There are lots of very capable coders out there who make excelent code for other techies, but for this very reason the UI often sucks.
I write apps for techies and I write apps for non-techies. The UIs and requirements are very different. Apps written for techies and accepted by techies is not proprly judged by non-techies, and vica versa. The arrogance is found in the people in both camps who insist that UI should fit their camp when it was written for the other camp.
If I write an app for techies and they like it, there is nothing "wrong" with it. Often, "techie" interfaces are aimed at functionality, not "point click drool". Thus any remarks about it being ugly are simply irrelevant.
The individualism and "if you don't like it, fix the code yourself" attitude of many open source projects means that people who aren't code junkies, but are excelent at understanding what a user might want get excluded from the process far too often.
And if they aren't the "target market" of the code author(s) that is just fine. Quite frankly much of the apps I write are not intended for end-user non-technical people and I don't care if they don't like it. Nor should I. Making it pretty will NOT enhance my market in the slightest, it will only pollute it. The same goes for end-user non-technical apps I write.
And finally, there is the "you get what you pay for" comment. Most open soruce apps are done for free. As such, Joe EndUser has no right to be "included" in the process.
Now to tie it all up with the favorite computer analogy: cars. GM (for example) sells cars. They sell cars for the enduser, and cars for the techie. Most people are familiar with the first category. But they also sell race-only versions of some of their cars, such as the C5R or upcoming C6R. The general public has zero input into these models, as it should be. Other companies also make race cars. These are oriented around a specific purpose.
The Mosler for example is a race-oriented car. Sure you can drive it on the street (and end user could buy and drive one), but it is aimed at being a performance auto for the track. It is the "code written by geeks for geeks" side.
Then you have the minivans and sedans, for example. They are built for the general consumer (the end user w/o technical skills). Sure a racer can drive one, even adapt it for racing (tens of thousands of Americans do this every year), but as a racer their input is not part of the design process or feature list. Witness the near-universal elimination of options like radio-delete and ac-delete.
IMO, nearly all these rants about ugly yet functional interfaces versus pretty but reduced functionality but pretty shiney interface fall under the categories above. Everybody wants a hand-built Ferrari for the price of a 10 year old wrecked and stripped Geo Metro. And they blame the "industry" for them not getting it.
I'll never get how people who are part of a religion that composes 3/4ths of the US population think they're being oppressed. Who is this little non-Christian cabal that is keeping you down?
You make several errors in thought process in arriving at your implied conclusion there. First, the US is not a solid whole, it is a collection of areas. As such what happens in one area may not, and generally does not, reflect what happens in all areas, even by aggregate. This alone should demonstrate to you how the situation you sneer at can and indeed does happen.
Furthermore, it is irrelevant what 2/4s the population believes theistically speaking. 3/4s the population does not make the laws. Generally, less than half the population is eligible to vote, and of them generally less than half actually do vote. This brings us to a minority. Half of half is a quarter, and thus a minority. Thus it is shown that a minority can indeed oppress the majority so long as the level of oppression is below that which is required for enough of the majority to take corrective action. This can continue for some time and it is *possible* we are seeing the beginnings of actions by said "silent majority".
Further, the national laws are made by a few hundred people. Influence them and you've got your national oppression of a given class. Repeat this in various states of the Union and you can easily generate much feelings of oppression.
Sadly, when the "oppressed majority" finally do take action they will overreact and reverse the oppression. They will use the very tools they complain about to reverse the (percevied|real) oppression.
Finally, given the incredible amount of laws, interpretations fo laws, regulations, and codes both public and private, it is not that difficult to get appressive legislation slipped in among other legislation.
So don't be so quick to believe in the majority rules dogma. The world is ruled by those who show up. And somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 of Americans don't bother to.
Because growing plants in space would require massive amounts of radiation protecting glass. As in, several feet thick sheets of glass, plus the mass to protect the rootside from radiation as well. This amount of mass is simply too much to do today. Even in LEO, the radiation would be too much for the plants without it. It would also be needed for thermal regulation.
Absent the glass shield I mentioned, the direct (or reflected) solar energy would fry the plants and produce nasty thermal variances. No, artifical lighting is out of the question due to the sheer power it would take to do that on any reasonable basis, especially one for oxygen production. At best AL is a supplement, not the other way around.
Further, greenhouses need water because plants need water. Water contains oxygen. So you would still wind up shipping oxygen albeit in a different form. For the purpose of having oxygen, you are better off simply shipping oxygen. Water is much more a difficult and costly launch item than hydrogen tanks.
As far as waste disposal, again, there are issues. You can not simply dump core into a field and consider it done. There are significant and important differences between black water and grey water handling and reclamation. Most biological resources for this are dependent on many factors, and take massive amounts of land and combined systems to do it. The agbio-filtering process of the various (human) wastes is neither minor nor fast. Again, a lot of material to ship into space.
Overall, given the mass you'd need to ship into orbit, you are better off in the long run to take that mass budget and send people to Mars.
Mars has most of the mass and resources we'd need to create an off-earth food/water/air production facility as well as waste refuse[1]. It is cheaper to send stuff from Mars to LEO than from Earth to LEO. It sounds strange, but it is true. The delta-v difference is quite large.
This process is one known as mass-leverage. You send smaller amounts of mass from the deep well to a shorter well. The facilities in this shorter well then take that mass and convert it to more products(mass) and send it out.
This is one reason I expect we'll first build a space elevator on Mars. As odd as it sounds, the "road to Mars" will be built from Mars if we are smart about it. Mars has the resources we need to produce the materials for tethers and a Martian Space Elevator (MSE). Further we currently habve the materials with enough strength to build it today. Not to mention the environmental challenges of wind and such are much less of an issue on Mars, as is the rabid concern about it breaking and wrapping around the planet slicing everyone to ribbons.;)
Produce the MSE and use it to put the tether in place in Mars orbit to send from Mars to HEO. Send a tether to HEO. This tether is then used to catch/throw between HEO and GEO or LEO. Then you use your tether system to add the tethers for GEO and LEO.
Now you have a system by which you can grow the resources needed by LEO stations on Mars, raise them cheap as hell on the MSE, and send them to LEO via the Mars-Earth Tether System (METS). This will be far, far cheaper than Earth to LEO launch.
Once this is in place, you use LEO launches to get payload destined for Mars to LEO, then the METS to get it to Mars. This would be people and/or supplies such as machinery and products still produced on Earth for Mars. Now, your cost for Mars destinations is LEO.
With this system in place, Mars can send the mass for LEO/GEO stations ranging from supplies to hull materials in the early days, with Earth supplying the lightweight and more complex electronics gear. With few exceptions, terrestrial boosters only need LEO capability. This is particularly the case once the METS is used to make a GEO station. With this in place you use LEO boosters to get even GEO destined sats in LEO, then use the LEO-GEO tether to GEO. Tele-
"Since not all systems allow good passwords, I am going to pick a really crappy one, use it everywhere and never change it...If I write them down and then protect the piece of paper--or whatever it is I wrote them down on--there is nothing wrong with that. That allows us to remember more passwords and better passwords."
That would lead me to believe you'd have an environment where any discovered piece of paper on which there is some non-indigenous word written would be a candidate for plugging in as password attempts. This is just plain silly.... passwords written down would be one of the first things a social-engineering hack may try to leverage. I'm not a fan of draconian policies wrapped around impossible rules to manage security, but this "recommendation" flies in the face of reason.
Then you missed part of what the OP wrote: and then protect the piece of paper--or whatever it is I wrote them down on.
You are talking about random bits of paper on the desk with random words on it. The person you are responding to is not.
But then again, go ahead; try to social engineer your way into my system using bits of words/patterns/characters found on papers on my desk. Given the stacks of notes, comments, things that appear to be passwords but are not, and so on you'll be here for several weeks solid. Assuming you can read my writing.
As far as flying in the face of reason consider this.
Nowadays credit cards have a number on the back of them, usually right in the signature area. This is ostensibly to be used online to verify you have the card. You go to a clerk at the gas station/grocery store/whatever, and use your credit card. The clerk sees your number right there. It's usually very short and easy to remember for the short term. After you go out it is usually nothing for him or her to look at your transaction for the credit card to get your CC number, then match that with the "verification" number on the back and bingo. Now s/he has a CC number and the verification used online. The only thing missing is zip code and maybe billing address. But wait, s/he also asks for ID and thus it is there. A quick mental note of approximately where you live, say the zip code, and a google later s/he has your address. Now the circle is complete.
