how many stupids are there in the world? How many people exist that are too immature and not evolved enough to have the sense not to swallow the entire content? Who pays to clean up that mess?
I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that alcohol is already legal. The Drug Harm Index lists alcohol at number 5, way ahead of the most restricted class A drugs like Ecstasy and LSD. Prohibition of alcohol was a failure. So the genie is out of the bottle... given that one of the most dangerous and addictive drugs is already legal, and that there is no realistic chance of it becoming illegal, then I don't see any reason to prosecute people for trading or consuming drugs that are less harmful.
If they are indeed overpriced, then why doesn't 1 competitor just come in with a ridiculously low price and suck up all the "cheap" market?
I have seen the 7" apad (iped, epad etc.) going for as low as $60USD on Chinese websites. You can Buy It Now on U.S. Ebay for $100. Also Android phones (Sciphone G15) for $100.
But these devices are not so popular in the U.S. and Europe. I would guess that they don't perform as well as a HTC device. Also, a phone is a fashion statement. Having the $100 Chinese Android phone is not going to impress as much as having a $600 "American/European brand (but built in China)" Android phone.
I just don't get how deniers can ignore simple logic.
Oil has always been a problem for the Creationists and Young Earthers. They can (and will) argue endlessly that the conventional wisdom that the "liberal scientists" came up with is wrong, and that oil was, and still is, formed over a very rapid period due to some magical "natural process". Check out this video from the Young Earth Creation headquarters.
I actually heard a Creationist once say "Scientists are idiots. The fact is something just goes 'bloop' and a new oil field is created." What? Oil fields are just instantly created through some magic process that the scientists just can't comprehend because they don't have "faith"? I don't think so.
For these people, denial is a matter of faith, not logic. They think that the more they deny, the more faith they show, the more pleased God will be with them.
No one wants an oil well in their back yard until we are all screaming for oil to lubricate the gears off the economy. That sentiment will change.
Except that the GP was wrong about unexplored oil being hidden in Britain and the rest of north-west Europe. The oil is in the North sea, where no humans live, 70%+ has already been extracted, and peak oil was already hit in 1999.
This is not about oil running out - it is about production peaking. There will always be some small amounts of oil, somewhere, but if it is not feasible to extract it then it doesn't matter.
Russians have always been operating a policy of "use 1, save 1". They have a considerable state reserve, so does USA in Alaska.
This is not about reserves running out, this is about peak production being reached. Russia likely hit peak oil in 2006. US oil peaked in 1970. Alakan oil peaked in 1988.
Britain has petrol so does Germany, Netherlands, etc.
You are talking about North sea oil, which hit peak production in 1999.
200$ a barrel and 4-5$ per litre (not per gallon) at the pump are coming this way within the next 10 years
Possibly. A 10x increase in cost of transport would have huge consequences for our way of life, it would probably trigger a wholesale switch to electric vehicles for personal transportation, increased food costs, increased manufacturing costs, etc.
There is lots and lots of power to be had from nuclear sources. No it isn't a 1:1 replacement for oil but that's ok, we can deal with that.
Nuclear and renewable sources may be able to replace oil as an energy source, but oil is also used as a manufacturing material. If the price of plastics jumps 10x because of an oil increase, then we will be unlikely to maintain our current way of life. I know about bioplastic, but I don't know at what point it becomes economically viable - maybe it will never be viable for the kind of mass market, use it everywhere, approach that we currently have to plastics.
It'll be a gradual thing, an increase in prices as supplies dwindle and/or harder to reach deposits are tapped.
You are assuming that as supply tails off, the cost will increase gradually, presumably linearly and over many decades. Unfortunately the dynamics of oil pricing are more complex than that. When the U.S. hit peak oil in 1970, Bretton Woods collapsed, the stock market crashed, the OPEC countries flexed their new muscle with the 1973 oil crisis and then instability in Iran led to the 1979 oil crisis. During these times, the cost of oil did not increase linearly, it was more like exponential - see the Wikipedia graph.
All of our amenities, seemingly abundant and unending, provide a natural barrier to understanding just how quickly and totally society can break down when the "basics" become extremely hard to obtain.
So true. How many days did it take for law and order to break down in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit? And this was in a stable, prosperous 1st world country where people weren't even starving.
And even then, what can be automated here can be automated there where the workforce that runs the machines are cheaper (read: exploited).
This is true to a point. It is not the case where the cost of transporting the finished goods to the West is high, where the goods are perishable (e.g. foods), or where the robots themselves require skilled highly educated engineers to maintain and operate. If the cost of labour were the only factor, then we would've already seen most of the automated Japanese manufacturing industry shift to China. Instead, to give Nissan as an example, there are new highly automated factories opening up in Japan, Europe and the U.S. (Third Factory For 2011 Nissan Leaf Production Is Smart Move In EV Production War).
