Comment Re:Just goes to show... (Score 1) 505
I thought that was long ago proven by PHP? If you even want to call it a programming language, that is.
The javascript project is not my primary target, so I don't have, nor do I wish to have, special tools specific to JS.
That's just silly. "This is my only project in language A. Therefore I won't get any tools that help me program in language A". If you're too lazy to download a free IDE and install it for the single project you are working on, then you deserve to suffer trying to use that programming language. Right tools for the right job, and if you can't bother to work smarter then you're just screwing yourself over.
There are other alternatives. Some of us can recognize the value of government spending that doesn't directly benefit me, but benefits society in ways that may benefit me or my decendents(sic) in the future.
Of course... But to me that sounds like "spend more on things that I think will benefit me/society/my descendants." You can sugar-coat what you say with all the good intentions in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that what you think and what others think could be two completely separate things because they're based on opinion. And the only way to resolve that is by forcing your majority will, or special interest group powers onto the rest of us who happen to be part of the minority.
It would be nice if I could find a non-statist, who is *also* not a corporatist. Unfortunately all the non-statists I've ever heard of are devout corporatists.
Ah yes, that old re-hashed tripe. Bet you think you sound all hip and cool using the word "corporatist", huh? Channeling the inner hippy, eh? I suggest you go and re-read your statist manual on "how to dismiss those pesky free-thinkers before they convince enough people of their own inherent rights".
On a more serious note, here is an actual definition of "corporatism": "the control of a state or organization by large interest groups." By that definition, you could say that society is already controlled by large interest groups. And the state then gives them power to wield their beliefs over the rest of society.
The problem is that most of the people who claim to want small government really mean: spend less on everything except the things that benefit me.
And that is better than those that say "spend more on things that benefit me"? That's a race upwards; to add bloat. Whereas the other one you mentioned is more of a race to the lowest amount of funding possible. What I'm trying to say is that it's all too easy to "spend more on what benefits me" because the cost of that is spread across the entire population and no thought is required. But it's a hell of a lot more difficult to justify and prove the need for items that require us to take away funding from other items, or to simply justify a reduction in spending on a certain wasteful/unneeded item. And that's one of the big traits of the political system: practically no one dares to be the bad guy that rocks the boat by saying or trying to reduce unnecessary funding. Because _some_ group, doesn't matter which one will proceed to tear that politician a new one in the media. This is democracy, this is populism.
So they're idiots for not wanting to live surrounded by skyscrapers.
No, I'd say they are idiots for blaming others for the things they themselves are partly to blame for. I'm referring to the building and property zoning laws. Hell, you know democracy, I'm sure. If majority rules, then everyone shares blame. That also means not singling anyone out, like these cretins are doing to some random engineer who happens to work for a company that they currently find fashionable to hate or are be jealous of.
I know inflation is seen as the tool of the devil today - but if you have a 200,000 BTC 30-year loan (for example) on a house that you're paying back over time then, as I understand it, it becomes in *harder* to pay it back (in 30 years the remaining value will be worth more than it was when you started rather than the other way around).
If the value of the currency was rising, then yes you could say that the "value" that you have to pay off is increasing. However, you can't look at it in isolation. The interest rates will be different, probably higher. Not to mention people will be less inclined to borrow money precisely because of what you mention. It may make a lot of economic sense in a deflationary scenario for people to rent + save until they can buy their own property. As opposed to borrowing + living in the same apartment as they slowly pay it off.
In the end it's up to the individual people to decide what their priorities are, how risk-averse they are and what course of action to take as a result of that.
Therefore we should simply kill them. Afterall, it would improve productivity and enhance cash flow.
I never said that. Geeze, way to overblow and misconstrue things to get your opinions heard. I'm not going to bother trying to have a discussion with you next time. Any old idiot can take single sentences out of context to make their point. Good day.
I tried to explain that this is not the case to this guy I know who makes well into 6 figures (he'll never let anyone forget that). He thinks anyone on welfare should die on the streets because they are just sub human leeches, and there should be no such thing as welfare in the first place. "It's everyone's responsibility to go out and get a good job and make lots of money. Anyone can do it! If you don't you must be dumb or lazy or both and should just shoot yourself to make room for hard working people" he says.
I'm not sure what your friend is really like. But I've heard this sort of rabbid commentary before, and it is really not all that hard to trigger.
Frankly, it's been known since biblical times what poor diet does to people... it's just that we haven't been able to describe exactly how it happens until recently thanks to advancements in medicine. We want the poor to eat badly... because it keeps them poor, and exploitable.
Why would we want that? Here we are talking about a welfare program that costs productive members of society money. The poor/dependent classes are just that, poor, dependent and unproductive. You make it seem like we do it to get benefit from them, when in actual fact we don't get anything from them besides crime.
Perhaps you were talking about how the dependent class is easily manipulated to gain votes. That I can agree with, and it makes a whole lot more sense than the "slavery" idea. No wonder I keep hearing politicians calling for it, and my peers denouncing it as unfair as they already give to charity in local institutions.
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
