It's so quaint when people are surprised that the *favorite industry here* lies to the public about the risks involved, or that the government is almost always complicit in the perpetration of those lies.
FTFY. I could say the same about fossil fuels (BP) or renewables (Solyndra). Yeah, it's over-generalizing, but I would like to see you try to call me out on it.
Your point A is missing the OP's point. OP is saying if this year's average wage worldwide was $4000 and you made $30000, that means this year there were enough people below $4000 to make up that extra $26000 you got. He's not saying the economy is a zero-sum game, he's just saying deviations from a mathematical average come out to zero-sum. He was just trying to emphasize how most of the "99%" protesters live as a 1%'er when considering the global wealth distribution.
(I don't agree with OP, although he does have some points. Regardless, please try to re-read any post you think is way off-base, as you likely are misinterpreting them. First time I read OP's post I got the same impression as you did.)
(yes there are a dozen posts making the same point, but I'm taking the subjective handwaving out f it)
Say the robot-making company employs 1000 people. That means robot sales have to cover 1000 wages/salaries (not to mention base cost). So if they sell 1000 robots, each would cost at least as much as that of the average Robot Co. employee. Unless the robots replace high-wage workers, they could never sell as the human worker is still cheaper. Therefore, by simple economics a worker-replacing robot company must eliminate more jobs than it creates.
I thought it was only a materially adverse change to the contract (getting less bang for your buck should qualify). I remember hearing that when cancelling over a contract change you should say something along the lines of it being a materially adverse change (not just "I don't like it"). Can anyone confirm?
Good point. If you don't want to pay for a cellphone, do what people did only 10 years ago without cellphones and make use of payphones, there's always one within... Wait, almost all the payphones are gone now. Yeah, you can get by without a cellphone if you're dedicated, but it isn't as easy as it used to be*.
*I wouldn't know how the wifi/Google option works out, other than it not being as simple/inexpensive as payphones, considering you need to buy an unsubsidized smartphone (or pay for a plan just to get the phone).
The right to drive is raised when a cop/authority pulls you over for a traffic violation, or suspected intoxication. The right to travel is raised when a cop/authority pulls you over to search you and/or your vehicle simply because you were passing by. It's important to make the distinction between the legal status of travelling and driving, but I don't feel it really applies here* (short of the cop trying to blur the line in his favor).
The article mentions that thiomersal (I really got that word wrong in the summary) is no longer used in children's vaccines in US/Canada, and has similar resistance in Scandanavia. While I doubt thiomersal will end up being banned here, given precedent it can't be ruled out.
I don't care to live next to a large industrial facility, but if I had to I would readily pick a nuclear plant over almost any other industrial operation. Coal plants would be at or near the bottom of my list. With a nuclear plant there is a (almost, but not quite) negligible chance that I would have to evacuate and never go back home, while with a coal plant I would dread every day that I lived there.
You can only use "I don't want to live next to a nuclear plant" as an argument against nuclear if you would be happy living next to a coal plant, given that's the alternative right now. I'm sure some people would still claim they would rather live next to a coal plant, but give coal the same media exposure as nuclear and I bet most people wouldn't be so sure.
All I want is for Google to scare the ISPs into competing again. Or maybe Google can lobby for better government regulation/lack of regulation (no more locally-granted monopolies). Google only benefits so much for being your ISP- they just want to make sure you're using the internet a lot.
It would help if a lawyer could weigh in on whether evidence of perjury could open the case to allow the man to walk free. Not to mention, by keeping the video until after the cops testify, they lose the opportunity to change their tune enough to get the innocent man convicted anyways. By default I'll assume there are issues with witholding evidence like that, but IANAL.
Sure, this sounds like it would be good at telling you when you find U or Pu or whatever, but what happens to the benign stuff? Is it dangerous to people? Does it pose a risk to electronics and/or data?
Being a good parent isn't just spending lots of one-on-one time with your kid. It also involves knowing when to step back and let your kid explore on their own and figure stuff out without running everything past you first. Of course, you want to sandbox that experience at first until your kid has a good sense of how to avoid the bad stuff (that is, until your kid is old enough).
