Slashdot Mirror

The Democrats (who laundered money through the Perkins-Coie law firm to a British spy and his Russian spy friends to make up a fake golden showers "dossier" on Trump which the British spy, named Christopher Steele, has testified under oath in a British court is unverified trash) told me ir was Russians, or Mecedonian content farmers, or stupid American women listening to the men in their lives that destroyed the plan to elect Hillary in 2016.

ALL the Democrat-affiliated news outlets like ABC,CBS,NBC,PBS,MSNBC,HuffPo,Salon,NYT,WaPo have told me it's so, often using the exact same phrases on the exact same days in their reporting - in perfect alignment to the press releases from the offices of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

The presiendt of CBS news during the Obama years was the brother of one of Obama's top guys. Over at ABC the political talking heads show host is Bill Clinton's old Chief of Staff. NBC's famous talking heads hosts Chris Matthews and Chuch Todd are both former Democrat political staffers. The list goes on and on and on.... Even at taxpayer-run PBS the top political talker for many years was Bill Moyers, the Democrat who helped his old boss presidetn Johnson sell the Vietnam War.

And I'm supposed to worry about the controlled opposition at Fox News who are to all practical purposes the Washington Generals of the news business? The Fox News Sunday political talking heads show is run by Chris Wallace, of all people [sigh]. The news anchor at Fox is Shep Smith, the openly gay Democrat Trump-hater, and somehow Fox News is this giant terrible right wing behemoth??? What, because they have some [largely ineffective] right winger opinion types on in the evening? That's ONE channel on CABLE that in no longer even being run buy the elder Murdoch but is now under the thumb of Trump-hating Democrat Lachlan Murdoch. If you are a Democrat and you are afraid of Fox News, then you have some real confiidence issues, and you apparently fear ANY opposing views even when they are ineffective and weak and designed to make money serving an otherwise unserved market while not really changin things in the culture.

This isn't the big bad government trying to take away your freedoms. I fully support the FCC on this (and I'm pretty close to Libertarian so that means something coming from me).

The issue is weather radar. Shortly after the FCC opened up the 5 GHz band for unlicensed use, terminal doppler weather radar was invented in response to several airliner crashes due to adverse weather conditions. Unfortunately, it relies on frequencies smack dab in the middle of the open 5 GHz band. So the FCC took the unusual step of revising their rules which opened up those frequencies

The intermediate 5 GHz channels were reclassified as DFS - dynamic frequency selection. Devices are allowed to use those frequencies, but they have to monitor for TDWR. If they detected weather radar in use, they had to switch to a different channel. A few devices actually do this and check to see if weather radar is in use. Most manufacturers just took the easy way out and blocked out channels 50-144 entirely in the firmware. That's why many 5 GHz devices only support channels 36-48 and 149-165. (This can cause the mysterious situation you might have encountered, where some devices can see your 5 GHz network while others can't. Your router supports DFS and has picked a channel between 50-144. Devices which support DFS can see the router. Devices which have blocked off channels 50-144 cannot.)

Early open source router firmwares completely ignored DFS. They would spam over the DFS frequencies, interfering with weather radar at airports if someone nearby happened to load the firmware onto their router. DD-WRT added support for DFS (it's the "weather radar" checkbox in the 5 GHz wireless settings, although it really should be checked by default).. If you install third party firmware and use the 5 GHz band, do the responsible thing and enable this functionality if you're going to enable channels 50-144. Unfortunately, some idiots didn't do this, degrading the effectiveness of hundreds of millions of dollars invested into TDWR equipment. It was enough of a concern that the FCC began investigating the need to regulate or ban third party firmware. That's what this is all about. The government doesn't hate you running third party firmware on your router, they're just trying to protect people flying in airplanes from needlessly being killed.

This is why we can't have nice things - a few idiots ruin it for everyone else. I had lots of fun with lawn darts as a kid, but we always treated the target area as if it were a shooting range. Here's an example of what happens to TDWR when an idiot blasts their router in the TDWR frequencies. The unauthorized broadcast shows up as a wedge-shaped area spanning a few degrees and extending to the edge of the radar image, completely obscuring any weather in the wedge. Multiply that by a few dozen open source routers near the airport and it becomes a major impediment.

