Not true. My car has tangible value. My house has tangible value. My furniture has tangible value. My stocks do not have tangible value except for the dividends they pay me. Cash is the only value I receive from a stock, and if its not coming from the company, the company is not actually creating value for me. The value becomes more like a collectable.

Cash can buy me tangible value. I have to trade stocks for cash before they can be used to buy tangible value.

That implies that stock value is directly related to the real value of a company. It is not. As a former 3D FX shareholder, I can guarantee you it is not.

These days it is often far dumber than that. Unless a company is paying a dividend, the only value you have is what someone else is willing to pay for it. In the age of worshiping the Almighty Growth, dividend payouts are more scarce than they once were and you can't expect a fledgling company will ever pay out. Stocks like that are little more than trading cards. It's just a popularity contest slightly regulated by supply. Actual earnings reports in these cases are only meaningful in the sense that people make buying decisions based on them, but with them having no direct impact on actual value.

I use a money clip instead of a wallet. It matches my sunglasses. And I always carry a harmonica. Other than that, boring stuff... keys, fob, phone, earbuds, bank card, credit card, identification, lighter, cigarettes, and sometimes a cigar cutter.

The problem boils down to Ego. If you've got one, then you're the problem.

The manager who wants to be treated with respect beyond that due their role is just as bad as the employee who wants to be treated with respect beyond their role.

The example of theft of service is a stretch for this case. In all of the examples given on Wikipedia for theft of service, real resources were consumed in a manner that is not replacable. In the case of copying data, the most you suggest is that he was stealing his own time on the clock. But there is absolutely no precedent to allow for that.

Are you managing people, or projects?

I think the problem is, modern managers are expected to herd cats.

The problem isn't the managers, it's the cats.

ISPs are already not classified as common carriers. That's why this whole debacle is even being discussed. The most obvious solution is for the FCC to classify them as the common carriers that they are.

Most amusing to me is that every time I hear about this so called "entitlement generation" it is usually from a privileged and entitled baby boomer.

Our politicians would certainly like you to think so.

I imagine that much of the water used to grow anything out here us lost through evaporation. This is why I stopped trying to go a patio garden. I just could not justify the level of wasted water that was going into it when we have such a short supply.

It could certainly change the dynamic to have more than two parties in office. But I can't imagine getting a third party in office would come without generational change. Even when there are third parties on the ballot, there is a perception that it is a wasted vote, so people don't bother. Campaign financing and access to the major privately funded public debates is a big part of the issue. When Perot had both, he demonstrated what was possible. But funding is a serious problem and since debates are privately sponsored, the government can't force candidate inclusion. Maybe I am too dire on the situation. But forced run off elections and guaranteed ballot inclusion don't really go very far to promote change. Money is the problem. And now with corporations opening their pockets to candidates and parties more than ever, the problem seems to be worse than it ever has been.

The real reason moderates have been tossed aside is because it is a lot more expensive to campaign to them. All politicians have figured out that it is much more cost effective to divide people into an us vs them mentality and drive them to the polls through fear. You will no longer find many successful candidates who campaign to the middle because it just requires too much damn money. How can you compete when your opponent can spend orders of magnitude less per vote that you can trying to run a sensible campaign? The only long term solution is to raise children to think independently and to have enough emotional maturity to break away from the group when it goes insane. Hopefully over time the middle can be strengthened to the point of making FUD campaigns not cost effective any more. It doesn't look too though because even if the "independent" vote is growing, I see no evidence that they do not fall into a right or left camp.

The do retire. Think big picture for a minute?

I am. I believe in annullment of non fruitful unions. Fuck who you like, cohabitate as you like, but make marriage about nurturing families has ALWAYS been my position. I came to this position when my tasks as a life insurance agent/financial planner led me to help rich DINKs pay less taxes using marriage laws, and felt strongly enough about it to change careers.

My position may not be to your liking, but it is still based on logical long term social best interests as I see them, and not extremism or prejudice.

Having a system that supports the creation and nurturing of the next generation of mankind is in the long term best interests of homosexuals just as much as anyone else. Corrupting it into something purely based on decadent sex is not wise. For anyone.