And your comment conveniently leaves off the fact that Clarkson physically assaulted a co-worker. How would you like it if you went to work every day under the threat of physical assault?
Oh, your like of Top Gear is more IMPORTANT than someone getting punched whilst going about their job?
Clarkson is an asshole and may be a racist asshole as well, but he would probably be there still if he didn't throw punches at producers.
It's hard to keep taking these claims seriously when panel after panel of people who REALLY want to hang Hillary for the slightest infraction can't find a single thing to even complain about.
I have a lot of problems with the Clintons, but the constant witch hunt is just crazy.
I think what you meant is that they would rather vote for a candidate that is apt to destroy the country rather than get over irrational hatred they've harboured since Bill was in office. You can hate all you want, but rationally it's hard to call Hillary anything other than a Status Quo candidate. The going really isn't that hard for the political and corporate elite right now.
I have no doubt that the "we just want to watch the world burn" contingent has a candidate, and his name is Trump.
So... everyone but the top 10% by meritocracy don't deserve a decent life?
First of all, the meritocracy part isn't working (at least not in the US, where leadership at all levels in the shitpile) and second of all, why doesn't everyone deserve a decent life? If society can't give the vast majority of people a decent life then it is failing.
The problem is that we will always have the 50% that is on the low side of the median line. We will always have people whose strong point is NOT their brain.
People don't ask to be born, and when they are born they should have the ability to have a decent life. They need something productive to do. When repetitive and low-skill jobs are all gone we have to find some way for these people to live. Our current strategy is pretty much call them lazy or make them political outcasts in an attempt to make everyone feel better that they don't have a place in society that can lift them up out of poverty.
We've increased our productivity levels exponentially since the 1970s, but very little of that benefit went to people below the top 10%. The common person is working more hours and being more productive than ever before, and even so he/she is more of a wage slave than any time in modern era.
Unless some of the basic tenets of US society change the benefits of even MORE per-person productivity are just going to keep accruing at the top. That sounds hopeless, but it is possible. Our corporate worshipping culture as we know it today only started to form in the mid-1970s.
> This basically sums up the problem with the economy - it is gummed up with jobs that do not produce real wealth. Sure, lawyers will say that copyright laws > are important because they give an incentive for real wealth creators to do stuff, but there is no natural law that ensures that the amount of human > energy that goes into protecting existing wealth would not have produced a net greater benefit for society if it had been directed at creating new real > wealth instead.
Copyright was built with the idea to give incentive to do work so that work can make it to the commons and other people can build off of that foundation. It wasn't a magic formula to make cash and that's how it is treated today.
A good and low cost way to encourage coding is to buy Raspberry Pi boards for kids. It's worked great in the UK.
However, since that tech is not owned by Microsoft I bet that's not on the table. Yeah, Gates has been good with philanthropy, but I fair criticism of some of that work has been that ultimately its self promoting. Open Source tech is free (as in beer) for all, but it doesn't fit the Gates/Microsoft world view.
Remember you're dealing with a group of people (US leadership and US political candidates) who believe that there is a big ON/OFF switch for the Internet located in Bill Gates' basement.
Another way to state this is that the US now needs thought police.
How about the we spend our time looking for the REAL troublemakers instead of deciding certain broad groups, i.e. "Muslims," 'Web site users," etc. are all bad.
Of course that would take reasoning ability, and that's at an all time low in our leadership and our general population.
I've seen this story a couple of times already today. I hope someone does an analysis of where this "information" about the solar farm came from.
We've had similar campaigns against wind farms in Indiana. It's resulted in an outright ban of wind farms in at least one county. The claims were also very dubious in that case as well.
I tend to think that these folks didn't come up with the ideas themselves. I think someone needs to look to see if ALEC and other such groups were part of it.
The only reason that corporations act the way they do is because common and case law have led it in that direction. There is nothing scared about the "rules" of a corporation. They are changeable.
Is it a desirable quality for the success of a society, however?
There isn't a requirement for a government to kowtow to every "need" a business puts forth. Multinationals aren't paying taxes and, as this story shows, they aren't really providing that many new American jobs either.
This makes corporate-centric people on stashdot explode every time I say it, but the corporation is (at least supposed to be) a creature of the state. One of the reason that corporations act the way they do is because of case law. The legislature can change the law which will contradict that case law.
The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.
Having said that, the political will is not there because all intents and purposes the corporate class control the government.
Slashdot Mirror
And your comment conveniently leaves off the fact that Clarkson physically assaulted a co-worker. How would you like it if you went to work every day under the threat of physical assault?
Oh, your like of Top Gear is more IMPORTANT than someone getting punched whilst going about their job?
Clarkson is an asshole and may be a racist asshole as well, but he would probably be there still if he didn't throw punches at producers.
It's hard to keep taking these claims seriously when panel after panel of people who REALLY want to hang Hillary for the slightest infraction can't find a single thing to even complain about.
