I just modded up a foe for presenting a point I don't like well. Nietzsche's got my back.
The thought police don't have to send helicopters. You have given them the remote controls for your suicide belt.
Most medicines are generally prescribed for one condition, so the pharmacist doesn't have to be any kind of clever to make a good guess what condition you've been diagnosed with. But it's still a guess. If your doctor is actually doing this, though, report them to the local college of physicians.
Forbidding people from signing contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial is wrong and destructive to the economy. After all, it is not the CEO's who own corporations, but the shareholders. As such, it is the shareholders who ultimately decide upon the pay of the CEO. If the owners of a company decide that it is in the company's best interest to entice the top executives with $x, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Contrary to popular belief, the only way this is possible in the long run, is if the executive actually brings that worth to the corporation. These sorts of laws will *not* bring up the wage of the workers just so that the executives can be paid more; after all, the most an employee can be paid without the company losing money is the discounted marginal value product that he or she brings to the company.
There's another way this is possible in the long run - don't pay the rank and file members what they're worth.
This is easy because the negotiating process between a corporation and a potential staffer is rarely an exchange between equals. The rank and file are most often absolutely not in a position to negotiate a fair wage or salary.
You need to keep your facts straight if you want them to go to prison. Just because nobody took the assertions seriously doesn't mean they didn't say such a thing.
Further, social networks all have a backlog where previous posts can be viewed (particularly true with FB), thus a person still "transmits" a given piece of information indefinitely as other people view their wall going back far in time. Thus it is always possible for a "dark corner" of the "internet" to always catch up by seeing a piece of information in that way instead of only real-time.
You're so funny. Just try going back a week on facebook. I'll wait while you restart your browser a few times, waiting for the thrashing to stop. Oh, just pull the plug, it'll be faster.
Endless scrolling - the penultimate "fuck you" to a web page viewer. Tumblr does it too,* making a walk down memory lane potentially depend upon how much RAM you have.
* some users disable it, but it is the default that most go with.
Badly reasoned rhetoric deserves to be shut down. If it's presented as clear and cogent philosophy, a side dish of embarrasment is heartwarming.
Yet we have growing economic uncertainty and a shrinking middle class coincident with a period of unprecedented per capita productive capacity. Why is this so? The sound-bite answer is "concentration of wealth". The complete answer is incredibly complex [ snip ]
I disagree. The complete answer is, entrenched Capitalists want it that way. People who have concentrated wealth shall support any policy that maintains inequality, AND be able to put their money where their mouth is. Confusion arises only because they never openly mouth their actual motivations.
Fixed-width text areas? That was a face palm in the 90s. This feels like a college course test - "Fix this website where the developers committed each of the ten fatal web design mistakes we discussed in class.
I've tried to find something to like about it, but there's nothing there.
I don't feel like being restricted from speaking my mind just because I tried to mod up someone's post.
Just because it seems odd to you doesn't mean there's no sense to it, or even that you can't have a useful system with such a feature. Analogy: here in Canada, people who serve on a jury are normally explicitly forbidden discussing their deliberations (outside of the jury room), ever. See Section 6.2.