Slashdot Mirror
Subcontractor Tells Fukushima Workers To Hide Radiation Exposure
First time accepted submitter fredprado writes "Apparently at least one subcontractor hired to clean up the Fukushima site has been urging their workers to put their radiation detectors lined under lead shieldings.
A diagram can be seen here. The authorities decided not to prosecute him, even after one employee presenting them recordings of him trying to talk the said employee into it."
makes sense; those things are probably expensive and, I gather, are sensitive to radiation. Don't want to risk damaging them.
This is why we need more unions and more workers rights.
and they should be able to use contractors and subcontractors to get out being liable.
Is there a translation? This is quite a serious allegation if true.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Three eyed fish are delicious.
We? Last time I checked, America and Japan were not the same nation...
Codify workers rights in LAW, not illegal pooling of power.
Good-bye
This is why we need more unions and more workers rights.
and they should be able to use contractors and subcontractors to get out being liable.
Yeah, right.
Unions help curb criminal behavior.
What color is the sky on your planet?
the Japanese people will no longer blindly trust their government
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You know, it would be a lot easier to refute anti nuclear fears as being overly paranoid if we stopped giving them reasons to be just that. The situation would be have been under much better control and (slightly) less of a PR disaster if they would just stop with the lies.
Thyroid cysts or nodules are being found in 36% of 38,000 Fukushima children. A 2001 study in Nagasaki found an incidence of 0%. Thyroid is associated with iodine, as the substance is essential to its function. Iodine-131 was a considerable component of the contaminants released in the incident.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Um. No.
Here's the nice thing about the free market. If you don't like something your employer tells you to do, you don't have to work for them. In fact, with a free enough society, you can tell others what your employer tried to tell you to do which will either:
A) Cause the employer's customers not to support him and therefore he goes bust.
B) Cause the employees to all quit their job or demand higher pay to work.
C) Cause the employer to change his orders to prevent A or B from happening.
Don't like being told to hide radiation exposure? Don't work for the guy!
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Are you kidding? If the radiation detector reaches a certain level, that means the contractor has to kick that employee to the curb and hire a fresh one. You know how much that cuts into the profit margin?
And how are they supposed to do that? Individual workers calling their Senators up on the phone, each one of them telling the Senator something slightly different from the last one? Senators don't take phone calls from workers. They take phone calls from executives.
Actually, they don't take phone calls from either. They take phone calls from lobbyists, people with whom they have a relationship and who have worked with them before. Corporate management has plenty of money to hire them. Individual workers don't.
They can, however, get together and pool their money to hire a lobbyist. We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
This is why we need more unions and more workers rights.
and they should be able to use contractors and subcontractors to get out being liable.
Actually, in the US, this kind of ridiculously dangerous behavior would be covered by OSHA laws.
Government coverup. Just like they lied about how much radiation there really was. (Turns out they cut their readings by 1/3rd.) Or how the government claimed the air quality at the burning WTC wreckage was "safe" even though it wasn't. Governments don't protect the people; they lie, inveigle, and deny.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It sounds like that has already happened:
Japan's health ministry said on Sunday it would investigate the reports, Reuters reported.
Japanese law has set an annual radiation exposure safety threshold of 50 millisieverts for nuclear plant workers during normal operations.
I don't see anything in the linked articles which indicates there has been a decision to not prosecute him though. FUD headline.
Last time I checked America was a continent. And I'm from Europe, don't assume we are only "americans".
If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Maybe if you weren't so brainwashed by union propaganda you could see past every situation being an opportunity to push more union laws. In Japan no less.
>>>And how are they supposed to do that? Individual workers calling their Senators up on the phone
Sure why not.
Also remind the Senator that he's up for relection, and you're inclined not to vote for him if he passes laws that screw you.
>>>They can, however, get together and pool their money to hire a lobbyist. We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
I'd rather outlaw the existence of corporate speech; they can no longer hire lobbyists, else they lose their license to exist. Let the senators or congressmen talk to people one-as-one as individuals w/o a middleman. Stop my company from speaking for me, as if I automatically agree with the company's position just because I work here.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Japan and America, East and West, meet in one person: Joe Dragon. And he's a Slashdot regular!
Now compare that one dude rallying others to a union. You get the same thing. Unions might be like maffia in corrupt USA as usual. But in everywhere else unions work the way you described except they actively negotiate and work for workers right constantly monitoring. You don't need to reinvent the wheel everytime a issue comes up, you already have the union/channel to work and be heard through.
Really. It doesn't. Globalism Breaks Capitalism. Period. It's that simple. You are completing on the global stage. Your employer is not. You can't win. You can't keep up. They will import desperate workers from impoverished countries. You will compete with them for food and shelter. Automation makes you disposable and obsolete. You can't work elsewhere, because there are very few jobs (automation) and there are lots of people to do those jobs (globalism).
Free market Capitalism is fundamentally broken. Adam Smith wasn't a futurist. He had no vision. Ayn Rand was just a little woman afraid of a nasty dictator. Get over your fear, and learn to face facts. Adam couldn't, Ayn couldn't. Can you?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Unions can curb criminal behavior on the part of corporations. Of course, unions being organized power, are also susceptible to being abused as well. Arguing against having any watchmen at all is a bit silly, but we need to also consider who watches the watchmen.
Japan already has both.
What they also have, same as the USA, is government in the pockets of large corporations.
Why would anyone think that the workers agree with whatever the company says? That makes no sense. Now, if the company is saying something that the owners don't agree with, then there's a problem.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Unions can curb criminal behavior on the part of corporations. Of course, unions being organized power, are also susceptible to being abused as well. Arguing against having any watchmen at all is a bit silly, but we need to also consider who watches the watchmen.
The answer is not more levels of middlemen, who contribute nothing but another avenue for corruption. The answer, as suggested by others here, is support for workers rights codified by law. The fact that our current democratic process has been thoroughly subverted by the top 1% doesn't mean that adding more corrupt bureaucrats to the process is a good idea, much less the right solution.
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
This is why we need more unions and more workers rights.
and they should be able to use contractors and subcontractors to get out being liable.
Actually, in the US, this kind of ridiculously dangerous behavior would be covered by OSHA laws.
OSHA laws which only exist thanks to unions.
If you want to change workers rights do it for everyone, not just people in your little club. Unions should be illegal in a modern society of law and order. There should not be a subset of people exerting more force then a random group of equivalent private citizens.
