when advertisers pay ME actual cash for my bandwidth, my CPU usage, my battery, my time, and my attention then i may deign to consider their offer and agree to view their ad.

most likely not, though, because it would take a huge amount of money to compensate for the annoyance.

In related news, that crazy old man at the bus stop who claims to speak with god says "The End Is Nigh". The world's media went crazy reporting his words.

> Feminists (to be clear, the rather extreme ones that control much of the media

I thought it was the jews who controlled the media. or is it the space lizards?

Oh, right, yeah...now i remember. it's Rupert Murdoch. he's neither a feminist nor a jew. he's probably a space lizard, though.

> When politics control social equality, everyone loses

When the voices of lunatics are amplified by the internet, the world seems a lot fucking crazier than it really is.

Edward Snowden wasn't a kidnapper.

not everywhere has the same barbaric work laws as america, you drooling fucking moron.

in some countries, severance/retrenchment packages are required and defined by law (with employers allowed to offer more but never less than required).

in other countries, like america, some employers offer severance entitlements in their contracts. and, once signed, they ARE a fucking entitlement, not a fucking courtesy. they are part of the agreed-upon compensation package, the same as salary or wages.

and just like the retrenchment laws in places like australia, those contracts will certainly say that severance is not given if you resign or are sacked for cause i.e. your fault, something you did or something you failed to do.

so, yes, employers can and do exploit that by requiring workers to stay on the job long enough to train their replacements.

if it's in the contract, the contract will certainly specify that resigning or being sacked for cause invalidates any severance package.

> Feel free to disprove that by donating deveral hundred dollars to
> Nepali relief efforts. Or any international relief effort for that
> matter.

I did. my partner and I donated $200 each to the oxfam nepal appeal a few days ago.

BTW, we both have zero income, living off savings from previous jobs. me because of ill health, she because she got retrenched in december and has decided to finish her PhD.

yes, that's exactly what you're supposed to think. you're supposed to be consoled by the fact that you'll go to heaven when you die and that'll be better than anything the rich cunts have now. that will more than make up for the shitful life you're living. hallelujah and praise the lord. accept your lot, everyone gets what they truly deserve.

probably because the company threatened the workers' severance packages if they quit or gave them any excuse to sack them: train your replacements and get what you're entitled to or quit and get fuck all.

as with many other abuses of and thefts from workers, this is probably legal. or, at least, ignored by anyone in authority who could investigate and press charges.

> "Nobody's going to hold you up and carry you around..." is a good
> theory only if it applies to all. But it most certainly does not.

it's not a good theory, or practice, even if it did apply to everyone. we live in a society, not some dog-eat-dog nightmare-fantasy hellhole.

"i'm alright, fuck you jack" is not a sustainable ethos for any individual and certainly not for a civilisation. it's a psychopath's creed and psychopaths are at best parasitic on society if not outright destructive to it.

> You want to know why this shit is expensive?

because your health "system" (for want of a better word) is run by and for corporate parasites who will overcharge for everything at every opportunity.

it is not, as you implied, because "undeserving" poor people got treated at your expense - they probably ended up with bills at least as large as yours.

in a civilised country with a decent public health system (i.e. all of the developed world except for the US. and also some of the "third-world" including cuba) a visit to emergency or even a month-long stay in hospital costs the patient exactly nothing, not a single fucking cent. because civilised countries believe that everyone deserves decent health care, not just those with jobs that pay for their health insurance. civilised countries also believe that an employer has no fucking right whatsoever to decide what kind of health care an employee is entitled to. that's just fucking barbaric.

modern windows malware still has a lot to do with insecure design, but not much to do with the stupidity of microsoft developers. stupidity of their managers, perhaps, but not their devs.

the problem is that microsoft management believes that their users are idiots and incapable of understanding or practicing even basic security. whether they are correct or not is irrelevant - either way, that belief leads to them choosing to design for an idiot user's convenience rather than for a normally intelligent user's security.

they don't make insecure software because they're too stupid to do otherwise. they do it because they *choose* to, because they believe their users are too stupid to cope with anything better.

rather than lift their dumber users up to a higher level of understanding and safer practices (i.e. by requiring it in their software design), they dumb things down so that even smarter users find it difficult or impossible to run a secure system. in doing this, microsoft are doing ALL of their users, both dumb and smart, an enormous dis-service. IMO, constituting gross negligence.

not necesarily morons, just slaves to fashionable management ideology.

what's pushing this is the management class's absolute loathing of skilled individuals. they demand that every worker be a replacable component and they simply don't care that that means loss of productivity through loss of experience, skill, and talent.

they have this attitude towards workers in education and every other industry - whether for-profit or not-for-profit. it's what they're taught, and it's what they believe.

he also had the choice to prostitute one of the children so he could send the other to private school. so many free choices available with no coercion involved...isn't life grand!

and if it wasn't for socialist anti-free-market regulations that would be perfectly legal.

The thing is, if you go to a company where everyone works 60 hours a week and you want to work 40, you are fucking everyone else in your team.

no, you are refusing to be fucked along with everyone else.

if you're expected to routinely work 60+ hours then you should be paid for 60+ hours, not 40. note that that implies a 50+% pay increase over the standard 40-ish hour week.

in several jobs i've had over the last decade or so, i've negotiated a three or four day working week because the reduced money is adequate for my needs and I enjoy the extra time for my personal life and pursuits. As a result, I've noticed that one of the nicest things about working less than a full-time job is that when the employer asks you to work extra because some project or job really needs it, they always offer money or time-in-lieu to compensate. they typically don't bother doing that if you're working full-time, they just assume that they can demand more time from you without compensation or even reciprocity.