The cleaner solution would've been for the FCC to simply close the 5 GHz band and reserve it entirely for TDWR. But that would've made billions of dollars of wireless equipment obsolete. So the FCC tried their best to find a compromise between the needs of people who already owned 5 GHz wireless equipment, and the flying public. It's the open source firmware authors who were (initially) acting like jerks here, not the FCC.

Another risk in laser eye surgery is extreme dryness. My eyes are already on the dry side - damned if I'm going to gamble on having to depend on drops for the rest of my life, in addition to the possibility of poor night vision, or worse if the procedure goes sideways.

I can't even wear contacts - even when I ignore the irritation, all the ones I've tried cause my eyes to get gummy and blurry. I've resigned myself to wearing glasses, (and getting hosed because of it), for the rest of my life.

My wife had dry-eye due to poor tear production and she also couldn't wear contacts for any length of time (but could when she was younger). She got daily disposable contacts to wear on special occasions. The ophthalmic surgeon (head of Ophthalmic Surgery at EVMS) she saw about getting PRK (he only did PRK and said he spent half his time fixing LASIK complications done by others) said she wasn't a good candidate for laser-eye surgery because of her dry eye and poor tear production (he even tested her by putting plugs in her tear ducts). Hopefully any other reputable PRK/LASEK/LASIK provider would have said the same thing ...

There doesn't need to be a gender distinction there, most actors, male or female are picked for their looks, not their brains. The ones like Mayim Chaya Bialik who are actually smart, are a rarity regardless of gender.

China is forgetting that Boeing is based in a blue state

Boeing is shifting jobs out of Seattle to cheaper and more business friendly places like South Carolina.

Trump is a lying SOB.. anyone still in denial is a moron. He is likely the worst human being that we've ever put in a federal position.

Trump's lies are largely inconsequential. Does it really matter if he claims he has the largest crowd at his inauguration? By contrast, FDR put over 100,000 American citizens in concentration camps.

English is a powerful language, which is one of the reasons why it dominates our planet; it has many tools, one of which is the adjunct noun (or "attributive noun", or "noun [pre]modifier").

Most U.S. citizens actually recognize the farce of the Electorate college for the undemocratic system of arcane chicanery it is

I believe you're right. I wasn't a huge fan of George W. Bush, but I voted for him and while I got the result I wanted I was not at all comfortable with how that result was determined even if I ignored all the problems in Florida. Initially I still supported the electoral college, but it was the first time any of us alive then had actually seen the electoral college go against the popular vote and after considering it for a while I couldn't justify it.

And to think we could have fixed this before I was even old enough to vote:

The closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress (1969–1971)

Good old Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis

t I see great potential to use the moon as a huge billboard to place ads.

It was proposed to the 6+ Corp but they turned it down long ago.

They always demonized republicans, called them racists, ever since LBJ lost the Civil Rights Act battle to them.

Um....you do realize the Civil Rights Act passed, right? With more Democratic votes than Republican votes. And LBJ was instrumental in lobbying FOR the bill.

Also, for those of you as unaware about US politics as this poster, there's this thing called the "Southern Realignment". In 1964, many Southerns were still so pissed off at Lincoln that they refused to join the Republican party. So the political division in the US at the time was not Democrat vs Republican, it was Western Republican + Southern Democrat vs Northern Republican + Western Democrat. Even this is an oversimplification, in that skillful politicians gathered a bloc of other politicians and frequently voted together, regardless of party lines.

The Civil Rights Act was the thing that broke this pattern, because it was so abhorrent to those Southern Democrats that they switched to the Republican party. And as a result of the ensuing party shift, many Northern Republicans became Democrats. This is called the Southern Realignment, and it is one of the major reasons why US politics is where it is today, instead of where it was in the 1930s to 1950s.

This is also the end of the process where the Democratic and Republican parties flipped who was Left and Right. And why you'll hear lots of Republicans falsely talking about how Republicans are all about civil rights - the parties are not in the same political positions as they used to be.

Absolutely not. And, it's false on it's face.

Roughly 90% + of the US (the world) was rural before modern industrial farming started in the mid-19thC. According to the US census 5.4 of the US population was urban in 1790. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

First of all urban centers were not large in the modern sense. You couldn't supply the food nor take out the waste. Urban areas were much smaller. NYC, for example, had about 60,000 people in 1800.

Secondly, there weren't any states with numerous cities.

