To help draw the solder into the braid.
90 posts • joined 9 Jun 2009
Seemingly programmers have a high chance of being automated. Apparently no body bothered paying enough attention to programmers to realise that's what their job is - hence compilers, libraries, etc.
If it ever gets to the point where humans are no longer required in that process, then humanity's probably boned.
The one about having already paid for European tolls - classic Clarkson, from likely over a decade ago.
That said, since you're a tax dodger, you haven't *actually* paid though, have you?
Have you always planned to rely on the charity of others to prevent your Libertarian utopia from falling into dystopian anarchy?
Others have pointed out that's not enough money to replace welfare. Much of that money is spent on rubbish like donkey sanctuaries and other similarly thinly veiled cons, so it's not even equivalent. To add insult to injury, charities are exceptionally inefficient, so the overall cost to society for the same quality of life will be even greater.
Never mind the fact that without safety nets, people will have to weave their own. With employment rights thrown out the window, they'll by necessity have to be even stronger and more comprehensive. Instead of giving money to charity, they'll start stockpiling it against the bad times.
People never think it through - as well as fluffy happy commie reasons for benefits, there are plenty of good *right wing* reasons to maintain the benefits system. Would you want to work with benefit scroungers? Do you want them stealing your TV? Do you want to pay even more to put them in prison? Do you want them dying in the street from diseases they can't afford to treat, causing a massive public health hazard? Benefits are a really cheap way of keeping them in their place.
Even if we come down to libertarianism, the argument's flawed. How can there be the honest promotion charity really be born out of a doctrine that can be summed up as "Wahwahwah! I'm a selfish bugger and don't want to pay my taxes!"?
There's the standard libertarian fallacy here - that people are nice, charitable, etc.
Paid holiday won't be replaced by negotiation, because the individuals will have no bargaining power. We live in the era of zero hour contracts - people will be given the choice of working every hour the employer wants, or being replaced by another unit of interchangeable exploitable schmuck. Only those with unique, irreplaceable talents will have any flexibility in the resultant system.
It's the same problem with removing welfare: the reality is that it won't be replaced by charity, because the vast majority of people are selfish jerks. They'd much rather watch someone die in a gutter than give up a few precious pennies. It's not like this is hypothetical - welfare was born out of such an arrangement, as a solution to the problem.
I regularly turn up to work in a rainbow tie dye dress, neon accessories, and a bright pink mohawk, but I'd still go to interview dressed smartly, with a bunch of piercings removed, regardless of whether it says casual is OK for interview.
It's about focussing attention on my skills, and what I'm saying, *not* my visual presentation.
Simply Yes :P
Publicly owned infrastructure, then service providers can charge to provide end points for IP, telephones, subscription TV, etc. over it. FTA radio and TV can just be another high level service, delivered by multicast. That way everyone gets the same types of stuff as they do now, but with a better service, and we don't have all this nonsense with multiple masts, spectrum allocations, and notspots.
Re: reducing energy consumption
If you're going to give up comfort, why bother to live at all? What really is the point? Why bother to breed, for that matter - all you'd be doing is condemning another soul to a life of misery, a grossly selfish and wicked act just to satiate your animal instincts.
Or we could ignore retards, spark up a few nuclear plants, and everyone could live in luxury.
I know which sounds more tempting to me.
An ignorant rant - reminded me of A-level computing: grossly out of date, irrelevant, and unwilling to update.
The author didn't know whether modern processor had all these stone age memory management techniques? Here's an idea - use the internet, and look it up! Of course they've got all that gubbins, it's just malicious hackers are a good deal sneakier than the friendly people who might attack a 60s mainframe.
Re: On sapphire...
Blendtec blades are actually dull already - they combine high power, high speed to bludgeon the contents to itty-bitty pieces. Looking at one of their jugs, it breaks pretty much every rule of blender design, but still induces a head-slapping "why wasn't this obvious?!" response.
Re: I'll stick with sh & vi, thank you.
It's probably something to do with how both vi and emacs are old, unpleasant, user hostile programs used as a masochistic rites of passage by wannabe UNIX nerds.
If I need to prove how big my cock is, I'll get it out of the night stand and bludgeon you round the head with it. For everything else, I'll use sublime text and actually get some work done.