Illegal pooling of power? I guess you can make anything illegal, but from say a Rothbardian natural rights point of view (I'm guessing you're a libertarian) there is absolutely nothing wrong with banding together in contract negotiations (unless there are pre-existing contractual promises not to do so). Nor even stipulating in those negotiations that all employees have to be union ...
Now of course a lot of current employment law is not exactly Rothbardian, but that's an orthogonal issue.
I really have no problems with unions the abstract, but in practice I cannot support them due to the laws in the US. If workers are striking, the employer absolutely has the right to fire them. Just as every employee is different, so should their contract. Collective bargaining is an absolutely silly way to conduct business. Even though Joe, Bob and Frank all have the same job and the same experience, they each have their own wants, needs and ability levels. If Joe is much better than Bob and Frank at his job, Joe should get paid more. If Frank is a single young guy, having dental insurance is probably low on his priority list compared to Joe and Bob who both have growing families. Etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
How is it a FUD headline? The entire article is about what the headline says.
In order to safely operate today's generation of nuclear fission reactors, you need the operators and regulators to be transparent and competent. The folks running this Fukushima travesty are neither transparent nor competent.
Therefore I am forced to conclude that the human race in 2012 does not have the moral credibility to be trusted to operate nuclear fission reactors.
You are talking about America. In most countries, what Americans call "lobbying" is called "corruption" ans is illegal.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
By that logic corporations should also be illegal.
The authorities decided not to prosecute him
Culturally speaking, this fits in rather well with what I understand of Japanese culture and mentality.
Interestingly, this is the second Japan oriented story today where the previous one talks of how the Japanese law makers fell easy prey to copyright interests creating laws and penalties which would be unimaginable anywhere else. (Connected stories discuss the consequences of Japan's famously high conviction rate. Among the reasons many included a high rate of false convictions through confessions obtained through inhumane measures such as torture and the reluctance of performing autopsies and pressures to assign 'natural causes' to death.)
The patterns seems to come down to a complete disregard of consequences to anyone else so long as personal image/public perception is boosted or maintained.
In the western mind, we would ideally hope to create such positive public perception by ACTUALLY DOING the things which make us appear to be successful. You know, like maintaining a good safety record by actually maintaining good safety practices. But that's not the way they see it, apparently. They all lie to each other at every turn.
So it's no wonder there is so much protest of nuclear power in Japan. The people already know they are being lied to and the parties responsibile have no intention of changing their ways.
(disclosure: I have experience in the US nuclear industry and with working within Japanese organizations)
In short, the US mindset of TMI (Three Mile Island) is that it was tragic and we learned a lot from it and changed the way we do things.
In short, the Japan mindset of Fukushima is that it was tragic and we should strive to do a better job of containing embarassing things.
Holy fucking shit.
Fuck the environment and all the people. Let's just not get embarassed.
It's actually worse. In many US states that do not have "right to work" laws, you are not allowed to work in a particular job unless you are a member of their union. This is how far this one-sided situation has gotten out of hand. Note that this is not a professional certification issue. You simply cannot work in that field at all unless you are a union member. They've done this so businesses cannot hire other people when the union is on strike, and in one fell swoop erased the fundamental right to work from the table.
it's really an IQ test to see if the workers are really intelligent enough to be working at such a location. Slip your radiation detector badge into the shielded sleeve and you get reassigned to digging utility trenches using a shovel.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Um no. Why don't you look and see how well that worked before unions? Here's a hint. We would never have had a need to create unions if there were never a reason to have them. Same thing goes for regulations. There would never have been a need to create the EPA if everything had worked out just fine under the free market. Learn some history please.
Now you may argue that unions or regulations have gone to far, but it's absurd and ignorant to proclaim they have no place and that the free market would have solved all the problems that they address. The simple fact is that the free market did not fix those problems. If they had, unions would have never been formed in the first place.
Very little of lobbying is corrupt. There are exceptions, of course, but the vast majority of lobbying is a rather dull profession involving large numbers of meetings and endless phone calls. No significant money changes hands. Some lobbying takes the form of fundraising, but that goes into campaign coffers and the FEC tracks it closely to ensure that it doesn't end up in the candidates' personal accounts.
I'm not saying it's a perfect system, far from it. But it's not even close to the "legalized bribe" that most people who don't work in Washington imagine it is.
Yeah! The free market is going to ensure workers' safety with its 'invisible hand!'
Citation?
...and government, the legal establishment, boy scouts...and last, but by no means least, slashdot.
Some lobbying takes the form of fundraising, but that goes into campaign coffers and the FEC tracks it closely to ensure that it doesn't end up in the candidates' personal accounts.
You mean that the FEC ensures that every penny that the candidate doesn't have to spend on his own campaign has to be disposed of some other way?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
This is actually pretty typical when technocrats are in charge. Because they have huge stockpiles of paid-for dosimeters that workers use every day, but which saturate at very low levels, they decide they're going to use those by putting them behind a shield and then adjusting the readings correspondingly. Makes sense, except they give absolutely no consideration to appearances. Ignorant journalists and nutty lefty conspiracy theorists then have a field day.
Nice logical breakdown. -Though that last sentence, it's a logical fallacy of composition. It is akin to saying
'The blonde girl I dated was not a virgin, therefore all blonde girls are not virgins.'
lobby contributes money to congressperson.
congressperson knows what said lobby wants.
congress person will most likely do whatever the largest contributor wants, in order to get said money again.
campaign coffers being filled makes no difference, considering what can be written off as campaign expenses.
how is that not a "legalized bribe"?
I got a few ideas, we could call them, briberists, or extorsionists, hmm too real?
I know, CEOR - Corporate Executive Office Representer
There, another meaningless generic broad term to wrotten the political system in ephemism's and corruption dragging the whole country and its citizens down with it, except the 1% of course, those can just buy a new country to settle in.
Historically, the only way to get worker rights codified in LAW has been for workers to join together and give the politicians the choice between that and a communist revolution.
Also, I'm not sure exactly what laws you're referring to when you declare pooling of power to be illegal. Care to elaborate?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
We? Last time I checked, America and Japan were not the same nation...
What part of "we" spells "nation"? Or did some creepy politician make you believe that "identity = nationality"?
On /. the meaning of "we" is: "we, nerds & geeks". Except when an AC uses "we": then it is "we, anonymous cowards".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In the UK we have Health and Safety guys to enforce that kind of thing. It is their job to protect workers and nothing else. Their authority overrules other managers in most cases.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'd rather outlaw the existence of corporate speech; they can no longer hire lobbyists
Lobbyists are simply people. Corporations are headed up by CEOs. Are you going to make it illegal for them to contact their reps?