The point of this little excursion? You often have far more valuable information "written down" in your wallet than your computer passwords. "But I protect those as best I can" you say? Exactly. The poster you replied to was saying the same thing about the written down passwords.
Let me ask you this: How often do you see an OSS product (EG: phpwiki) that doesn't offer support for numerous databases?
Quite a bit actually. In my experience most only support MySQL. Why? They don't understand the value of data integrity and the features MySQL lacks/lacked. As a result they have had to poorly implement things that the DB itself should do, and when they try to "port" this to another DB they run into all sorts of issues.
And SQL is a language, not an API. So they give up.
1. Companies are required BY LAW to give severance pay and/or notice when laying off employees. Employees can just up and leave any minute they choose for the most part.
Not in the US.
Where is that "factually incorrect" moderation tag when we need it?
That why the heck is is always "the rich" or "the wealthy" with these A&L futurologists? I'll tell you why. Because it fits their hidden agenda of control through class warfare, that's why.
While that may be a fun thought for you to think, the reality is far simpler and less devious.
The rich tend to get new advanced technology first because they can afford it. Yes, Virginia, it really is that simple.
because it hasn't been in the environment long enough for us to know what it does to people, and how long it takes for those health effects to manifest.
It's been around and it's effects being researched since at least the early 1980's. It is being and has been researched by more than just US sources.
There have been no studies that show MTBE as carcinogenic to humans. In fact, MTBE is not classified as a carcinogen by any agency that I've been able to find. The IARC classifies it as Class 3. Not even a "probably carcinogenic" rating (which is 2b).
One study[1] shows carcinogenic effects in mice at 8,000 ppm. Well above the levels set for detection and measurement in water. Also well above human tolerance levels for taste and/or smell.
Indeed, MTBE has been used to treat medical issues in humans:
No national or international regulatory agency has classified MTBE as a human carcinogen, and the available genotoxicity data suggest that MTBE is not mutagenic. Also, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRAC) stated (11/00) that MTBE is not classifiable as a human carcinogen. The weight of evidence suggests that ingestion of water containing MTBE below, or close to the taste threshold, is unlikely to result in adverse health effects.
When considering toxic effects, it is useful to note that free phase MTBE has been used to treat gall stones both in the UK and the US for a number of years (Schoenfield and Marks 1993). During the treatment, a tube is inserted into the gallbladder through which the MTBE is delivered. The MTBE dissolves much of the fat content of the stone causing it to disintegrate. A review of the effects of this method of treatment on 761 patients in 21 centers across Europe found no toxic effects from MTBE in any of the patients (Hellstern et al. 1998).
[2]
Further, to say there haven't been studies on humans is to not be aware of them. Several have been done, and not just in the US[3]. Indeed, the study I assume you refer to above ("carcinogenic effects") are not replicable to humans[4].
The idea that becuase you can smell it or taste it it is doing damage is not upheld by science, and not just in the case of MTBE. There are many substances that are detectable by smell or taste at levels that are orders of magnitude lower than any adverse or detectable health effects.
However, do not construe this as me being in favor of MTBE; I am not. I'd much rather oxygenation of gasoline be done via ethanol; I consider it a far better combination. It is, in fact, what my family uses (The Suburban runs E85, the Vette runs E10). I argue these points only to cut through the hysteria around MTBE. Hyperbole and wild claims about it don't do anybody any good. And I'm certainly not a fan of the EPA.
I've even followed the money trail. Who has the most to benefit by the public thinking MTBE is some nasty horrible thing? Cleanup crews, filter companies (I've seen some claim that over 50% of water in the US has toxic levels of it!), and politicians. I could argue the ethanol industry has a monetary interest in MTBE being banned, and they would. Yet I don't find them pushing the notions that MTBE is lethal or damaging at the lowest of levels, that it's in half the water supply, etc..
It's a cheap thrill ride but says nothing of our future space exploration.
No, it bridges the mental gap between what people think we CAN do and what we really CAN do. Right now people tend to believe anything beyond airliners is unreasonably hard and the sole domain of governments. When that barrier is broken down, investment for further fights and trips become more available.
Given the present condition of the supply of energies we have available and our rates of consumption, is this yet another luxury for the few that will needlessly deplete our supply of fuels?
Only to those with limited scope, vision, and foresight. By increasing access to space, you eventually lead to the lower cost of said access, and the increasing likelihood of it becomming a commodity.
These are necessary to future energy needs of the human race. Examples include future fusion fuel (moon, Jupiter), as well as orbiting power satellites to name but a few energy related ones. Manufacturing should eventually move to space for things that are environmentally risky and capable of being done in space. These will make use of off-planet energy sources, be they nuclear, solar, or some combination therof or something else entirely.
Both of these eventualities of space tourism will solve many of the problems you believe we have here on Earth.
And with yet more demand on a the growing scarcity of petrochemical fuels powering the whole shebang, I guess we just watch fuel costs for everybody step up another notch. Economics. Supply and demand.
You really should try reading the articles. The rocket is powered by alcohol and oxygen, not petro-chemicals.
But then, I have wondered that for a long time on other matters... its a wonder to me that America is still a "superpower" given the way we squander our resources.
What you consider squandering is actually an economic driver. We have the resources to do things other nations can not do. We have the resources to try things and fail, then try something else. What amazes me is the mass of people who fail to realize such things.
A company that hasn't put anyone... anyone at all... into space, is starting a company to put people into space.
One step at a time guys...
Most companies start up doing something they haven't done yet. Very few companies start up doing something they've already done. Arguably, no companies do.
How many companies have put people in space? Zero. Only governments have put people into space (assuming "space" is LEO or better). And you are suggesting no companies do so until they have done so.
Worse than that you got modded insightful for asking for the impossible.
(Anyone with functioning brain should realize that Lucas is saying that Bush is no better than a Sith.)
Any Star Wars fan with a functioning memory knows that the process of how Palpatine became the emperor was know for far longer than Bush being in the White house. Anyone with a functioning memory of history knows the "with me or against me" dates back as far as we can record.
People thinking Sith was written to mirror, pointout, or have anything to do with today's politics are putting into it what they want to. This part of the story is what, at least a couple decades old?
"Because this is the back story (of the Star Wars saga), one of the main features of the back story was to tell how the Republic became the Empire. At the time I did that, it was during the Vietnam War and the Nixon era. The issue was: How does a democracy turn itself over to a dictator? Not how does a dictator take over but how does a democracy and Senate give it away?
-- George Lucas
You have to remember, this whole thing was written thirty years ago -- Lucas
Lucas cited the Roman empire in the wake of Caesar's death, France after the revolution and Hitler's rise in Germany as historical examples of countries giving themselves over to dictators. -- Bruce Kirkland, Free Press news services
That meant millions of people thrown into the local Wal-Mart job, if they were lucky, and onto welfare if not. And Wal-Mart exists because it passes its healthcare on to the local state's tax-supported public services -- not to mention the number of Wal-Martish employees who are on food stamps because they aren't paid enough to eat.
You may want to brush up on real-world facts. Walmart employs about 1.2 million people worldwide. Alone that destroys your ridiculous assertion that "millions were thrown into the local wal-mart job".
Approximately 6% of the US qualifies for food stamps. On sheer statistics alone the biggest retail employer will have a significant portion of those.
Most of walmart's employees ("associates" heh) are elderly on medicare (the greeters), handicapped on medicare (more greeters), teenagers covered by their parents' insurance, wives covered by their husband's insurance, and college students (many are covered by parents and many by school policies). About 45% of wally world's employees are covered by wally world insurance plans.
Walmarts insured rate is actually quite favorably compared to that of Costco. Walmart employees on Walmart insurance are asked to cover one third of the costs. Everywhere I've had insurance I've had to cover half. I wouldn't mind my costs going down to a third from the half they are now.
Are they angels? Hardly, indeed likely far from it. But to demonize them and avoid the root of the issue is nonsense of the highest order.