Finally, don't argue about things when you don't know what you're talking about. It would be better to do a little research first and see if your hypothesis played out. Take a look at the link I put in. Absorb the information there and rethink your statement.

They also should have experience on how to handle the situation. Last time it was the radar altimeter that caused unexpected crashes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You're a famous climate denialist faggot propaganda operative that lies when you have no knowledge.

I would not fly a plane that had an automatic system that I could not override, and I consider it a crime to even sell tickets for such a beast.

So, no Airbus for you, right? Unless the aircraft is in direct law, it's *always* under some type of automated control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes/

m

After Trump won, you say?

It's almost like you're utterly clueless about politics beyond the talking points you've been handed...

I'm not the OP but:

Depends where you're from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And: so that's only (quick maths) 10800 gun deaths a year that aren't suicide-related...?

9/11 was a big attack. It was an atrocity. On the scale of atrocities worldwide, over time, even from the 1960's onwards, it really doesn't justify the response that it incurred. It's arguable that the US has killed many more innocent civilians in its response than were killed in the incident itself - they just weren't American, so they don't get counted, right?

Except that it is not a "conspiracy theory".

Nixon did it.
Reagan did it.

Dealing with the enemy to secure election advantages is a time-honored neocon Republican strategy.

Except that it is not a "conspiracy theory".

Nixon did it.
Reagan did it.

Dealing with the enemy to secure election advantages is a time-honored neocon Republican strategy.

"Alternative Facts" however- that's ALL the Trump Whitehouse, they came up with that one.

I thought it was Orwellian in nature?

We have and you can use debit cards but often they incur a transaction fee. If I'm at the grocer and use my debit card, it can cost $0.50 - $2.00 to use my card at a POS (not an ATM). My local Chinese restaurant passes a $3 fee onto me.

Those are still scrip (cashless) in the sense that it's simply a piece of plastic with account information on it acting as a substitute for legal tender (by using a third party either paying or vouching to pay for the transaction).

In the corporate states of America, we already accept company scrip for many sorts of transactions or as incentives. If we keep heading this direction, as companies continue to inevitably monopolize markets, well be in situations like the old coal industry with coal scrip through various loopholes in our increasingly more privatized society.

We have and you can use debit cards but often they incur a transaction fee. If I'm at the grocer and use my debit card, it can cost $0.50 - $2.00 to use my card at a POS (not an ATM). My local Chinese restaurant passes a $3 fee onto me.

Those are still scrip (cashless) in the sense that it's simply a piece of plastic with account information on it acting as a substitute for legal tender (by using a third party either paying or vouching to pay for the transaction).

In the corporate states of America, we already accept company scrip for many sorts of transactions or as incentives. If we keep heading this direction, as companies continue to inevitably monopolize markets, well be in situations like the old coal industry with coal scrip through various loopholes in our increasingly more privatized society.

We have and you can use debit cards but often they incur a transaction fee. If I'm at the grocer and use my debit card, it can cost $0.50 - $2.00 to use my card at a POS (not an ATM). My local Chinese restaurant passes a $3 fee onto me.

Those are still scrip (cashless) in the sense that it's simply a piece of plastic with account information on it acting as a substitute for legal tender (by using a third party either paying or vouching to pay for the transaction).

In the corporate states of America, we already accept company scrip for many sorts of transactions or as incentives. If we keep heading this direction, as companies continue to inevitably monopolize markets, well be in situations like the old coal industry with coal scrip through various loopholes in our increasingly more privatized society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The "Madagascar Plan" was never a realistic plan to move Jews to a safe place. The plan was to turn Madagascar into a police state run by the SS that would accept 4 million Jews over 4 years.

The Polish government determined that Madagascar could only support 5,000 to 7,000 families.

Without the resources to support so many people the vast majority would die due to the harsh conditions.

The Nazis were basically trying to turn Madagascar into a giant concentration camp.

It's been eight years since this disaster occurred.

The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission contains a wealth of information for anyone interested in the facts regarding this disaster.

The report is scathing and contains lines such as a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11 and describes the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster.

It is very difficult to believe that the company that got the world into this situation is the one that will get us out of it. Chernobyl's New Safe Confinement took the combined resources of the European Union to fund and was designed by the British.

We've been doing selective breeding for a long time, this is NOT GMO, and the process cannot produce the same effects and dangers of GMO.