The only problems with your ideas is that they would be gross violations of the first amendment, and are more dangerous than the issues they are trying to fix.
Oddly enough though (in spite of visual appearances from space), Japan is actually a part of North America, from perhaps an unusual point of view.
America is also the name of the country, in case you haven't got a clue about the place.
Still, sometimes it is useful to thump some people in the head to remind them that the Slashdot readership isn't only from Michigan (the original home of Slashdot).
I'm well aware that the sort of dog-eat-dog Capitalism I'm talking about only exists for the lower classes, and that the rich do not participate in it.
The State != corporation. It is quite possible for the vast majority of people to use the Gov't for the benefit of all. In point of fact, it's the only hope. You need a large entity to stand up to the awesome power we allow the 1% to have. Conservatives threaten us with the grim specter of a repressive Government, but where as my Government might oppress the 1% WILL oppress me. With Gov't I at least have a fighting chance. With the 1% I've already lost the war. If you doubt me google '16 Tons'.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"it smells like we've got a communist here" *says glenn beck from the background*
if free market is supposed to be able to solve every problem, why do i still need to scratch my balls?
I'm not saying it's a perfect system, far from it. But it's not even close to the "legalized bribe" that most people who don't work in Washington imagine it is.
Having been a candidate for public office before, I will say it is hard to turn down campaign donations from groups that offer enough money to finance your campaign. And I've had offers from groups that I most certainly didn't agree with for money I could have desperately used in order to finance my campaign.
While the laws have changed somewhat since this practice was happening, there was in the past an option for federal office holders (Senate & U.S. House) to be able to pocket excess campaign donations after they were defeated in an election or went into retirement. This still is the case for some state and municipal office seekers (and certainly was in my case when running for municipal office). I had to report all of the donations of course and file formal reports on all of the income and expenses (which typically break even if you are being serious about a campaign), but if a "generous donation" was to fall in your lap, it certainly could end up being something very much like a legalized bribe.
I do agree though with the fact that lobbyists do much more than handing out huge piles of money. They do tend to be experts on the topics they advocate about and can be very useful in terms of being able to understand what a particular constituency group or industry group thinks about a particular piece of legislation. As long as you understand the bias that the bring to the table, they can also be useful for obtaining information about that particular topic they are advocating for as well.
This is interesting because I find it strange that the workers would do something that is so clearly not in their best interests. Why would you deliberately undermeasure your radiation exposure? What good would it do you? It could certainly do significant harm.
Working in medical radiology, I see the opposite on an occasional basis. A technologist decides that they want some paid time-off, or light duty (working an MRI in a nice air conditioned office with coffee machine and very little actual work to do - 5 minutes setting the machine up, and 60 minutes waiting for it to finish; instead of pushing around a half-ton portable X-ray machine and heavy, very fragile, very expensive digital X-ray sensors), so they deliberately expose their dosimeter.
They almost always get caught, because they aren't familiar enough with the physics, to expose the dosimeter with a plausible dose (the average photon energy of a direct X-ray beam is much higher than the scattered radiation, and this is very obvious on energy-discriminating dosimeters). Not only that, but photographic film dosimeters are still frequently used, rather than thermoluminescent crystal dosimeters. With a film dosimeter, gradually accumulated exposures will leave a blurred edge around the energy discriminating filters; a single exposure (especially if from a focused X-ray source like a medical X-ray generator) will leave a razor-sharp margin. Careful examination of the developed film can sometimes estimate the "normal" dose and the "deliberate" dose, even to the point of estimating the exposure parameters set on the X-ray generator.
Stupid bastards like you deserve to be forced at gunpoint to work cleanup at Fukushima, with no protective gear whatsoever. Either that or you should be forced to wear a Cobalt-60 jock strap until your balls and dick fall off and there's no longer any danger of you producing offspring who will further pollute the gene pool.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Yep. Usually, they just spend it, of course. In fact, they're usually in debt, and spend the beginning of the term trying to pay off those debts before they can run again. Hillary Clinton is still trying to pay down the debt from her campaign, so the "Hillary Clinton for President" committee still exists.
If there's anything left over, they usually end up giving it to somebody else's campaign or to the national committee. Charitable donations are also legal.
http://law.justia.com/cfr/title11/11-1.0.1.1.21.0.1.2.html
It specifically forbids personal use (where the previous section gives a lengthy description of what constitutes "personal use", to the point where they have to say explicitly "yes, it's OK if you wear campaign tee-shirt".)
Joe, Bob, and Frank should make the decision on whether their interests align (i.e. to unionize and bargain collectively), not you or I with abstract arguments. Historical and present-day evidence shows that unionization increases wages, benefits, and working conditions across the board. "United we stand, divided we fall" and all that.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I've always hated grammar.
Privacy is terrorism.
I'd rather outlaw the existence of corporate speech
And how do you expect to do that?
Communists?
Privacy is terrorism.
The ability to pocket excess campaign cash ended quite some time ago, in 1989. The FEC has spent a long time tightening the laws. They're still far from perfect, of course.
Candidates do from time to time get big donations from groups who disagree with them, and they need to look closely at just what's going on there. It's illegal to promise to vote for their pet bill in exchange. About the most you can do is an unspoken opportunity to take their meeting, though you have to pretend it's a coincidence rather than quid pro quo. And sometimes, that meeting really is all they want. It's their right to try to get you to change your mind.
Most of the time, people with money give it to a candidate who already supports what they want, rather than trying to change a candidate's mind. It's cheaper, too: they may be a large campaign contribution, but as a simple trade of value, other people also gave you money. Switch your vote on them and they don't give you money again, and you find yourself out of office.
America is also the name of the country
Yeah, if Sarah Palin taught you geography.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
you are not allowed to work in a particular job unless you are a member of their union
And here in Pennsylvania you are not allowed to join many unions unless you can show your voter registration card indicating you are a registered Democrat.
A man mugged me. Therefore all men are thieves. Some woman betrayed me with my best friend therefor all women are cunt. Generalizing is stupid. You are generalizing from one company to the whole fucking human race. This is neither interresting nor insightful.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
And then we should make it compulsory for workers to join such a group and garnish their salary!
Lobbyists for all!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Precisely. Although Unions have their own problems that they bring to the table, the general effect is to improve the worker's conditions, safety, wages, etc. As long as they are watched as closely as the Corporations (and to be honest they watch each other), then some balance can be struck where everyone benefits. Without Unions, Corporations are free to abuse their workers without check.
Yes, as people will point out, the worker's are free to quit if they want to - and if they are aware of the problems in the first place - but that is not always a viable alternative in a society and economy where finding a job is practically like winning the lottery at times.