I have a lot of problems with the Clintons, but the constant witch hunt is just crazy.
She's more of a corporatist than a globalist, IMHO.
I think what you meant is that they would rather vote for a candidate that is apt to destroy the country rather than get over irrational hatred they've harboured since Bill was in office. You can hate all you want, but rationally it's hard to call Hillary anything other than a Status Quo candidate. The going really isn't that hard for the political and corporate elite right now.
I have no doubt that the "we just want to watch the world burn" contingent has a candidate, and his name is Trump.
Possible isn't probable.
That is because you're an asshole of the same level as this CEO.
So... everyone but the top 10% by meritocracy don't deserve a decent life?
First of all, the meritocracy part isn't working (at least not in the US, where leadership at all levels in the shitpile) and second of all, why doesn't everyone deserve a decent life? If society can't give the vast majority of people a decent life then it is failing.
Won't happen.
The CEO/executive market is already useless. If they *really* cared about cost cutting then 1/2 of the executives would be out tomorrow.
>Typical. AIs that ignore emotions and have none could replace C-Level management.
Nothing replaces management. They've managed to make themselves the "geniuses" of the Corporate age.
The problem is that we will always have the 50% that is on the low side of the median line. We will always have people whose strong point is NOT their brain.
People don't ask to be born, and when they are born they should have the ability to have a decent life. They need something productive to do. When repetitive and low-skill jobs are all gone we have to find some way for these people to live. Our current strategy is pretty much call them lazy or make them political outcasts in an attempt to make everyone feel better that they don't have a place in society that can lift them up out of poverty.
I don't. Not in American society, anyway.
We've increased our productivity levels exponentially since the 1970s, but very little of that benefit went to people below the top 10%. The common person is working more hours and being more productive than ever before, and even so he/she is more of a wage slave than any time in modern era.
Unless some of the basic tenets of US society change the benefits of even MORE per-person productivity are just going to keep accruing at the top. That sounds hopeless, but it is possible. Our corporate worshipping culture as we know it today only started to form in the mid-1970s.
> This basically sums up the problem with the economy - it is gummed up with jobs that do not produce real wealth. Sure, lawyers will say that copyright laws
> are important because they give an incentive for real wealth creators to do stuff, but there is no natural law that ensures that the amount of human
> energy that goes into protecting existing wealth would not have produced a net greater benefit for society if it had been directed at creating new real
> wealth instead.
Copyright was built with the idea to give incentive to do work so that work can make it to the commons and other people can build off of that foundation. It wasn't a magic formula to make cash and that's how it is treated today.
A good and low cost way to encourage coding is to buy Raspberry Pi boards for kids. It's worked great in the UK.
However, since that tech is not owned by Microsoft I bet that's not on the table. Yeah, Gates has been good with philanthropy, but I fair criticism of some of that work has been that ultimately its self promoting. Open Source tech is free (as in beer) for all, but it doesn't fit the Gates/Microsoft world view.
C-
Buck up, Sally. Ted Cruz gets a D-.
Remember you're dealing with a group of people (US leadership and US political candidates) who believe that there is a big ON/OFF switch for the Internet located in Bill Gates' basement.
Another way to state this is that the US now needs thought police.
How about the we spend our time looking for the REAL troublemakers instead of deciding certain broad groups, i.e. "Muslims," 'Web site users," etc. are all bad.
Of course that would take reasoning ability, and that's at an all time low in our leadership and our general population.
why she was such a shitty tech CEO.
I've seen this story a couple of times already today. I hope someone does an analysis of where this "information" about the solar farm came from.
We've had similar campaigns against wind farms in Indiana. It's resulted in an outright ban of wind farms in at least one county. The claims were also very dubious in that case as well.
I tend to think that these folks didn't come up with the ideas themselves. I think someone needs to look to see if ALEC and other such groups were part of it.
It's case law, and it's too common knowledge to require a citation.
IANAL, but suggest that a corporation should take care of its employees in an investor's forum and you'll get a citation.
The only reason that corporations act the way they do is because common and case law have led it in that direction. There is nothing scared about the "rules" of a corporation. They are changeable.
It very well may be, but it's probably also true that you've drank the corporate kool-aid.
By the way, I own stock, but it doesn't mean I am for every type of corporate abuse that makes the company a few extra bucks.
Which, of course, justifies all forms of abuse.
Is it a desirable quality for the success of a society, however?
There isn't a requirement for a government to kowtow to every "need" a business puts forth. Multinationals aren't paying taxes and, as this story shows, they aren't really providing that many new American jobs either.
This makes corporate-centric people on stashdot explode every time I say it, but the corporation is (at least supposed to be) a creature of the state. One of the reason that corporations act the way they do is because of case law. The legislature can change the law which will contradict that case law.
The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.
Having said that, the political will is not there because all intents and purposes the corporate class control the government.