I know quite a few straight males who consider the women depicted by Peter Paul Rubens to be "fatties" (well, ok, I often question their sexuality, but they claim to be straight and some of them are married with kids). Personally, I prefer the women depicted by Peter Paul Rubens to the models in the Victoria's Secret catalog.
It depends on your definition of "fatties". Many people today consider the women depicted in the paintings by Peter Paul Rubens to be "fatties". Those women represent what was considered sexy for most of history. I happen to still consider that to be sexy.
What is misleading are the people who use the term 'genetically modified' to refer to organisms that have been genetically engineered in some manner. While technically hybrids are genetically modified, that is not what the general public understands GM to mean, nor is it what the original article meant by GM.
I believe it would be reasonable to limit the term "genetically modified" to those where it was done by human action (which means it only applies to plants and animals that have been cultivated by humans for several generations, of the plant or animal, at some point. Which is still a fairly large group of organisms).
In part because, while speculation that oil prices are going to rise causes oil prices to rise sooner, it also causes oil prices to not rise as far when the event that causes the price spike actually happens. Additionally, oil speculators cause oil prices to start falling sooner as well. Basically, if he was able to actually outlaw oil price speculation, it would make matters worse, not better.
The OP did suggest that that might be an alternative explanation.
More or less anything else that might be conjured up to explain this precipitous drop (aside from a worldwide recession that is driving down consumption and demand) is just nonsense.
What new technology are you proposing to replace internal combustion engines? Electric cars have been around almost as long as internal combustion engine cars and people are still calling them "cutting edge technology" because they haven't caught on.
How come electric vehicles still need R&D? They've been around almost as long as Internal Combustion Engine vehicles (the first commercial electric car was sold about 20 years after the first commercial internal combustion car). Wouldn't you think by now they would be perfected?
Except that they didn't even claim that. They claimed that it was bad to oppose the bill without understanding it, but good to support the bill without understanding it. Which is the exact inverse of what I would consider to be the correct sentiment for a person in Congress. If someone in Congress does not understand a bill, they should vote against it. You might be able to make a case that they could take the word of a trusted staffer who understands the bill, but in this case the "trusted staffer" is admitting that they didn't understand the bill either.
Exactly, if you don't understand the bill, why are you even thinking about voting for it? I am willing to accept that a Congressperson might choose to vote for a bill that they do not understand, but that several of their staffers do (but just barely). However, this was one of the staffers telling us that not even the staffers understood the bill. If you pass a bill that you don't understand, isn't it likely that it will do things that you would rather not have done?
No, the web crawler still does not have any rights any more than a printing press has rights. Just because someone uses a tool to exercise their rights does not mean that the tool now has rights.
No, right now, it's a matter of complete bullshit by a lawyer who doesn't even understand what computers are and should be kept as far away from the computing machinery as possible.
I mostly agree with you except that I think that the people behind this know full well that it is BS and are using this as a lever to try and push some other agenda.
Corporations do not have free speech. The people who formed the corporation have free speech, they do not lose that right because they formed a corporation in order to exercise that right. In the same manner, the people who program a computer (or who pay someone to program it) do not lose that right because they use a computer to exercise it.
Yes, you could claim that "Offend-o-tron" is free speech, of course, you would be liable for any slander or libel that it generated. Under current U.S. law, if you restricted its targets to clearly defined "public" figures you could possibly avoid losing the suit on the basis of not knowing what it was going to say
If you programmed a computer to make thousands of bank transfers and when it went live somehow forgot to take out a testing level function that transferred a small amount of money into a dummy account for every transaction, you would be guilty of criminal negligence (or should be).
No, the web crawler would not have the rights of a human, but the humans that wrote it would have rights that they could exercise through the use of the web crawler, just as the humans who formed Citizens United had rights that they could legally exercise through the corporation that they formed.
This is not about "free speech rights for computers". If the action is protected by the First Amendment for the person who owns the computer, than just because they use a computer to do it does not make it something that you can prevent them from doing. On the other hand, if they could be held legally liable for the results if they did it in person, than they should be held legally liable if they use a computer to do it. Computers do not have free speech rights, the people who use them do. Just as the Citizen's United decision did not say that corporations had free speech rights, but that the people who form them do.
as people who are "worth more than minimum wage" would see or at least expect to see their wages scale upwards.