Left to themselves, I think most corporations *will* misuse and abuse their workers in the name of profit.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I meant every penny of their OWN money. I'm assuming candidates also contribute some of their own money to their own election committee.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
People from South and Central American countries will get in your face if you say they're not Americans.
Karl Marx may have been many things, but an economist he was not, nevermind a great one. If your definition of "intellectual" is "people who think Marx was a great economist", then yes, your sentence is true.
He just thought up a solution to a social inequity prevalent during his age, which got popular because, like religion, it appeals to the poor masses. It got abused every fucking time it was tried, just like religion, by smart and greedy people rising to the top and controlling the power. Because humans are not perfect beings. In the end, money or not, the goal is power, and the people at the top get to it every time without fail. The difference is that only Marx' utopian society plan requires people being kept in the dark and fear by an authoritarian system.
Collective bargaining is an absolutely silly way to conduct business.
Of course it is. That's why Wal-Mart loses so much money and has no influence on its suppliers by buying in bulk.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
If the radiation detector reaches a certain level, that means the contractor has to kick that employee to the curb and hire a fresh one. You know how much that cuts into the profit margin?
Especially since the curb is probably radioactive and buying new plastic bags to cover the contractor's boots costs money.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Works pretty well over here (Belgium).
Another shill for the "job makers". We need unions because the law doesn't do enough and the businesses will fuck over employees as hard as they can. I know that you know that.
The only people clamoring for the dissolution of unions are corporate shills or complete morons. Which one are you?
You're kidding, right? Our country has been called "America" in conversation for longer than you or I have been alive. It's also sometimes called the US, which isn't the full name either. It's entirely conventional, nonetheless.
I think you're onto something.
All the company directors and inspectors and every government prostitute that signed off on this should be forced to do clean up duty until they drop dead.
They told the guys trying to cover Chernobyl with a "lid" the same thing. It is because after you get so much radiation, they just fire you and tell you not to come back. Also, right after this happened Japan allowed people to get more radiation then usual, so that their emergency workers could work longer, even if it isn't healthy.
Let the senators or congressmen talk to people one-as-one as individuals w/o a middleman.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Go back to China you freedom-hating communist.
...but not Canadians. Wonder why?
Take off every 'sig' !!
You must hate communicating.
Take off every 'sig' !!
The FEC has spent a long time tightening the laws.
If the FEC has been tightening the laws, then we have bigger problems than lobbyists bribing elected officials, since the FEC is not part of either branch of Congress and therefore had no business changing laws in any manner.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You should also thank Rep. William A. Steiger (R-WI) for authoring the bill and Richard Nixon for signing it into law.
People from the United States of Mexico are Mexicans. People from the United States of America are Americans. There is no other group that is called "Americans" (except by Spanish-speakers who deliberately speak English incorrectly). It's consistent and unambiguous. People from the USA are Americans.
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, that's because they don't speak English. There is no place in the world where a native English speaker is confused on that point. It's *only* in places where Spanish is spoken where I've ever seen that issue. It's a language thing that's a translation error by the Spanish speaker.
Learn to love Alaska
Lobbyists are simply people. Corporations are headed up by CEOs. Are you going to make it illegal for them to contact their reps?
Nobody has said anything of the kind. Bill CEO can spend his CEO salary on all sorts of things. But when Ford MoCo spends money on lobbyists, that's not the same thing, even if someone from FoMoCo must hand the cash over.
The only problems with your ideas is that they would be gross violations of the first amendment, and are more dangerous than the issues they are trying to fix.
Only if you are too stupid to know the difference between a corporation and a person, or think that corporations have more rights that people (they are a person for rights, and not for responsibilities, so all the good and none of the bad makes them "better" than a person).
Learn to love Alaska
Call all donations from artificial persons to political organizations "illegal bribes". That wasn't so hard, was it?
Learn to love Alaska
The ability to pocket excess campaign cash ended quite some time ago, in 1989.
I remember a few long-term representatives that retired then. If they ran again, then all the money would go in the same pool. If they retired, they got to pocket it. Some of the older ones with multi-millions in the war chest called it quits and retired.
Learn to love Alaska
Here's the nice thing about the free market. If you don't like something your employer tells you to do, you don't have to work for them. In fact, with a free enough society, you can tell others what your employer tried to tell you to do which will either:
There has never existed a free market, and the few attempts in small areas failed before they ever really started. It's impossible. For one, there must be minimal barriers for shopping. In the labor side (what you are talking about here) that means a $0 cost to change jobs for both the worker and the hiring company. IF that were true, you'd be right. It's not, therefore you are necessarily wrong. You might as well argue about who wins in a battle between batman and spider man, or a unicorn and a pegasus.
Learn to love Alaska
what do you mean rely on yourself?
explain what this means in the context of your healthcare
for example: you break arm... what does "rely on yourself" mean when you break your arm, exactly?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Then you have solved the problem you posed a couple posts above. It's got nothing to do with globalism or income inequity.
According to your own rules, once the workers are no longer needed and job market shrinks due to automation and/or outsourcing, they should no longer bear children. The people with the means have no reason to let jobless workers breed out of control. This solution is consistent with your own position illustrated above with Raj and the other poor people.
So if you feel mistreated or underpaid, you know what you have to do to reduce your impact to society.
Changing your mind based on new findings or evidence when it's the right thing to do is also important. Politicians will have difficult time changing their position when it means loosing donations.
Corruption surrounding worker conditions is nothing new in the Japanese nuclear industry.
Watch this 1995 documentary to learn about some of the stuff under the surface, Nuclear Ginza
Organized crime even has its teeth in the thing.
It's a damned mess.
You expect the recipients of those bribes to make them illegal?
and don't go assuming that all of we are even human as I'm not nor ever have been. The only reason I'm here is because of a flat tiger
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
We can LoL to our hearts content.
Yet, having lived there, should I have stayed, never to have been granted Citizenship because of my blood, and thinking all of the 100k of Korean, Chinese and Taiwanese trapped in Japan's 'Immigration System' makes me very happy to have never changed my name, changed my heritage and never payed for surgical changes my body in order to 'fit' into Japan citizenship ... Citizenship Japan Style.
Racism lives in Japan and is codified by the Government of Japan. 'Government of Japan' what a joke.
LoL
I can't tell if you're naive, completely cynical, or just trolling.