It's not that simple, even just selective breeding can accidentally produce or spread very dangerous organisms such as Heracleum sosnowskyi. The main dangers of any modified organism (regardless of its GMO status) is toxicity and damage to the ecosystems from its rapid spreading. GMO organisms are very carefully tested/studied before entering market, this can even sometimes take decades. Even after entering market if any issue is reported, the product will be recalled. Most people who are scared of GMO usually have very limited knowledge about genetics and the process of food digestion. All normal proteins are fully broken down into amino acids in the digestive system, so the original protein doesn't even matter (except for very few exceptions). You can even drink very toxic snake venom and not die for same reason, of course, if there are no wounds in the mouth or in the stomach.

It's almost as if packet radio has been used by amateurs for about 40 years now....

the internet can potentially be censored, it's not the only form of technology that can be used to send data from one part of the world to another

Another hint for the report writer, the internet is a network of networks. If you use a radio network to transmit and receive information on your computer and your computer is connected to a network which is also part of the internet and uses it to transmit and receive some more information related to that first information, that radio network is also technically part of the internet...

As you say, next they'll write an article about how your mobile phone can communicate with your desktop on the other side of the world, instead of using the internet!

This story reminds me of when Slate claimed a famous politician doesn't use computers (instead he uses an iPad!) with a photo of the politician sitting at his desk with a laptop open and obviously being used, and then went on to explain about all the other computers he uses, the writer apparently not knowing what a computer is.

Good thing you're free to leave Detroit.

And how do you propose to do that when you work full time but earn $20 a week? Or two full time jobs - for a whole $80! Or less! Since there's no minimum wage!

The minimum wage exists to price people out of the market.

The minimum wage exists as a floor. If your business doesn't pay a living wage, your business doesn't deserve to exist.

If anyone's sucking the corporate boot-tip, it's you.

Suuuuuure. But I ask again: why don't you Randians put your home economics where your ideology lies? Back in 2001, Nickel and Dimed was written by Barbara Ehrenreich, on what a rotten existence it is to try and get by on the minimum wage. Which hasn't been increased since Bush was president.

So why don't any of you show us all how it's done. Show us how awesome it is to live under a bridge and eat potatoes because that's all you can afford. You Randians are real big on advocating starvation-level wages for other people, but never try doing it yourselves.

The USA is not the world, and even in America, it can be argued that Pollock is more eaten. All those crab sticks and such.
Going by harvest levels, various types of carp (grass silver and common), along with the Peruvian Anchovy and even Tiapia out number Tuna, which out numbers salmon.
Then there is shrimp.
Note that the carp and tiapia are mostly farmed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I appreciate the scrutiny of my sources for potential bias and conflicts of interest. I was worried about this as well, which was why I aimed for three corroborating sources. But you didn't specifically refute any points that were made, and instead just dismissed the authority of the article writers.

As for your claims, which contradicts my first reference, what are your counter-evidence that farmed salmon spend a considerable time swimming in antibiotics? And what is your evidence that use of said fish-specific antibiotic is detrimental to human health?

I wouldn't be so harsh on people for using the term "GMO" incorrectly, as the term itself is unspecific, and is often broadened to include anything that has had its genes altered[1], even by nature.[2] [3]

It would be so much simpler if people just referred to the specific technologies being utilized, as they all suffer from risk/reward issues, and there aren't clear ethical borders. An incomplete list of the technologies used include:
* Nature's own technique of random mutations with a natural selection filter on top
* Artificial selection by humans, which in ~10,000 years gave us massive, delicious mutants like the modern wheat and corn crops, and docile cows, pigs and dogs
* Cloning started around the 1800s in order to perpetuate popular varieties of e.g. apples, oranges and bananas, whereby a branch of the tree is cut off and re-planted
* Forced hybridization has been around the 1900s, where two distinctly inbred parental lineages are perpetually bred to produce sterile offspring (e.g. seedless watermelons, or mules for use by the British Empire as amazing pack animals)
* Radiation-induced mutation breeding (mutagenesis) has been around since around the 1930s, which forcefully increases the mutation rate and splits chromosomes in order to allow breeding with other species -- a technique the EU even calls GMO (see [1])
-- a lot of western staple crops are based on, or hybridized from, crops produced from this technique
* Chemically-induced mutation breeding is a more modern version of mutagenesis that's doesn't cause as much DNA damage -- still a GMO in the EU though (see [1])
* Transgenic modifications, where specific genes can be takes from unrelated species, was invented in the 1970s
* Cisgenic modifications, where the specific genes are taken from a species where it would have been possible to acquire it naturally through conventional breeding,[4] have been a classification of GMOs since around the year 2000

So GMO debates could be untangled massively if people just spoke about the specific technologies. For instance, I suspect based on your comment that you would be against transgenic GMOs and mutagenesis, but for cisgenic GMOs... while being on the fence about forced hybridization?