The average annual suicide rate in the United States is 11.1 people per 100,000 of the population. Your college had 38.46 suicides per 100,000 people. Given the huge disparity, and the fact that the general population includes all of the mentally ill and drug abusers (who are much more likely to commit suicide), then you should be able to conclude that there is something wrong with your comparison (hint: sample size).
my college was apparently 30x more likely to drive someone to suicide.
b)..... Until you know the exact gender and age makeup of Foxconn's workforce you can't compare stats accurately, but we would expect a predominantly female workforce to have a much lower suicide rate than the "average" (50/50ish gender mix).
Correction: Except in China, where the suicide rate for women is apparently slightly above that of men. Bizarre...
The fact is that Foxconn has HALF the suicide rate of Italy, which has the LOWEST rate in Europe.
Hmmm, according to Wikipedia, Greece has about half the rate of Italy... but your comparison is void anyway because:
a) An entire nation has a much more diverse population. Alcoholics, mentally ill, elderly etc. ("about 90 percent of persons who completed suicides in all age groups had [have] a diagnosable mental or substance abuse disorder" link). A young workforce that has been selectively recruited should have much lower levels of mental and substance abuse than the general population, and hence, much lower levels of suicide.
b) Foxconn apparently has a predominantly young, female workforce. Looking at the figures from Wikipedia, the female suicide ratio is about 1/5th that of the male. Until you know the exact gender and age makeup of Foxconn's workforce you can't compare stats accurately, but we would expect a predominantly female workforce to have a much lower suicide rate than the "average" (50/50ish gender mix).
c) All the articles from May-June that mention "14 suicides per 400,000 workers this year" are cunningly refering to "this year" as the period January-May.That is not 12 months, that is 5 months, so the calculated suicide rate from those articles is incorrect.
The correct comparison would be: what is the expected suicide rate given the age/gender of Foxconn employees, either compared to a similar population in manufacturing jobs in the West or China (depending on what point you want to debate). This comparison has not been done by any of the sites on the net that discussed this topic, and the ones that have compared the suicide rate to the general population are being blatantly dishonest due to point a) above.
why not develop improved manufacturing technology and capability -- demonstrating that it's possible to make competitive products without "exploiting" the poor?
Exactly, this is a good strategy for countries that can develop advanced industrial robots. The top 10 countries by robot density all have successful economies when compared with the rest of the world. There are some industries where high levels of automation are not possible yet (sewing clothes together, assembling complex 3D structures, picking vegetables, things that rely on hand-eye coordination and human mobility); these are the human labour intensive industries where cost pressures mean labour is generally sourced from other countries (where outsourcing is possible), or immigrants (where local). But for everything else, the developed world needs to continue to move from a culture of "building stuff" to a culture of "building robots that build stuff". Competing directly with countries like China to provide cheap labour is not going to work, waiting for the salary of the average Chinese to reach Western levels will take too long, and starting a trade war through punitive taxation is only going to hurt both sides in the long term. I do find it odd that people seriously still think the Western world could be competitive with China in traditional manufacturing - it is simple economics that work will flow to the human worker who costs 1/10th of the competition.
or we raise the price for them to sell in the US unless they meet a min. standard.
That is kind of what the European Union does with respects to its member nations. In exchange for becoming part of the EU and getting access to the EU single market, countries have to implement EU Directives into national law, including human rights and employment rights, and basically cede authority over parts of their legal system to EU courts. Freedom of movement means that workers in a less prosperous country, or a country with objectionable work conditions, can easily move to a more prosperous one. The model has worked pretty well - wealthier countries have gained access to cheaper labour and new markets, and poorer countries gain access to cheaper services and technology. In contrast, free trade agreements that involve no aspect of human rights or employment rights often mean that work flows to those countries where workers are subject to the most unreasonable working conditions, and lack of freedom of movement means that inhabitants of those countries have no choice but to stay there.
So, if you want to go back that far to show guilt, then the way I see it, you owe me whatever land you currently preside on plus a shitload of back rent plus interest.
It is not about assigning guilt for some past wrongs. It is merely about acknowledging whether or not the followers of Christianity have, since the time of the New Testament, carried out acts of violence. And historically, they have. This is despite Jesus telling them, over 1000 years earlier, that violence is not to be allowed! Christians had 1500 years to reflect on the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament about peace and forgiveness, and yet were still violent enough to massacre 100,000 people on St. Bartholomew's Day. Why is it so hard for Christians to actually follow the teachings of Jesus? How can it be said that Christians are peaceful, when the Roman Catholic church, after over 1000 years of existence and preaching the New Testament, wages a Holy War against people following another branch of Christianity, resulting in a million "heretics" being killed? How can it be said that Christianity is a religion of peace, if the leading Christian powers throughout history have just ignored the teachings of Jesus about peace and forgiveness?
Really? You mean that Muslims will produce all this uproar over burning Korans or drawing a cartoon of Mohamed, and they didn't say a word while Christians were raping and killing Muslims? Bullshit.