Sure, spread the word about something you didn't like about your employer, after quitting, while you have no income. You will be labeled a troublemaker, have trouble finding new work (it's hard enough already without that label, or don't you read the news?), and if your employer thinks you will actually influence someone, they will sue you into bankruptcy, or even jail.
Employees don't give up jobs because of some malcontent (especially in this job market, remember?).
Customers who hear about some crazy's claims will ask about them, almost certainly not drop them as a vendor, and you're back to being sued into oblivion.
"quit or demand higher pay to work"? Are you serious? Have you ever HAD a job? In the real world?
Wow. Just wow. Ignorant, history-free children like you are hastening the death of unions, and showing corporations that their opportunity to baldly exploit the workers is back. Triangle Shirt Factory redux.
So is paying it to keep your pregnant mistress quiet so you can get elected ok?
(In reference to John Edwards arguing that he was not seriously in the campaign at that point and thus the hush money was personal use and thus ok, which I thought odd since he'd likely have a better case if he claimed that it was still going for his election campaign. Given that he was being charged with using campaign funds improperly.)
The FEC has spent a long time tightening the laws.
If the FEC has been tightening the laws, then we have bigger problems than lobbyists bribing elected officials, since the FEC is not part of either branch of Congress and therefore had no business changing laws in any manner.
In fairness, what happened was that some bureaucrats at the FEC proposed legislation that was sent to members of congress that subsequently changed the laws to get rid of stuff like members of congress pocketing the campaign financing. It went through congressional hearings and the full legislative process in Congress including the President's signature in order to become law.
Still, you shouldn't be looking at unelected bureaucrats as the source of protection for a democratic society. No matter how smart a bunch of guys at a federal agency might be, they still aren't perfect and it sort of goes against democratic principles to even have such people "above the law".
In this case the practice of pocketing campaign contributions pissed off more than a few ordinary citizens as well, so it was politically advantageous to be "above the fray" and to get rid of the practice.
Then again, instead of pocketing the campaign contributions they can now move the money to a "Super PAC". Not quite the same thing as being able to pocket the money but they can use the money to try and influence political campaigns of their "heir apparent" to the office they are leaving or be able to continue to have political influence in politics for many years afterward on various issues they care about. The money doesn't just disappear and it certainly doesn't go into the federal treasury in most cases.
Canadians had the good sense to tell the Continental Congress to go to hell, even if they had to fight two wars against America to drive that point home. Good for them too.
If you glow and you know it clap your hands!
If you know how to show it and you really want to blow it clap your hands!
Congratulations! You have just invented the strike - the most common weapon in the hands of the union!
Assembly still needs a spokesman. Otherwise it's just noise, and ineffective.
You are insane. There is a continent called America and you are part of it, it is sometimes called Americas in English, but both forms are correct. The name "America" can refer to either US, North and South America individually or together. Any of these 4 uses is correct.
I am pretty fine with the way you chose to call your country, you can choose to be called as you wish imo, but your saying that there is no continent with such name only shows how badly US education has become.
I've seen the same with Keynesian economics - people claim it's a failure when most of the time the government only impliments HALF the strategy.
Yes, it calls for cutting services, increasing taxes, and paying down debts when the economy is heated - cutting services frees up government workers to go work in the private economy, helping to fulfill that demand, increased taxes reduces the cash available for hiring said workers, acting to cool it, and paying down debts allows the government to have a good balance sheet and credit when the next downturn hits.
I don't read AC A human right
No, but the question wasn't "how do you get a body to pass rules against itself?" but "how do you outlaw [one specific idea]?" Answering how it would happen isn't the same thing as saying that it would be practical or likely.
Learn to love Alaska
I'd rather outlaw the existence of corporate speech; they can no longer hire lobbyists, else they lose their license to exist. Let the senators or congressmen talk to people one-as-one as individuals w/o a middleman. Stop my company from speaking for me, as if I automatically agree with the company's position just because I work here.
Corporations are legally persons; they are merely an organization of their shareholders' property, with administration entrusted to their executives. The shareholders and their corporation have constitutional 1st amendment protection, and you can't do that.
Specifically: It would be unconstitutional to attempt to restrict their speech.
And the shareholders of the corporation (and therefore the organization and executives to whom they have entrusted administration of their assets) have a right to peacefully assemble and a right to petition the government for redress of grievences.
Their rights do not cease to exist, when the shareholders pool their assets, organize under a legal name, and appoint representatives and delegates, to administer their assets.
It might have to do with the desired type of radiation that the detector is there for:
If it can't get past 2mm of lead, it doesn't seem like it'd be that dangerous to a worker in a radiation suit. To those who don't know, many kinds of radiation can't even make it past the dead layer of cells on the reader's skin. It's there to measure hard radiation like neutrons, therefore, the lead could be there to filter out radiation that isn't actually dangerous to the worker, but can still register on the detector. Why is such a radiation detector being used instead of a more proper one? Japan probably ran out of the "sensitive to hard radiation only" personal detectors early on possibly when this disaster occured (if you can call it that when no fuel material is actually released!)
In English, "The Americas" is the correct way (correct because it's the unambiguous way) to refer to both north and south America. North America is unambiguously North America. Same for South America.
No it is not: As you seem to have been checking wikipedia, you could have looked for the relevent reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas
Or if you need a dictionary entry, here it goes:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/america
"America" is a word used in English to define the sum of both South and North America. It is also used (in English as well) to define each one of them by omitting the "South" and "North" words in the same way you omit "United States of" when you use America to refer to your country.
You can use "America" to classify a continent or the set of two continents, depending on how you see it. It is irrelevant. Either way the word is a synonym to "Americas" and can be used this way in correct English.
You are the one that is wrong. Saying otherwise for the first time shows ignorance. Keep insisting on it, shows stubbornness.
hopefully, when they measure high radiation in whales, they will finally stop eating them.
Wouldnt that be ironic.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
You are insane.
No, you are both ignorant and vulgar.
There is a continent called America and you are part of it, it is sometimes called Americas in English, but both forms are correct. The name "America" can refer to either US, North and South America individually or together. Any of these 4 uses is correct.
No, there does not exist upon this earth a continent called "America". There are two different continents called "North America" and "South America". This is neither new nor ambiguous.
Collectively, the two continents can be referred to as "The Americas". The name "America" by itself refers to the country formally known as "The United States of America".
These are different terms referring to different things. It is not true that the word "America" refers to four different things.
Why would you make up something so stupid and ignorant?
I am pretty fine with the way you chose to call your country, you can choose to be called as you wish imo, but your saying that there is no continent with such name only shows how badly US education has become.
