I vote the same way. It's because I vote based on an ethical framework, not always short-term shallow selfishness.
Rhetorical question: Would it be wrong to vote for a tax decrease for segments of the population that make less than you? After all, that wouldn't benefit you.
Sadly, I think this will change over the next few decades. There are types of employees that love to put up artificial barriers to competition. Whether it's engineers, architects, or hair dressers, the established workers love certification schemes. It'll drive more work offshore, of course.
Depends on the union, and depends on the employer. There are valid places and times for unions. Bringing more benefits to employees that are already well-paid with significantly above average benefits is really not one of them.
This isn't 'Grapes of Wrath'. These aren't workers enslaved to the company store, living in company barracks, fighting for basic human rights. They're well-off workers trying to push their benefits further above the market rate.
Unions, a collection of workers fighting for a better deal. Why is that a bad thing but corporations screwing workers over isn't?
Both are bad. Unions as a group of employees deciding to cooperatively strike is not a problem. Unions as mandatory guilds with special legal privileges are a huge problem, distorting the market and increasing unemployment.
Businesses do bad things too. They seek special legal protections, too. Both are wrong.
A $5,000 increase in salary to every employee would suck up the funds needs to hire 3,300 more employees at $50,000 salaries. Which would be better to have?
Unions, recently, are working to increase the benefits of a smaller group of employees, which means a higher unemployment rate for the remainder. What we need is the opposite. The compensation level of full-time employees is not a large problem, but unemployment is. Right now, the economy needs a little more union-busting and low-paying entry-level jobs.
Why is ovoid (potato) shaped more likely than oblate (squashed)? Is it more likely that 1 dimension is longer than the other two, than that one dimension is shorter than the other two?
It seems like that breaks symmetry, but I don't recall ever seeing an asteroid shaped like a flattened beachball.
I don't know who you mean me "We", you hillbilly, but Lego is a mass noun just like "grass".
Might be, might not be. That's not something a company gets to decide; it's decided over time by the mass of English speakers. I suspect the vote is not swinging your way, though.
Mobile devices are going to be the most common platform for games soon, including 3d games, and there you can definitely use more than 4GB for a process.
I don't think so. Games of any moderate graphical complexity burn too much energy, and battery technology is advancing too slowly. For phones to take share in the gaming field away from consoles or PCs, they would need better ergonomics (connectable controllers), better power (probably plugging into an outlet while playing), and output to the TV.
In other words, mobile devices will surely come to dominate mobile gaming, but will not make significant headway against 'immobile' gaming, any more than being able to watch movies on your smartphone reduces the demand for home theaters. They're expanding the market, not taking away from the existing players. They might be stealing from Nintendo and Sony's handheld sales...
I work in a physics lab and can tell you there no such thing as cold fusion.
Almost certainly true.
They never has and their never will.
Probably true.
Fusion is inherently a thermal process in the same way that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.
Not at all true. Fusion relies on nuclear interactions that really have nothing to do with heat energy; there's no fundamental reason it's needed. It's just the only pathway we've found so far to getting those interactions started.
That's the exact same idea that occurred to everybody within seconds of looking at the problem. Either the contest is going to have a thousand entrants tie for first place, or that quick solution doesn't actually work for non-trivial cases.
Nothing racist about that comment; that's your own (racist) projection. My first thought went to ancient Greeks, although his comment is about humanity in general.
Well, the tax break is universal to all companies researching in that field, while a check would probably be going to particular 'favored' companies. I get your point that, in principle, the two are the same, but I don't think in practice they would be; there would probably be less cronyism in a tax break.
No, because that would be bad, and rational people wouldn't want that result. It's rational to take other people's behavior into account; sometimes, it's even rational to mix in a little randomness.
I have two laptops and three desktops in my household that are probably going to be running XP for at least another year. I don't want to upgrade one of them to window 7 until I'm ready to upgrade most/all of them to 7.
Kind of the same reason I still use DVDs instead of Blurays, I guess.
"Lingering effect" is not "memory". Calling it memory is bad anthropomorphism, and will contribute to sloppy definitions, fuzzy reasoning, and eventually to pseudo-science. I'm sure the scientist involved understand that the phenomena they're studying is nothing at all like memory, but once this is wrung through the filter of popular press, the distinction gets lost.
This is how quantum physics gets turned into new-age philosophy, and biomechanics gets turned into healing resonant vibrations.
It does, because increased efficiency is what gives them more stuff to buy at cheaper prices. Efficiency has gone up massively over the last century or two, and unemployment really hasn't increased at all beyond noise (except for the introduction of women into the workforce, which practically doubled employment).
Slashdot Mirror
I vote the same way. It's because I vote based on an ethical framework, not always short-term shallow selfishness.
Rhetorical question: Would it be wrong to vote for a tax decrease for segments of the population that make less than you? After all, that wouldn't benefit you.
Yeah, but you don't often swig 32 ounces of coffee. I'd bet the average serving size of sodas is twice that of coffee.
Guys, this is a Kristopeit comment that isn't modded down to -1 yet. I don't have any points, or I would do it myself. Can somebody else chip in?