But Muslims were outraged. How did you miss it? Thousands of Mujahideen from all around the world went to fight in the Balkans after hearing Western media reports about the rape and genocide:
"between 1,800 and 3,000 mujahideen fought in Bosnia on the side of the Bosnian Muslim army. These holy warriors came from the Middle East, north Africa and western Europe (notably France and the UK). And their path to holy war in Bosnia was facilitated by western intervention.... Perhaps most strikingly, many mujahideen were encouraged to venture to Bosnia by shrill media coverage of the conflict. Arab fighters say they first ventured to Bosnia because they 'saw US media reports on rape camps' or read about the 'genocide' in Bosnia and the 'camps used by Serb soldiers systematically to rape thousands of Muslim women'." - The Guardian
God is not only non-denominational
What has this got to do with the fact that 78% of Americans self-identify as Christian? Not "followers of a monotheistic God", but specifically "Christian".
For example, The Ten Commandments say "Do not murder", does that mean our laws against murder are based on the Ten Commandments?
Well, that is an interesting and more complex question than you probably think. The U.S. legal system was based on the English one, and at the time England was a Christian theocracy, with Anglicanism as the state religion and the King as head of the Church. The extent to which the legal system was based on Christianity has been often debated. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
Whilst common law itself predates the establishment of Christianity in Britain, there were legal prohibitions on certain activities that can clearly be traced back to the Canon law declarations o
Now why would the Serbs muster a militia of 5000 men? Well there was the whole Bosnia/Kosovo/Croatia/Albania thing going on that influences regional politics in Serbia.
Of course. Geopolitics and ethnoreligious feuding are often linked. Having said that, this particular group do self-identify as the "first uniformed Christian militia squad, comprised of war veterans from all over Serbia".
Meanwhile the small Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades killed 768 in the same period.
The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are not Islamic militants - they are officially a secular group. The political wing - Fatah - is also secular. Their disagreement is with Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Comparisons of U.S. Christian group attacks to the attacks of Islamist groups in the Middle East will always be complicated by the fact that the U.S. is a stable and prosperous democracy whilst Middle East countries are often despotic undemocratic regimes with many poor people, and sometimes propped up by the uncomfortable presence of foreign troops nearby. Comparisons with attacks on Israel are also difficult - there is no other country in the world that is in the position of Israel, that is essentially an occupying force that has refused to either integrate the population as citizens, or allow them to become citizens of their own nation state. It is unsurprising that this has bred resentment.
Um, can we get an example that is less than 400 years old? Thanks.
The age is irrelevant. You claimed that Christianity is only "a religion that put 13 people in the hospital". I pointed out that Christianity has put many more than that in the grave. 400 years old still means that they were good New Testament Christians, the ones that had abandoned all that "eye for an eye" stuff, right?
Nearly all of the ethnic cleansing I've seen has been against Albanians
No, the ethnic cleansing in Serbia was against Muslims in Kosovo.
As I'm sure you are well aware, Communists are atheists for the most part.
As I'm sure you are well aware, Serbians are Christian for the most part. "Survivors of concentration camps report that during torture sessions or when they begged for water they were made to sing Serbian religious nationalist songs reworded to reflect the contemporary conflict."
And where were all the Christians shouting for forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" after the twin towers were attacked? Where were all the Christians arguing to not invade Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9/11)?
I saw several. I remember the President, a Christian
Really? You remember George W. Bush saying something like "Folk, I know we've been attacked here, but what we should do now is... absolutely nothing, except forgive those who have attacked us. We should turn the other cheek, so if they want to, they may attack us again." You remember that? Because that is what Jesus preached, not violent retribution.
As I'm sure you'll be one the first to argue, the US is not a religious state and religion has no effect on domestic or foreign policy.
The U.S. is not a "religious state". However, 78% of Americans self-identify as Christian, and the Bush administration was overtly Christian. It may even be fair to call the U.S. a "Christian nation" or maybe "one nation under God". In a democratic nation with 78% of people identifying as Christian, how could Christian values not have an effect on policy?
(I also find it hilarious that you would try to use 9/11 as an example of Christian intolerance)
Then you completely missed the point. I was citing it as an example of Christian hypocrisy. If a majority Christian nation does not actually follow the (apparent) teachings of Jesus and the New Testament when it matters, if you learnt nothing from his forgiving of his killers and his refusal to act against them, then what was the point of his sacrifice?
I'm sure I'm missing something, though. Would someone enlighten me?
Corporate mentality. There are a lot of companies out there that just don't get it. They think that every little bit of code that they have under their control somehow gives them an advantage over the competition. The idea of giving away code after they paid to develop it just sounds wrong.
So, you're comparing a religion that put 13 people in the hospital to a religion that kills hundreds of thousands?
So, you think that was the only violent Christian event, ever?
