> as most people want more than the minimum income needed to survive.

Ya they may want it, but very few want to put in the effort required to do so. And that's the problem here, people want to take but give nothing back.

until the economy goes downhill and tax revenues dry up. Then where does the money come from? are you in the states? did you not see the budget crises most of the state governments had, and how many local governments when completely bankrupt?

Oh and the rest of your post is why this is a bad idea. Clearly there is not enough demand and / or you don't have enough skill building musical instruments. Society isn't in need of what you like to do, and your current job is more valuable to society than what you'd like to do. That's why giving people what they need to survive is bad; they'll choose to go off and do what they want, not necessarily what is needed.

> I want to work. I DON'T want to work at drudgery! Who does? No one

I suspect as pay for the tedious job goes up, the number of people willing to do it does as well. For example, not a lot of people want to be trash men, and its reflected by the fact that starting wage for that job is above minimum and includes health, dental, vision and 401(k).

> The question is, is the group of people who are happy-not-working large enough to bankrupt the group of people who would keep working?

Likely yes. And at any rate, if someone chooses to nothing but sit at home and watch tv all day, how does it make sense to force me to support his lifestyle choice, just because I want more out of life? Just like your right to swing your face ends at my face, your right to do nothing ends at my wallet.

> There's a tiny percentage of the population who might end up just living on their dole, but I'd rather see them have shelter and food than have them begging in the street.

Why? why should anyone just be given something when they choose not to contribute in any way? Why should people doing the right thing by producing something of value and taking care of themselves ALSO shoulder the burden of taking care of someone else?

I think you seriously underestimate the number of people that would choose to be nothing more but parasites and dead weight.

And what's the problem here? If his job required so little skill that his subordinates quickly replaced him, he was probably being overpaid to begin with. Just like the city worker above that made $15/hr. He probably made that nit because it required any real skill to do the jib, but rather the union forced pay to be way over what the market would pay.

Show me where Sony advertised it. Thus far all anyone has done is link to BLOGS not controlled by sony, and the MANUAL for the other os feature. So please, show me something where they were courting the scientific community.

Everytime this comes up, I ask to see where sony advertised it. Not once has anyone ever done anything but link to 3rd party blogs, and the online manual for the other os feature.

That is a link to a manual telling people about a feature of the ps3, its not something aimed at getting people to buy a PS3.

None of that is advertising. One is a blog, btw, which just points to your second link. The second link is nothing more than a manual, aimed at discussing a feature to an end user who already purchased the PS3... not an advertisment. An ad would be something you see on TV or in print, hear on the radio, or on the marketing for the PS3 online.

Here's what advertising is, since you don't seem to understand the difference between an ad and a manual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising

This is well established in common law. Go ask a lawyer.

Correct would be functional, secure, and easily maintained.

Its nothing to do with "holy standards." You just aren't capable of doing the job you were assigned. Someone that IS knowledge could have done it without security holes and without needlessly tying your company to a particular browser.

Just because you can hit a nail with a hammer does not mean I'd trust you to build a house.

Like I said, you were put in a bad spot. But don't sit here and say you did a good job of it.

Boy, you're right. I guess only [insert job title] are 'qualified' to insist other [insert same job title] stop playing video games while on company time and while 100's of lives depend on their being ready for anything.

Maybe you should talk to a pilot, because you just sound ignorant. Try this, sit down a computer, and set your screen saver. Then stare at it for five hours. Do nothing else. Tell me how alert you are.

I'll remember that the next time I see a news report of an on-duty cop surfing porn in his patrol car. Who am I tell him how to do his job anyway?

Well since you're such the expert, you also should tell that cop how to handle a hostigate situation, what to do during a bank robbery, how to gather evidence after a woman has been raped. I mean, you know it all, right dipshit?

You think that because you fly on a plane, you have something meaningful to add? Do you think that knowing how to install a light bulb means you're qualified to tell an EE how to do their job?

And that's my point, you're not qualified to offer any advice to either profession.

Show me a single advertisement which included the other os feature. Otherwise, no bait and switch.