Well what I'm saying government should do (not that I expect they will) is that they have to make that central authority at no cost to the businesses (so government better make sure organizing this information costs less than the tax revenues generated). It really shouldn't be very expensive once a system is set up, especially if the data is collected by state. As I wrote in another post, the idea should be that businesses get the tax information from this database, and instead of the business being responsible for doing the legwork, it's on the government to make sure the database is correct. At that point all you need is to tell customers how to find their ZIP+4.
That's why I said there should be some system in place to push this information out with little effort needed by the online stores. To be more specific, some.gov site could have a database of all the tax information, maybe updated once a month (and a month in advance). Online stores just pull a copy of this information to use for the month. When a sale is made, the site's record of the sale includes what copy of the tax database file they referred to. It will be on the state and local governments to make sure the database is correct.
To be fair, if I pay sales taxes on most stuff I buy at physical stores, I don't see why it makes sense for internet purchases to be exempt- especially as shopping shifts increasingly to the internet. I would go so far as to say it is irresponsible of the government not to start figuring out a (fair) way to tax online retailers the same as physical stores, instead of shoring up falling revenue by increasing taxes on the shrinking pie. That said, I think before online taxation starts it needs to be figured out on a national level so we make sure everything is consistent.
First you have to figure out how taxes are collected: do I pay taxes for my state of residence, the state I am in at the time I click 'purchase", the state the item is being shipped to, the state the item is being shipped from, or the state the company resides in (assuming it's in the US)? Once you figure out which state gets the money, it would help to have some sort of file or server that sites can check to figure out how much tax to charge- sites shouldn't have to expend resources to stay on top of tax rates in all 50 states.
In the meantime, the states really should hold off on trying to implement such a tax, as it seems most aren't very good at thinking things through.
What gets me about this "cellphones cause radiation" thing is that visible light is a higher frequency (in theory "more likely" to cause cancer). Why should I even consider listening to this anti-cellphone argument if no one is complaining about being bombarded by visible light? (Seriously, I would like to know if this is a valid argument).
I'll agree that Apple would suffer from genericizing here, as I don't think of Apple when I hear "app" or "app store" (I had no idea the relation between Apple and "app" was any different than Barnes and Noble and "book"). Even so, I wouldn't always consider genericizing as something that is "suffered", such as in the case of Kleenex or Xerox or Google (just watch the parody Bing launch video for a demonstration why).
At the engineering school I went to, a few of the classes had "textbooks" that were typed up by the professors, printed on 3-hole-punch paper, and put in a binder. So instead of $120 books from big-name publishers, we paid under $15. Sure, these weren't as good as normal textbooks, but if professors from multiple schools collaborated it shouldn't be hard to improve these texts to the point that the overpriced books are obsolete.
Many of the $120 engineering textbooks are written by professors, but that doesn't mean you can't find a handful willing to work out a text that will be distributed online for free.
If you say you have nothing to do you are implying you can't find any further progress you can make on what's on your plate. If the boss looks at what you've done and isn't happy with it, you've just shown him that you don't know what quality work looks like, and that would make a good reason to be let go.
Maybe this worker really did do a good job and was let go because the boss hates to be bothered, but a worker complaining about a lack of work isn't necessarily a good worker.
So if there's this big conspiracy to make it look like Obama really is a natural-born citizen, what's the mischievous plot driving it all? It doesn't seem to me like where he was born has any effect on what he's doing as president. I don't agree with everything Obama does, but "follow the money trail. follow the power trails" applies to any powerful politician, and the whole birther thing doesn't have any bearing on it. If Obama really was born in Kenya, why wouldn't the conspirators just pick someone who was born in the US? At least most conspiracy theories put an interesting plot behind it (moon landing to beat the Russians, Bush and 9/11 for his personal revenge).
Slashdot Mirror
It's so quaint when people are surprised that the *favorite industry here* lies to the public about the risks involved, or that the government is almost always complicit in the perpetration of those lies.
