• (cs) in reply to MrBester
    MrBester:
    IHasYerCheezburger:
    .PST files on the network. Now that's a WTF. Even according to Microsoft. Just go to Google, fill in "pst network" and click on "I feel lucky". You will see KB297019: "Personal folder files are unsupported over a LAN or over a WAN link"

    Skimming that article presents these possibilities to me:

    1. They want you to buy Exchange (which of course ought to be on its own box / VM) which also means domains and Active Directory shit which just doesn't get considered due to TCO for small businesses.

    That or their code is so crappy to not consider this possibility. If it is that critical, why the fuck don't they prevent it? At my last job, we created an email repository of potentially important messages using just this as the servers were backed up (yeah, don't get me started). No, I didn't go looking for their asinine technote to tell me whether it's a good idea or not. And, to make it more reliable, I created a mount point drive (B:). Obviously, I expected it to be slower over 100baseT vs a local hard drive. Duh. And yes, we didn't / weren't allowed to use expensive Exchange server space. Our dev box was perfect.

    No, we never had problems.

    MrBester:
    2. They want you to buy WTS instead to mitigate "bandwidth issues". That would have to be some big network before the bandwidth was low enough to be noticed. Even then, there's bound to be other things that are slowing the network down, like a mailserver with only a 10/100 card running in half-duplex.

    They want you to buy. Full stop.

    MrBester:
    3. If there is an ever increasing queue in NPP due to disk problems, then the problem is the disk, not accessing a file over the network. The blurb also implies that there is no timely removal of requests from NPP. Now there's a WTF. Oh, wait, no it isn't, it's a feature...

    Sounds to me that M$, in their typical fashion, coded everything to run on the sever. I don't see why a local PST file needs to be managed by the server and not the client.

  • (cs) in reply to Richard W.
    Richard W.:
    <snip> To me, those special corridor rules sound exactly the same - a way for the higher-ups to let you know that You Are Beneath Them, and They Own You.

    You know those shitty policies are going to be everywhere. <snip>

    A couple years ago I worked at a cargo transportation's IT dept., on their main building's 4th floor. There was an elevator that could take us employees to the 4th and topmost floor, but there was a "managers and visitors only" policy for its use.

    The fact that the building was exactly 4 floors high even though it was very wide, was in itself an indication on how cheap they were. By national (BR) laws, any higher than that and they would be enforced to have elevators for every employee. The real WTF is that they would even benefit from having a higher and narrower building because there would be more space for their trucks to move around at their parking area.

    But the even worse WTF was the fact that our floor had circa 140 people and not even a single bathroom! Every time you wanted to "hit the johns" you would get to take the stairs down to the 3rd floor where another 140 employees shared the bathrooms with us!

    Things added up and soon I left them with a big smile on my lips. I don't miss them even for a moment.

  • Gpa Hill (unregistered) in reply to pwe
    pwe:
    stfu:
    Anonymous:

    But hey, at least the treatment and drugs are completely free, eh? It's not so bad having a public health service (I know you yanks don't agree - after all, "socialised medicine" is the ultimate evil, right? Well, enjoy your health insurance...).

    what percentage of your income does the government take in taxes in order to pay for this "completely free" service?

    About as much as you give for bombs.

    Tho of course I appreciate the point you're making, don't be ridiculous: americans pay far far far more for guns and bombs and soldiers than for any form of health care, or any universal coverage of any kind whatsoever.

  • Stamina (unregistered)

    The real WTF is that a techy actually got laid...

  • (cs) in reply to Mark
    Mark:
    stfu:
    Anonymous:

    But hey, at least the treatment and drugs are completely free, eh? It's not so bad having a public health service (I know you yanks don't agree - after all, "socialised medicine" is the ultimate evil, right? Well, enjoy your health insurance...).

    what percentage of your income does the government take in taxes in order to pay for this "completely free" service?

    Ssssshhhhh!

    We don't ask those kinds of questions. When the Nanny State says it's free, it's free. Now bend over, the IRS is coming.

    How ironic that you should mention the IRS. Which is a *US* organisation.

    You see, YOU pay income tax TOO, but unlike us, you don't get anything back for it. Sounds to me like it's you getting the shaft, not us.