The fact that you think there are only six named continents when there are, in fact, seven shows how poor your education was. I have no idea where you're from, but rather than slag everyone born in your country, I'll just assume that you're one of the dumb ones from wherever that is.
Thank you. The Canadians did not fight two wars against two continents, including their own; they only needed to target the United States of America.
Take off every 'sig' !!
If you don't understand and incorporate dealing with them in your "economic" theory - you simply have no business even thinking about this stuff, let alone commenting on it.
You are the one that is wrong. Saying otherwise for the first time shows ignorance. Keep insisting on it, shows stubbornness.
You are the one showing your jackassery. There is no place on the planet where a native English speaker saying "American" would ever mean "South American". It's possible that Spanish speakers misuse managed to make it into a dictionary. That doesn't make it right, and reading the usages you quote, at best, it's the last entry, and the entries are always listed in order of most common to least, so one should assume all the others first, and you don't, indicating you don't even know how to use the dictionary you are quoting.
Learn to love Alaska
You must hate thinking.
It's consistent and unambiguous.
It's anything but that.
People from the USA are Americans.
So are Mexicans, Canadians, Ecuadorians, Brazillians etc. EOT
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
In Soviet Ukraine, radioactivity detects you!
Me: Mom, do we have some candy!
Mom: Yes, we do.
Me: Can I have some?
Mom: No, if you have some then we won't have any any more.
Me: Oh... (I know there is a hole in this argument but I can't quite put it into words). I guess you don't need logic when you got "because".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If you don't like grammar, I bet you $1 your code doesn't compile. Or your network is routed incorrectly.
Take off every 'sig' !!
http://preetul.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/22072_103448173014925_100000492294641_91284_8224118_n.jpg?w=600
Table-ized A.I.
And this is *exactly* what it is for.
Culture of deference my arse, this is badly fucked up.
We don't need more unions.
What we need is already existent unions WORKING.
HOW IN HELL this will not be prosecuted?
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
America also refers to The United States of America. Sorry, you lost this one. Just try to accept it.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
By the same measure, monopolies would be free to act in ways that are damaging to the consumer, and are illegal today. Of course, some* libertarians will not have a problem with this.
*Depending on the definition of libertarians.
If all computer sellers agree to not sell any computers for less than 2.000 $, that is illegal collution. If all welders make the same kind of agreement with what they offer to sell, that is somehow not covered by antitrust laws.
+1 Poe's law.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If you want to settle an argument with 'fact' then the bulk of mankinds 'facts' are at your fingertips.
Try it. checking your own 'facts' can be quite an education sometimes, particularly if your like me and left HS before most slashdotters were born.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
you obviously havent left the country.
America also refers to The United States of America.
Only to those "in the know". And no, I lost nothing here. One can say "ain't" all they want, it won't make it correct.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Canadians. War. *snerk*
Support my political activism on Patreon.
They can, however, get together and pool their money to hire a lobbyist. We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
Phirana.
Leeches.
Lazy sheep lead by a greedy corporation that attempts to posture itself as being 'for the worker'.
I guess I should add "niggers" just to deny the anonymous coward thinking he's witty adding it in response. Can't mention lazy people without an anonymous coward amending "niggers" to your thread. I'm one step ahead of you, dickbag.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
2) Repeal those laws in the name of deregulation.
3) Profit! (but not for the workers, of course.)
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Only if you are too stupid to know the difference between a corporation and a person, or think that corporations have more rights that people (they are a person for rights, and not for responsibilities, so all the good and none of the bad makes them "better" than a person).
You've been called on this assertion before. Show us the evidence. Don't just make bullshit assertions.
Problem is that when you look at a country such as Brazil you have union leaders going around by helicopters while the ones who they represent can barely pay for their food. Heck, the current ruling party even got elected because of support from unions and the ones who they have most benefited are bankers and corporations. Point being that unions can be corrupted by corporations as much as politicians. Corruption arises from people. Countries which are culturally more ethic tend to be a lot less the corrupt. The right way of fixing the problem is from bottom to top, not from the top to the bottom.
"I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
And I'm a perl script running in an undisclosed location. Can we be friends!
Call all donations from artificial persons to political organizations "illegal bribes".
That leads to First Amendment issues. Why should a human have more rights than an AI?
Reward today and tomorrow, not yesterday. Just because something exists because of unions in the past doesn't mean that those same unions are as beneficial today. Given my dealings with them, they reduce safety, add corruption, are existences of gluttony and sloth, and can legally function as a racketeering unit, preventing progress with threats. Unions have served a great purpose in the past, but they've long overstepped their bounds and now function as an impediment.
Oh my! Now you claim you know every single place where native English is spoken. Omniscience at its best!
So lets see:
- Wikipedia is wrong - The dictionaries are wrong - People who are not English native speaker are all wrong - You know what all native speakers think
Here you prove not to be only stubborn and ignorant, my friend, you clearly show you are also extremely arrogant and delusional.
Language is defined by use. If something makes into a dictionary it is because it is used for sometime and thus is officially part of the language. Even if it was a relatively recent inclusion that just came into the dictionary it would still be correct. It is not though. The use of the word with this meaning in English can be traced from the start of America's colonization.
Protip: If you don't want ambiguity do not omit words when referring to things. The only meaning of America that does not require other words for disambiguate is the continent (or continent set as you prefer).
Corruption doesn't arise from people, it arises from an imbalance of power.
Once the money goes into the campaign coffers, it stays there. There's no exception in the law for paying back the candidate.
Last time I checked, Japan was in the continent of Asia. How the hell did we get on this thread anyway?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Actually, it was America that targeted Canada in both wars. The first one was started by General Benedict Arnold, of all the strange coincidences that seem to happen in world history.
The War of 1812 really accomplished two significant things: painting the executive mansion of the U.S. President to always be painted white, and ensuring the independence of Canada from the USA. Well it also put Andrew Jackson in the White House, but that was for a battle that happened after the peace treaty was signed.
There is no Continent named "America" There are TWO continents named "North America" and "South America" and a country called "The United States of America", but none of the seven continents are called "America" alone.
Guess your education system is a failure too.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Same in Australia - we would have weekly meetings to discuss the paper cut Jill had on Tuesday, and to stay safe and ensure we didn't accidentally staple ourselves, wrap it all up with a 15min video on how to lift a box and some cake.
3 years working for Japanese companies and not a peep about any sort of safety even once. You can even raid the office first aid kit and not log what you took and why - something that would make my old OHS rep have a heart attack.
Accordingly to most countries in the World there is a continent called America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents#Number_of_continents
The fact is: you were taught a single model and never decide to look up for alternative models and decided to speak about it with the attitude only someone who knows what he is speaking about should have. You don't.