What _does_ the USA have to offer? Think about it - almost all the manufacturing industries have moved out/are moving out, and the US is largely going towards being nothing more than a consumer (okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but you get the idea).
A little? More than a little. Quite abit more.
There are 14.5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs. About a quarter of those are low-risk for export as no other nation has enough ability to even challenge them. About 2/3rds are in a "medium risk" level where some niche markets and countries *could* become competitive.
But then again, a smart observer does not base it all on jobs. Productivity per-worker increases have a far more dramatic effect on manufacturing than mere jobs level measurements. So too is R&D.
US spending on R&D by US companies amounts to 3% of GDP, or about 277 billion/year. By comparison, the EU average s 2%, and OECD countries average 2.3%.
US import of GDP is about 10%. By comparison, China's import of GDP is about 25%.
Manufacturing production in the US more than doubled from 1970 to 2000. yet manufacturing employment fell from 25% to 13% over that same period of time. As I said above, productivity gains are not to be idly dismissed.
Between the years 1982 and 1977 manufacturing jobs fell by 1.7 million. Despite this, the value of goods manufactured in the US approximately tripled, and the number of facilities increased by just under 10%. In manufacturing, productivity is king. Yet despite the increase in plants from 1977 to 1997, over 117,000 plants closed. Plant closings are an ongoing thing. Indeed, studies have shown that on average over a 5 year period, 32% of plants are closed. here, too, productivity is a key player.
Plants that survived were.9% more productive than average, and 3.3% more than plants that were closed. Today we have over 360,000 manufacturing plants in the US.
Indeed, since 1940 US Manufacturing has remained remarkably stable. Since 1940 manufacturing output as portion of GDP has oscillated between 16 and 19%. The low point during the recent correction was, IIRC, about 16%.
Again, productivity is king, and the US is still driving productivity gains.
China, for example, will have little incentive to drive productivity gains. Productivity gain drivers are largely a function of labor pool, of which China has a rather large pool. And despite the hooplah in the media, China is actually running a trade deficit, and has been for a long time. Their manufacturing is primarily around building things they need such as concrete for roads, buildings, etc.. In an actual analysis, Chinese products are no more advantageous than it's neighbors.
The EU is moving ostensibly to a service driven economy (read: doomed to failure economy), and trying to get out of manufacturing (btw, most of the "exported" manfuacturing went to Europe a long time ago). This leaves Japan, Russia, and various Asian countries.
Of those, Russia has a lot of problems to overcome before it can become a manufacturing giant to rival the US. Japan is still getting itself built back to workable state (and doing a fine job of it, expect "sudden" news on this front in the next few years). After these two, there isn't much left in the way of manufacturing potential to rival the US manufacturing.
Indeed, when looking at US direct foreign investment, over half of it goes to Europe. Mexico got about four percent, China less than one percent. India is statstically non-existent as far as US investment abroad.
Chinese labor costs per unit are rising faster than US costs per unit. This will have significant impact on Chinese exports and their costs. Indeed, due to rising labor costs in the 1990s South Korea had a loss of 15% of manufacturing jobs, whereas the US shed a mere 3% during that same time (and remember, production was still rising in the US).
And last but not least, if you look at the global manufacturing levels
The groundwater's fucked--it's full of MBTE, which we cleverly thought would lessen air pollution. Well, it did that, but the damnable stuff leaks out of containment the way tritium does, gets into aquifers, and makes the water undrinkable in the minutest quantities.
Nope that's mere hyperbole.
MTBE was detected in about 5 percent of groundwater samples collected by NAWQA across the nation. The concentrations typically were low, well below the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking-water consumer advisory concentration of 20 to 40 micrograms per liter, which is based on taste and odor thresholds. In fact, less than 1 percent of samples included in the USGS studies exceeded the EPA consumer advisory concentration of 20 micrograms per liter....
In addition to its studies of ambient groundwater, USGS is conducting focused studies to assess MTBE concentrations associated with drinking-water supplies. In cooperation with the EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, USGS examined data on finished drinking water from selected communities in 12 states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions.
The data show that MTBE was detected in 9 percent of the community water systems. Consistent with USGS studies of ambient groundwater, concentrations were low; less than 1 percent exceeded the EPA consumer advisory concentration....
This study, which includes samples of both surface-water and groundwater sources for drinking water, shows that MTBE was detected more frequently in surface-water samples (14 percent) than in groundwater samples (5 percent).
--Water Technology magazine
A small percentage (less than one percent) of groundwater sources used for drinking water have been discovered to contain very low levels of MTBE causing a possible taste and odor issue - but no health threats.
MTBE leakage was due to old tank designs. You assertion it leaks "like tritium" is... full of holes. Indeed, the fact that MTBE spreads quickly (which dilutes it faster) has actually been a positive thing. It exposed leaky underground tanks that would have gone years before the leak and contamination was detected.
and makes the water undrinkable in the minutest quantities.
Again, an baseless assertion. Less than one percent of water supplies across the US showed an amount that woudl affect taste/smell and that amount is below the health hazard levels.
...the US EPA has recommended a maximum MTBE concentration in drinking water of 20 to 40 parts per billion (ppb, g/l) or below. These quantities are outside the taste and odour thresholds of most consumers. Not only that, but they are 20,000 to 100,000 times lower than the lowest concentration that has caused observable health effects in animals, thus ensuring an exceptionally large margin of safety from any possible toxic effects.
As you can see, the levels limited are vastly below the level of health effects. And the fact that less than one percent of the total ground water supply was at noticable levels which are far below health effects only stands to show the hype and misinformation you have been exposed to, and repeated here.
In comparison, 20-25% of groundwater in the US is contaminated by pathegenic viruses or bacteria.
Further, cleanup is less onerous than you claim.
There is a large array of well-proven remediation technologies for treating soil and groundwater contaminated by conventional gasoline. In general, these methods are applicable to gasoline containing MTBE. The most common method
Yes, that's right, and those people are poisoning themselves, particularly in China. The pollution in the industrial cities is so bad that if it goes unchecked, it will, paradoxically, threaten their economic survival. Ruined land and water is no good to anybody.
Sound familiar? Why yes, yes it does to those who know history. Happens to nearyl every country/region as it goes through it's "industrial revolution". Why? It's cheaper and faster.
Seems everyone knows it but is afraid to admit that sometimes you have to do things the cheap and dirty way to get to where you can do things the costly and clean way. Like learning hard math before easy math. Ideally we'd all earn from the mistakes of others but reality is not a synonym of ideally for good reason.
Tangentially: have you ever driven on I-80 through the Rust Belt? I'm talking about former manufacturing hubs like Buffalo, Gary, and parts of Cleveland. They look abandoned. And the factories? Rusting and abandoned. It's sad, not only because of the unemployment and social upheaval, but because great swaths of that abandoned land cannot be reclaimed for agriculture. The soil and groundwater is too polluted. So the hulks of the factories remain, the rusting monuments to America's fading greatness.
Quite the contrary. It is a fading monument to the "company town" ideal. Once you get out of the blinders caused by lookign in one or two places, and look at history of various cities you'll find that what you describe is only true of "company towns". In such a place one large company dominates the economy. If that company goes down, so does the town.
Yet in towns that allow people to create new markets and goods/services that are not dependent in toto on the company/industry that dominates it, they are still alive and thriving. if you go back through the history of dead end towns you often find laws that "protect" the company town mentality; ultimately destroying the town. This is true in every nation.
For every town like the one you describe, there are one or more that are thriving due to new industries and markets. Overall, the economy is simply better than it was even a mere decade ago, let alone a hundred years.
Barring global cataclysm eventually the massive industries particularly in manufacturing will be in orbit or on other planets. Then many will becry the loss of prestige their country once had, how all the jobs are going elsewhere, yadda yadda yadda. They'll still blame some amorphous cause, not realizing it is inevitable for one-horse towns. Meanwhile, those places that grow with the changes will continue to thrive.
And why can't that land be reclaimed for agriculture? Again, annoying government prevention. Much of that land certainly can be reclaimed for agriculture as well as other things. But alas, those pesky zoning laws and "protection" laws prevent it.