    What particularly amuses me is that you get less for your money than we do, yet somehow you've been brainwashed into being a cheerleader for your own ripping-off. How does that make sense? Oh, that's right! Because if you don't voluntarily connive in your own exploitation, you'll be called names like "commie" or "socialist" and you can't hack the peer-pressure! You'd rather pretend you enjoy being ripped off than stand up for your rights!

  • Peter (unregistered) in reply to Kuba

    Considering that I like to have my flight on the glideslope rather than below it, I have no problem keeping my phone off until I land, and I suggest everyone who feels the way I do about landings do likewise.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous Coward

    Actually, this is a WTF.

    Take the time to watch "The Business of Being Born" (available on Netflix) and see how many WTFs you can find.

    The biggest one is the cascade of events leading to C-sections:

    Labor is hard work lying down. It's far better to be on all fours. Thus, hospitals force a long and difficult labor on women.

    A long a difficult labor is eased by heavy painkillers. But this slows labor, and labor cannot take too long, because hospitals have a business to run, dammit, and you're taking up a bed.

    Bring on the epidural - paralysis medication. Which means the mother can no longer respond to contractions. Whoops. That leads to:

    Emergency C-section.

    If anyone has managed to have a natural birth in a U.S. hospital, I applaud you.

    So why don't women choose to see a midwife instead, if it's so great?

    Can't, because birth centers are required by law to have medical backup. But hospitals don't want to support birth centers because they a) don't make as much money from them, and b) doctors like to schedule births. Natural birth is unpredictable, and they might miss their game of golf. No, don't reach for the "reply" button: that's absolutely the reason.

    Hence, midwives don't get the medical support they need, so birth centers have to close.

    Oh, and you can thank Democrat John Edwards for criminalizing breech births, making a C-section mandatory in most states. Thanks, chump.

    And I bet Ray's son is on the cow milk formula. WTF? Cow milk is for cows. Human milk is for humans.

    Another WTF? The fact you can elect, with no medical reason, to schedule a major medical intervention to prevent a natural birth from happening.

    In this environment of actively turning a natural and wonderful event into a major medical emergency, there's no wonder Ray's boss was such a twerp.

    Addendum (2008-12-11 15:30): Bitter? You bet I am.

    In the UK, I would have paid less in health insurance contributions.

    In the UK, I would not have had to pay about $20k for "uninsured costs".

    In the UK, we would have been able to have a breech birth.

    In the UK, when the hospital administration lied to us about uninsured costs and just plain didn't declare costs, I would have had legal recourse.

    If the UK's so great, why wasn't I there? Because I was lied to about US health insurance, that, so long as you have a job, you're covered. Everything's paid for.

    BS. The insurance companies only lower the costs, then pay a percentage of each item. They say "We cover 80%", but the footnote is that they only pay 80% of the items they choose.

    But as others have said, socialized health care has been demonized here. Dammit, this is socialist health care, because every job is done by four or five different people -- "demarcation", we call it. And just like the unions have ruined Detroit, medical insurance companies have ruined health care.

    Socialism is alive and well in the US.

  • (cs) in reply to Dan
    Dan:
    Bob:
    operagost:
    I think it's so awesome how your Parliament pays for the subjects' health care out of their own pockets. I wonder where they get all the money! Oh wait... maybe it's really your money!
    What evil bastards!

    Why can't they learn to be good capitalists? Then they'ld only need to take taxpayer's money and hand it over to CEOs as a reward for successfully running their business to the point where a noble and beautiful capitalist bailout is, apparantly, necessary.

    I <3 capitalisim! Down with evil socialists!

    Way to stick it to those capitalists!

    Oh wait... Having the government pull the money you earned out of your pocket to give to someone they deem more deserving, ie CEOs or the "less fortunate", is socialism, not capitalism. Oops, looks like we're not capitalists after all!

    What a bunch of ignorant crap.

    Capitalism: an economic system in which capital goods are operated and traded chiefly by private individuals or corporations for the purpose of profit. Socialism: a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production.

    Neither of those innately implies any particular modes of taxation or distribution of tax receipts. However, in the capitalist system, untold billions of YOUR taxes go every year to what is referred to as "pork": governmental spending at vastly inflated rates of profit for the purpose of putting large amounts of that public money into the pockets of already-immensely-wealthy private individuals. Under a socialist system, there would be no such thing as a "CEO" to give the money to in the first place, but we in the EU actually live in capitalist economies, despite our socialised health-care systems; nonetheless, the NHS does not have any CEO nor shareholders to take money out of the system; the taxes go on paying doctors and nurses' wages and buying medicine and bandages.

