Anger Thread!

[BlutAusNerd]

Sounds like my last job at Industrial Supply. I got a small hourly raise to take on 4X the responsibility and workload, so I said to hell with it. Basically the same thing has happened where I am now, but the benefits are better and I have more freedom, and I'm making more money overall.

[Scullicon]

Sounds like my last job at Industrial Supply. I got a small hourly raise to take on 4X the responsibility and workload' date=' so I said to hell with it. Basically the same thing has happened where I am now, but the benefits are better and I have more freedom, and I'm making more money overall.[/quote'] Well the big problem is that there is no jobs, I wouldnt be at this place otherwise. and im already workning part time, 67.5%... Maybe one should go up north and work in a mine, they always need more people it seems.

[Idlewilde]

don't worry there'll be a time in the future when you'll listen to whatever you want:) But then you'll miss your family, I suppose.

[satan 59]

If the west is so bad why don't all those fuckwit muslim fundamentalist fuck off back to those great muslim countries.

[RelentlessOblivion]

I hate almost everything

[Iceni]

I hate almost everything

If the west is so bad why don't all those fuckwit muslim fundamentalist fuck off back to those great muslim countries.

Because they'd get killed by their own corrupt leaders, who have no respect for their lives...unlike Western nations which are beholden to give a fair trial. Not that said nations aren't trying their darndest to circumvent those laws, especially in the US. More to the point, these fundamentalists are likely to be dependency theorists and therefore will have been trained to claim that all of their problems are caused by the West. Statements like these are why metalheads are castigated as scary and unpleasant outcasts who need to be controlled at all costs. I understand the context but these are very easily misunderstood by those who don't and therefore such statements are also easily abused; the shock value helps to legitimize hate speech laws that restrict one of man's most important liberties.

[RelentlessOblivion]

smileys, always the smileys, why do I never remember to put in those damn things? more to the point: Why is it that man's imagination and creativity only reaches it's fullest when designing machines of war? If we put half the amount of creativity and funding into designing ways to heal the sick and engineer food we'd have ended starvation, cured cancer, cured HIV/AIDS and come up with a cheap alternate to fossil fuels by now. It's truly sad that man's lust for war overshadows such noble causes.

[Idlewilde]

I'm furious Troubles about having a job that was outsourced....People from the main branch in France sometimes tend to treat you as inferiour and make it in a way that whatever whenever something screws up it's your fault. Even if you told them there's an issue and they need to do what's needed from their side. So to make this happen they wrote some loooooong instructions how to do a simple thing we do in a way that whatever screws up it's our fault&responsability. I dunno if you get it. With my boss we wrote a long e-mail with quite a serious tone that it's a no-go and that when they make a mistake they should fix the issue in their team. I hope it'll end up well for us...

[Iceni]

smileys, always the smileys, why do I never remember to put in those damn things? more to the point: Why is it that man's imagination and creativity only reaches it's fullest when designing machines of war? If we put half the amount of creativity and funding into designing ways to heal the sick and engineer food we'd have ended starvation, cured cancer, cured HIV/AIDS and come up with a cheap alternate to fossil fuels by now. It's truly sad that man's lust for war overshadows such noble causes.

If it were less challenging I don't doubt we'd have made more progress. However, the simple fact is that destruction is easier to do than building. It's got nothing to do with right or wrong, it's just that creating disorder is easier than building order. It's easier to throw a nation into chaos than it is to build one from scratch. That said, to assume that 'man' simply 'isn't trying hard enough' in those other fields is not only a prediction that cannot bear scrutiny, but both the prediction and the claim seem pretty insulting to anyone who is working in the medical or indeed the political arena to engineer such solutions. By the by, there are personnel working at the Los Alamos National Lab where I live who are actually working on a cure for AIDS, in cooperation with the University of Pennsylvania. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130401132056.htm http://news.pennmedicine.org/blog/2013/03/defining-the-traits-of-transmitted-hiv-1-to-make-better-vaccines.html This lab exists because it was formed for warfare purposes, and therefore has substantial research capabilities. Development in warfare can lead to development in peacetime technology. Nuclear power is effective and clean and was arguably discovered when scientists first started enriching uranium. Furthermore, I hardly think lust for war can be attributed to all mankind, especially since man does not act as a body. Humans are individuals, and thus they act independently. When it is said that man has been at war for the vast majority of its history, it can only be stated that some group of people somewhere were fighting on some scale - which hardly paints a chaotic tapestry of relentless anarchy.