If I need to pick him up from school early, I lose the hours. If your company doesn't enforce it, then blame your company as well.
If you are salaried, you need to blame your company for illegally reducing your wages for leaving a bit early (assuming you are in the US).
Re:Since when did time off cost anyone anything?
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 1
The fact is, you don't just magically get time off when a new movie comes out. Someone has to cover for you where you work, or your work doesn't get done. If your work doesn't get done, you get fired. How does this add up to billions in lost funds?
That isn't always true. Not all work has to be done today. Many tech places around here take their people to the movies for such days. I understand that here the place was half empty -- managers included -- as they all went to the movie together. In some cases, companies will attempt to rent out the theater. And in some of those cases, they'll succeed.
No lost work there. Work is not always like time. Sometimes you can put it off.
The problem is that while everyoen tends to get the same amount of sick/vacation/PTO days in any given company, I think it is quite common for parents to come in late, leave early, take time out of the middle of the day or not come in at all and not have it subtracted from their alotted accured vacation/sick/PTO days.
And that is where a lot of single people get frustrated.
Single people get theirs around here. Days they are expecting a delivery with nobody to pick it up, cable or dsl getting installed, they are "sick", mysterious car breakdowns (and nobody to brign them in). Most of our single people leave just as often as the married people. Thing is, most single people don't see it because they are too busy focusing on the married people. Single people around here are gone just as much for "dentist appointments", "doctor visits", "not feeling well I'll work from home today", and so on as married people are for their kids. I've seen peolpe stay home to take care of their sick {boy,girl}friend. Or their dogs.
That said married people are exposed to sickness causing germs and virii at a much greater frequency than single people (excepting STDs in the general case). Thus they are more likely to get sick.
Further, if they are salaried, and you are salaried, maybe they simply know more than you about what they can and can't do. Maybe you just don't have the balls/ovaries to say you are leaving early. if you are salaried and leave an hour or two early, or arrive late or take an hour or two off during the day, your pay can't legally be reduced either. Yup, look it up. If you are salaried and leave two hours early in an 8 hour shift, no pay can legally be docked for time missed. If they are paid hourly, have you verified they get paid for being there when they aren't? if not, you are being less than honest in your assessment.
If you are salaried, being gone midday for enough time to go see SW does not automatically mean a reduction in pay; single or married. Maybe it's time to get out from behind the keyboard warriror persona and live a life? Quit whining about others and take care of yourself?
Maybe you should quit whining and start learning. Learning about how often single people leave as well as the rules regarding salaried, hourly, and time away.
I got tired of losing out on "smoke breaks", so I started taking my own breaks when I needed them - at 30 to 50 minutes per pop. Just hop up and vaporize.
In the Army, we did something similiar. Everytime the smokers would go outside the motorpool for a "smoke break", we'd go sit down for a "non-smoke break", or take an equal amount of time after they got back for a "not around the smoke remnants" break. It took only a few days of this to "get caught". The smoke breaks were ended on the spot.
Don't forget, under U.S. law a company is required to defend its trademarks from use by other parties, or they can lose the trademark. That's usually the reason for trademark lawsuits like this that strike everyone as silly and mean-spirited.
We need an "incomplete" moderation tag.
Yes, an entity holding trademark is required to defend it or lose it. HOWEVER, a trademark is not under attack when not used in the same classification of product. There can be an zSeries computer hardware product as well as a zSeries haircut, a zSeries Sci-Fi book, and so on; each with their own trademark, and each not diluting each other.
What makes this (potential) lawsuit silly and mean-spirited is that Hormel is in the FOOD business and SPAM made by Hormel is considered a food product. DSPAM for example, is NOT a food product (or even a laxative which IMO would be funny as hell - "Eat SPAM lately and want it out right now? Take DSPAM Laxative!"), it is a computer software product.
As such *legally* speaking, Hormel is NOT required to "defend" it's trademark against DSPAM the software product. Therefore, this case is not one of Hormel being required to do anything to "defend" it's trademark.
Therefore this (potential) lawsuit is silly, mean-spirited, w/o merit, and pathetically sad, really.
Had you read the article, you would have known this. Actually, if you knew anything substantive about Trademark law, you would have known this w/o reading the article.
Had you read the article, you would have known that a lawsuit has yet to be filed. You would have known that Hormel has recently filed an attempt to trademark SPAM as "downloadable software, namely screensavers".
Why do this? They KNOW they can't fight the battle being "only" a food maker. They KNOW that DSPAM and SPAM are in two entirely different classes of products. They KNOW they'd lose, and lose big.
So what do they do? They suddenly decide to go into the computer software business. They did this AFTER the term spam for UCE was pervasive, as well as AFTER DSPAM submitted their trademark filing.
There is but one reason for Hormel to do this. They want to be able to claim SPAM as a computer related trademark. It's a stupid notion that they have a screensaver they want to call SPAM given the negative connotation "spam" has in the computer world. They would start out in a horrible marketing position. One would have to presume their marketing department would know this, as would anyone reasonably modern or intelligent at Hormel.
Thus, the only safe conclusion is the one I posited: that they are trying to establish an alleged computer software product to attach their SPAM trademark to in order to provide some assumed basis for countering the use of it elsewhere. This too, is futile, however.
The presence of many anti-spam/spam references, their own admission of it's usage in the computer world, as well as the use of it by the U.S. Congress all point to a non-starter. Like prior art.
Further, to move their trademark into entirely unrelated areas can serve as a dilution on it's own. Only when the extension of trademark adds significant value to the new venture is it benefical and not dilutive. An example is the expansion of "Virgin Airways" to Virgin Galactic and so on. SPAM has never had a strong brand association, even prior to the Internet. As such, an extension of it would be unwise. It is a dubious assertion that Hormel is unaware of this. Again, this leads to the aforementioned assumption of intent.
No, it's called self-deprecating humor. Depreciation is not deprecation, and the difference is not minor. If you want to depreciate yourself, go right ahead - we can't stop you. But don't think the rest of us want to lower our value to suit you. We aren't quite THAT stupid.;)
"Is 1 child's death worth saving 10,000? What about 10 puppies?"
So, 1 human life is worth more than 10,000 saves. And 10 puppy-lives are worth more than 10,000 saves--so, by the only equal metere there, 1 human = 10 puppies.
I see the problem: we are reading entirely different answers The FAQ I referenced makes no mentions of puppies or a child.
Specifically it says:
Would you allow an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?"
The original answer was no. Then they go into asking about retarded people.
Suppose the only way to save those 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally-challenged orphan.
"Would you allow an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?"
Suppose the only way to save those 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally-challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn't that be worth it? Most people will agree that it is wrong to sacrifice one human for the "greater good" of others because it would violate that individual's rights. But when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights while animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.
The answer is clear: 10,000 humans get to die ("be sacrificed") so that those 10 animals get to continue living, and not be experimented with/on. The value proposition is clear and unmistakable in this Q&A. In others, maybe they make different arguments. But if you revisit the links I originally posted, this is the one we've been ostensibly discussing.
You (or I) do not have a "right not to be endangered". We have a right to to defend ourselves, and a right to take rpeventative action that does not infring on another's rights. Just as there is no "right to not be offended" or "right to not be insulted". There is no tenable and logical derivation of rights that support claims of such rights.
I've never heard of PETA or anyone else arguing that only mentally defective felines should be sterilized.
Ahh yes, more strawmen. Actually, PETA kills mentally defective felines.
You clearly have not read the peta literature. That's fine as long as you dont want to argue their positions (pro or con).
The fact is, everytime someone asks about animals and rights, they fall back to the retarded child, the retarded orphan. WHy> Their position is that retarded people and animals neither can utilize their rights, nor understand them. Yet they retain them despite the physical incapability to even grasp them. If animals can have their reproductive rights usurped "for the greater good(!)", then so can retarded people.
But just to humor your strawman for *most* retarded people, yes there are too many and if left to their own devices they will starve. And like one of my dogs, once they discover sex, it's a full time job to keep them from "doing it".
Veganism and environmentalism aren't synonyms. On a given day you might find me acting quite like an environmentalist, but you'll never see me acting like a vegan.
True, but she calls for an end to Medical research and products made by animal research/use. She is living solely because of the research she wants to end.