    Your attempt to portray giving welfare to the starving as equivalent to handing over wealth to the already rich and privileged (through the phrase "more deserving, ie CEOs or the 'less fortunate'" reveals the moral bankruptcy of your position. To anyone not completely in hock to the "greed is good" philosophy, one of those is clearly a worthy use of taxation, the other an abuse of power.

    Dan:
    Oh, and maybe UK's lower spending accounts for infestations and maternity trouble...
    Is your counterpoint that all hospitals in the US are perfect?
    Dan:
    Socialized medicine: Health care with postal efficiency and IRS compassion
    Anecdotal evidence: The pathway to false conclusions and the conflation of correlation with causality.
  • (cs) in reply to Asiago Chow
    Asiago Chow:
    If any other identifiable group (race, religion, whatever) made up 10% of the population but was required to contribute 70%... if 70% of our military deaths were born by one minority group... there would be an outcry from every corner. Imagine the results if a law said that black people had to serve in the military because they make better soldiers. Yet forcing 1% of the population to pay 40% of the taxes because they are better at making money is okie-dokie. I wonder how history will judge that. Sort of like slavery I think.
    Except that it's not like that. Being rich isn't a race, or gender, or other innate property of the way you were born. The group is defined not by who they are, but by what they have, and those who have way more than the rest should contribute way more than the rest. Your attempt to equate being required to pull your weight in society with slavery amounts to nothing more than "Waaah! I want it all"-style spoilt-bratism.
  • pecus (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that every new parent thinks that everybody on the internet, across the country, and everywhere else wants to see their hideous little bastard spawn drooling all over itself. Keep the kid to yourselves until its old enough to talk.

  • Richard W. (unregistered) in reply to pecus
    pecus:
    TRWTF is that every new parent thinks that everybody on the internet, across the country, and everywhere else wants to see their hideous little bastard spawn drooling all over itself. Keep the kid to yourselves until its old enough to talk.

    Even then, keep it to yourself anyway, just to be on the safe side.

  • (cs) in reply to Lutikka
    Lutikka:
    I had to come work to reboot a server 2 hours after my daughter was born dead in 2005.

    Do I win something?

    I'm sorry for your loss.

    My daughter was born OK in 2004 in the U.S., but on the same day a server I administered remotely in Poland decided to die. Die as in the switching power supply developing a serious overvoltage on all output lines.

    The only "backups" were the two RAIDed drives which went to the data recovery company. We got most of the data back. No, I wasn't in charge of setting up backup policies ;)

    I did have to scramble soon after we came back from the hospital and figure how to restore the domain name services and the web presence. I guess it pays to design a website such that it'd be fully preserved on thewaybackmachine -- that's where I got my "backups" from at first :)

  • (cs) in reply to rfsmit
    rfsmit:
    Actually, this is a WTF.

    Take the time to watch "The Business of Being Born" (available on Netflix) and see how many WTFs you can find.

    The biggest one is the cascade of events leading to C-sections:

    Labor is hard work lying down. It's far better to be on all fours. Thus, hospitals force a long and difficult labor on women.

    A long a difficult labor is eased by heavy painkillers. But this slows labor, and labor cannot take too long, because hospitals have a business to run, dammit, and you're taking up a bed.

    Bring on the epidural - paralysis medication. Which means the mother can no longer respond to contractions. Whoops. That leads to:

    Emergency C-section.

    If anyone has managed to have a natural birth in a U.S. hospital, I applaud you.

    With my wife we took a pragmatic approach: a scheduled C-section by choice. Easy. Even though our happened-to-be-Jewish ob-gyn wasn't, um, enthusiastic about it -- till he learned we'd name our daughter, coincidentially, the same as his wife :)

    Imagine you have a building to raze. You can wait for it to deteriorate and collapse on its own, potentially sideways and knocking half the block over. You can also set up a demolition on a known date and know it's going down and not sideways.

