... and the World War II Bomber
Oh, no, hang on, that disappeared again, didn't it?
6066 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... and the World War II Bomber
Oh, no, hang on, that disappeared again, didn't it?
> The 'trash the business owner' approach is an argument to reduce the people employed. Not a good idea.
Balderdash. How many million pounds of bonuses does the owner need? How about they give some of that money back to the little people who are actually doing the work instead of just paying them thte minimum required by law? Who knows, that may even help improve staff morale and reduce turnover! (But, hell, there's enough unemployed people out there that if someone quits, there are plenty more desperate for a job...)
> I know a number of these people who found work too hard so quit then came boasting how easy they had it. I do hope that option has been removed.
Oh gods, someone else who has swallowed the "Scrounger Narrative" hook, line and sinker. Try looking up how much money is lost through that, then how much is lost through big corporations dodging tax. Again, take the log out of your eye first.
> Also self employed is not a swear word. Just so you know.
I know, given I started my own business on a self-employed basis over 20 years ago, however there is a difference between that and people who have been forced to sign contracts where they "work" for businesses on a self-employed basis, meaning that they can be sacked without notice, don't get sick pay or paid holidays or any of those other tedious and expensive annoyances...
> When you take something from someone without permission is it stealing or confiscating?
And I bet you believe Copyright Violation is theft too.
> there are people who would prefer to have a job/income than no jobs.
Great, but how about we actually pay people a *living wage* insted of a pittance? Or is that too left-wing for you?
> Your argument seems to be "how can I make more money without having to work for it"
Erm, excuse me? Isn't that what you're saying that the business owners should be able to do? Because that's sure as hell what they're doing! The little people do the work, the owners trouser the profits...!
> Look at what the financial markets do with the money.
I have, they run it around in a massive hamster wheel that generates lots of money for them, but precious little of it (if any) gets back to the people at the bottom of the pile.
> the simple problem of borrowing so much more is due to the clusterf**k left by the last lot.
Are you naiive or just ignorant? Yes, Labour made a mess, but Osborne has made the problem worse and dumped the costs on us, the tax payers, not on the banks and businesses who caused the issue!
Anyway, as fascinating as this is, I see little point in continuing this discussion because it's clear that your ideology is blinding you to what is *really* happening out there. Money is going *up* the tree, it is *NOT* coming back down. The rich are gettting richer, the poor are getting poorer and until *that* reality slaps you and them in the face and the government keeps colluding with them to maintain the status quo, it will only get worse.
Feel free to have the last word, I have a business to run selling sensibly priced products instead of trying to gouge every last penny of profit because I can see the flaw in that model even if you can't.
> If they had the job and earned the money the cost of the item would be greatly more expensive and they would be poorer.
"Greatly more expensive"? Or just that the businesses profit margins would be smaller? Oh, but of course, the aim for the business owner is simply to get as much money as possible for the least possible expense and they don't care who gets screwed thereby. (Business owners are not allowed to have a consciene, are they?)
> The assumption that they would then be non-workers assumes the gov have screwed up the country so bad that no other job exists but low skilled sweatshops. How many successful countries are in that position?
Hmm: Number of workers on minimum wage has DOUBLED to 1 in 20 and that doesn't include all those on benefits, nor all those who are self-employed who are on low incomes, but aren't included in these figures.
> By not having the earned money confiscated they can afford more workers and more R&D which employs more people who then have more money to spend
"Confiscated"? Oh dear! Yes, they can afford more workers but they will probably only be paid the minimum wage. And what's the betting the R&D will be devoted to "how can I make more money with fewer people and less expenditure so I can make more profit".
> the lawyers and accountants are also consumers who spend and so cause other people in the wider economy to be employed
But there's a *limit* to the amount that people will spend as I've already pointed out, so more of that money will not be passing into general circulation, but squirreled away into investments which will then be used by banks and other institutions to make *themselves* more money in the financial markets...
> If the gov is so easily swayed to spend your money in such bad ways then it surely makes more sense not to suggest they take more.
Oh ye gods, codejunky, you don't get it do you? The argument is for a more *compentent* government, not one with idiots like Osborne at the helm who has borrowed *more* money than anyone else before and *still* failed to clear the deficit *despite* taking lots of money off the little people who can least afford to lose it!