No, it doesn't. In fact, by strict numbers, it says that animals are 1/10th as valueable as humans--but that the cost of a murder is far higher than the price of saving 10,000 lives.
Sorry, you've got it backward. Since these 10K people (their example) *will* die by *not* experimenting on the (again their example) 10 animals, it clearly states that these 10 animals should be allowed to live thus sacrificing the 10,000 humans. 10,000 of A for 10 of B is a clear value proposition that states A gte B. Since in the example they provided, 10K of A was not *enough* to justify the "sacrifice" of 10 of B, it changes it to A gt B.
I'd wager that, like human rights, animal rights were ranked in importance, and "have a niche big enough to survive" and "don't be killed" come before "reproduction."
You may as well ask why you can't exercise your right to get drunk and drive--because that right is superceded by the right of someone else not to be killed.
That assumes the right to get drunk and endanger others exists. As I said, to use *their* arguments, they should be in favor of sterilizing retarded or seriously impared humans for the exact same reason. But they won't. Likely they know their entire analogy falls down when properly reversed.
VHEMT's no more an environmentalist group than scientology is a religion.
That may be your opinion. However, they do make their arguments as a form of "returning" and "saving" the environment. Whether they are *sane* environmentalists or not is a separate issue. The fact is they advocate the extinction of humans in order to "save" or "protect" "the planet". This makes them an environmentalist group advocating that the environment is more important than humans. The only way they could be more extreme is to drop the "voluntary" aspect.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of very capable coders out there who make excelent code for other techies, but for this very reason the UI often sucks.
I write apps for techies and I write apps for non-techies. The UIs and requirements are very different. Apps written for techies and accepted by techies is not proprly judged by non-techies, and vica versa. The arrogance is found in the people in both camps who insist that UI should fit their camp when it was written for the other camp.
If I write an app for techies and they like it, there is nothing "wrong" with it. Often, "techie" interfaces are aimed at functionality, not "point click drool". Thus any remarks about it being ugly are simply irrelevant.
The individualism and "if you don't like it, fix the code yourself" attitude of many open source projects means that people who aren't code junkies, but are excelent at understanding what a user might want get excluded from the process far too often.
And if they aren't the "target market" of the code author(s) that is just fine. Quite frankly much of the apps I write are not intended for end-user non-technical people and I don't care if they don't like it. Nor should I. Making it pretty will NOT enhance my market in the slightest, it will only pollute it. The same goes for end-user non-technical apps I write.
And finally, there is the "you get what you pay for" comment. Most open soruce apps are done for free. As such, Joe EndUser has no right to be "included" in the process.
Now to tie it all up with the favorite computer analogy: cars. GM (for example) sells cars. They sell cars for the enduser, and cars for the techie. Most people are familiar with the first category. But they also sell race-only versions of some of their cars, such as the C5R or upcoming C6R. The general public has zero input into these models, as it should be. Other companies also make race cars. These are oriented around a specific purpose.
The Mosler for example is a race-oriented car. Sure you can drive it on the street (and end user could buy and drive one), but it is aimed at being a performance auto for the track. It is the "code written by geeks for geeks" side.
Then you have the minivans and sedans, for example. They are built for the general consumer (the end user w/o technical skills). Sure a racer can drive one, even adapt it for racing (tens of thousands of Americans do this every year), but as a racer their input is not part of the design process or feature list. Witness the near-universal elimination of options like radio-delete and ac-delete.
IMO, nearly all these rants about ugly yet functional interfaces versus pretty but reduced functionality but pretty shiney interface fall under the categories above. Everybody wants a hand-built Ferrari for the price of a 10 year old wrecked and stripped Geo Metro. And they blame the "industry" for them not getting it.
I'll never get how people who are part of a religion that composes 3/4ths of the US population think they're being oppressed. Who is this little non-Christian cabal that is keeping you down?
You make several errors in thought process in arriving at your implied conclusion there. First, the US is not a solid whole, it is a collection of areas. As such what happens in one area may not, and generally does not, reflect what happens in all areas, even by aggregate. This alone should demonstrate to you how the situation you sneer at can and indeed does happen.
Furthermore, it is irrelevant what 2/4s the population believes theistically speaking. 3/4s the population does not make the laws. Generally, less than half the population is eligible to vote, and of them generally less than half actually do vote. This brings us to a minority. Half of half is a quarter, and thus a minority. Thus it is shown that a minority can indeed oppress the majority so long as the level of oppression is below that which is required for enough of the majority to take corrective action. This can continue for some time and it is *possible* we are seeing the beginnings of actions by said "silent majority".
Further, the national laws are made by a few hundred people. Influence them and you've got your national oppression of a given class. Repeat this in various states of the Union and you can easily generate much feelings of oppression.
Sadly, when the "oppressed majority" finally do take action they will overreact and reverse the oppression. They will use the very tools they complain about to reverse the (percevied|real) oppression.
Finally, given the incredible amount of laws, interpretations fo laws, regulations, and codes both public and private, it is not that difficult to get appressive legislation slipped in among other legislation.
So don't be so quick to believe in the majority rules dogma. The world is ruled by those who show up. And somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 of Americans don't bother to.
Why don't they build a greenhouse up there?
;)
Because growing plants in space would require massive amounts of radiation protecting glass. As in, several feet thick sheets of glass, plus the mass to protect the rootside from radiation as well. This amount of mass is simply too much to do today. Even in LEO, the radiation would be too much for the plants without it. It would also be needed for thermal regulation.
Absent the glass shield I mentioned, the direct (or reflected) solar energy would fry the plants and produce nasty thermal variances. No, artifical lighting is out of the question due to the sheer power it would take to do that on any reasonable basis, especially one for oxygen production. At best AL is a supplement, not the other way around.
Further, greenhouses need water because plants need water. Water contains oxygen. So you would still wind up shipping oxygen albeit in a different form. For the purpose of having oxygen, you are better off simply shipping oxygen. Water is much more a difficult and costly launch item than hydrogen tanks.
As far as waste disposal, again, there are issues. You can not simply dump core into a field and consider it done. There are significant and important differences between black water and grey water handling and reclamation. Most biological resources for this are dependent on many factors, and take massive amounts of land and combined systems to do it. The agbio-filtering process of the various (human) wastes is neither minor nor fast. Again, a lot of material to ship into space.
Overall, given the mass you'd need to ship into orbit, you are better off in the long run to take that mass budget and send people to Mars.
Mars has most of the mass and resources we'd need to create an off-earth food/water/air production facility as well as waste refuse[1]. It is cheaper to send stuff from Mars to LEO than from Earth to LEO. It sounds strange, but it is true. The delta-v difference is quite large.
This process is one known as mass-leverage. You send smaller amounts of mass from the deep well to a shorter well. The facilities in this shorter well then take that mass and convert it to more products(mass) and send it out.
This is one reason I expect we'll first build a space elevator on Mars. As odd as it sounds, the "road to Mars" will be built from Mars if we are smart about it. Mars has the resources we need to produce the materials for tethers and a Martian Space Elevator (MSE). Further we currently habve the materials with enough strength to build it today. Not to mention the environmental challenges of wind and such are much less of an issue on Mars, as is the rabid concern about it breaking and wrapping around the planet slicing everyone to ribbons.
Produce the MSE and use it to put the tether in place in Mars orbit to send from Mars to HEO. Send a tether to HEO. This tether is then used to catch/throw between HEO and GEO or LEO. Then you use your tether system to add the tethers for GEO and LEO.
Now you have a system by which you can grow the resources needed by LEO stations on Mars, raise them cheap as hell on the MSE, and send them to LEO via the Mars-Earth Tether System (METS). This will be far, far cheaper than Earth to LEO launch.
Once this is in place, you use LEO launches to get payload destined for Mars to LEO, then the METS to get it to Mars. This would be people and/or supplies such as machinery and products still produced on Earth for Mars. Now, your cost for Mars destinations is LEO.