Furthermore, regardless of how you see it, a continent or a set of two continents, the name 'America' can be correctly used in English to define this entity as explained by me in the thread above.
Actually in Mexico we call people from the USA North Americans, so we'd say "norteamericano o gringo". I've never heard a fellow Mexican call persons from the USA " un americano".
What you describe is not health and safety, it is stupidity and arse covering. The UK Health and Safety Executive put out a series of H&S myths to try and dispel them: http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/top10myths.ht
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Wait are we talking about Unions or Affordable Health Care Act?
Yes, we like it white now, not black and smouldering anymore, thanks.
Once again, let me clarify: Canada was not targeted by two continents; it was targeted by The United States of America.
I think my point is pretty well made now. Yours too, apparently.
Take off every 'sig' !!
Why should a human have more rights than an AI?
Whether they should or shouldn't, they don't. Are you arguing equivalence between a corporation and an AI? Based on existing law, neither are citizens.
Learn to love Alaska
When's the last time a corporation had the responsibility of serving on a jury, or went to jail?
Learn to love Alaska
Wikipedia is right, and supports me, not you. The dictionary is right and supports me, not you. If the non-native speakers would stop asserting to know the language better than all other people on the planet, then there wouldn't be an issue. If a Spanish speaker is not in the room, it is unambiguous. Yet you assert that's a problem with everyone else.
Learn to love Alaska
So are Mexicans, Canadians, Ecuadorians, Brazillians etc. EOT
Only because they mistranslate a similar sounding word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend But when enough people misuse language, words like misunderestimate make it in the dictionaries.
Learn to love Alaska
Only because they mistranslate a similar sounding word.
Can you explain what's to "mistranslate" here? America/America?
But when enough people misuse language, words like misunderestimate make it in the dictionaries.
Or words like America start meaning only a part of America? You know what? USAns are already starting to think "their" land is the whole world. It's high time the were put in their place.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
So what? The owners and employees do have those obligations. We could also note that corporations can't vote and are always owned and controlled by someone else.
People also don't have to benchpress the paperwork that makes up a corporation's existence either.
Again, I'll ask you. What's the evidence that corporations have more rights than people do?
Are you arguing equivalence between a corporation and an AI?
Are you? You refer to artificial persons. That excludes corporations which aren't legally people. They are in limited cases treated like people but they aren't considered people. Corporate personhood isn't personhood.
On the other hand, artificial persons merely mean people who have been made through an artificial process. So artificial intelligences could be people.
And then we should make it compulsory for workers to join such a group and garnish their salary!
Your increased salary alone, even without the extra benefits those union dues buy, far outweigh the puny dues themselves. Not very good at math, eh? 1000+100-20 >1000.
Free Martian Whores!
What if he doesn't need to put his own money in the campaign coffers to begin with.
For instance if some company has already put enough money in the campain coffers so he doesn't need to?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Thank you for deciding that for me! Where would us bad-at-math types be without our glorious leaders?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Neither Wikipedia nor the dictionary support you by any stretch of logic, however tortuous that may be, unless, of course, you don't know how to read. I guess we can add illiteracy to your list of traits.
From the article:
"The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India and most English-speaking countries."
Since this is a high-technology website hosted in an English Speaking Country, I reject your paradigm and substitute it with my own.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Bah, best I can figure, you object to some unrelated opinion of mine, so you bicker over everything any chance you get, regardless of the facts or reasonableness.
Learn to love Alaska
Can you explain what's to "mistranslate" here? America/America?
Yes. Just because the word is spelled the same in two languages does not mean the meaning is identical. Making such a mistake would be very embarazado.
Learn to love Alaska
If you're sent to the nuclear plant by the Yakuza because you owe lots of money, that situations is very far removed from any concept of worker's rights.
Die of radiation in ten years, so you're not stabbed to death next week.
Bah, best I can figure, you object to some unrelated opinion of mine, so you bicker over everything any chance you get, regardless of the facts or reasonableness.
Ehhh, it's not that complicated. I have an avid interest in economics and some degree of knowledge. You've been making erroneous statements about corporate personhood and advocating policies (here the banning of contributions from "artificial persons") that make no sense at all. I am merely correcting you just as I would do anyone else who makes such statements.
Speaking of "facts or reasonableness" would indeed be reasonable, if it was clear that you had given some thought to the issue. But how can you claim, for example, that corporations have "more" rights than people when you can list and compare the various rights of each alleged party and see that the corporation is lacking. And why equate corporations with "artificial persons"? It's clear they aren't since they can't exercise the basic rights or obligations of a person, as citizen or not.
Corporation personhood is merely a mechanism for enabling existing rights not the granting of new or extra rights beyond what is already there. It's also not unique to the US. Other countries have their own flavor of this.
You can reject anything you want. It is your prerogative. That does not make it go away, though.
Corporation personhood is merely a mechanism for enabling existing rights not the granting of new or extra rights beyond what is already there. It's also not unique to the US. Other countries have their own flavor of this.
How long have you spend outside the US studying corporate law or even working for a corporation? The US doesn't understand what the "corporate veil" is. Outside the US, convictions of corporation members (workers, executives, or directors) is common. Inside the US, almost never is someone prosecuted for what they do under the guise of corporate activity. It takes something as blatant as Enron to get anyone to do anything, but even then, the court cases don't stick. Arthur Anderson was convicted (the company, not the person, if any), but that was overturned, as was Ken Lay's conviction overturned. Outside the US, convictions are regularly obtained and upheld. Corporations aren't there for the initial basic idea that the corporation has to have some "rights" independent of the people working for it or owning it for contracts to survive the termination of those who signed them. That much makes sense. But when it's proven that wrongdoing has happened, the corporate stance is that the "corporation" did it, and that no individual has any individual responsibility. The corporate veil was created so that an investor with no decision making capability would not be responsible for more than their investment. But in the US, it's a shield preventing nearly all criminal charges from being laid against employees. That's not what was intended, and not how the economics texts would lay it out.
I've heard of no other place in the world where corporations are so far above the law (with the only possible exceptions being where the corporations are government owned and get a "shield" from their government involvement, and not corporatehood). If you want to cite the rest of the world as an example, please do go on. Where are the members as impervious from law as they are in the US?
But how can you claim, for example, that corporations have "more" rights than people when you can list and compare the various rights of each alleged party and see that the corporation is lacking.