  • Will (unregistered)

    Wow, that's incredible. I mean, my boss is an ass, and I'm sometimes an ass to my employees, but as soon as someone says "my wife is currently in labor" all bets are off.

    Hell, expecting me to work the day after my wisdom tooth extraction is enough to make my blood boil. Glad you found a better job, hope that boss is still looking for someone to fix his mail server.

  • Anonymous (unregistered)
    Asiago Chow:
    <snip>
    God damn, Asian trolls are like some sort of turbo charged juggernaut of flame-bait aren't they? This guy is the bona-fide troll master!. TopCod3r may be the king of IT flame-bait but this guy drums it up from almost everything our society holds dear. All hail the Asian Troll Master!
  • (cs) in reply to Kuba
    Kuba:
    Imagine you have a building to raze. You can wait for it to deteriorate and collapse on its own, potentially sideways and knocking half the block over. You can also set up a demolition on a known date and know it's going down and not sideways.

    But similarly... all things die.

    So when a child is born, you can leave it to be uncertain when it will die, possibly slowly and painfully, or you could schedule a date at some point in the future when you will end it's life.

  • Baby (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    You're sick.

  • Dirk Diggler (unregistered) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    Asiago Chow:
    If any other identifiable group (race, religion, whatever) made up 10% of the population but was required to contribute 70%... if 70% of our military deaths were born by one minority group... there would be an outcry from every corner. Imagine the results if a law said that black people had to serve in the military because they make better soldiers. Yet forcing 1% of the population to pay 40% of the taxes because they are better at making money is okie-dokie. I wonder how history will judge that. Sort of like slavery I think.
    Except that it's not like that. Being rich isn't a race, or gender, or other innate property of the way you were born. The group is defined not by who they are, but by what they have, and those who have way more than the rest should contribute way more than the rest. Your attempt to equate being required to pull your weight in society with slavery amounts to nothing more than "Waaah! I want it all"-style spoilt-bratism.
    It comes down to whether we believe that individuals have a right to property and whether it is just for the collective to confiscate that property, even if it's for the common good.
  • (cs) in reply to rfsmit
    rfsmit:
    Actually, this is a WTF.

    Take the time to watch "The Business of Being Born" (available on Netflix) and see how many WTFs you can find.

    The biggest one is the cascade of events leading to C-sections:

    Labor is hard work lying down. It's far better to be on all fours. Thus, hospitals force a long and difficult labor on women.

    A long a difficult labor is eased by heavy painkillers. But this slows labor, and labor cannot take too long, because hospitals have a business to run, dammit, and you're taking up a bed.

    Bring on the epidural - paralysis medication. Which means the mother can no longer respond to contractions. Whoops. That leads to:

    Emergency C-section.

    If anyone has managed to have a natural birth in a U.S. hospital, I applaud you.

    So why don't women choose to see a midwife instead, if it's so great?

    Can't, because birth centers are required by law to have medical backup. But hospitals don't want to support birth centers because they a) don't make as much money from them, and b) doctors like to schedule births. Natural birth is unpredictable, and they might miss their game of golf. No, don't reach for the "reply" button: that's absolutely the reason.

    Hence, midwives don't get the medical support they need, so birth centers have to close.

    Oh, and you can thank Democrat John Edwards for criminalizing breech births, making a C-section mandatory in most states. Thanks, chump.

    And I bet Ray's son is on the cow milk formula. WTF? Cow milk is for cows. Human milk is for humans.

    Another WTF? The fact you can elect, with no medical reason, to schedule a major medical intervention to prevent a natural birth from happening.

    In this environment of actively turning a natural and wonderful event into a major medical emergency, there's no wonder Ray's boss was such a twerp.

    Addendum (2008-12-11 15:30): Bitter? You bet I am.

    In the UK, I would have paid less in health insurance contributions.

    In the UK, I would not have had to pay about $20k for "uninsured costs".

    In the UK, we would have been able to have a breech birth.

    In the UK, when the hospital administration lied to us about uninsured costs and just plain didn't declare costs, I would have had legal recourse.

    If the UK's so great, why wasn't I there? Because I was lied to about US health insurance, that, so long as you have a job, you're covered. Everything's paid for.

    BS. The insurance companies only lower the costs, then pay a percentage of each item. They say "We cover 80%", but the footnote is that they only pay 80% of the items they choose.

