"It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police office

That's the current state of affairs, so it would seem they are teaching exactly what they should be.

On the bright side breaking the law is a good way to have contact with the police and hence one of those costs is to not break the law.

On the less bright side, that means not making contact with the police to report crimes and wanted people, since it isn't worth the risk of contact with police: http://www.kgw.com/story/news/...

And if someone needs medical attention, 911 is not the way to do so, especially if they they might have seizures or anything the police might interprete as not obeying their god like commands: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/l..., http://www.nhregister.com/gene..., http://fox59.com/2013/02/05/ep..., http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/l..., http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2...

So hopefully you have the number of a medical service rather than the generic let's send the police anyway 911 call.

And yes people lie, and some of those are probably people lying, but there have been enough cases to end in court with the one claiming they were having a seizure or similar winning.

And finished it in the subject line.

Which is incredibly annoying but is nothing like the other way round.

It doesn't give me joy. Which would be why I'm not working on it. That doesn't mean someone else won't find it rewarding and hence positive.

The first fucking sentence was the positive aspect.

Problem solved.

They are the encryption experts after all, who better to trust for your SSL certificate needs?

Hard for Americans to understand, but they are just grown up

Ah, I see, the Dutch are grown-up, whereas Americans aren't... Racist much?

"American" isn't a race, so no not racist at all.

And I didn't call Americans not grown up. I just said it seems hard for Americans to understand that some people don't have an ingrained hatred for the collective good and don't see the need to throw a tantrum when the collective does something that they don't think is the perfect choice. Projecting that need seems to be treating them as not grown up and thus unable to make choices for themselves.

accept democratic allocation of such resources

Somehow I dislike anything remotely like "democratic allocation" of my resources... Maybe, I'm just a child throwing a tantrum — but if I were, how come I was able to earn any such "resources" to begin with?

I'm not sure what ability to earn resources has to do with it? Lots of temper throwing people have earned lots of resources. Lots of non-temper throwing people have earned few resources.

It's a simple difference in outlook - but for some reason you expect your "but they might spend money on something I don't personally like" view to be shared by the rest of the world - which is the bit that seems childish. America has a system in which the individual is more important than the collective (with some exceptions of course - the US does have a public highway system after all). The Netherlands has a system in which the collective is more important than the individual (with some exceptions of course - the Netherlands does have "the presumption of innocence"after all).

There are plenty of actual arguments against such a collective system which don't rely on "they should think the same as me". Though it's good to remember that Europe went through monarchies, fascism and totalitarian communism they know what happens to the extremes but they aren't at the extreme.

So the Netherlands has a health care system that produces better overall results on average (as indicated by higher life expectancy), while the US has a system that produces better results for the individuals who have significant personal resources (where "better" is relative between the US and the Netherlands). Of course the rich in the Netherlands get to use the US system anyway. Migration is not *that* difficult (though it's not as simple as it once was, especially migrating to the US) so people (in particular the rich) can choose which system to live in anyway.

You can prefer the US system, but that doesn't mean everyone has to (in fact wouldn't it be unamerican to do so - if some individuals wish to live in a collective first society shouldn't they be able choose to do so?).

I guess many have argued that you only have the ability to earn those resources because of society in the first place and hence owe something back. If you actually want an answer to your question. But that's arguable.

Given the Dutch life expenctency is 81 I doubt they consider living past 75 immoral

I don't see a connection...

You brought up that some American thought living over 75 was "immoral" (even though they stated no such thing) for no apparent reason. Given the no apparent reason it's not surprising no one can see a connection.

Or it means it's restricted to the people who match what it was designed for. Or it means it's an experiment [...]

The point was, if one option is better than another, than the only way to fairly limit access to the better option is to make it more expensive. It just may be, of course, that there no need to impose such limits — e-mail, for example, is both better and cheaper than First Class mail — and it is great, when this happens. But it is rare...

You declared "well that means" and provided a dichotomy. Are you now saying that you were presenting a false dichotomy?

In Holland, everyone pays into the state health care system during their working years, with the money then disbursed to pay for later-in-life expenses

So nice to see the abundance of options people in other countries have. Is not it awesome to have a single provider of healthcare? You would never think of disagreeing with how those monies you've been paying all your life are (or aren't) disbursed, would you?

Hard for Americans to understand, but they are just grown up to enough to accept democratic allocation of such resources. And while they might vote for those who best match their opinion on how those monies are allocated they accept the end result knowing they'll win some and lose some. As opposed to throwing a temper tantrum every time something doesn't go exactly there way.

And if someone does get so disgustingly anti-social as to have such a discouraging thought, why, End-of-Life Counseling may be just what the doctor might order for him... Living past 75 is immoral [theatlantic.com], after all...

Given the Dutch life expenctency is 81 I doubt they consider living past 75 immoral, and I'm sure they give all of two shits about the opinion of one American doctor - a doctor who is anti-ethenasia anyway and whose opinions (well his stated ones, who know what he actually thinks of course) aren't what you claim them to be anyway.

and that means living in Hogewey does not cost any more than a traditional nursing home

Well, that means that either it is not a particularly desired option, or that joining requires non-monetary "payments" — such as waiting in line for a few years, or paying a bribe, or knowing somebody in the right place...

Or it means it's restricted to the people who match what it was designed for. Or it means it's an experiment done on a reasonable scale rather than putting all the eggs in one basket - if it proves to be a good solution then they can duplicate it elsewhere to meet demand, if it doesn't then they won't. Or it means it happens to cost the same as other options, like a Mars bar costing the same as a Kit-Kat does not mean that a Mars bar is not particularly desirable to some people.

--

At least one of us managed self-consistency then. Since your "no way somebody that stupid would spend over a decade on slashdot" and your implication that I'm that stupid (which I don't argue with) contradict each other.

No they are not "before my time", they simply don't exist.

Slashdot is full of retarded stories, posts, and posters. That should be pretty obvious. As with everything it's going down hill, but it's not like it started exceptionally high to begin with anyway.

Or you could wait until after they finish the initial analysis of the domain they picked before trying to apply it universally.

What is the duration of parental leave by gender?
      480 days total split between the parents however the parents want to split it.

What if a men ask to go part-time at job?
      They join the 25% os people who work part time? Or I guess don't if their job doesn't really work as a part time gig.

What is the status of men as nanny?
      The same as anyone else working as a nanny.

Men working at preschool?
      Do you mean status again? Same as anyone else working at preschool.

Minecraft fails it.
Bayonetta passes it.

Maybe using a test created in a comic strip isn't going to produce the desired results.

Right, because slashdot is just brimming with non-stupid people.

Oh wait, it's a site full of retards commenting on things they know nothing about without bothering to read whatever information is linked in a summary first.