FTFY. I could say the same about fossil fuels (BP) or renewables (Solyndra). Yeah, it's over-generalizing, but I would like to see you try to call me out on it.
Your point A is missing the OP's point. OP is saying if this year's average wage worldwide was $4000 and you made $30000, that means this year there were enough people below $4000 to make up that extra $26000 you got. He's not saying the economy is a zero-sum game, he's just saying deviations from a mathematical average come out to zero-sum. He was just trying to emphasize how most of the "99%" protesters live as a 1%'er when considering the global wealth distribution.
(I don't agree with OP, although he does have some points. Regardless, please try to re-read any post you think is way off-base, as you likely are misinterpreting them. First time I read OP's post I got the same impression as you did.)
(yes there are a dozen posts making the same point, but I'm taking the subjective handwaving out f it)
Say the robot-making company employs 1000 people. That means robot sales have to cover 1000 wages/salaries (not to mention base cost). So if they sell 1000 robots, each would cost at least as much as that of the average Robot Co. employee. Unless the robots replace high-wage workers, they could never sell as the human worker is still cheaper. Therefore, by simple economics a worker-replacing robot company must eliminate more jobs than it creates.
Normal smartphone use is still unlimited.
For how long?
A limited time?
I thought it was only a materially adverse change to the contract (getting less bang for your buck should qualify). I remember hearing that when cancelling over a contract change you should say something along the lines of it being a materially adverse change (not just "I don't like it"). Can anyone confirm?
just jail brake your phone
I thought the idea here is to avoid slowing your data connection.
Good point. If you don't want to pay for a cellphone, do what people did only 10 years ago without cellphones and make use of payphones, there's always one within... Wait, almost all the payphones are gone now. Yeah, you can get by without a cellphone if you're dedicated, but it isn't as easy as it used to be*.
*I wouldn't know how the wifi/Google option works out, other than it not being as simple/inexpensive as payphones, considering you need to buy an unsubsidized smartphone (or pay for a plan just to get the phone).
The right to drive is raised when a cop/authority pulls you over for a traffic violation, or suspected intoxication. The right to travel is raised when a cop/authority pulls you over to search you and/or your vehicle simply because you were passing by. It's important to make the distinction between the legal status of travelling and driving, but I don't feel it really applies here* (short of the cop trying to blur the line in his favor).
*IANAL
The article mentions that thiomersal (I really got that word wrong in the summary) is no longer used in children's vaccines in US/Canada, and has similar resistance in Scandanavia. While I doubt thiomersal will end up being banned here, given precedent it can't be ruled out.
It's like making a V6, 4 wheel drive quilt, where software developers are behind.. who knows, maybe half of the patches that go into it.
Fixed your analogy for you.
I don't care to live next to a large industrial facility, but if I had to I would readily pick a nuclear plant over almost any other industrial operation. Coal plants would be at or near the bottom of my list. With a nuclear plant there is a (almost, but not quite) negligible chance that I would have to evacuate and never go back home, while with a coal plant I would dread every day that I lived there.
You can only use "I don't want to live next to a nuclear plant" as an argument against nuclear if you would be happy living next to a coal plant, given that's the alternative right now. I'm sure some people would still claim they would rather live next to a coal plant, but give coal the same media exposure as nuclear and I bet most people wouldn't be so sure.
All I want is for Google to scare the ISPs into competing again. Or maybe Google can lobby for better government regulation/lack of regulation (no more locally-granted monopolies). Google only benefits so much for being your ISP- they just want to make sure you're using the internet a lot.
It would help if a lawyer could weigh in on whether evidence of perjury could open the case to allow the man to walk free. Not to mention, by keeping the video until after the cops testify, they lose the opportunity to change their tune enough to get the innocent man convicted anyways. By default I'll assume there are issues with witholding evidence like that, but IANAL.
Sure, this sounds like it would be good at telling you when you find U or Pu or whatever, but what happens to the benign stuff? Is it dangerous to people? Does it pose a risk to electronics and/or data?
Being a good parent isn't just spending lots of one-on-one time with your kid. It also involves knowing when to step back and let your kid explore on their own and figure stuff out without running everything past you first. Of course, you want to sandbox that experience at first until your kid has a good sense of how to avoid the bad stuff (that is, until your kid is old enough).