    But as others have said, socialized health care has been demonized here. Dammit, this is socialist health care, because every job is done by four or five different people -- "demarcation", we call it. And just like the unions have ruined Detroit, medical insurance companies have ruined health care.

    Socialism is alive and well in the US.

    Actually, we did use a midwife at a freestanding birth center that was near a hospital. There was meconium (fetal poop) in the amniotic fluid, so we had to go to the hospital due to the higher risk of infection for the baby. My wife labored for 12 hours before she got the epidural. We're pretty sure that the epidural brought on the lowered heart rate of our son, and thus the "need" for a c-section.

    We have watched the Business of Being Born, and it was quite insightful. It's so hard to stick to your birth plan (no drugs, etc.) in a hospital setting like that. We attempted having our second son at home with a midwife (we live a few blocks from the hospital) and after 24 hours of labor, without pain killers, my wife was exhausted and decided to go to the hospital. After another 12 hours of labor we decided to have a c-section. I'm really proud of her, even though things didn't go the way we planned.

    Oh, and we breastfed with both of our kids. There were a few times when we supplemented with formula, but that was very rare.

    PS. I agree with a lot of what you said. I grew up in a very conservative part of the nation, but I've since come to realize that medical care is a right rather than a privilege.

  • yooheath (unregistered) in reply to Claxon
    Claxon:
    But similarly... all things die.

    So when a child is born, you can leave it to be uncertain when it will die, possibly slowly and painfully, or you could schedule a date at some point in the future when you will end it's life.

    They need to do way instain mother who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a mother in ar who had kill her three kids . they are taking the three babby back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his chrilden ; i am truley sorry for your lots

  • Dr_Barnowl (unregistered) in reply to Dirk Diggler
    It comes down to whether we believe that individuals have a right to property and whether it is just for the collective to confiscate that property, even if it's for the common good.
    Or for the corporate purse, or the CEOs purse, which is where a lot of the property ends up.

    Here's the thing - the top 1% of the population of the US own between 40% and 50% of the wealth. You're not seriously suggesting that that 1% collectively worked their asses off so hard that they produced the same amount of wealth as the bottom 95%? I mean, hot-damn, that's some productivity. Imagine the enormous leaps forward in civilisation you could have from studying their methods.

    Oh wait, do you think they might have benefitted somewhat from the labours of those "beneath" them?

    Having the power to create and maintain a system that ensures that wealth collects at the top, instead of with those who actually do the work to produce it, doesn't constitute a natural born right to that wealth.

    Yes, the ability to manage, direct and channel the labours of others has value - without these people, Western society would be a lot worse off. No, it does not justify such a disparity in income. These people should rejoice that they can participate in the prosperity of their culture, and accept their just rewards.

  • PC Paul (unregistered) in reply to IHasYerCheezburger
    IHasYerCheezburger:
    Mark:
    That's your mistake right there. At a friend's company, they declare as policy that there are to be no local files. Everything is on the network. So if you are using .PST files stored locally on the machine, that's your fault for not backing them up. Works to IT's advantage.
    .PST files on the network. Now that's a WTF. Even according to Microsoft. Just go to Google, fill in "pst network" and click on "I feel lucky". You will see KB297019: "Personal folder files are unsupported over a LAN or over a WAN link"

    Yes, but... even compiling with Visual Studio across a network is unsupported by Microsoft. Is there any non-noddy development company anywhere that doesn't do that?

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to PC Paul
    PC Paul:
    Yes, but... even compiling with Visual Studio across a network is unsupported by Microsoft. Is there any non-noddy development company anywhere that doesn't do that?

    Why would you ever do that? Seriously, what's wrong with source control?

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to yooheath
    yooheath:
    They need to do way instain mother who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a mother in ar who had kill her three kids . they are taking the three babby back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his chrilden ; i am truley sorry for your lots

    dude, what?

  • umm... (unregistered) in reply to Richard W.
    Richard W.:
    Asiago Chow:
    Richard W.:
    Again, it is simply an application of very basic economic theory. The purpose of tax is to raise revenue. It is pointless to tax people who will not contribute in any significant way to raising that revenue. This is the only reason why the rich are taxed more than the poor.