Sadly, I think this will change over the next few decades. There are types of employees that love to put up artificial barriers to competition. Whether it's engineers, architects, or hair dressers, the established workers love certification schemes. It'll drive more work offshore, of course.
I don't doubt they'll have an election. I'm not sure they'll have a second one, though.
Depends on the union, and depends on the employer. There are valid places and times for unions. Bringing more benefits to employees that are already well-paid with significantly above average benefits is really not one of them.
This isn't 'Grapes of Wrath'. These aren't workers enslaved to the company store, living in company barracks, fighting for basic human rights. They're well-off workers trying to push their benefits further above the market rate.
Unions, a collection of workers fighting for a better deal. Why is that a bad thing but corporations screwing workers over isn't?
Both are bad. Unions as a group of employees deciding to cooperatively strike is not a problem. Unions as mandatory guilds with special legal privileges are a huge problem, distorting the market and increasing unemployment.
Businesses do bad things too. They seek special legal protections, too. Both are wrong.
Interesting idea except for the slight problem of being completely illegal in Australia.
What an immoral law.
Yeah. I live in a moderately small town of 50,000. There's 500 1%'ers right here. Pretty meaningless. Redheads form a more exclusive club.
A $5,000 increase in salary to every employee would suck up the funds needs to hire 3,300 more employees at $50,000 salaries. Which would be better to have?
Unions, recently, are working to increase the benefits of a smaller group of employees, which means a higher unemployment rate for the remainder. What we need is the opposite. The compensation level of full-time employees is not a large problem, but unemployment is. Right now, the economy needs a little more union-busting and low-paying entry-level jobs.
Why is ovoid (potato) shaped more likely than oblate (squashed)? Is it more likely that 1 dimension is longer than the other two, than that one dimension is shorter than the other two?
It seems like that breaks symmetry, but I don't recall ever seeing an asteroid shaped like a flattened beachball.
I don't know who you mean me "We", you hillbilly, but Lego is a mass noun just like "grass".
Might be, might not be. That's not something a company gets to decide; it's decided over time by the mass of English speakers. I suspect the vote is not swinging your way, though.
Mobile devices are going to be the most common platform for games soon, including 3d games, and there you can definitely use more than 4GB for a process.
I don't think so. Games of any moderate graphical complexity burn too much energy, and battery technology is advancing too slowly. For phones to take share in the gaming field away from consoles or PCs, they would need better ergonomics (connectable controllers), better power (probably plugging into an outlet while playing), and output to the TV.
In other words, mobile devices will surely come to dominate mobile gaming, but will not make significant headway against 'immobile' gaming, any more than being able to watch movies on your smartphone reduces the demand for home theaters. They're expanding the market, not taking away from the existing players. They might be stealing from Nintendo and Sony's handheld sales...
I work in a physics lab and can tell you there no such thing as cold fusion.
Almost certainly true.
They never has and their never will.
Probably true.
Fusion is inherently a thermal process in the same way that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.
Not at all true. Fusion relies on nuclear interactions that really have nothing to do with heat energy; there's no fundamental reason it's needed. It's just the only pathway we've found so far to getting those interactions started.
Prices are set to what will make the most money,
Nope. Prices are set to what the market will bear.
Those are the same thing. Raising prices over what the market bears will make less money.
That's the exact same idea that occurred to everybody within seconds of looking at the problem. Either the contest is going to have a thousand entrants tie for first place, or that quick solution doesn't actually work for non-trivial cases.
Nothing racist about that comment; that's your own (racist) projection. My first thought went to ancient Greeks, although his comment is about humanity in general.
Well, the tax break is universal to all companies researching in that field, while a check would probably be going to particular 'favored' companies. I get your point that, in principle, the two are the same, but I don't think in practice they would be; there would probably be less cronyism in a tax break.
One good thing about this result is that it can be tested. Do it for a few programs, see if they succeed or not. If they don't, no harm.
No, because that would be bad, and rational people wouldn't want that result. It's rational to take other people's behavior into account; sometimes, it's even rational to mix in a little randomness.
I once got fired by a client because I didn't downgrade a windows 7 laptop to xp.
Stupid is as stupid does.
At least your story had a moral.
I have two laptops and three desktops in my household that are probably going to be running XP for at least another year. I don't want to upgrade one of them to window 7 until I'm ready to upgrade most/all of them to 7.
Kind of the same reason I still use DVDs instead of Blurays, I guess.
"Lingering effect" is not "memory". Calling it memory is bad anthropomorphism, and will contribute to sloppy definitions, fuzzy reasoning, and eventually to pseudo-science. I'm sure the scientist involved understand that the phenomena they're studying is nothing at all like memory, but once this is wrung through the filter of popular press, the distinction gets lost.
This is how quantum physics gets turned into new-age philosophy, and biomechanics gets turned into healing resonant vibrations.
Increased efficiency doesn't help out workers
It does, because increased efficiency is what gives them more stuff to buy at cheaper prices. Efficiency has gone up massively over the last century or two, and unemployment really hasn't increased at all beyond noise (except for the introduction of women into the workforce, which practically doubled employment).