Albigensian Crusade: Christian militia forces ordered by the Pope killed an estimated 1 million "heretics" simply for following a different interpretation of the Bible.
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre: estimated upto 100,000 Protestants killed by Catholic mobs. What does the Pope do? Send the leader a blessed Golden Rose and hang paintings of the massacre in the Vatican.
Christians believe in The New Covenant that changes "Eye for an Eye" to "Turn the Other Cheek".
Really? Are you so sure that every single Christian in the world believes that? Given that it is only 15 years since Christian militias were massacring Muslims in Serbia and calling for "a Christian, Orthodox Serbia with no Muslims and no unbelievers", I somehow doubt that. And where were all the Christians shouting for forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" after the twin towers were attacked? Where were all the Christians arguing to not invade Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9/11)? Peace and forgiveness and turning the other cheek sound great, but it's a lot harder to actually live up to those standards when it matters, isn't it?
There are more radical Christian and Muslim groups than just the KKK or Al Qadea, look at Hamas and Hezbollah* for instance. They are radicalized big enough
Hezbollah has an estimated military force of 1,000 full-time men, with an additional 6,000-10,000 volunteers. Hamas has about 20,000 armed men. The Tzar Lzar Guard (Serb Christian militia) have an estimated 5,000 armed members. If some barely known Serbian Christian group can muster 5,000 men, surely the American Christian militias must be able to call up more than that?
I'd double the number of radicalized Protestants in the US and scale that out to about 40,000 world-wide
Christian Identity alone is estimated to have up to 50,000 members in the U.S. There are various Christian militias in Russia, Eastern Europe (esp. Serbia), Africa, the Middle East (esp. Lebanon). These almost certainly number more than 40,000 worldwide.
but at the same time figure 12-15 times more Muslims radicalized to the same level as AQ or Hezbollah.
Even if you accept the completely made up "12-15 times" figure, that would be about 600,000 radical Islamists globally. Or 0.0006% of all Muslims. Still a very small minority.
I suggest you visit the Holocaust Museum in Berlin and become educated about the history of German anti-semitism. Germany has historically been a Christian nation, and the anti-semitic history of its Christian people has been well documented. Please don't try to rewrite history by pretending that religion was not involved. The Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer frequently invoked stories and images of supposed Jewish assaults and plots against Christians. There were numerous pro-Nazi Christian groups that wove Nazi propaganda into their theology (Rexists, etc.)
"Christianity, however, did play a critical role, not perhaps in motivating the top decision makers, but in making their commands comprehensible and tolerable to the rank-and-file - the people who actively carried out the measures against the Jews as well as those who passively condoned their implementation.... The old antisemitism had created a climate in which the 'new' antisemitism was, at the very least, acceptable to millions of Germans." - Catholics, Protestants and Christian Antisemitism in Nazi Germany
Some of the top Christian leaders actively supported the Holocaust:
"The duty of a Christian is to love himself first and to see that his needs are satisfied. Only then can he help his neighbor... Why should we not get rid of these parasites [Jews] who suck Rumanian Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them." - Patriarch Miron Cristea
The interesting thing about this estimate is that it has flow on effects to other estimates, such that the amount of ocean rise due to thermal expansion could be higher than previously thought which could mean that the oceans thermal inertia is not as slow as we thought.
Actually this is really smart of those scientists. You see, once every 80 000 years they will make 3 sequential predictions, each wrong. It's like, really smart of them to do it right away, then they can be right for the next few dozen millenia ! Brilliant !
You do realise it was scientists who released this new study, right?
I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“
The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.
If the “hockeystick” were correct, we should have experienced a record-breaking hot climate in every year or at least most years between 2000 and 2010
Western world: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Islamic world: "Die for insulting our moon god!"
"When Mighty Mouse falls victim of cocaine, the Devil's talcum powder, when directors with Mafia-sounding names make films about Jesus hanging out with whores just a stone's throw from that wholesome Universal Studios family tour, it is time for action. Unfortunately, conventional protests such as picketing and telephoned bomb threats do not seem to be working" Episcopal Bishop Paul Moore, New York
“Neither the label ‘fiction’ nor the First Amendment gives Universal the right to libel, slander and ridicule the most central figure in world history.” - Jerry Falwell
Slashdot Mirror
how many stupids are there in the world? How many people exist that are too immature and not evolved enough to have the sense not to swallow the entire content? Who pays to clean up that mess?
I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that alcohol is already legal. The Drug Harm Index lists alcohol at number 5, way ahead of the most restricted class A drugs like Ecstasy and LSD. Prohibition of alcohol was a failure. So the genie is out of the bottle... given that one of the most dangerous and addictive drugs is already legal, and that there is no realistic chance of it becoming illegal, then I don't see any reason to prosecute people for trading or consuming drugs that are less harmful.
If they are indeed overpriced, then why doesn't 1 competitor just come in with a ridiculously low price and suck up all the "cheap" market?