    I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

    The question is, do you have a right to target select individuals just because it works? Do we have a right to force native americans to be soldiers because they are good at it? To force muslims to undergo extra tax audits because they may be funding terrorists through their mosques? To force unmarried women to have implanted contraceptives because it reduces unplanned pregnancies and lowers the burden on the state?

    Or are there human rights?

    There is a glaring difference between rich people being taxed and the examples you have given. Every example you've given involves someone being physically coerced into to do something which in most causes is against their best interests as human beings. These are completely irrelevant to what we are discussing.

    Rich people are not "forced" to be rich people, or "forced" to earn high incomes. They can quit their jobs if they are unsatisfied with their lot in life. They can go and work in McDonalds and pay as little tax as they like (actually, most of them just hire a team of accountants to minimise their tax as much as possible).

    Furthermore, rich people live extremely comfortable lives. Yes, CEOs and the like typically work extremely hard, and I'm not suggesting that at least some of them aren't worth what they are paid. However, comparing these people to slaves is ridiculous and insulting. You probably should read up a bit about what it was like to be a real slave. Real slaves never had million dollar homes, frequent plane trips all over the world, a lexus, the best food and drink available, and hot trophy wives.

    I've given you the benefit of the doubt but I'm still undecided as to whether or not you are just trolling. Either way, your judgement is awry.

    That's really kind of cute the way you try to end the debate without actually winning it. But we're logicians here, are we not? If so, why do you insist on using faulty logic and strawman tactics?

    First, you started off by telling us all about how the state needs to raise revenue, and so they have to get it from those who have it (paraphrasing). Notice that you conveniently skipped over the part where you justify the state's right to collect it by means of force in the first place. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to diminish that this is the operating principle - failure to comply is ultimately punishable by death; just ask anyone who went down defending their property against the state (oh, that's right, you can't ask them, now can you).

    AC then tries to call you out on this, but you are totally oblivious to the principles he's alluding to, and so you go off on some rant about rich people, and how nobody is forcing them to be rich, and how he should get educated about what it's like to be a 'real' slave. But here again, you use words very carelessly. Slavery is: involuntary servitude; and you have absolutely no gripe with that.

    Interestingly, your anti-rich-guy premise implies a basic lack of self-worth on your part, i.e. you have a complete us vs. them attitude, which suggests that you believe you will never be rich yourself. And that itself says alot.

    At the end of the day, what you support can be summed up very simply: you condone the killing of innocent poeple (preferably rich, on utilitarian grounds), in order that the state coffers remain flush; a goal which you accept as self-justifying. Layer this in as many 'for-the-common-good' arguments as you wish, but that is the basis of what you support.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to umm...
    umm...:
    That's really kind of cute the way you try to end the debate without actually winning it. But we're logicians here, are we not? If so, why do you insist on using faulty logic and strawman tactics?

    First, you started off by telling us all about how the state needs to raise revenue, and so they have to get it from those who have it (paraphrasing). Notice that you conveniently skipped over the part where you justify the state's right to collect it by means of force in the first place. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to diminish that this is the operating principle - failure to comply is ultimately punishable by death; just ask anyone who went down defending their property against the state (oh, that's right, you can't ask them, now can you).

    AC then tries to call you out on this, but you are totally oblivious to the principles he's alluding to, and so you go off on some rant about rich people, and how nobody is forcing them to be rich, and how he should get educated about what it's like to be a 'real' slave. But here again, you use words very carelessly. Slavery is: involuntary servitude; and you have absolutely no gripe with that.

    Interestingly, your anti-rich-guy premise implies a basic lack of self-worth on your part, i.e. you have a complete us vs. them attitude, which suggests that you believe you will never be rich yourself. And that itself says alot.

    At the end of the day, what you support can be summed up very simply: you condone the killing of innocent poeple (preferably rich, on utilitarian grounds), in order that the state coffers remain flush; a goal which you accept as self-justifying. Layer this in as many 'for-the-common-good' arguments as you wish, but that is the basis of what you support.

    The state needs to raise revenue for its various institutions (health, education, defense, civil order, etc). If you want to argue the state's right to collect money, then I will argue your right to enjoy the protections of society - that money you made didn't just show up, and without a social framework, you wouldn't have it. There wouldn't even be money. So, by living in society, you are obligated in some way to support it. You don't have the option to GTFO, but hey, life isn't fair.