Just get the Australian version. (Quick, before their new system kicks in).
Well what I'm saying government should do (not that I expect they will) is that they have to make that central authority at no cost to the businesses (so government better make sure organizing this information costs less than the tax revenues generated). It really shouldn't be very expensive once a system is set up, especially if the data is collected by state. As I wrote in another post, the idea should be that businesses get the tax information from this database, and instead of the business being responsible for doing the legwork, it's on the government to make sure the database is correct. At that point all you need is to tell customers how to find their ZIP+4.
That's why I said there should be some system in place to push this information out with little effort needed by the online stores. To be more specific, some .gov site could have a database of all the tax information, maybe updated once a month (and a month in advance). Online stores just pull a copy of this information to use for the month. When a sale is made, the site's record of the sale includes what copy of the tax database file they referred to. It will be on the state and local governments to make sure the database is correct.
To be fair, if I pay sales taxes on most stuff I buy at physical stores, I don't see why it makes sense for internet purchases to be exempt- especially as shopping shifts increasingly to the internet. I would go so far as to say it is irresponsible of the government not to start figuring out a (fair) way to tax online retailers the same as physical stores, instead of shoring up falling revenue by increasing taxes on the shrinking pie. That said, I think before online taxation starts it needs to be figured out on a national level so we make sure everything is consistent.
First you have to figure out how taxes are collected: do I pay taxes for my state of residence, the state I am in at the time I click 'purchase", the state the item is being shipped to, the state the item is being shipped from, or the state the company resides in (assuming it's in the US)? Once you figure out which state gets the money, it would help to have some sort of file or server that sites can check to figure out how much tax to charge- sites shouldn't have to expend resources to stay on top of tax rates in all 50 states.
In the meantime, the states really should hold off on trying to implement such a tax, as it seems most aren't very good at thinking things through.
What gets me about this "cellphones cause radiation" thing is that visible light is a higher frequency (in theory "more likely" to cause cancer). Why should I even consider listening to this anti-cellphone argument if no one is complaining about being bombarded by visible light? (Seriously, I would like to know if this is a valid argument).
If someone puts that on a T-Shirt and starts handing them out near the checkpoints, I'd donate to the cause.
I'll agree that Apple would suffer from genericizing here, as I don't think of Apple when I hear "app" or "app store" (I had no idea the relation between Apple and "app" was any different than Barnes and Noble and "book"). Even so, I wouldn't always consider genericizing as something that is "suffered", such as in the case of Kleenex or Xerox or Google (just watch the parody Bing launch video for a demonstration why).
At the engineering school I went to, a few of the classes had "textbooks" that were typed up by the professors, printed on 3-hole-punch paper, and put in a binder. So instead of $120 books from big-name publishers, we paid under $15. Sure, these weren't as good as normal textbooks, but if professors from multiple schools collaborated it shouldn't be hard to improve these texts to the point that the overpriced books are obsolete.
Many of the $120 engineering textbooks are written by professors, but that doesn't mean you can't find a handful willing to work out a text that will be distributed online for free.
If you say you have nothing to do you are implying you can't find any further progress you can make on what's on your plate. If the boss looks at what you've done and isn't happy with it, you've just shown him that you don't know what quality work looks like, and that would make a good reason to be let go.
Maybe this worker really did do a good job and was let go because the boss hates to be bothered, but a worker complaining about a lack of work isn't necessarily a good worker.
So if there's this big conspiracy to make it look like Obama really is a natural-born citizen, what's the mischievous plot driving it all? It doesn't seem to me like where he was born has any effect on what he's doing as president. I don't agree with everything Obama does, but "follow the money trail. follow the power trails" applies to any powerful politician, and the whole birther thing doesn't have any bearing on it. If Obama really was born in Kenya, why wouldn't the conspirators just pick someone who was born in the US? At least most conspiracy theories put an interesting plot behind it (moon landing to beat the Russians, Bush and 9/11 for his personal revenge).