With this system in place, Mars can send the mass for LEO/GEO stations ranging from supplies to hull materials in the early days, with Earth supplying the lightweight and more complex electronics gear. With few exceptions, terrestrial boosters only need LEO capability. This is particularly the case once the METS is used to make a GEO station. With this in place you use LEO boosters to get even GEO destined sats in LEO, then use the LEO-GEO tether to GEO. Tele-
That would lead me to believe you'd have an environment where any discovered piece of paper on which there is some non-indigenous word written would be a candidate for plugging in as password attempts. This is just plain silly.... passwords written down would be one of the first things a social-engineering hack may try to leverage. I'm not a fan of draconian policies wrapped around impossible rules to manage security, but this "recommendation" flies in the face of reason.
Then you missed part of what the OP wrote:
and then protect the piece of paper--or whatever it is I wrote them down on.
You are talking about random bits of paper on the desk with random words on it. The person you are responding to is not.
But then again, go ahead; try to social engineer your way into my system using bits of words/patterns/characters found on papers on my desk. Given the stacks of notes, comments, things that appear to be passwords but are not, and so on you'll be here for several weeks solid. Assuming you can read my writing.
As far as flying in the face of reason consider this.
Nowadays credit cards have a number on the back of them, usually right in the signature area. This is ostensibly to be used online to verify you have the card. You go to a clerk at the gas station/grocery store/whatever, and use your credit card. The clerk sees your number right there. It's usually very short and easy to remember for the short term. After you go out it is usually nothing for him or her to look at your transaction for the credit card to get your CC number, then match that with the "verification" number on the back and bingo. Now s/he has a CC number and the verification used online. The only thing missing is zip code and maybe billing address. But wait, s/he also asks for ID and thus it is there. A quick mental note of approximately where you live, say the zip code, and a google later s/he has your address. Now the circle is complete.
The point of this little excursion? You often have far more valuable information "written down" in your wallet than your computer passwords. "But I protect those as best I can" you say? Exactly. The poster you replied to was saying the same thing about the written down passwords.
Let me ask you this: How often do you see an OSS product (EG: phpwiki) that doesn't offer support for numerous databases?
Quite a bit actually. In my experience most only support MySQL. Why? They don't understand the value of data integrity and the features MySQL lacks/lacked. As a result they have had to poorly implement things that the DB itself should do, and when they try to "port" this to another DB they run into all sorts of issues.
And SQL is a language, not an API.
So they give up.
1. Companies are required BY LAW to give severance pay and/or notice when laying off employees. Employees can just up and leave any minute they choose for the most part.
Not in the US.
Where is that "factually incorrect" moderation tag when we need it?
That why the heck is is always "the rich" or "the wealthy" with these A&L futurologists? I'll tell you why. Because it fits their hidden agenda of control through class warfare, that's why.
While that may be a fun thought for you to think, the reality is far simpler and less devious.
The rich tend to get new advanced technology first because they can afford it. Yes, Virginia, it really is that simple.
It's been around and it's effects being researched since at least the early 1980's. It is being and has been researched by more than just US sources.
There have been no studies that show MTBE as carcinogenic to humans. In fact, MTBE is not classified as a carcinogen by any agency that I've been able to find. The IARC classifies it as Class 3. Not even a "probably carcinogenic" rating (which is 2b).
One study[1] shows carcinogenic effects in mice at 8,000 ppm. Well above the levels set for detection and measurement in water. Also well above human tolerance levels for taste and/or smell.
Indeed, MTBE has been used to treat medical issues in humans:
[2]
Further, to say there haven't been studies on humans is to not be aware of them. Several have been done, and not just in the US[3]. Indeed, the study I assume you refer to above ("carcinogenic effects") are not replicable to humans[4].
The idea that becuase you can smell it or taste it it is doing damage is not upheld by science, and not just in the case of MTBE. There are many substances that are detectable by smell or taste at levels that are orders of magnitude lower than any adverse or detectable health effects.
However, do not construe this as me being in favor of MTBE; I am not. I'd much rather oxygenation of gasoline be done via ethanol; I consider it a far better combination. It is, in fact, what my family uses (The Suburban runs E85, the Vette runs E10). I argue these points only to cut through the hysteria around MTBE. Hyperbole and wild claims about it don't do anybody any good. And I'm certainly not a fan of the EPA.
I've even followed the money trail. Who has the most to benefit by the public thinking MTBE is some nasty horrible thing? Cleanup crews, filter companies (I've seen some claim that over 50% of water in the US has toxic levels of it!), and politicians. I could argue the ethanol industry has a monetary interest in MTBE being banned, and they would. Yet I don't find them pushing the notions that MTBE is lethal or damaging at the lowest of levels, that it's in half the water supply, etc..
Regarding phytoremediation this link should be a good start for further research:
http://www.soil-health.org.nz/pastissues/novdec03/ cropping.htm
It is quite fascinating, IMO.
Cheers
1: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1995/103-5/correspon dence.html
2: http://www.aehsmag.com/issues/2001/spring/myths.ht m
3: http://www.efoa.org/mtbe/partie
It's a cheap thrill ride but says nothing of our future space exploration.
No, it bridges the mental gap between what people think we CAN do and what we really CAN do. Right now people tend to believe anything beyond airliners is unreasonably hard and the sole domain of governments. When that barrier is broken down, investment for further fights and trips become more available.
But should we?
Yes.
Given the present condition of the supply of energies we have available and our rates of consumption, is this yet another luxury for the few that will needlessly deplete our supply of fuels?
Only to those with limited scope, vision, and foresight. By increasing access to space, you eventually lead to the lower cost of said access, and the increasing likelihood of it becomming a commodity.
These are necessary to future energy needs of the human race. Examples include future fusion fuel (moon, Jupiter), as well as orbiting power satellites to name but a few energy related ones. Manufacturing should eventually move to space for things that are environmentally risky and capable of being done in space. These will make use of off-planet energy sources, be they nuclear, solar, or some combination therof or something else entirely.
Both of these eventualities of space tourism will solve many of the problems you believe we have here on Earth.
And with yet more demand on a the growing scarcity of petrochemical fuels powering the whole shebang, I guess we just watch fuel costs for everybody step up another notch. Economics. Supply and demand.
You really should try reading the articles. The rocket is powered by alcohol and oxygen, not petro-chemicals.
But then, I have wondered that for a long time on other matters... its a wonder to me that America is still a "superpower" given the way we squander our resources.
What you consider squandering is actually an economic driver. We have the resources to do things other nations can not do. We have the resources to try things and fail, then try something else. What amazes me is the mass of people who fail to realize such things.
A company that hasn't put anyone... anyone at all... into space, is starting a company to put people into space.
One step at a time guys...
Most companies start up doing something they haven't done yet. Very few companies start up doing something they've already done. Arguably, no companies do.
How many companies have put people in space?
Zero. Only governments have put people into space (assuming "space" is LEO or better). And you are suggesting no companies do so until they have done so.
Worse than that you got modded insightful for asking for the impossible.
Any Star Wars fan with a functioning memory knows that the process of how Palpatine became the emperor was know for far longer than Bush being in the White house. Anyone with a functioning memory of history knows the "with me or against me" dates back as far as we can record.
People thinking Sith was written to mirror, pointout, or have anything to do with today's politics are putting into it what they want to. This part of the story is what, at least a couple decades old?
-- George Lucas
You have to remember, this whole thing was written thirty years ago -- Lucas
Lucas cited the Roman empire in the wake of Caesar's death, France after the revolution and Hitler's rise in Germany as historical examples of countries giving themselves over to dictators. -- Bruce Kirkland, Free Press news services
That meant millions of people thrown into the local Wal-Mart job, if they were lucky, and onto welfare if not. And Wal-Mart exists because it passes its healthcare on to the local state's tax-supported public services -- not to mention the number of Wal-Martish employees who are on food stamps because they aren't paid enough to eat.
You may want to brush up on real-world facts. Walmart employs about 1.2 million people worldwide. Alone that destroys your ridiculous assertion that "millions were thrown into the local wal-mart job".
Approximately 6% of the US qualifies for food stamps. On sheer statistics alone the biggest retail employer will have a significant portion of those.
Most of walmart's employees ("associates" heh) are elderly on medicare (the greeters), handicapped on medicare (more greeters), teenagers covered by their parents' insurance, wives covered by their husband's insurance, and college students (many are covered by parents and many by school policies). About 45% of wally world's employees are covered by wally world insurance plans.