    The anti rich guy thing isn't a lack of self worth, it's being realistic; you probably won't get rich if you aren't already. It isn't reasonable to plan your life around something that's unlikely, so don't.

    Your rant about strawmen is hilarious when pair with you claiming that Dick advocates the killing of innocents for their money. You sort of take for granted that rich people have the right to not pay taxes, which is unsupported. It's the sort of thing I expect from the batshit wing of the libertarian party.

  • edenist (unregistered) in reply to operagost
    operagost:
    I think it's so awesome how your Parliament pays for the subjects' health care out of their own pockets. I wonder where they get all the money! Oh wait... maybe it's really your money!
    In light of the current bailout by the US Govt of Fortune 500 companies, I don't think anyone in the US can throw stones at any other country's fiscal policies... :-)

    Mind you, I'm saying this from Oz where we just spend nearly 4.8 billion giving money to pensioners and families to "reinvigorate" the economy. My opinon is that if the Govt is going to throw money away anyway, I'd rather it go to health and welfare rather than millionaires.

    Troll troll troll...

  • (cs) in reply to Leo
    Leo:
    Jamie:
    hehe

    no idea about the issues with mobile phones in hosptials, but the one that really bugs is me is having to turn your phone off on a plane

    surely Al Queada etc would have managed to take down a plane by now if it was at all possible

    The bigger issue is that if you are on a plane and start babbling loudly into your cell phone, the other passengers will break a window and throw you out.

    /Agree

    Imagine having several morons talking loud in a cell phone while you are trying to catch some sleep, it is hard as it is to sleep in a plane.

  • umm... (unregistered) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    The state needs to raise revenue for its various institutions (health, education, defense, civil order, etc). If you want to argue the state's right to collect money, then I will argue your right to enjoy the protections of society - that money you made didn't just show up, and without a social framework, you wouldn't have it. There wouldn't even be money. So, by living in society, you are obligated in some way to support it. You don't have the option to GTFO, but hey, life isn't fair.

    The anti rich guy thing isn't a lack of self worth, it's being realistic; you probably won't get rich if you aren't already. It isn't reasonable to plan your life around something that's unlikely, so don't.

    Your rant about strawmen is hilarious when pair with you claiming that Dick advocates the killing of innocents for their money. You sort of take for granted that rich people have the right to not pay taxes, which is unsupported. It's the sort of thing I expect from the batshit wing of the libertarian party.

    You rely on several implicit assumptions:

    a. that the state should exist b. that the state should operate some number of institutions c. that it would be impossible to have a currency without the state d. that it is just for the state to initiate aggression any way it sees fit

    For each of these, you provide no rationale. So your argument seems to be that any existing reality is worth defending, simply on the basis that it exists. If everyone thought this way, we would still live under kings and popes; and you would be here arguing to keep it that way.

    Also, dismissing a position as 'hilarious' is not really the same as refuting it. What I said still stands - it may be uncomfortable for you to contemplate, but it is true. I cannot comment much at all on your 'right to not pay taxes' concept, since you rely here on even more assumptions:

    e. that your obligation to the state simply exists f. that the state holds the ability to arbitrarily grant 'rights'

    As such, we are back to your unquestioning worship of the state. I'm obviously wasting my time here though; reality is, and I should just let you enjoy your mindless serfdom.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to umm...
    umm...:
    Franz Kafka:
    The state needs to raise revenue for its various institutions (health, education, defense, civil order, etc). If you want to argue the state's right to collect money, then I will argue your right to enjoy the protections of society - that money you made didn't just show up, and without a social framework, you wouldn't have it. There wouldn't even be money. So, by living in society, you are obligated in some way to support it. You don't have the option to GTFO, but hey, life isn't fair.

    The anti rich guy thing isn't a lack of self worth, it's being realistic; you probably won't get rich if you aren't already. It isn't reasonable to plan your life around something that's unlikely, so don't.

    Your rant about strawmen is hilarious when pair with you claiming that Dick advocates the killing of innocents for their money. You sort of take for granted that rich people have the right to not pay taxes, which is unsupported. It's the sort of thing I expect from the batshit wing of the libertarian party.