And you don't think that happens now? If someone started working someplace for minimum wage and they became so valuable to their employer that he gave them a raise to keep them from going someplace else, and minimum wage rises to the rate the employer is now paying them, don't you think that the employer is going to be under some pressure to give them a raise so that they do not leave to go to work for someone else? Of course that likely means that the employer is going to have to raise the rate he charges people for his product. The other thing is, if a job is worth $8 an hour to me, and you make minimum wage $9 an hour, that doesn't mean that I will pay someone $9 an hour to do the job. It means that I will pay someone $0 an hour and either do the job myself or do without.
Except that it is not just one burger flipper who has gotten a raise, but every minimum wage employee. The question is, if minimum wage is such a good idea, why don't we make $100 and hour?
The thing about those jobs that never pay more than minimum wage is that you should not stay in them long term. They are jobs that can pretty much be done by anybody that has a pulse and can stand upright (the second part not always necessary). The only exception to the above are jobs that people do because they love them. If a job requires actual skills and your value to the employer increases the longer you hold the job and the employer only ever pays minimum wage, they will not stay in business very long because their most valuable employees will always be leaving for better paying jobs.
Yet people want burger flippers. Maybe some of those people only make $8/hr, but a lot more make $10-$20/hr. So, if that burger flipper gets a raise, then there's still a lot of customers who hourly make enough to eat the extra cost in their burgers to pay enough that the burger flipper doesn't starve to death.
Now when that burger flipper wants to buy a burger that someone else flipped it costs him more...as does everything else. So now that raise he got buys him no more than the money he was making before the raise and maybe even less depending on how the price increases work (for example, some union workers make much more than minimum wage, but their wages are calculated as a multiple of minimum wage so that every time minimum wage goes up they get an automatic increase in their wages).
The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is not a treaty. The U.S. has ratified only one of the two treaties that together implement the UDHR. The one they ratified was ratified with legally binding reservations that state that the U.S. accepts no legal obligations from the treaty. Which means that in effect, not all western countries have ratified the UDHR.
However, since this story takes place in Canada, which has ratified the two treaties which between them implement the UDHR, it is relevant to this article.
Slashdot Mirror
I know quite a few straight males who consider the women depicted by Peter Paul Rubens to be "fatties" (well, ok, I often question their sexuality, but they claim to be straight and some of them are married with kids). Personally, I prefer the women depicted by Peter Paul Rubens to the models in the Victoria's Secret catalog.
It depends on your definition of "fatties". Many people today consider the women depicted in the paintings by Peter Paul Rubens to be "fatties". Those women represent what was considered sexy for most of history. I happen to still consider that to be sexy.
What is misleading are the people who use the term 'genetically modified' to refer to organisms that have been genetically engineered in some manner. While technically hybrids are genetically modified, that is not what the general public understands GM to mean, nor is it what the original article meant by GM.
I believe it would be reasonable to limit the term "genetically modified" to those where it was done by human action (which means it only applies to plants and animals that have been cultivated by humans for several generations, of the plant or animal, at some point. Which is still a fairly large group of organisms).
In part because, while speculation that oil prices are going to rise causes oil prices to rise sooner, it also causes oil prices to not rise as far when the event that causes the price spike actually happens. Additionally, oil speculators cause oil prices to start falling sooner as well. Basically, if he was able to actually outlaw oil price speculation, it would make matters worse, not better.
More or less anything else that might be conjured up to explain this precipitous drop (aside from a worldwide recession that is driving down consumption and demand) is just nonsense.
What new technology are you proposing to replace internal combustion engines? Electric cars have been around almost as long as internal combustion engine cars and people are still calling them "cutting edge technology" because they haven't caught on.
How come electric vehicles still need R&D? They've been around almost as long as Internal Combustion Engine vehicles (the first commercial electric car was sold about 20 years after the first commercial internal combustion car). Wouldn't you think by now they would be perfected?
Except that they didn't even claim that. They claimed that it was bad to oppose the bill without understanding it, but good to support the bill without understanding it. Which is the exact inverse of what I would consider to be the correct sentiment for a person in Congress. If someone in Congress does not understand a bill, they should vote against it. You might be able to make a case that they could take the word of a trusted staffer who understands the bill, but in this case the "trusted staffer" is admitting that they didn't understand the bill either.
Exactly, if you don't understand the bill, why are you even thinking about voting for it? I am willing to accept that a Congressperson might choose to vote for a bill that they do not understand, but that several of their staffers do (but just barely). However, this was one of the staffers telling us that not even the staffers understood the bill. If you pass a bill that you don't understand, isn't it likely that it will do things that you would rather not have done?