> To try and frame us as uncaring is amusing but if you think about it frames you as the uncaring one
Oh I've thought about it and I've looked at history and I remember the words of George Satayana: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it", yet that's exactly what is happening now and what you seem happy to continue.
> low income workers are benefited far more by the low cost of goods produced by emerging markets than by higher cost goods produced locally. Is it really that hard to admit that capitalism benefits everyone involved?
You rather miss the point that the local low-income workers are probably now local non-workers because the money that they would have earned from the jobs they've lost is now going to other countries and to those with a lower cost of living, because capital is really only interested in ROI and doesn't give a damn about those who get screwed in the process.
So those local workers can buy cheap stuff made by others, but they're going to find it harder to earn more to be able to afford anything better. Is it that hard to understand this? "Geez"
> Marginal Propensity to Consume isn't really a concern when we're talking about an investor receiving dividends.
Yes it is, when we're talking about the benefits of labour not going to the workers who would actually *spend* the money!
> You obviously aren't a dummy, so why do you allow your ideology to cloud what is otherwise a very, very simply picture?
Because the picture is bigger than the one that you want to look at. Take off your ideological blinkers.
> Amazon and google pay what they must in tax.
Lol! The rich can afford to pay expensive lawyers and accountants to help them dodge paying tax. Do their workers benefit from this? Do they hell.
> The capitalists who took the risk and so should be allowed to fail were rewarded when things collapsed. It was the gov that did that
(Facepalm) And *WHO* do you think persuaded the governments to do that??? Us? Or their rich mates?
> Again, I think the sentiment is admirable, but making one group poorer doesn't make another group richer.
Riiiight... That's why Carnegie and Rockefeller and JP Morgan and so on were sooooo poor...
Never mind, you go on enjoying your Right Wing ideology, I'm sure you're alright and that's all that matters, isn't it?
> You really don't understand capitalism at all, do you?
On the contrary, I understand it all too well and I can also understand the flaws in your proposed outcomes:
1) Investments are not just national, but international, especially on the scale we're talking about. What benefit will someone on a low income in the West get if the money us used for currency speculation in the Far East? Or investment in Emerging Markets?
2) You don't seem to be familiar with Marginal Propensity to Consume. If someone on minimum wage gets an extra £100, they'll probably spend most of it. If someone at the top of the corporate ladder gets an extra £100 (or more) they're unlikely to spend it or, if they do, they will most likely spend it on goods that won't benefit those at the bottom of the ladder. And even if they did, how many flat screen TVs or Rolexes or Luxury cars do they need to buy?
3) See point 1)
4) Right, just like Amazon and Google and all the others are paying *sooo* much in taxes right now...
The fact is that the current system is more "trickle up" than "trickle down" and will stay that way until the big employers start paying their workers sufficient money that said workers can start spreading the money around at their level instead of it all going to boost Directors bonuses and shareholder dividends.
"...returning this money to shareholders will stimulate investment and thus benefit us all"
Oh, sure, because the Trickle Down principle worked so well in the past.
After all, the rich shareholders will go out and spend more money, won't they? It's not as if they'll just find other ways to invest it and benefit themselves whilst the minimum wagers get screwed again...
> Encryption isn't illegal
But that won't stop idiotic and ignorant politicians trying to "do something" about it to protect us from paedos and terrorists and drug dealers...
... you're having a wank in front of the television. Would you like to access the porn channels?
PS Remind me to change the combination on my luggage...
... from those guys who turn up at A&E having "accidentally fallen over whilst vacuuming in the nude"...
ITYM "Amazing physics fact: If you could accelerate continuously at 1g, it would only take you a year to get to light speed".
> Unauthorized copying is not theft!
Not when The State is doing it...
Nothing can go wrong... go wrong... go wrong...
... you'll be amazed at what happened next...
The problem with the "reasonable person" test is that those who are passing these laws very likely consider themselves to be the archetypal Reasonable Person, therefore it's obvious what is and isn't criminalised according to their law.
Unfortunately they don't seem to realise that not everyone else thinks exactly the same way as them, so many of us are left worrying that we're not "reasonable" according to their lights and thus are forced to self-censor just in case we might fall foul of another ill-defined and poorly thought out law.