[BlutAusNerd]

smileys, always the smileys, why do I never remember to put in those damn things? more to the point: Why is it that man's imagination and creativity only reaches it's fullest when designing machines of war? If we put half the amount of creativity and funding into designing ways to heal the sick and engineer food we'd have ended starvation, cured cancer, cured HIV/AIDS and come up with a cheap alternate to fossil fuels by now. It's truly sad that man's lust for war overshadows such noble causes.

The thing is, America has the capacity to grow food for the entire world. We pay to subsidize many farmers every year to not grow crops, as it would ruin the food economy and put farmers out of business were they to flood the market with and abundance of produce and drive down the price due to supply and demand. It would make sense to instead pay these farmers to grow and only use their crops to be sent to other places in the world to fulfill food shortages and hunger, but that would circumvent the free market. In addition, we would not need to genetically modify food if we put more on the market, so the food that we ate would actually provide the nutrition to keep us healthy, which would drive down the need for medical care. We do all of this in the interest of money, and not what is best for our people and people of other countries that could benefit from our growing capacity.

[RelentlessOblivion]

perhaps Iceni but consider this: The military budget for almost every nation on Earth vastly exceeds any other area of government spending. There are more scientists employed for military purposes then for any other field. If those resources were divided more evenly just imagine what could be achieved.

[Iceni]

The thing is' date=' America has the capacity to grow food for the entire world. We pay to subsidize many farmers every year to not grow crops, as it would ruin the food economy and put farmers out of business were they to flood the market with and abundance of produce and drive down the price due to supply and demand. It would make sense to instead pay these farmers to grow and only use their crops to be sent to other places in the world to fulfill food shortages and hunger, but that would circumvent the free market. In addition, we would not need to genetically modify food if we put more on the market, so the food that we ate would actually provide the nutrition to keep us healthy, which would drive down the need for medical care. We do all of this in the interest of money, and not what is best for our people and people of other countries that could benefit from our growing capacity.[/quote'] Why would the economy be wrecked by amplified exports? Of all forms of international relations, trade with other nations is the one that America wholeheartedly embraces. Is the demand too small? I think I must be missing something here unless the crops are kept inside the US in line with protectionist policies. And that is the only thing I can do with said data. Most scientists eschew predictions of that sort lest they be held to account when they fall short. There's a concept in political science that you might be familiar with called the Davies J curve, which states that people's expectations and the economic growth in the state run parallel but eventually the growth and development of the state flatten out, and the expectations exceed reality - which generates unrest. Scientists would rather not generate false expectations by referring to vague concepts of prosperity. Furthermore, states have high military spending for a good reason: security. If a nation lacks security everything else is in jeopardy. Therefore it makes perfect sense to spend more on defense - because without it, nothing else can truly develop. As I pointed out before with those articles on HIV, research stemming from military spending can often help the nation.

[RelentlessOblivion]

yes except that military budgets are generally ludicrously more extravagant then is actually necessary. If a third of those resources were placed elsewhere say into developing cheap and sustainable energy we would probably have a solution by now considering how quickly technology in that area has come along with minimal funding.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: The Rant

Why would the economy be wrecked by amplified exports? Of all forms of international relations' date=' trade with other nations is the one that America wholeheartedly embraces. Is the demand too small? I think I must be missing something here unless the crops are kept inside the US in line with protectionist policies.[/quote'] These nations that are stricken by hunger are usually so afflicted by poverty, meaning they could not afford to purchase food from us or anyone else. I'm not talking about selling it to them, I'm talking about giving it to them. To me, it makes more sense for the government to put the free market on hold and create an annual contract with growers to pay them fair market value for their produce to be sent to places that need it, as opposed to paying them the same amount to sit on their ass and do nothing. It seems like a better use of the same money to help others than foster laziness for solely economic purposes, and I'm sure that there are civilians that would be more than interested in putting forth donations and time to coordinate the logistics of getting the food to these nations were the government to put their foot forward first. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[Iceni]

These nations that are stricken by hunger are usually so afflicted by poverty' date=' meaning they could not afford to purchase food from us or anyone else. I'm not talking about selling it to them, I'm talking about giving it to them. To me, it makes more sense for the government to put the free market on hold and create an annual contract with growers to pay them fair market value for their produce to be sent to places that need it, as opposed to paying them the same amount to sit on their ass and do nothing. It seems like a better use of the same money to help others than foster laziness for solely economic purposes, and I'm sure that there are civilians that would be more than interested in putting forth donations and time to coordinate the logistics of getting the food to these nations were the government to put their foot forward first.[/quote'] So then your proposal is a different sort of subsidy? Well it does sound a darn sight better than the current subsidies, especially the proposed ones that ask farmers to make fuel rather than food with their corn. Furthermore, it would set up a future beneficial trade relationship with that country and could augur good will. Then again, it could be abused like UN food aid in Zimbabwe or Somalia. It's difficult to define 'necessary' in a military setting because the technology is always changing so swiftly. No amount of power over another country can easily be considered 'too much', especially considering that R&D in some of these countries might be roaring along. Of course, this is frequently an excuse for overspending on cool gadgets, but it takes a lot of time to figure out exactly how useful the gadget is. The airplane was scoffed at prior to World War I as an amusing toy of no military value, and yet nations that spent money on it quickly found it an excellent asset. By two decades later it was indispensable, and now aerospace defense is the first line of defense in essentially all (militarily) developed countries.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: The Rant