I have seen the 7" apad (iped, epad etc.) going for as low as $60USD on Chinese websites. You can Buy It Now on U.S. Ebay for $100. Also Android phones (Sciphone G15) for $100.
But these devices are not so popular in the U.S. and Europe. I would guess that they don't perform as well as a HTC device. Also, a phone is a fashion statement. Having the $100 Chinese Android phone is not going to impress as much as having a $600 "American/European brand (but built in China)" Android phone.
I just don't get how deniers can ignore simple logic.
Oil has always been a problem for the Creationists and Young Earthers. They can (and will) argue endlessly that the conventional wisdom that the "liberal scientists" came up with is wrong, and that oil was, and still is, formed over a very rapid period due to some magical "natural process". Check out this video from the Young Earth Creation headquarters.
I actually heard a Creationist once say "Scientists are idiots. The fact is something just goes 'bloop' and a new oil field is created." What? Oil fields are just instantly created through some magic process that the scientists just can't comprehend because they don't have "faith"? I don't think so.
For these people, denial is a matter of faith, not logic. They think that the more they deny, the more faith they show, the more pleased God will be with them.
No one wants an oil well in their back yard until we are all screaming for oil to lubricate the gears off the economy. That sentiment will change.
Except that the GP was wrong about unexplored oil being hidden in Britain and the rest of north-west Europe. The oil is in the North sea, where no humans live, 70%+ has already been extracted, and peak oil was already hit in 1999.
Gulf oil may run out.
This is not about oil running out - it is about production peaking. There will always be some small amounts of oil, somewhere, but if it is not feasible to extract it then it doesn't matter.
Russians have always been operating a policy of "use 1, save 1". They have a considerable state reserve, so does USA in Alaska.
This is not about reserves running out, this is about peak production being reached. Russia likely hit peak oil in 2006. US oil peaked in 1970. Alakan oil peaked in 1988.
Britain has petrol so does Germany, Netherlands, etc.
You are talking about North sea oil, which hit peak production in 1999.
200$ a barrel and 4-5$ per litre (not per gallon) at the pump are coming this way within the next 10 years
Possibly. A 10x increase in cost of transport would have huge consequences for our way of life, it would probably trigger a wholesale switch to electric vehicles for personal transportation, increased food costs, increased manufacturing costs, etc.
There is lots and lots of power to be had from nuclear sources. No it isn't a 1:1 replacement for oil but that's ok, we can deal with that.
Nuclear and renewable sources may be able to replace oil as an energy source, but oil is also used as a manufacturing material. If the price of plastics jumps 10x because of an oil increase, then we will be unlikely to maintain our current way of life. I know about bioplastic, but I don't know at what point it becomes economically viable - maybe it will never be viable for the kind of mass market, use it everywhere, approach that we currently have to plastics.
It'll be a gradual thing, an increase in prices as supplies dwindle and/or harder to reach deposits are tapped.
You are assuming that as supply tails off, the cost will increase gradually, presumably linearly and over many decades. Unfortunately the dynamics of oil pricing are more complex than that. When the U.S. hit peak oil in 1970, Bretton Woods collapsed, the stock market crashed, the OPEC countries flexed their new muscle with the 1973 oil crisis and then instability in Iran led to the 1979 oil crisis. During these times, the cost of oil did not increase linearly, it was more like exponential - see the Wikipedia graph.
All of our amenities, seemingly abundant and unending, provide a natural barrier to understanding just how quickly and totally society can break down when the "basics" become extremely hard to obtain.
So true. How many days did it take for law and order to break down in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit? And this was in a stable, prosperous 1st world country where people weren't even starving.
And even then, what can be automated here can be automated there where the workforce that runs the machines are cheaper (read: exploited).
This is true to a point. It is not the case where the cost of transporting the finished goods to the West is high, where the goods are perishable (e.g. foods), or where the robots themselves require skilled highly educated engineers to maintain and operate. If the cost of labour were the only factor, then we would've already seen most of the automated Japanese manufacturing industry shift to China. Instead, to give Nissan as an example, there are new highly automated factories opening up in Japan, Europe and the U.S. (Third Factory For 2011 Nissan Leaf Production Is Smart Move In EV Production War).
we averaged 1 suicide per 2600 students
The average annual suicide rate in the United States is 11.1 people per 100,000 of the population. Your college had 38.46 suicides per 100,000 people. Given the huge disparity, and the fact that the general population includes all of the mentally ill and drug abusers (who are much more likely to commit suicide), then you should be able to conclude that there is something wrong with your comparison (hint: sample size).
my college was apparently 30x more likely to drive someone to suicide.
That is not how statistics work.
b) ..... Until you know the exact gender and age makeup of Foxconn's workforce you can't compare stats accurately, but we would expect a predominantly female workforce to have a much lower suicide rate than the "average" (50/50ish gender mix).
