Solution - either stop free trade or mandate that every country exporting goods to the US must obey the American minimum wage.
Im not sure what world youre living in, but forcing all small businesses in Thailand and China to pay $8.00 an hour isnt really going to help things, as noone there would be able to afford it and their export market would dry up. Congrats, you just put thousands of people out of jobs, and massively hurt their economies.
We want to lower our costs to the bare minimum so the CEO and other executives can get filthy rich off of the backs of the workers and shareholders all the while poisoning the people and land of foreign nations because their leaders want to enrich themselves - (fascist) capitalism working with despots.
Lets be fair here-- its not like everyone is totally oblivious to the fact that China has a rather imperfect environmentalism record; and its not like its super hard to figure out where something was made (as its stamped on every product).
The CEOs dont force users to buy the absolute cheapest crap from China, or the shiniest crap (in the case of Apple products-- uses Foxconn parts, made in China). Consumers make that choice.
But no, buy into the line that its the "fat cats" that are the cause of all the world's evils, rather than the simple fact that people demand cheaper goods and dont really give a hoot where they come from.
In the meantime, the super rich propaganda machine has brain washed us peons into thinking that if we work hard and get educated, we too can one day join their rank
Yes, so many of our americans are living in squalor, despite having one of the highest living standards in the world (even for our inner-city homeless!), cheap, highly affordable education (I got a degree working as a waiter, and am getting another right now with no debt), an overabundance of food (see health specialists who warn we're eating too much), etc etc.
Whatever system you think will work better, is in use somewhere in the world, and statistically, chances are theyre doing worse off there.
Get the Gulfstream, Bombardier, Cessna (Citation Jets), and the other "corporate jet" makers client lists and then get the individuals behind those corporations.
Great, so you get all these evil CEOs. Consumers are still demanding a $350 PC, shipped to their door. Whatever company delivers it needs to turn a profit, as does microsoft, as does the screen maker, UPS, and everyone else in the chain. How long do you think it will be before the next business springs up importing cheap crap from china?
You could still use BankX card at BankX machines, but unless BankX talked directly to BankY, you now can't use your card there.
er, no, not really. The mag-stripe readers read the mag-stripe, no matter what card it is. Its the software that interprets it, and figures out what card it is, and its then the back-office hardware/software that figures out where to send those payments. Adding a new card is a matter of paying the fees, and updating the software that sends all the payments through.
A lot of small vendors probably wouldnt take your new card, but then thats the same with Amex due to its fees.
And "truer reds". The salesman wouldn't shut up about how much better Monster cables were at improving reds.
Possibly a relic of the RCA / S-Video days, where a good S-video cable (I had a monster cable which worked well) really would keep the red from bleeding noticably onto neighboring pixels. I dont remember whether there was a significant difference between standard S-video and monster's, other than that I liked the build quality of the cables better (less likely to get shredded due to thick sheathing).
Its very possible that the salesperson thought that that same issue persisted to this day even in HDMI-- ignorance, not malice.
In an environment where some kind of practice is allowed to the extent that it becomes an 'industry standard practice', you cannot choose another option.
Bull. Im in the IT field and got picked up by a company with a crappy degree and no experience. In the last several years, Ive watched our company pick up loads of others like me. I know of other companies in the area doing the same. Ive watched friends cope with such situations as well.
This isnt some "everyone does it, I have no choice" situation, except perhaps in some fields (medicine?). It is perfectly possible, if there are no jobs in your area, to MOVE to a place where there are jobs.
And anyways, what is your proposed solution to this hypothetical problem? Legislate that companies have to pay interns? Congrats, you havent made it easier for folks to get experience; youve now made it impossible for some people to hone their skills if they really were that mediocre.
the water company can't decide not to serve you. they can't ban you. this is essentially the same
No, its not, not in any remote way.
Water companies use existing, hard to deploy infrastructure-- they are a natural monopoly. Contrast with Visa-- there are NUMEROUS ways to send money: Western Union, MasterCard, Paypal, Google Checkout, etc etc etc. There arent the barriers of laying pipeline-- the infrastructure (internet, mail, banks) is already there.
Further, water companies are utilities, and are regulated differently because of it. Visa can absolutely deny your application for an account, or give your existing account the boot if they want; water companies have a much harder time with that.
companies should NOT be allowed to just grow and grow. we tried that. it didn't work out.
The solution is you let them fail when they suck, not prop them up. And we already DO break them up when they get too big; its just that for some inexplicable reason we have been allowing ridiculous mergers recently.
Thats a bad example, because there is specific legislation which addresses that specific issue, because of the issues we had with racial discrimination in the past.
However, I think you COULD post a sign saying "no short people of allowed", since that affects neither race, nor color, nor religion, nor national origin. Im sure you would get sued for it, but courts have often upheld a business' right to deny service.
Likewise, if a company wants to deny service for political affiliation, I believe they could do so-- once again, it does not fall afoul of the specific exemptions to the "right to deny service".