So then your proposal is a different sort of subsidy? Well it does sound a darn sight better than the current subsidies' date=' especially the proposed ones that ask farmers to make fuel rather than food with their corn. Furthermore, it would set up a future beneficial trade relationship with that country and could augur good will. Then again, it could be abused like UN food aid in Zimbabwe or Somalia.[/quote'] Exactly, if we're already going to spend that money, why not do something good with it? It still keeps it off of our market to keep from bottoming out prices which would put farmers out of business, but we actually get something for our money, and if we already have too much, why not give it away? Opponents though are too caught up on it circumventing free market capitalism to realize that it could work better that way. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

Re: The Rant FUCKING IDIOT neighbor had party til 1:30 am, my parents cant get sleep, inconsiderate cow.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: The Rant

FUCKING IDIOT neighbor had party til 1:30 am' date=' my parents cant get sleep, inconsiderate cow.[/quote'] Having the same problem with the people next door to us at our hotel. We can't tell if they're partying, fighting or both. We stepped out to grab some food, and it's chilled out a bit now, but we can still hear them. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[Iceni]

Exactly' date=' if we're already going to spend that money, why not do something good with it? It still keeps it off of our market to keep from bottoming out prices which would put farmers out of business, but we actually get something for our money, and if we already have too much, why not give it away? Opponents though are too caught up on it circumventing free market capitalism to realize that it could work better that way. [/quote'] I think the main thing is that it would be preferable to avoid subsidies altogether. Then again, that could well lead to a kind of food shortage from time to time, but by the same token they could then produce what people actually want. The problem with subsidies is that they put the government in a position to control what people make - which shouldn't be necessary if there really is a need for X or Y crop. At this point I'm just sort of chucking around ideas, I'm not too familiar with agricultural economics (though I should be at least partially, I got a B in Microeconomics).

[NTNR]

Maybe one should go up north and work in a mine' date=' they always need more people it seems.[/quote'] There is a very large copper mine out here. At one time the largest of its kind. I'd thought about working there off and on through the years. Sadly due to a massive landslide they've laid about 100 people off. I couldn't get on there now if I wanted too. I think I should've tried in my youth. Oh well. They have excellent retirement benefits there.

[BlutAusNerd]

Re: Anger Thread!

There is a very large copper mine out here. At one time the largest of its kind. I'd thought about working there off and on through the years. Sadly due to a massive landslide they've laid about 100 people off. I couldn't get on there now if I wanted too. I think I should've tried in my youth. Oh well. They have excellent retirement benefits there.

I could never work for a company like Rio Tinto. Bunch of greedy fucks raping our land for profit, and their idea of "giving back to the community" is by building houses on top of old garbage dumps. Once the land is worthless, we'll make an even bigger profit by selling people shitty real estate on a sinking garbage foundation, great business model. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[RelentlessOblivion]

Australia has the same problem, Rio Tinto are fighting a nasty legal battle with the Western Australian government because they were given the ok to mine in a particular location which was then World Heritage listed about a month later. Rio Tinto insist they should be able to eradicate this site to build their mine because they were given the ok a month beforehand.

[RelentlessOblivion]

if it's anything like Australia there is a need to control the production of certain crops because even though demand is very high for them production still dramatically outweighs that demand unfortunately there are also many crops which can't be produced on a scale anywhere near the demand because growing conditions are extremely unfavourable

[BlutAusNerd]

Australia has the same problem' date=' Rio Tinto are fighting a nasty legal battle with the Western Australian government because they were given the ok to mine in a particular location which was then World Heritage listed about a month later. Rio Tinto insist they should be able to eradicate this site to build their mine because they were given the ok a month beforehand.[/quote'] Don't they have a diamond mine somewhere in Australia? I'm told it's the only place in the world that pink diamonds are harvested from, which sell for 15X the value of standard diamonds of the same size.

[NTNR]

If the pay's good and they treat the employees right I don't care what they do.