Walmarts insured rate is actually quite favorably compared to that of Costco. Walmart employees on Walmart insurance are asked to cover one third of the costs. Everywhere I've had insurance I've had to cover half. I wouldn't mind my costs going down to a third from the half they are now.
Are they angels? Hardly, indeed likely far from it. But to demonize them and avoid the root of the issue is nonsense of the highest order.
The US is getting awfully close to old Russia theese days.
Yeah but there isn't much we can do about continental drift.
What _does_ the USA have to offer? Think about it - almost all the manufacturing industries have moved out/are moving out, and the US is largely going towards being nothing more than a consumer (okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but you get the idea).
.9% more productive than average, and 3.3% more than plants that were closed. Today we have over 360,000 manufacturing plants in the US.
A little? More than a little. Quite abit more.
There are 14.5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs. About a quarter of those are low-risk for export as no other nation has enough ability to even challenge them. About 2/3rds are in a "medium risk" level where some niche markets and countries *could* become competitive.
But then again, a smart observer does not base it all on jobs. Productivity per-worker increases have a far more dramatic effect on manufacturing than mere jobs level measurements. So too is R&D.
US spending on R&D by US companies amounts to 3% of GDP, or about 277 billion/year. By comparison, the EU average s 2%, and OECD countries average 2.3%.
US import of GDP is about 10%. By comparison, China's import of GDP is about 25%.
Manufacturing production in the US more than doubled from 1970 to 2000. yet manufacturing employment fell from 25% to 13% over that same period of time. As I said above, productivity gains are not to be idly dismissed.
Between the years 1982 and 1977 manufacturing jobs fell by 1.7 million. Despite this, the value of goods manufactured in the US approximately tripled, and the number of facilities increased by just under 10%. In manufacturing, productivity is king. Yet despite the increase in plants from 1977 to 1997, over 117,000 plants closed. Plant closings are an ongoing thing. Indeed, studies have shown that on average over a 5 year period, 32% of plants are closed. here, too, productivity is a key player.
Plants that survived were
Indeed, since 1940 US Manufacturing has remained remarkably stable. Since 1940 manufacturing output as portion of GDP has oscillated between 16 and 19%. The low point during the recent correction was, IIRC, about 16%.
Again, productivity is king, and the US is still driving productivity gains.
China, for example, will have little incentive to drive productivity gains. Productivity gain drivers are largely a function of labor pool, of which China has a rather large pool. And despite the hooplah in the media, China is actually running a trade deficit, and has been for a long time. Their manufacturing is primarily around building things they need such as concrete for roads, buildings, etc.. In an actual analysis, Chinese products are no more advantageous than it's neighbors.
The EU is moving ostensibly to a service driven economy (read: doomed to failure economy), and trying to get out of manufacturing (btw, most of the "exported" manfuacturing went to Europe a long time ago). This leaves Japan, Russia, and various Asian countries.
Of those, Russia has a lot of problems to overcome before it can become a manufacturing giant to rival the US. Japan is still getting itself built back to workable state (and doing a fine job of it, expect "sudden" news on this front in the next few years). After these two, there isn't much left in the way of manufacturing potential to rival the US manufacturing.
Indeed, when looking at US direct foreign investment, over half of it goes to Europe. Mexico got about four percent, China less than one percent. India is statstically non-existent as far as US investment abroad.
Chinese labor costs per unit are rising faster than US costs per unit. This will have significant impact on Chinese exports and their costs. Indeed, due to rising labor costs in the 1990s South Korea had a loss of 15% of manufacturing jobs, whereas the US shed a mere 3% during that same time (and remember, production was still rising in the US).
And last but not least, if you look at the global manufacturing levels
Nope that's mere hyperbole.
--Water Technology magazine
-- http://www.calgasoline.com/
... full of holes. Indeed, the fact that MTBE spreads quickly (which dilutes it faster) has actually been a positive thing. It exposed leaky underground tanks that would have gone years before the leak and contamination was detected.
MTBE leakage was due to old tank designs. You assertion it leaks "like tritium" is
and makes the water undrinkable in the minutest quantities.
Again, an baseless assertion. Less than one percent of water supplies across the US showed an amount that woudl affect taste/smell and that amount is below the health hazard levels.
-- http://www.efoa.org/fr/mtbe_environment/water_qual ity.htm
As you can see, the levels limited are vastly below the level of health effects. And the fact that less than one percent of the total ground water supply was at noticable levels which are far below health effects only stands to show the hype and misinformation you have been exposed to, and repeated here.
In comparison, 20-25% of groundwater in the US is contaminated by pathegenic viruses or bacteria.
Further, cleanup is less onerous than you claim.
Yes, that's right, and those people are poisoning themselves, particularly in China. The pollution in the industrial cities is so bad that if it goes unchecked, it will, paradoxically, threaten their economic survival. Ruined land and water is no good to anybody.
Sound familiar? Why yes, yes it does to those who know history. Happens to nearyl every country/region as it goes through it's "industrial revolution". Why? It's cheaper and faster.
Seems everyone knows it but is afraid to admit that sometimes you have to do things the cheap and dirty way to get to where you can do things the costly and clean way. Like learning hard math before easy math. Ideally we'd all earn from the mistakes of others but reality is not a synonym of ideally for good reason.
Tangentially: have you ever driven on I-80 through the Rust Belt? I'm talking about former manufacturing hubs like Buffalo, Gary, and parts of Cleveland. They look abandoned. And the factories? Rusting and abandoned. It's sad, not only because of the unemployment and social upheaval, but because great swaths of that abandoned land cannot be reclaimed for agriculture. The soil and groundwater is too polluted. So the hulks of the factories remain, the rusting monuments to America's fading greatness.
Quite the contrary. It is a fading monument to the "company town" ideal. Once you get out of the blinders caused by lookign in one or two places, and look at history of various cities you'll find that what you describe is only true of "company towns". In such a place one large company dominates the economy. If that company goes down, so does the town.
Yet in towns that allow people to create new markets and goods/services that are not dependent in toto on the company/industry that dominates it, they are still alive and thriving. if you go back through the history of dead end towns you often find laws that "protect" the company town mentality; ultimately destroying the town. This is true in every nation.
For every town like the one you describe, there are one or more that are thriving due to new industries and markets. Overall, the economy is simply better than it was even a mere decade ago, let alone a hundred years.
Barring global cataclysm eventually the massive industries particularly in manufacturing will be in orbit or on other planets. Then many will becry the loss of prestige their country once had, how all the jobs are going elsewhere, yadda yadda yadda. They'll still blame some amorphous cause, not realizing it is inevitable for one-horse towns. Meanwhile, those places that grow with the changes will continue to thrive.
And why can't that land be reclaimed for agriculture? Again, annoying government prevention. Much of that land certainly can be reclaimed for agriculture as well as other things. But alas, those pesky zoning laws and "protection" laws prevent it.
If I need to pick him up from school early, I lose the hours. If your company doesn't enforce it, then blame your company as well.
If you are salaried, you need to blame your company for illegally reducing your wages for leaving a bit early (assuming you are in the US).
The fact is, you don't just magically get time off when a new movie comes out. Someone has to cover for you where you work, or your work doesn't get done. If your work doesn't get done, you get fired. How does this add up to billions in lost funds?
That isn't always true. Not all work has to be done today. Many tech places around here take their people to the movies for such days. I understand that here the place was half empty -- managers included -- as they all went to the movie together. In some cases, companies will attempt to rent out the theater. And in some of those cases, they'll succeed.
No lost work there. Work is not always like time. Sometimes you can put it off.
The problem is that while everyoen tends to get the same amount of sick/vacation/PTO days in any given company, I think it is quite common for parents to come in late, leave early, take time out of the middle of the day or not come in at all and not have it subtracted from their alotted accured vacation/sick/PTO days.
And that is where a lot of single people get frustrated.
Single people get theirs around here. Days they are expecting a delivery with nobody to pick it up, cable or dsl getting installed, they are "sick", mysterious car breakdowns (and nobody to brign them in). Most of our single people leave just as often as the married people. Thing is, most single people don't see it because they are too busy focusing on the married people. Single people around here are gone just as much for "dentist appointments", "doctor visits", "not feeling well I'll work from home today", and so on as married people are for their kids. I've seen peolpe stay home to take care of their sick {boy,girl}friend. Or their dogs.