No, the web crawler still does not have any rights any more than a printing press has rights. Just because someone uses a tool to exercise their rights does not mean that the tool now has rights.
No, right now, it's a matter of complete bullshit by a lawyer who doesn't even understand what computers are and should be kept as far away from the computing machinery as possible.
I mostly agree with you except that I think that the people behind this know full well that it is BS and are using this as a lever to try and push some other agenda.
Corporations do not have free speech. The people who formed the corporation have free speech, they do not lose that right because they formed a corporation in order to exercise that right. In the same manner, the people who program a computer (or who pay someone to program it) do not lose that right because they use a computer to exercise it.
Yes, you could claim that "Offend-o-tron" is free speech, of course, you would be liable for any slander or libel that it generated. Under current U.S. law, if you restricted its targets to clearly defined "public" figures you could possibly avoid losing the suit on the basis of not knowing what it was going to say
If you programmed a computer to make thousands of bank transfers and when it went live somehow forgot to take out a testing level function that transferred a small amount of money into a dummy account for every transaction, you would be guilty of criminal negligence (or should be).
No, the web crawler would not have the rights of a human, but the humans that wrote it would have rights that they could exercise through the use of the web crawler, just as the humans who formed Citizens United had rights that they could legally exercise through the corporation that they formed.
This is not about "free speech rights for computers". If the action is protected by the First Amendment for the person who owns the computer, than just because they use a computer to do it does not make it something that you can prevent them from doing. On the other hand, if they could be held legally liable for the results if they did it in person, than they should be held legally liable if they use a computer to do it. Computers do not have free speech rights, the people who use them do. Just as the Citizen's United decision did not say that corporations had free speech rights, but that the people who form them do.
as people who are "worth more than minimum wage" would see or at least expect to see their wages scale upwards.
And you don't think that happens now? If someone started working someplace for minimum wage and they became so valuable to their employer that he gave them a raise to keep them from going someplace else, and minimum wage rises to the rate the employer is now paying them, don't you think that the employer is going to be under some pressure to give them a raise so that they do not leave to go to work for someone else? Of course that likely means that the employer is going to have to raise the rate he charges people for his product. The other thing is, if a job is worth $8 an hour to me, and you make minimum wage $9 an hour, that doesn't mean that I will pay someone $9 an hour to do the job. It means that I will pay someone $0 an hour and either do the job myself or do without.
Except that it is not just one burger flipper who has gotten a raise, but every minimum wage employee. The question is, if minimum wage is such a good idea, why don't we make $100 and hour?
Bloomberg was a Democrat who changed his Party affiliation to Republican when he could not get the Democratic Party nomination for Mayor of New York.
No, but there is another factor. Americans are trained to believe that more expensive colleges are better than less expensive colleges.
The thing about those jobs that never pay more than minimum wage is that you should not stay in them long term. They are jobs that can pretty much be done by anybody that has a pulse and can stand upright (the second part not always necessary). The only exception to the above are jobs that people do because they love them. If a job requires actual skills and your value to the employer increases the longer you hold the job and the employer only ever pays minimum wage, they will not stay in business very long because their most valuable employees will always be leaving for better paying jobs.
Yet people want burger flippers. Maybe some of those people only make $8/hr, but a lot more make $10-$20/hr. So, if that burger flipper gets a raise, then there's still a lot of customers who hourly make enough to eat the extra cost in their burgers to pay enough that the burger flipper doesn't starve to death.
Now when that burger flipper wants to buy a burger that someone else flipped it costs him more...as does everything else. So now that raise he got buys him no more than the money he was making before the raise and maybe even less depending on how the price increases work (for example, some union workers make much more than minimum wage, but their wages are calculated as a multiple of minimum wage so that every time minimum wage goes up they get an automatic increase in their wages).
And the group of people who typically earn minimum wage experience a decrease in their baseline rate of participation in the workforce.
The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is not a treaty. The U.S. has ratified only one of the two treaties that together implement the UDHR. The one they ratified was ratified with legally binding reservations that state that the U.S. accepts no legal obligations from the treaty. Which means that in effect, not all western countries have ratified the UDHR.
However, since this story takes place in Canada, which has ratified the two treaties which between them implement the UDHR, it is relevant to this article.
Ah, the appeal to authority.