Correction: Except in China, where the suicide rate for women is apparently slightly above that of men. Bizarre...
The fact is that Foxconn has HALF the suicide rate of Italy, which has the LOWEST rate in Europe.
Hmmm, according to Wikipedia, Greece has about half the rate of Italy... but your comparison is void anyway because:
a) An entire nation has a much more diverse population. Alcoholics, mentally ill, elderly etc. ("about 90 percent of persons who completed suicides in all age groups had [have] a diagnosable mental or substance abuse disorder" link). A young workforce that has been selectively recruited should have much lower levels of mental and substance abuse than the general population, and hence, much lower levels of suicide.
b) Foxconn apparently has a predominantly young, female workforce. Looking at the figures from Wikipedia, the female suicide ratio is about 1/5th that of the male. Until you know the exact gender and age makeup of Foxconn's workforce you can't compare stats accurately, but we would expect a predominantly female workforce to have a much lower suicide rate than the "average" (50/50ish gender mix).
c) All the articles from May-June that mention "14 suicides per 400,000 workers this year" are cunningly refering to "this year" as the period January-May.That is not 12 months, that is 5 months, so the calculated suicide rate from those articles is incorrect.
The correct comparison would be: what is the expected suicide rate given the age/gender of Foxconn employees, either compared to a similar population in manufacturing jobs in the West or China (depending on what point you want to debate). This comparison has not been done by any of the sites on the net that discussed this topic, and the ones that have compared the suicide rate to the general population are being blatantly dishonest due to point a) above.
why not develop improved manufacturing technology and capability -- demonstrating that it's possible to make competitive products without "exploiting" the poor?
Exactly, this is a good strategy for countries that can develop advanced industrial robots. The top 10 countries by robot density all have successful economies when compared with the rest of the world. There are some industries where high levels of automation are not possible yet (sewing clothes together, assembling complex 3D structures, picking vegetables, things that rely on hand-eye coordination and human mobility); these are the human labour intensive industries where cost pressures mean labour is generally sourced from other countries (where outsourcing is possible), or immigrants (where local). But for everything else, the developed world needs to continue to move from a culture of "building stuff" to a culture of "building robots that build stuff". Competing directly with countries like China to provide cheap labour is not going to work, waiting for the salary of the average Chinese to reach Western levels will take too long, and starting a trade war through punitive taxation is only going to hurt both sides in the long term. I do find it odd that people seriously still think the Western world could be competitive with China in traditional manufacturing - it is simple economics that work will flow to the human worker who costs 1/10th of the competition.
or we raise the price for them to sell in the US unless they meet a min. standard.
That is kind of what the European Union does with respects to its member nations. In exchange for becoming part of the EU and getting access to the EU single market, countries have to implement EU Directives into national law, including human rights and employment rights, and basically cede authority over parts of their legal system to EU courts. Freedom of movement means that workers in a less prosperous country, or a country with objectionable work conditions, can easily move to a more prosperous one. The model has worked pretty well - wealthier countries have gained access to cheaper labour and new markets, and poorer countries gain access to cheaper services and technology. In contrast, free trade agreements that involve no aspect of human rights or employment rights often mean that work flows to those countries where workers are subject to the most unreasonable working conditions, and lack of freedom of movement means that inhabitants of those countries have no choice but to stay there.
So, if you want to go back that far to show guilt, then the way I see it, you owe me whatever land you currently preside on plus a shitload of back rent plus interest.
It is not about assigning guilt for some past wrongs. It is merely about acknowledging whether or not the followers of Christianity have, since the time of the New Testament, carried out acts of violence. And historically, they have. This is despite Jesus telling them, over 1000 years earlier, that violence is not to be allowed! Christians had 1500 years to reflect on the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament about peace and forgiveness, and yet were still violent enough to massacre 100,000 people on St. Bartholomew's Day. Why is it so hard for Christians to actually follow the teachings of Jesus? How can it be said that Christians are peaceful, when the Roman Catholic church, after over 1000 years of existence and preaching the New Testament, wages a Holy War against people following another branch of Christianity, resulting in a million "heretics" being killed? How can it be said that Christianity is a religion of peace, if the leading Christian powers throughout history have just ignored the teachings of Jesus about peace and forgiveness?
Really? You mean that Muslims will produce all this uproar over burning Korans or drawing a cartoon of Mohamed, and they didn't say a word while Christians were raping and killing Muslims? Bullshit.
But Muslims were outraged. How did you miss it? Thousands of Mujahideen from all around the world went to fight in the Balkans after hearing Western media reports about the rape and genocide:
"between 1,800 and 3,000 mujahideen fought in Bosnia on the side of the Bosnian Muslim army. These holy warriors came from the Middle East, north Africa and western Europe (notably France and the UK). And their path to holy war in Bosnia was facilitated by western intervention.... Perhaps most strikingly, many mujahideen were encouraged to venture to Bosnia by shrill media coverage of the conflict. Arab fighters say they first ventured to Bosnia because they 'saw US media reports on rape camps' or read about the 'genocide' in Bosnia and the 'camps used by Serb soldiers systematically to rape thousands of Muslim women'." - The Guardian
God is not only non-denominational
What has this got to do with the fact that 78% of Americans self-identify as Christian? Not "followers of a monotheistic God", but specifically "Christian".