. It makes a lot of sense to me to expect (maybe even require) companies not to pick moral sides.
Companies are run by people who have certain beliefs. Are you saying that if there is an advice hotline, and you are totally anti-abortion, you should be required to advise someone on the best way to perform an abortion? Or that news stations should be required to run certain pieces? I absolutely expect businesses to make choices of right and wrong, and to decide that they will not aid in practices they consider wrong.
Im not sure how liability works with a bank, but Im fairly certain that if you make a ruckus in their lobby they are free to tell you to leave the premises and deny you the use of their services.
However, as you've noted yourself, even the literal interpretation prefers to describe it as Solomon and his wife,
I should clarify that Im not clear that is the consensus view; I am by no means an expert, and dont know whether the view is generally that it is specifically Solomon and his wife, or simply a lover; that was an assumption on my part.
The point of it is that "sex is a good thing" with the condition "in the proper context". And I think that is relevant, as it mirrors the OT's stance that "violence is permissible, in the proper context", the context being "just war", or judicial sentence ("But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.", Romans 13). That by no means is the same thing as a blanket authorization for violence. It simply means that, if the Lord commands you to enact a sentence that he has decreed, there is no guilt in it, any more than a bailiff or executioner shares guilt for enacting a sentence on a convict (assuming said sentence were just, and the executioner believed it to be so...).
The second amendment is a really, really bad example as it wasn't ever ratified
Are you arguing that SCOTUS has been wrong all this time, and that there ARE no 2nd amendment protections? That their reasoning on striking down the DC handgun ban was wrong? That the Bill of Rights was not ratified on (according to wikipedia) December 15, 1791?
If you had said "many" or "some", I would agree with you, but as a member of an SBC church, I disagree, and can in fact state that you are wrong.
For starters, there is no central authority in baptist churches (we have no general assembly nor presbytery), so there IS no "official baptist position"-- this isnt a doctrinal issue on which the denomination is grounded. I am sure there are other similar, non-centralized denominations.
Second, Im sure that the PCA church would disagree with you, as would many many "bible churches".
And generally, when a denomination starts declaring everything symbolic when it clearly is not (all commentaries Ive seen understand that Song of Solomon describes 2 lovers), we call that "liberal"; and generally when you start declaring that the entire foundation of a religion is entirely subjective, all consistency and sanity flies out the window (much like what happens, in fact, when the entire constitution is declared "subjective" and "living").
Please tell me youre not going to pretend that all private market software is inferior to OSS. I would remark the other way around, that market pressures force privately developed software to apply a good layer of polish.
I mean, Vista was bad, but I dont think Microsoft in the last 10 years has had a Unity-sized failure (a failure, that is, to give a hoot about what your users actually want). Without monetary incentives, you get all the sorts of complaints that users of firefox and gnome and all the rest have-- that the developer only cares about their needs so long as it fits their vision.
Try that with commercial software, and you rapidly lose your customers.
Thats not to say things are peachy on the commercial side; Symantec makes some truely awful software; but people are buying it, so clearly theyre doing SOMETHING right (even if its just polishing a turd-- at least that polish is there).
And the regulators are constrained by their masters, the politicians who are beholden to generally do what will make their voters happy (unless they simply dont care about reelection).
I have the right to bear arms not only in the United States, but in Japan, in Europe, and in China.
Youre free to try to exercise them whenever and however and wherever you want, but I think you may want to think about what is meant by "right" before you find yourself in a chinese reeducation camp whilst declaring your inalienable right to free speech. I think you would quickly find that the chinese government would have no problem whatsoever alienating you from your right to speech.
If everything in the Bill of Rights were "inalienable", please explain the FCC, the arguments over handgun restrictions, the ability for law enforcement to seize property with court order, etc.
Those so-called "rights" can be abridged under certain circumstances-- just not by congress, and usually not by state legislation.
No, if there were a right involved it would follow that it could not be violated on any level of government in the nation. That is not the case, and court battles have been fought over what the state gov't can and cant restrict-- can they restrict speech? Can they house soldiers in your house? Handgun laws?
In the case of handgun laws, for example, there was a big battle over that recently in the district. It came down to the fact that SOME of the BoR is "incorporated" at the state level.
But the 2nd amendment is not a "Right to bear arms", because if it were it could never be restricted in any way by regulation, which is simply not the case. The 1st amendment is not a "right to free speech", because if it were the FCC would never have had any ground to regulate television (some would argue that the FCC goes against the spirit of the first amendment, but it certainly is technically in compliance).
Slashdot Mirror
=/= is easier to see, unambiguous, and understood far more widely than !=.
Is this the new vi vs emacs discussion?
If youre going through a training course, and they reinforce a belief that used to be true, how is that NOT your ignorance?
Solution - either stop free trade or mandate that every country exporting goods to the US must obey the American minimum wage.
Im not sure what world youre living in, but forcing all small businesses in Thailand and China to pay $8.00 an hour isnt really going to help things, as noone there would be able to afford it and their export market would dry up. Congrats, you just put thousands of people out of jobs, and massively hurt their economies.