Of course keeping the people scared and confused tends to benefit those in power...
> One of the requirements of the Data Protection Act is that personal data is used only for the purpose for which it was collected.
Yeah, but there's a lovely weaselly cop-out clause that adds an exception for "the prevention, detection or investigation of a crime".
... at least *someone* gets the point that it's not simply about how you can monetise our health information, but how and who should be allowed (or, more importantly, denied) access to the data!
Shows how long it is since I realised it was a con...
"... it means they can't check to find out that they've most likely not won a prize or, if they do, they win £10 on a bet that should pay off at 57:1"
/me clicks on Upvote button.
A little purple box from Ghostery appears saying:
> what if, over a decade, all social programs were phased out, all tax rates were lowered proportional by the amount spent on them, and replaced with mandatory donations to charities of the taxpayer's choosing in the same portion of income.
Some years ago a friend was working at the Neo-Natal unit in a hospital when they were contacted by a group who wanted to do a fund raising event for the Special Care Baby Unit.
Their response? "Please don't!"
Why? Because the rules of charity giving state that the donations can only be used for the specified purpose and cannot be spent on anything else.
The SCBU had money coming out of its ears, they had all the specialist equipment they could use, meanwhile other (not-so-special) departments were desperate for funds, but were screwed because of these rules.
Or another example I've literally just seen on the news: someone set up a facebook page for a pensioner who was mugged and was too scared to go back home and it's raised over £250,000! That's great for him, but what about everyone else?
Now imagine that writ large across the whole sphere of social programmes. Some people may get lucky, some programmes may get massive support, but the ones that aren't newsworthy, that don't get big headlines, that don't tug on the heartstrings of the donors may not get funded at all.
*That* is why we have the system we do, it may not be perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
Really? Looks like a Van Gogh to me...
> Royal Mail Special Delivery is specifically mentioned as a permissible transmission channel for everything up to Top Secret.
Which isn't as Special as you might think.
I sent a delivery of custom-made items to a long-time customer whom I know and trust. A little while later he contacted me saying that he hadn't received the items.
Checking with Royal Mail, they said "well they were signed for and the GPS location was at his address, so as far as we're concerned, he's got them" despite the fact that a) he lives alone and b) it wasn't his signature, nor was anyone else there or authorised to sign for them.
Their response "we asked the Postman and he said he'd delivered them, so that's that, screw you, you're not getting any compensation..."
Brilliant! You've gone straight from "we should use energy more efficiently" to "you're going to make the poor freeze to death" what a fantastic Straw Man!!
How about, instead, we ensure that all houses are properly insulated, so the heat that the poor (and everyone else) uses is kept *in* the house instead of leaking out through the walls, roofs etc? There are already schemes which will give discounted cavity wall and loft insulation, but they should be free for the least well off. That would let them both stay warm and save money *and* use less energy!
And whilst I'm sympathetic to a lot of the politicies of the Greens, I don't agree with their idea of getting rid of nuclear fission plants, however I *do* think we need to put a lot more money and effort into renewables etc until we achieve the long-term aim of getting fusion to work, but that is still a long way down the line.
> This is a big one. What, exactly, is the problem? Is it global warming?
No, it is, as I said at the start of my post, that we are using more and more energy and that rate of increase cannot keep on going because we will hit a limit at some point which is not sustainable.
So we need to find ways of reducing our consumption which do *NOT* result in people freezing to death, but which will, co-incidentally, result in reduced emissions, ie a win-win situation whatever the case.
Oh dear, here we go back around the Mulberry Bush with the same old same old...
However I prefer to avoid the whole silly, childish, sneering arguments entirely, so please let me explain my position, which I've stated in these Forums before:
I don't know whether we're causing Global Warming or not. What I *DO* know is that we are, as a planetary civilisation, using more and more energy and expanding that usage at a rate which will become unsustainable at some point in the future.
So what we *need* to do is to find better ways of using that energy which, to save the expected straw-man responses, doesn't have to involve everyone wearing thicker sweaters or living in yurts or being forced to walk or cycle everywhere etc etc, but can be done by building more efficient vehicles, putting more insulation into buildings and finding better ways to manufacture goods etc to mention just a few examples.