Banana cropping is a great example, particularly since mono-culture planting has exposed it to Panama disease.

This has resulted in entire cultivars being wiped out while breeders attempt to develop hardier strains.

The root problem is that bananas are really hard to breed naturally and all harvested fields are propagated from a single cutting, in order to get consistent fruit... leaving all of the fields susceptible to the same diseases.

The most practical way to develop new cultivars is to identify and splice in the traits that you want your new cultivar to exhibit.

I, for one, welcome our gmo-banana overlords.

Lateral gene transfer is hardly the only means of genetic modification, but triticale was created in the 19th century, without the aid of gene splicing.

Look, I get it. "GMO" is used now almost exclusively to refer to "frankenfoods" made from direct genetic manipulations, but only the techniques have changed. The goals are largely the same as they've always been: heartier varieties, more nutritious, less need for intervention against weeds and pests.

Interesting idea, but it does seem like a coincidence. Egyptians first split the night into 12 chunks, likely based on the 12 month lunar calendar (zodiac is likewise split into 12). Later they also split the day the same way. Being a 12th of a night or day, the length of hours varied during the seasons too. Even in Europe, early clocks needed daily adjustments (pendula lengthend or shortened) to be accurate to the varying hours at first.
China started out by dividing the day into a hundred chunks, SE Asia, it was quarters. India it was 30ths or 60ths.
So hour is a western idea and it was fairly recently that it was standardized as 1/24th of a full day rather then a 1/12th of the daytime and the Church split the day into quarters as well.
BTW, hour seems to be descended from the word for year and originally just meant a unit of time, so could be a season or year.
All above cribbed from wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

TFA is experimenting with using radios to transmit information long distances because they fear repressive regimes censoring data passed through the interwebs.

This makes me wonder about why repressive regimes would allow the use of a communications mechanism that can't be censored in the first place.

TFS mentions North Korea, well the magic interwebs have this to say about North Korea Licensing of Ham Radios:

Only North Korea and Yemen do not issue amateur radio licenses to their citizens, although in both cases a limited number of foreign visitors have been permitted to obtain amateur licenses in the past. HamCall.Net lists 19 amateur stations in North Korea assigned in the P5 series, although the specific call signs themselves remain unknown.[6] A Serbian amateur writes that he was "licensed" as P5A, but that he was not allowed to operate on either occasion he was in the country.

It's going to transition people straight to Apple, probably, although they abandon operating system versions too

Indeed. Literally EVERY vendor does this. EVEN the OSS world. (Widnows 7 is almost 10 years old. The oldest still supported LInux kernel I can find at here dates from 2014, fully five years after Widnows 7 came out.

Another way to make an informed choice by reading information on the topic

Yeah, reading information is always good. Now, let's see how unbiased is this "Biotechnology Innovation Organization"....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.sourcewatch.org/in...

Yep, an entirely unbiased source of "information", this one.

If you compare almost any crop or animal grown for food, to the wild type it came from, there are dramatic differences, especially in the progression of growth. We have been adapting food crops to our needs for at least 10,000 years.

Before domestication, maize plants grew only small, 25 millimetres (1 in) long corn cobs, and only one per plant.

You don't become wealthy by treating people fairly, duh. Nor being 'nice'.

At one time, that worked. Until the government started providing its own social welfare, funded by businesses. Now it's easier to just make the balance sheet look good. The state will provide benefits for the working class. And if you try to contradict that standard narrative by treating your workers fairly, the state will kick your ass for damaging their carefully constructed image.

Unions are the same thing. You owe your loyalty to a political machine instead of the people that put food on your table.

Think of the dumpster fire that would be a global stock exchange that can't close, can't halt trading, and offers always-on instant electronic trading of tiny fractions of a stock for cheap, to anybody.

Dark pools already have some of these characteristics.

Most stock transactions do not happen on the public exchanges.