That said married people are exposed to sickness causing germs and virii at a much greater frequency than single people (excepting STDs in the general case). Thus they are more likely to get sick.
Further, if they are salaried, and you are salaried, maybe they simply know more than you about what they can and can't do. Maybe you just don't have the balls/ovaries to say you are leaving early. if you are salaried and leave an hour or two early, or arrive late or take an hour or two off during the day, your pay can't legally be reduced either. Yup, look it up. If you are salaried and leave two hours early in an 8 hour shift, no pay can legally be docked for time missed. If they are paid hourly, have you verified they get paid for being there when they aren't? if not, you are being less than honest in your assessment.
If you are salaried, being gone midday for enough time to go see SW does not automatically mean a reduction in pay; single or married. Maybe it's time to get out from behind the keyboard warriror persona and live a life? Quit whining about others and take care of yourself?
Maybe you should quit whining and start learning. Learning about how often single people leave as well as the rules regarding salaried, hourly, and time away.
I got tired of losing out on "smoke breaks", so I started taking my own breaks when I needed them - at 30 to 50 minutes per pop. Just hop up and vaporize.
In the Army, we did something similiar. Everytime the smokers would go outside the motorpool for a "smoke break", we'd go sit down for a "non-smoke break", or take an equal amount of time after they got back for a "not around the smoke remnants" break. It took only a few days of this to "get caught". The smoke breaks were ended on the spot.
Don't forget, under U.S. law a company is required to defend its trademarks from use by other parties, or they can lose the trademark. That's usually the reason for trademark lawsuits like this that strike everyone as silly and mean-spirited.
We need an "incomplete" moderation tag.
Yes, an entity holding trademark is required to defend it or lose it. HOWEVER, a trademark is not under attack when not used in the same classification of product. There can be an zSeries computer hardware product as well as a zSeries haircut, a zSeries Sci-Fi book, and so on; each with their own trademark, and each not diluting each other.
What makes this (potential) lawsuit silly and mean-spirited is that Hormel is in the FOOD business and SPAM made by Hormel is considered a food product. DSPAM for example, is NOT a food product (or even a laxative which IMO would be funny as hell - "Eat SPAM lately and want it out right now? Take DSPAM Laxative!"), it is a computer software product.
As such *legally* speaking, Hormel is NOT required to "defend" it's trademark against DSPAM the software product. Therefore, this case is not one of Hormel being required to do anything to "defend" it's trademark.
Therefore this (potential) lawsuit is silly, mean-spirited, w/o merit, and pathetically sad, really.
Had you read the article, you would have known this. Actually, if you knew anything substantive about Trademark law, you would have known this w/o reading the article.
Had you read the article, you would have known that a lawsuit has yet to be filed. You would have known that Hormel has recently filed an attempt to trademark SPAM as "downloadable software, namely screensavers".
Why do this? They KNOW they can't fight the battle being "only" a food maker. They KNOW that DSPAM and SPAM are in two entirely different classes of products. They KNOW they'd lose, and lose big.
So what do they do? They suddenly decide to go into the computer software business. They did this AFTER the term spam for UCE was pervasive, as well as AFTER DSPAM submitted their trademark filing.
There is but one reason for Hormel to do this. They want to be able to claim SPAM as a computer related trademark. It's a stupid notion that they have a screensaver they want to call SPAM given the negative connotation "spam" has in the computer world. They would start out in a horrible marketing position. One would have to presume their marketing department would know this, as would anyone reasonably modern or intelligent at Hormel.
Thus, the only safe conclusion is the one I posited: that they are trying to establish an alleged computer software product to attach their SPAM trademark to in order to provide some assumed basis for countering the use of it elsewhere. This too, is futile, however.
The presence of many anti-spam/spam references, their own admission of it's usage in the computer world, as well as the use of it by the U.S. Congress all point to a non-starter. Like prior art.
Further, to move their trademark into entirely unrelated areas can serve as a dilution on it's own. Only when the extension of trademark adds significant value to the new venture is it benefical and not dilutive. An example is the expansion of "Virgin Airways" to Virgin Galactic and so on. SPAM has never had a strong brand association, even prior to the Internet. As such, an extension of it would be unwise. It is a dubious assertion that Hormel is unaware of this. Again, this leads to the aforementioned assumption of intent.
It's called self-depreciation.
;)
No, it's called self-deprecating humor. Depreciation is not deprecation, and the difference is not minor. If you want to depreciate yourself, go right ahead - we can't stop you. But don't think the rest of us want to lower our value to suit you. We aren't quite THAT stupid.
"Is 1 child's death worth saving 10,000? What about 10 puppies?"
So, 1 human life is worth more than 10,000 saves. And 10 puppy-lives are worth more than 10,000 saves--so, by the only equal metere there, 1 human = 10 puppies.
I see the problem: we are reading entirely different answers The FAQ I referenced makes no mentions of puppies or a child.
Specifically it says:
The original answer was no. Then they go into asking about retarded people.
Puppies aren't even referenced on that page (http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp). Nor is the form of argument you are ascribing to them used.
The entire question and answer is here:
The answer is clear: 10,000 humans get to die ("be sacrificed") so that those 10 animals get to continue living, and not be experimented with/on. The value proposition is clear and unmistakable in this Q&A. In others, maybe they make different arguments. But if you revisit the links I originally posted, this is the one we've been ostensibly discussing.
You (or I) do not have a "right not to be endangered". We have a right to to defend ourselves, and a right to take rpeventative action that does not infring on another's rights. Just as there is no "right to not be offended" or "right to not be insulted". There is no tenable and logical derivation of rights that support claims of such rights.
I've never heard of PETA or anyone else arguing that only mentally defective felines should be sterilized.
Ahh yes, more strawmen. Actually, PETA kills mentally defective felines.
You clearly have not read the peta literature. That's fine as long as you dont want to argue their positions (pro or con).
The fact is, everytime someone asks about animals and rights, they fall back to the retarded child, the retarded orphan. WHy> Their position is that retarded people and animals neither can utilize their rights, nor understand them. Yet they retain them despite the physical incapability to even grasp them. If animals can have their reproductive rights usurped "for the greater good(!)", then so can retarded people.
But just to humor your strawman for *most* retarded people, yes there are too many and if left to their own devices they will starve. And like one of my dogs, once they discover sex, it's a full time job to keep them from "doing it".
Fin
Veganism and environmentalism aren't synonyms. On a given day you might find me acting quite like an environmentalist, but you'll never see me acting like a vegan.
True, but she calls for an end to Medical research and products made by animal research/use. She is living solely because of the research she wants to end.
No, it doesn't. In fact, by strict numbers, it says that animals are 1/10th as valueable as humans--but that the cost of a murder is far higher than the price of saving 10,000 lives.
Sorry, you've got it backward. Since these 10K people (their example) *will* die by *not* experimenting on the (again their example) 10 animals, it clearly states that these 10 animals should be allowed to live thus sacrificing the 10,000 humans. 10,000 of A for 10 of B is a clear value proposition that states A gte B. Since in the example they provided, 10K of A was not *enough* to justify the "sacrifice" of 10 of B, it changes it to A gt B.
I'd wager that, like human rights, animal rights were ranked in importance, and "have a niche big enough to survive" and "don't be killed" come before "reproduction."
You may as well ask why you can't exercise your right to get drunk and drive--because that right is superceded by the right of someone else not to be killed.
That assumes the right to get drunk and endanger others exists. As I said, to use *their* arguments, they should be in favor of sterilizing retarded or seriously impared humans for the exact same reason. But they won't. Likely they know their entire analogy falls down when properly reversed.
VHEMT's no more an environmentalist group than scientology is a religion.
That may be your opinion. However, they do make their arguments as a form of "returning" and "saving" the environment. Whether they are *sane* environmentalists or not is a separate issue. The fact is they advocate the extinction of humans in order to "save" or "protect" "the planet". This makes them an environmentalist group advocating that the environment is more important than humans. The only way they could be more extreme is to drop the "voluntary" aspect.