    You rely on several implicit assumptions:

    a. that the state should exist b. that the state should operate some number of institutions c. that it would be impossible to have a currency without the state d. that it is just for the state to initiate aggression any way it sees fit

    For each of these, you provide no rationale. So your argument seems to be that any existing reality is worth defending, simply on the basis that it exists. If everyone thought this way, we would still live under kings and popes; and you would be here arguing to keep it that way.

    Also, dismissing a position as 'hilarious' is not really the same as refuting it. What I said still stands - it may be uncomfortable for you to contemplate, but it is true. I cannot comment much at all on your 'right to not pay taxes' concept, since you rely here on even more assumptions:

    e. that your obligation to the state simply exists f. that the state holds the ability to arbitrarily grant 'rights'

    As such, we are back to your unquestioning worship of the state. I'm obviously wasting my time here though; reality is, and I should just let you enjoy your mindless serfdom.

    Your rant is hilarious because you built a strawman yourself. I have no need to refute those.

    a. the state always exists. You can't get away from it, so may as well make it a good one.

    b. if you don't operate most of those institutions, the state will be taken over by another one.

    c. private currency has been tried. state currency works better and, besides, isn't something you're likely to change in your lifetime.

    d. if the state isn't able to enforce taxation, how do you expect it to exist?

    You seem to labor under the delusion that anarchy is anything more than transitory.

    So your argument seems to be that any existing reality is worth defending, simply on the basis that it exists.

    Hey look, another strawman. Moron.

    e. you are obligated to pay taxes because you live in a society and we as a whole decided to fund these things through taxes.

    f. says who? the state is obligated to recognize certain rights and is nominally limited to the powers granted it. Maybe if people like you focused on keeping the state properly shackled instead of entertaining pipe dreams about a stateless society, we'd be in better shape.

  • H. Vespucci (unregistered)

    I find this quite the double sided WTF. Actually, i think that if the employer would have submitted his version of this tale, he could have successfully pushed the employee, and not him in the fools role. Don't get me wrong, the employer is quite the moron, but still...

    1) Taking a new job offer with your wife being in end stage pregnancy, and life already incredibly hectic? It simply does not make sense. 2) Starting at that employer, and at the same time insisting on two weeks vacation before you even started/just started? 3) If i understood this correctly, the call for the hospital visit was only just before the trip to the hospital. I would not be surprised if my own boss would be less then charmed with me, if he would find out his mail server was down, with no one around to fix it. Especially not if he would not have been given the at least the possibility to find a replacement for me in advance.

    All in all, i agree that the seems boss to be one of the managers you would never want to have. But still... from his viewpoint it would probably sum up as: Guy quiting his job at one of the worst times because its pays better, then not showing for hours when one of the important systems is down , followed by a two week vacation just after the job started, before coming back and asking me to PAY for his fun time? And this all while he only just started working here? Its quite obvious where the conclusion of "money grubbing kid" comes from.

    And all in all, seeing that after that, you went back to your old employer, but not without first getting a higher salary, i have a hard time disagreeing with his conclusion. That, and i honestly doubt that the ridiculous door policy is a real factor in this.

  • prozacula (unregistered)

    I had a similar experience. I had just sent out a company-wide email 30 minutes after the birth of my child, announcing the successful work of my wife in delivering a new boy. Literally, within 5 minutes, I received a response to my birth announcement from a completely stupid coworker. Without even asking how it went or congratulating me, she asked when I was going to fix her grid servers for her.

    I told her my wife was STILL BLEEDING, and that she would have to wait until I felt like it.

  • prozacula (unregistered) in reply to Franz Kafka

    you must be a libertarian.

    idiots like you always rant about keeping the state properly shackled, etc.

    you are one step away from anarchy with your ideas. anarchy for everyone except you, of course.

    you don't seem to mind trash collection or wastewater services. or would you leave that up to unregulated businesses?

  • (nodebb)

    thanks fo info

    Addendum 2024-07-28 22:56: If you're seeking infertility treatment, I can’t recommend the Next Generation Clinic enough. They provide various treatment options and have an incredibly supportive and knowledgeable team. The clinic uses advanced technology to offer the best care possible. For more information on their infertility treatment services, check out this link: https://ngc.clinic/en/our-services-en/infertility-treatment . We had a great experience with them.

Leave a comment on “Bringing Up Baby”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article