I have. Specifically, they have the right to be immune to responsibilities. You've ignored that right every time it's mentioned, so of course I've never proven it. Proof is ignored, yet you ask for more to ignore.
Learn to love Alaska
So, you're a chauvinist. (Because you assume the other languages/nations get it wrong and yours (or chosen by you) is the only one right.) Bye,
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
The US doesn't understand what the "corporate veil" is. Outside the US, convictions of corporation members (workers, executives, or directors) is common. Inside the US, almost never is someone prosecuted for what they do under the guise of corporate activity.
Ok, where's the evidence? A couple of mishandled cases with respect to Enron means corporations in the US have more power than elsewhere? I have to say that is a remarkably poor argument.
I have. Specifically, they have the right to be immune to responsibilities. You've ignored that right every time it's mentioned, so of course I've never proven it. Proof is ignored, yet you ask for more to ignore.
Nonsense. You have yet to give an example of this or how the US is somehow different from the rest of the world.
Where are the members as impervious from law as they are in the US?
Well, I'd say the rest of the developed world for starters. If you want a much worse corporate situation than the US, then look to China or Russia.
You are saying the non-speakers of a language have *more* of a right to define a language than the speakers of that language. That makes you the chauvinist.
Learn to love Alaska
Congratulations! You have just invented the strike - the most common weapon in the hands of the union!
What are you saying, that people are only permitted to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances on your terms?
LMAO. And you don't even know the word is Latin in origin. In fact, you've shown you don't know what you're talking about at all. Good day, Sir.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
You seem to have misunderstood how unions work, they aren't involved in an illegal price setting ring, they are working together to try and enhance their rights, stopping an employer from using their power to drive wages and conditions to the lowest possible level. If you like the lowest possible wage and level of benefits, I'm sure you can find someone to provide it to you quite happily.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
You seem to have misunderstood how unions work, they aren't involved in an illegal price setting ring, they are working together to try and enhance their rights, stopping an employer from using their power to drive wages and conditions to the lowest possible level.
By leveraging their monoply. How else would they get the employer to give them more than he would do if no unions existed? What is strikes, if not a demonstration that a monopoly exists? This is not illegal, there is an inherent assymerty in the power of the employer and the employee, which the state tries to even out by allowing unions to leverage monopoly tactics that would be illegal in other areas of commerce. But it is leveraging a monopoly.
You seem to misunderstand the weird monopoly as well. Assy-merty I like the sound of, is it a philosophy or more a French lifestyle?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Working in a large company, us desk jockeys had the same OHS schedule as the field techs - which meant as hard as our OHS rep tried, there really wasn't anything he could do with the company mandated OHS time.
It worked much better when I was working at a car factory (the time was much better spent identifying problems and improving safety), and also in datacenters (for example we improved labeling and documentation to prevent accidents).
Don't get me wrong - I prefer the Australian method - I've seen some stuff in Japan that makes even the stuff I've seen in China look shoddy, but sometimes people take it a little too far.
What makes your paradigm more correct than mine? Especially, in the century or so since the Panama Canal was completed, there is more reason to see North and South America as two continents than Europe and Asia.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You aren't even trying to explain to me what I don't understand, and you mock my typos. You are clearly not a person one would go to for intelligent discourse, so I will end this discussion now.
Assist and asistir have the same root and different meanings. Since you are asserting that English is wrong and Spanish is right, would you make the same judgment for all such "conflicts"? As both came from assistere.
You don't know what I know. I know exactly where "America" came from. But that doesn't change the current meaning in English. I happen to be fluent in both English and Spanish, and thus managed to see the difference, but coming from the case of a native English speaker learning Spanish, rather than the usual way for people fluent in both to have learned Spanish first. You haven't demonstrated knowledge of anything, other than insults and ad hominems.
Learn to love Alaska
The storm had now definitely abated, and what thunder there was now grumbled over more distant hills, like a man saying "And another thing" twenty minutes after admitting he's lost the argument.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
To make it clearer for you, the USA is the USA and America is America, the USAn hegemony notwithstanding. The usage of the word "American" to denote a citizen of the USA is just an ingrained error, like "gonna" or "ain't". Doesn't make it unambiguous, much less correct.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
I've been to 5+ countries with English as an official language. Nobody in any of them took "American" to mean anything other than "A citizen of the USA". The meaning isn't just American English. It's English. And only the Spanish speakers have any legitimate confusion over it, as they have the same word in their language that means something different. And most refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a false friend.
This isn't about the USA hegemony. People from The United States of Mexico are Mexicans. In all cases. It's simple, it's unambiguous, and it's consistent. With USA, there's confusion only in people who aren't native speakers because America, in regular English, is a shortening of USA, with no other popular meaning. The word "America" has other meanings in other languages, and it's the racist xenophobes outside the US for a change that are trying to wrongly push a new meaning to an English word.
Learn to love Alaska
Nothing makes any of my paradigms better than yours, but what we are discussing is not even a paradigm. If you observe with care my words, I never said North America or south America do not exist, neither did I say that they are not continents. Saying some abstract entity like a continent doesn't exist is refuting the existence of the abstraction itself, in this case, the model, which is a falsity, as the model in question do exist.
Both the 6 and 7 continent models do exist and are used in many countries, including English speaking ones, at least enough to make entries into English dictionaries. Although it is not the prevalent model in USA, it is a model largely used in the World. The properly way to express yourself in this matter is: "Accordingly to the prevalent (or preferred) continent model in USA, North America and South America are considered separate continents, but there are other models that consider both as parts of a single continent, named 'America' or 'Americas', in English."
Personally, I prefer the strict geological definition of continents as a single mass of land, where there are only 4 continents: America, Afro-Eurasia, Australia and Antarctica, because it just makes more sense. Other definitions are just too vague and subjective. The ONU and the Olympic committee use the 6 continent model without Antarctica (America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania), though.
Yada-yada
Yeah, right
the racist xenophobes outside the US
You really need to brush up on your definitions. Fearing, criticising and even hating the neocolonial terrorist state that is the USA for its hegemony - military, economic or otherwise is, if anything, reasonable (as in, it has its logical reason), not xenophobic and certainly not racist. The USA was built on racism and never ceased to be racist in its internal and foreign policies, so you're simply projecting.
I myself was a fan of everything USAn up until 2003. Never again.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
2003? When the US elected Bush over Gore when Gore won the popular vote overall and in FL, though the courts and conservative media conspiracy sold it to the public ( not that the public cared one way or another) was the point when I realized the US was irrevocably broken. Though I wasn't ever a blind "fan of everything" of anything, ever.
Learn to love Alaska