Progressive policy is policy of collectivism and murder of individuals by the collectivist oppressive system. USSR also had its 'bad actors', they called them 'kulaks', they called them 'anti-proliteriat' or 'anti-bolshevik' and Lenin ordered to murder people who were considered anti-revolution, anti-bolshevik, in any case, those were the 'bad actors' as you like to call them, they had to be exterminated and then as we all know things became excellent. Soviet Union became the wealthiest economy in the world, tens of millions of people were not murdered after that, not sent to Gulags, hundreds of millions were not living in poverty, USSR did not engage and did not lose the Cold War, Soviet Union still exists today, more powerful than ever because that's what collectivism and socialism do - they create strong economies that do not murder people and allow them to live and prosper. Oh, wait, no, that's not how it went down.

'Bad actors' = anti-revolutionaries = anti-collectivists = anti-bolshevik, the way to deal with 'bad actors' is to exterminate them, that's because everybody becomes a 'bad actor' at some point in a system that is aimed at destroying the individual freedoms. I bet you would love it back then, maybe you'd work with Lenin, supporting his ideas of using terrorism (red terror he called it) to remove bad actors to win the revolution.

Progressive policy is policy of collectivism and murder of individuals by the collectivist oppressive system. USSR also had its 'bad actors', they called them 'kulaks', they called them 'anti-proliteriat' or 'anti-bolshevik' and Lenin ordered to murder people who were considered anti-revolution, anti-bolshevik, in any case, those were the 'bad actors' as you like to call them, they had to be exterminated and then as we all know things became excellent. Soviet Union became the wealthiest economy in the world, tens of millions of people were not murdered after that, not sent to Gulags, hundreds of millions were not living in poverty, USSR did not engage and did not lose the Cold War, Soviet Union still exists today, more powerful than ever because that's what collectivism and socialism do - they create strong economies that do not murder people and allow them to live and prosper. Oh, wait, no, that's not how it went down.

'Bad actors' = anti-revolutionaries = anti-collectivists = anti-bolshevik, the way to deal with 'bad actors' is to exterminate them, that's because everybody becomes a 'bad actor' at some point in a system that is aimed at destroying the individual freedoms. I bet you would love it back then, maybe you'd work with Lenin, supporting his ideas of using terrorism (red terror he called it) to remove bad actors to win the revolution.

Don't they make enough profit corporately that the increased wages make little impact on the overall profits, or are they too money-grubbing to really care?
I'm betting on the latter, personally.

Whole Foods has 91,000 employees. In their last year of independent operation, they had $15.7 billion in gross sales, $507 million net income (aka profit). That's $827 million before taxes, with $320 million in corporate income taxes, or 38.7%.

If you figure just half those 91,000 employees are wage slaves who used to work 30 hours a week, 50 hours/year, then increasing their pay from $10/hr to $15/hr would've resulted in (45,500 employees)*(1500 hours/yr)*($5/hr) = $341.25 million in additional wages. Payroll costs would have increased by an additional 7.65% (employer's fraction of Social Security and Medicare). Workers comp insurance for people involved in manual labor (warehousing and stocking) is typically around 5% of their wages. Assume the low-end employees didn't get any benefits.

So total cost of the $5 hourly wage increase would've been $384 million. That would've reduced income before taxes to $432 million, and net income after taxes to $271 million. Or 54% what it was before the wage increase.

If 3/4 of the employees were wage slaves earning the minimum, then these figures increase to $576 million in increased costs, reducing net income to $154 million, or just 30% what it was before the wage increase.

So you lose your bet. it would've made a huge impact on overall profits.

• Average profit margin (net income) for the grocery industry is just 2.85% of sales.
• Whole Foods was making a relatively stellar 3.2% profit.
• If half the workers got a $5/hr wage increase, that would've dropped to 1.7%.
• If 3/4 of the workers got a $5/hr increase, that would've dropped to 0.98%.

DST may have been an energy saver back when most people primarily used electricity for lighting. Now, not so much. Especially in warmer climates closer to the equator (where DST does very little anyway), DST tends to cause more energy usage in the form of residential air conditioners. Also, all those people doing things in those "longer" evenings are probably causing more energy use. In more northern areas, getting up earlier when it is still dark and cold uses more lighting and heating energy. See Wikipedia for details. It's more complicated than what I wrote, but DST generally isn't much of a net win for the environment (nor is it really much of a net loss, either).

