Dad3353

Yes...

To me, it's not a question of 'cookies or no cookies'. I'm from IT, and I know how and why they work, and what to do with them. It's a question of method used, cynically to obfuscate and render difficult the free and informed choice of the User (me, in my case...) as to what's really being done with the cookies, and by whom. I use CCleaner, and keep some cookies as being useful, either to myself or to a trusted site (BC is on the 'trusted' list...), so that, when CCleaner empties the cookie jar, the 'good ones' remain. The 'good ones' that I've retained have all informed me of their purposes, and I've agreed to those purposes. This Ezoic malarkey has a deliberate way of presenting this choice to me which I find objectionable, and inspires no confidence whatever in me. I would accept, as a bare minimum, a 'Reject All Non-Essential Cookies' option, an option available to many other sites, and that I use, if I am confident that it's truly rejecting all but the essential cookies. I no longer have any such confidence in this case, given the manner in which the current 'information' has been presented. It may well all be innocuous; I don't trust it to be so. If the site needs this so much as to not have any other option, it will continue to operate without me (with much regret, as it's a fine site ...). Yes, I could use work-arounds, and clean out any rubbish I find on my PC (without being sure that I've not missed some...).My opinion has not changed soooooo ...

I'm in France, with a VPN running from a UK IP address. The message came up in English, and all options pre-ticked to acceptance, with no option to refuse all but 'essentials'. This, to me, is unacceptable, and does not ispire confidence in the motives of this outfit. During the initial Test phase, I laboriously went through all of it and 'un-ticked' it all. I am not willing to do this again. Whilst this remains, I shall not be participating in Basschat; I'll be back when it's gone, or not at all, whichever comes the sooner. Meanwhile, my avatar and signature will be changed to ...

I'm well aware that I'm convincing no-one that my World, without greed, without all of these scarecrow '-ism's', without these extremes of so-called 'wealth', without these levers towards cupidity, jealousy and even plain ol' hunger is a Good Place. OK, OK; it's Human Nature, innit..? Maybe I'm just less Human than most. OK, OK; I can live with that. A bit tough on all the others on the Planet, but I can do no more than my best, so we'll leave it there. Change nothing, and Good Luck to all who sail in her.

Pure Tone do have TRS versions, too, readily available. The question came up just a few days ago.

I'm OK with that, too. I don't mind people getting paid for the time they spend doing something, but at a fixed hourly rate (worldwide...), the same as everyone. That could (should..?) be motivation enough for those with something to offer the World. As long as it doesn't allow anyone to become rich to the extent we see currently, I'd allow their time to be rewarded, at its just value.

It's always the same response: you should be paid for all the hours you spent on the Planet, living and breathing, just like everyone else. You can't have spent more than twenty-four hours a day doing whatever you were doing. Once you have enough to live on, the same as everyone else on the Planet, whet more is there..? Writing and preparing a book is worth just as much, in Time spent, as planting and gathering carrots, or open-heart surgery. It's only hours of our lives that have any 'real' value at all. I realise, of course, that this makes no sense in parallel with the current 'worth' system, where one's worth is measured against a different yardstick. Time is my yardstick, and we all have our own 'capital', all of identical 'worth'.

So that's the rumblings in my stomach..! ...

Is that not a reasonable goal to aim for in this World..?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question.

No-one consuming their basic needs for living is a 'parasite'. Anyone taking more from the World 'pot' is a parasite, as it inevitably comes to the detriment of all the others. It's this huge disparity across the Planet that is the cause of so much misery. It could (and should...) be much better for all, not just the 'parasites'.

As long as everyone gets enough to live, what's the problem..?

You've maybe not read the whole thing through, perhaps..? I esteem that everyone should be paid just for their existence on the Planet, so that they may eat. One shouldn't have to 'produce' for that; we're all born with nothing, and need to exist somehow. If there's any time spent doing other stuff, such as producing, one should be paid for that, at a flat, hourly rate, the same for everyone. The time you spend at home 'thinking', you're paid for anyway. The time you spend away from home playing would be paid on top of that 'living wage'. It would be impossible to get paid more than 24h per day, whatever the role, job or trade. It's a whole different way of thinking about 'profit' and 'worth'; it won't be agreed with by all, but I'm sure (without any proof...) that a very large chunk of the Planet's population would be in favour. I just need to become World President to set it all up. Don't hold your breath.

I don't agree. Those that work get paid for the time they've spent, s'all. 'more/harder' doesn't come into it; all folk need to eat. Not all time spent is 'productive', but every one still needs to eat, whether they 'produce' or not (yes, even poets...). The only resource worth anything to humans on the Planet is Time. The rest is virtual, artificial, and limitless. We're quite a way away from the subject of this topic.

See my other reply, concerning Universal Wage. I don't fundamentally understand the notion of 'recover those costs', in the context of not costing stuff in the same way. It's a step change, with a might big step.

And some folk that I'm ridiculous..! Sheesh..!

I believe that, in general, folk prefer to do quality work by nature, for the most part. Innovation need not (or even 'should not'...) be motivated purely for pecuniary reasons, nor should efficiency.

No, and I don't see why one should.

Well, it's part of a whole philosophy which includes a Universal Wage, paid to everyone, with a fixed, universal rate per hour, worldwide. An hourly rate means that, for an eight-hour day, one would get eight hours of 'wage'. For some jobs, 'on call' hours would be paid. For some other jobs, 24/7 hours would be paid. This would ensure that no-one, no-one at all, would be paid more than the number of hours in the week. There would be a fixed 'minimum' wage for those not 'employed', paid to everyone. 'Working' would be on top of that. A diamond miner in South Africa would get the same rate as a sheep farmer in Wales and the president of France. We all, on the Planet, have the same basic needs, and I see no reason why some 'need' more than others. There's a few details to work on, but that's the general idea. Will it get voted in..? Not in France, the US of A nor the UK, I don't suppose, but might be popular in much of the World. One day, maybe...

Personally, I don't believe in royalty payments and the like, as a principle. I know that the World doesn't work the way I would like, and many (most..?) don't agree with me, but, for me, folk should be paid for their Time spent doing whatever they do. Writers should be paid for the time spent writing, musicians for the time playing music, presidents for the time spent presiding and miners for the time spent mining. I don't see why the popularity of anything makes anything subject to paying for its use, any more than a chair-maker gets paid for the number of times the chair is sat upon. He/she is paid for the time spent making the chair, end of story. A writer gets paid for the time spent writing the song/book/film/whatever. No, ('successful'...) writers (nor presidents...) won't subscribe to the idea, but that's how I think the World should work. Each person's Time is their only 'real' resource whilst they're alive, and is the only 'real' value to be considered. Just sayin'.

Thanks for the 'heads up'; I'll be watching to see if there's any odd cookies popping up. All will depend on the way that cookies, if any, are presented, as 'essentiel for site to work properly' or 'optional, for legitimate use'. If the latter, it's a 'no go' for me without an opt-out. We'll see. Douglas