing out money, then so be it. Provide public transportation so people can get to work and work their way out of the "poor house," help them all you want - but people have to put effort into it, and if they're caught abusing the system, then they should be on their own. Internet access is NOT a basic necessity unless you're a slashnerd... plenty of people of means still live without it.
Risk our lives if we don't have to (to accomplish the goal). I completely disagree with your reasoning, as drones simply haven't been around long enough to state they are ineffectual at forcing anyone into submission. No, you can't surrender to a drone, but we're not talking about surrendering and being taken as a prisoner of war, we're talking about the other side picking up the phone (or using whatever means of communication) to capitulate. A general doesn't go up to a private from the other army to surrender - they communicate with the general of the opposing army.
So what's your answer to ISIS? Just let them be?
No... because then people ask questions closer and closer to the truth, and when the denying finally starts, the questioners know they are close to the truth.
That doesn't make any sense... if we were attacking robots, or other drones, with our drones, you'd have a point that there'd be no incentive to stop, it would just go on forever while the military industrial complex raked in the taxpayer dollars - but the idea is to force the OTHER side into submission, and they are suffering human casualties while we can carry on "forever" without human loss. It's absurd to think we should risk "our" lives if we don't have to. There's no "fairness" here, there's no concept of equal risk... if you believe you're on the right side, then you must do what you need to in order to win, not be "fair."
Already posted or I'd mod you up. 75 attacks, mostly non-lethal; there are places in Australia and South Africa where they could really use something like this (as they are already spending a lot of money on it); it's a pointless waste applied to U.S. beaches. But hey, shark attacks are great news stories, and with a couple of generations tainted by Jaws and similar movies, it's all about the emotional factor.
It's just proof that you don't need this surveillance... shark attacks on people, especially in the U.S., are so rare that pursuing this technology is like pursuing anti-lightening hat technology... it's pointless. It's one of those things where people's perceptions are skewed because of movies like Jaws and "Shark Week" on discovery.... every once in a while someone gets bit, usually non-lethally, and it's incredibly rare, but makes a great news story. It's another case of "wrap us all in bubble wrap so we can't get hurt" absurdity.
Except that's just one beach, one area covered by a drone - lifeguards save a LOT of people; how many people get bitten by sharks? It's like investing in something to keep you from getting struck my lightening. Australia and parts of Africa might have real shark problems, the U.S. doesn't.
No, he's wrong and you're right, actually.... eliminating outliers, women aren't really interested in tech jobs - especially when at the ages they need to be interested in STEM - the puberty years. Men and women have different physiology, it's not just the "naughty bits" that are different - certain parts of women's brains are larger than men's, and vice-versa. It's not that anyone is better or worse, it's that we're different. Of course, when women are doing tech jobs they should be paid similarly to men, so I'm not justifying different treatment - but women generally actually do steer clear of STEM (generally) as a function of their physiology.
See "The Female Brain" .
Political correctness is running amok - I'm all for respecting other people, but we're NOT all the same.
I'm betting it includes the entire HVAC system, not just the computers controlling it. 20 years is ancient for heating/AC, it's probably terribly inefficient.
You're right, I'm sorry... facebook and iTunes are very important. Shame on me.
I'm sure they have a great iTunes client.
How do you know how the workers are treated? Would you prefer the jobs be overseas?
I don't like to suffer - removing any admin rights would solve a things, but just cause other problems - and wouldn't stop the toolbars and changes to searches. So I can fix it up once every few months, or have her annoy me on a weekly (or even daily) basis to install certain software and updates (like iTunes and such). It's a lose-lose situation.
Not really - it's easy enough to change the default search on IE to google from bing, and it's easy enough to change the default search on google Chrome to bing (or even ask, if that's what you really want). There's no hypocrisy there in saying ask is malware - it most definitely is.
...and that extra crap is software designed to keep you from getting rid of what they installed. That's malware. Google isn't malware. Neither is Bing... they both "play fair."
I experience that with my wife. She's got a reasonably nice desktop for doing what she does (nothing important) but complains it runs slow. It was screaming fast once upon a time, so I go and run and rerun all the anti-virus software and malware removers, remove have the extensions that have installed themselves, reboot a few times in the process, and it's screaming fast again. The most toolbars I've counted was at least 6, and the search is almost always stuck on something undesirable.
Latest Consumer Reports magazine focuses on "Made in America," and mentions that hundreds of companies have brought manufacturing back to the U.S., including a lot foreign companies (like BMW), so it's not really surprising.
So the ends justifies the means. Got it.
Why do that when you can spend 100x more 3D Printing two rows of LEGO bricks to make a wall along the beach?
OK, at the risk of being down-modded, I agree with you - the people modding you down don't understand what the scam is, and it's not that global warming doesn't exist.
I have to (mostly) agree with you; I think a lot of people appreciate art a lot more than the GP are giving us credit for, but when the government funds something like the NEA, they're encouraging anybody who wants to make a living, no matter how talentless, to try to grab a piece of that government funding. It happens at local levels, too, where cities use tax money to fund local artists - all well intentioned, but if the local artists couldn't succeed without government funding, there's probably a good reason.
I really disagree - we very highly value artistic expression; the problem is that all else aside, if you asked people what they wanted to be, far too many would say they wanted to be an artist of some sort (writer, actor, musician, photographer, "model"), but far too few of them actually have the talent to succeed in that field. So we've actually had a couple of generations of "follow your dreams" that have led to a lot of disappointment for a lot of untalented people.
As for the amateurs (myself included), they should feel free to artistically express themselves anyway they want - but they shouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it.
Bad credit. You'd need to pay cash for a car or pay outrageous interest rates; same thing for buying a house. Although they're not supposed to, some employers will also check out the credit rating of potential employees, but I don't believe that's actually legal.
Well said - like healthcare, when government subsidizes it then demand grows, when demand grows so does the cost. It's not rocket science, but like most things there are alternative ways you can do things less expensively. I'm not suggesting certains things not be subsidized, but although the consequences might be unintended, they certainly shouldn't be unexpected.