For example, The Ten Commandments say "Do not murder", does that mean our laws against murder are based on the Ten Commandments?
Well, that is an interesting and more complex question than you probably think. The U.S. legal system was based on the English one, and at the time England was a Christian theocracy, with Anglicanism as the state religion and the King as head of the Church. The extent to which the legal system was based on Christianity has been often debated. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."
Whilst common law itself predates the establishment of Christianity in Britain, there were legal prohibitions on certain activities that can clearly be traced back to the Canon law declarations o
I know the droid x does hdmi. Its the only one ive heard of having it.
EVO 4G has it.
Samsung Galaxy S I9000 has it too.
Now why would the Serbs muster a militia of 5000 men? Well there was the whole Bosnia/Kosovo/Croatia/Albania thing going on that influences regional politics in Serbia.
Of course. Geopolitics and ethnoreligious feuding are often linked. Having said that, this particular group do self-identify as the "first uniformed Christian militia squad, comprised of war veterans from all over Serbia".
Meanwhile the small Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades killed 768 in the same period.
The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are not Islamic militants - they are officially a secular group. The political wing - Fatah - is also secular. Their disagreement is with Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Comparisons of U.S. Christian group attacks to the attacks of Islamist groups in the Middle East will always be complicated by the fact that the U.S. is a stable and prosperous democracy whilst Middle East countries are often despotic undemocratic regimes with many poor people, and sometimes propped up by the uncomfortable presence of foreign troops nearby. Comparisons with attacks on Israel are also difficult - there is no other country in the world that is in the position of Israel, that is essentially an occupying force that has refused to either integrate the population as citizens, or allow them to become citizens of their own nation state. It is unsurprising that this has bred resentment.
Um, can we get an example that is less than 400 years old? Thanks.
The age is irrelevant. You claimed that Christianity is only "a religion that put 13 people in the hospital". I pointed out that Christianity has put many more than that in the grave. 400 years old still means that they were good New Testament Christians, the ones that had abandoned all that "eye for an eye" stuff, right?
Nearly all of the ethnic cleansing I've seen has been against Albanians
No, the ethnic cleansing in Serbia was against Muslims in Kosovo.
As I'm sure you are well aware, Communists are atheists for the most part.
As I'm sure you are well aware, Serbians are Christian for the most part. "Survivors of concentration camps report that during torture sessions or when they begged for water they were made to sing Serbian religious nationalist songs reworded to reflect the contemporary conflict."
And where were all the Christians shouting for forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" after the twin towers were attacked? Where were all the Christians arguing to not invade Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9/11)?
I saw several. I remember the President, a Christian
Really? You remember George W. Bush saying something like "Folk, I know we've been attacked here, but what we should do now is... absolutely nothing, except forgive those who have attacked us. We should turn the other cheek, so if they want to, they may attack us again." You remember that? Because that is what Jesus preached, not violent retribution.
As I'm sure you'll be one the first to argue, the US is not a religious state and religion has no effect on domestic or foreign policy.
The U.S. is not a "religious state". However, 78% of Americans self-identify as Christian, and the Bush administration was overtly Christian. It may even be fair to call the U.S. a "Christian nation" or maybe "one nation under God". In a democratic nation with 78% of people identifying as Christian, how could Christian values not have an effect on policy?
(I also find it hilarious that you would try to use 9/11 as an example of Christian intolerance)
Then you completely missed the point. I was citing it as an example of Christian hypocrisy. If a majority Christian nation does not actually follow the (apparent) teachings of Jesus and the New Testament when it matters, if you learnt nothing from his forgiving of his killers and his refusal to act against them, then what was the point of his sacrifice?
I'm sure I'm missing something, though. Would someone enlighten me?
Corporate mentality. There are a lot of companies out there that just don't get it. They think that every little bit of code that they have under their control somehow gives them an advantage over the competition. The idea of giving away code after they paid to develop it just sounds wrong.
So, you're comparing a religion that put 13 people in the hospital to a religion that kills hundreds of thousands?
So, you think that was the only violent Christian event, ever?
Albigensian Crusade: Christian militia forces ordered by the Pope killed an estimated 1 million "heretics" simply for following a different interpretation of the Bible.
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre: estimated upto 100,000 Protestants killed by Catholic mobs. What does the Pope do? Send the leader a blessed Golden Rose and hang paintings of the massacre in the Vatican.
Christians believe in The New Covenant that changes "Eye for an Eye" to "Turn the Other Cheek".