Frankly, if you setup your sleep schedule such that midnight is close to the middle of your sleep cycle, you won't have problems with it getting "dark way too early". Yes, this DOES mean waking up before 7am.

In reality, DST is a social solution, not a technological one. It's really hard to convince some people to wake up earlier like I just suggested. Kind of like it is hard to convince people to exercise and eat right. DST is simply a way to trick people who want to wake up at 7am to actually get up at 6. It's also why the switch is necessary to make it work. If we stayed on DST all year, then those "night owls" would just start sleeping later. Schools and businesses would start at 9 instead of 8, and people would start complaining that it was getting dark out too "early" because the sun is setting at 10pm and they don't want to go to sleep until 1am. And then we'll need double DST for part of the year.

Sometimes, it is amazing to me that it is easier to convince everyone to change their clocks to the wrong time instead of changing their schedules. I guess it's like programming -- change the underlying code (the time) rather than every place that uses it (the schedules). But still...

And it is worse than the original.

Remember what Marx said about the ruling principle of the Communist society? "To everyone according to their needs, from everyone according to their ability". Consider what that means in the terminology of modern economic science.

It means that when you're on the "supply side", you will be squeezed off to the last drop, and paid at the marginal, competitive rate that is set on the oligopsonic labor market by the several large players who mostly determine the price. You will have the rest of the working people around world against you. It also means that when you're on the "demand side", as a consumer, you will again be charged at the margin for every purchase you make.

If you studied some economic theory, you should immediately recognize that means "monetizing" - that is, taking away from you your producer and consumer surplus , the difference between what you would have paid if you could have been provided an only offer you can't refuse, and what a competitive market without differentiation (and advertising) can charge you.

This is the game that Facebooks, googles, amazons, and the rest of the "marketing" bunch is playing with the huge collection of consumer data. It is a game of selling you the cheapest piece of shit in the lot for the most money you would be willing to pay for it, and charging your employer their (and your) producer surplus for the "service". You buying shit from your online profile because of "incentives" is playing their game for them.

And when all your surplus is gone, then what? Will it stop? Hardly, the game is already set for the next stage - modifying your preferences so that you buy even shittier stuff for even more.

The only way to win is not to play.

If you can afford it ;)

And it is worse than the original.

Remember what Marx said about the ruling principle of the Communist society? "To everyone according to their needs, from everyone according to their ability". Consider what that means in the terminology of modern economic science.

It means that when you're on the "supply side", you will be squeezed off to the last drop, and paid at the marginal, competitive rate that is set on the oligopsonic labor market by the several large players who mostly determine the price. You will have the rest of the working people around world against you. It also means that when you're on the "demand side", as a consumer, you will again be charged at the margin for every purchase you make.

If you studied some economic theory, you should immediately recognize that means "monetizing" - that is, taking away from you your producer and consumer surplus , the difference between what you would have paid if you could have been provided an only offer you can't refuse, and what a competitive market without differentiation (and advertising) can charge you.

This is the game that Facebooks, googles, amazons, and the rest of the "marketing" bunch is playing with the huge collection of consumer data. It is a game of selling you the cheapest piece of shit in the lot for the most money you would be willing to pay for it, and charging your employer their (and your) producer surplus for the "service". You buying shit from your online profile because of "incentives" is playing their game for them.

And when all your surplus is gone, then what? Will it stop? Hardly, the game is already set for the next stage - modifying your preferences so that you buy even shittier stuff for even more.

The only way to win is not to play.

If you can afford it ;)

That only shows that America has a long history of war crimes, in Sherman's case the Lieber Code, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and he should have been one of the ones (actually two) tried for war crimes. Seems people have been executed for such stuff since at least 1474, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That only shows that America has a long history of war crimes, in Sherman's case the Lieber Code, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and he should have been one of the ones (actually two) tried for war crimes. Seems people have been executed for such stuff since at least 1474, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Citation or crawl back under your bridge on the "lack of shortage of child murderers in Japan".

Citation: Murder of Junko Furuta

She was a 17 year old high school student. She was kidnapped, and horrifically tortured and gang raped for weeks. She begged her tormentors to kill her, as they became more and more sadistic. They eventually murdered her and threw her body in a dumpster.

The perpetrators walk free today. Some of them served as little as 3 years in prison.

" There's a finite number of doctors "

And whose fault is that?