Once we start doing that, we will, also, incredibly, be producing fewer greenhouse gasses and so on, which means that we win either way.
Now, do you want to keep on with the "Tis!" "Tisn't!" "Tis so!" arguments, or actually do something about the problem?
>> Asking the public their views on climate change is fairly pointless.
> Actually, this is one of the most important aspects of the whole debate.
No, because it's like asking people what to do about benefit fraud when they've been been repeatedly primed with the "scrounger narrative" by millionaire politicians who want to divert attention away from the *billions* of pounds of lost tax revenue that their rich mates have dodged.
Your average Joe and Josephine Public have little idea about the arguments, potential causes and suggested solutions, so asking them is pointless and counter-productive.
Just had a thought:
We've had 1-2-1, O2 and Three, so if this is Four Play, how much higher will they go?
Yes, thank you for my coat...
> Note that it says "£1.53 per call and £1.53 per minute". How short can you make a call? Just connecting and hanging up will incur the "per call" charge.
Yes, if you connect and hang up one second later, you will be charged £1.53, but that's not the same as "the number concerned charged £1.53 per second".
... There's an App for that!
"...said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in announcing an out-of-court settlement between the watchdog and Brittain."
But not so illegal that you could actually push for any sort of conviction, so had to go for a weaselly plea-bargain which would allow you to declare victory without actually winning the case.
"... go to the settings page in the app, go to locations and then find the Place Tip switch to turn it off."
Then wait until FB decides to change its T&Cs (which you will have to agree to if you want to keep using it) to say that it has the right to unilaterally switch it back on again in a future update without needing to tell you...
The fact of the matter is that virtually any "idealised" system, be it pure capitalism, communism, free market, democracy, (true) anarchy (as in no government) or any other such thing would work fine and be wonderful if it wasn't for those annoyingly bloody-minded and irrational human being who simply *won't* behave in the right way to make it work!
Obviously the fault is with people, not the system...
Why did my mind interpret that as "Front Man"?
... those grapes tasting particularly sour today...?
Why isn't the title of this piece "Company that runs all dot-club domains trousers ridiculous amounts of money for domains that cost pennies"?
That's no moon...
"How can we flog off the NHS to Private Companies if all these inconsiderate plebs refuse to let us sell off their data so our mates can make big profits?"
"I know, we'll tell them that they won't get proper health cover unless they let us!"
The other considerations are the £100k it's going to cost to get that change made...
Well according to the song, it's Arizona (noon) ;-)
(And according to a quick search, it's near Forrest City AR)
"Breaker one-nine with a Smokey report. We got a bear running east on I-40, his twenty is about mile marker 243. Anybody out there copy, over?"
The Rubber Duck on the Citizens' Band Radio, from Convoy - 1978
My money is on the sort of all-or-nothing nonsense of "If you want to use this App, you have to approve its usage of everything on your phone" we get at the moment.
... the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation would have an answer we can all Share and Enjoy!
Well there is a Limiting Factor
I think your Irony Detector isn't working...
Well obviously the Security Services just need *MORE* snooping powers...
Possibly that's because the vast majority of new domains *are* redundant and are simply the result of defensive registrations by existing businesses such as eg mybusiness.com trying to make sure that nobody starts up eg mybusiness.co.uk or mybusiness.biz or whatever and either stealing their customers or saying "we'll sell you this domain name for £x,000 Squire".
There's also the question of why certain dot-domains cost more than others. Do they cost more to set up? Do they cost more to administer? Or is this just an excuse for the Registrars to screw more money out of people who want a certain dot-domain suffix? I'll give you three guesses...
... Lewis Page.
So you found what you were looking for, then...
Or, of course...
"To my Darling Candy;
"All characters portrayed within this book are Fictitious, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."
... the first hit is free, as the Dealers say...
Oh and as for "when you put one device down you can pick up another Windows device that you are signed in on and carry on where you left off", do you mean that you can't use your devices without being connected to WiFi/ Broadband and M$ snooping on everything you do?
"You look like you're browsing p0rn, would you like to buy some tissues...?"