Really? Are you so sure that every single Christian in the world believes that? Given that it is only 15 years since Christian militias were massacring Muslims in Serbia and calling for "a Christian, Orthodox Serbia with no Muslims and no unbelievers", I somehow doubt that. And where were all the Christians shouting for forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" after the twin towers were attacked? Where were all the Christians arguing to not invade Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9/11)? Peace and forgiveness and turning the other cheek sound great, but it's a lot harder to actually live up to those standards when it matters, isn't it?
There are more radical Christian and Muslim groups than just the KKK or Al Qadea, look at Hamas and Hezbollah* for instance. They are radicalized big enough
Hezbollah has an estimated military force of 1,000 full-time men, with an additional 6,000-10,000 volunteers. Hamas has about 20,000 armed men. The Tzar Lzar Guard (Serb Christian militia) have an estimated 5,000 armed members. If some barely known Serbian Christian group can muster 5,000 men, surely the American Christian militias must be able to call up more than that?
I'd double the number of radicalized Protestants in the US and scale that out to about 40,000 world-wide
Christian Identity alone is estimated to have up to 50,000 members in the U.S. There are various Christian militias in Russia, Eastern Europe (esp. Serbia), Africa, the Middle East (esp. Lebanon). These almost certainly number more than 40,000 worldwide.
but at the same time figure 12-15 times more Muslims radicalized to the same level as AQ or Hezbollah.
Even if you accept the completely made up "12-15 times" figure, that would be about 600,000 radical Islamists globally. Or 0.0006% of all Muslims. Still a very small minority.
Second, the Holocaust was not a Christian thing
I suggest you visit the Holocaust Museum in Berlin and become educated about the history of German anti-semitism. Germany has historically been a Christian nation, and the anti-semitic history of its Christian people has been well documented. Please don't try to rewrite history by pretending that religion was not involved. The Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer frequently invoked stories and images of supposed Jewish assaults and plots against Christians. There were numerous pro-Nazi Christian groups that wove Nazi propaganda into their theology (Rexists, etc.)
"Christianity, however, did play a critical role, not perhaps in motivating the top decision makers, but in making their commands comprehensible and tolerable to the rank-and-file - the people who actively carried out the measures against the Jews as well as those who passively condoned their implementation.... The old antisemitism had created a climate in which the 'new' antisemitism was, at the very least, acceptable to millions of Germans." - Catholics, Protestants and Christian Antisemitism in Nazi Germany
Some of the top Christian leaders actively supported the Holocaust:
"The duty of a Christian is to love himself first and to see that his needs are satisfied. Only then can he help his neighbor... Why should we not get rid of these parasites [Jews] who suck Rumanian Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them." - Patriarch Miron Cristea
The interesting thing about this estimate is that it has flow on effects to other estimates, such that the amount of ocean rise due to thermal expansion could be higher than previously thought which could mean that the oceans thermal inertia is not as slow as we thought.
The 2007 IPCC report did not include numbers for all ice sheet effects. It could be that acceleration of ice sheet flow is contributing a greater amount to the increase in sea level than previously thought.
Actually this is really smart of those scientists. You see, once every 80 000 years they will make 3 sequential predictions, each wrong. It's like, really smart of them to do it right away, then they can be right for the next few dozen millenia ! Brilliant !
You do realise it was scientists who released this new study, right?
I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“
The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.
If the “hockeystick” were correct, we should have experienced a record-breaking hot climate in every year or at least most years between 2000 and 2010
Incorrect. As already pointed out, some regions of the world may still cool despite the global mean increasing. (Incidentally, "the Hockey stick has been proven wrong" is a myth.
The warm periods, no matter when we talk about humans (medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.) or life in general were always the better periods
Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
Well, science is not a popularity contest and is also not democratic.
So we should always ignore the opinion of the majority of scientists if it disagrees with our personal opinion?
Socialism
... has nothing to do with global warming. (Unless you believe it's all a conspiracy)
Western world: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Islamic world: "Die for insulting our moon god!"
Christian world: "Die for insulting our sky god!"
"When Mighty Mouse falls victim of cocaine, the Devil's talcum powder, when directors with Mafia-sounding names make films about Jesus hanging out with whores just a stone's throw from that wholesome Universal Studios family tour, it is time for action. Unfortunately, conventional protests such as picketing and telephoned bomb threats do not seem to be working" Episcopal Bishop Paul Moore, New York
“Neither the label ‘fiction’ nor the First Amendment gives Universal the right to libel, slander and ridicule the most central figure in world history.” - Jerry Falwell
"Following the boycott and protests against The Last Temptation of Christ, no Hollywood movie studio has seriously considered making a film that challenges the gospel story of Jesus." - The Long Term Effects on Censorship as a Result of the Protest Against the Last Temptation of Christ
Does this kind of thing still happen in the Christian world? Hmm... Playboy in Portugal shut down for its ‘blasphemous’ Jesus photoshoot