And C) consumers would throw a fit when the price of computers jumps significantly and that laptop is no longer $400.
We want to lower our costs to the bare minimum so the CEO and other executives can get filthy rich off of the backs of the workers and shareholders all the while poisoning the people and land of foreign nations because their leaders want to enrich themselves - (fascist) capitalism working with despots.
Lets be fair here-- its not like everyone is totally oblivious to the fact that China has a rather imperfect environmentalism record; and its not like its super hard to figure out where something was made (as its stamped on every product).
The CEOs dont force users to buy the absolute cheapest crap from China, or the shiniest crap (in the case of Apple products-- uses Foxconn parts, made in China). Consumers make that choice.
But no, buy into the line that its the "fat cats" that are the cause of all the world's evils, rather than the simple fact that people demand cheaper goods and dont really give a hoot where they come from.
In the meantime, the super rich propaganda machine has brain washed us peons into thinking that if we work hard and get educated, we too can one day join their rank
Yes, so many of our americans are living in squalor, despite having one of the highest living standards in the world (even for our inner-city homeless!), cheap, highly affordable education (I got a degree working as a waiter, and am getting another right now with no debt), an overabundance of food (see health specialists who warn we're eating too much), etc etc.
Whatever system you think will work better, is in use somewhere in the world, and statistically, chances are theyre doing worse off there.
Get the Gulfstream, Bombardier, Cessna (Citation Jets), and the other "corporate jet" makers client lists and then get the individuals behind those corporations.
Great, so you get all these evil CEOs. Consumers are still demanding a $350 PC, shipped to their door. Whatever company delivers it needs to turn a profit, as does microsoft, as does the screen maker, UPS, and everyone else in the chain. How long do you think it will be before the next business springs up importing cheap crap from china?
Guess who else tried not to work on the long weekend?
All those people complaining about their app not working. Wonder how many customers were asking for their help, and given the cold shoulder?
You could still use BankX card at BankX machines, but unless BankX talked directly to BankY, you now can't use your card there.
er, no, not really. The mag-stripe readers read the mag-stripe, no matter what card it is. Its the software that interprets it, and figures out what card it is, and its then the back-office hardware/software that figures out where to send those payments. Adding a new card is a matter of paying the fees, and updating the software that sends all the payments through.
A lot of small vendors probably wouldnt take your new card, but then thats the same with Amex due to its fees.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/11/25/
Then as the philosophers say, all men are liars.
But we already knew that.
And "truer reds". The salesman wouldn't shut up about how much better Monster cables were at improving reds.
Possibly a relic of the RCA / S-Video days, where a good S-video cable (I had a monster cable which worked well) really would keep the red from bleeding noticably onto neighboring pixels. I dont remember whether there was a significant difference between standard S-video and monster's, other than that I liked the build quality of the cables better (less likely to get shredded due to thick sheathing).
Its very possible that the salesperson thought that that same issue persisted to this day even in HDMI-- ignorance, not malice.
In an environment where some kind of practice is allowed to the extent that it becomes an 'industry standard practice', you cannot choose another option.
Bull. Im in the IT field and got picked up by a company with a crappy degree and no experience. In the last several years, Ive watched our company pick up loads of others like me. I know of other companies in the area doing the same. Ive watched friends cope with such situations as well.
This isnt some "everyone does it, I have no choice" situation, except perhaps in some fields (medicine?). It is perfectly possible, if there are no jobs in your area, to MOVE to a place where there are jobs.
And anyways, what is your proposed solution to this hypothetical problem? Legislate that companies have to pay interns? Congrats, you havent made it easier for folks to get experience; youve now made it impossible for some people to hone their skills if they really were that mediocre.
the water company can't decide not to serve you. they can't ban you. this is essentially the same
No, its not, not in any remote way.
Water companies use existing, hard to deploy infrastructure-- they are a natural monopoly. Contrast with Visa-- there are NUMEROUS ways to send money: Western Union, MasterCard, Paypal, Google Checkout, etc etc etc. There arent the barriers of laying pipeline-- the infrastructure (internet, mail, banks) is already there.
Further, water companies are utilities, and are regulated differently because of it. Visa can absolutely deny your application for an account, or give your existing account the boot if they want; water companies have a much harder time with that.
companies should NOT be allowed to just grow and grow. we tried that. it didn't work out.
The solution is you let them fail when they suck, not prop them up. And we already DO break them up when they get too big; its just that for some inexplicable reason we have been allowing ridiculous mergers recently.
Thats a bad example, because there is specific legislation which addresses that specific issue, because of the issues we had with racial discrimination in the past.
However, I think you COULD post a sign saying "no short people of allowed", since that affects neither race, nor color, nor religion, nor national origin. Im sure you would get sued for it, but courts have often upheld a business' right to deny service.
Likewise, if a company wants to deny service for political affiliation, I believe they could do so-- once again, it does not fall afoul of the specific exemptions to the "right to deny service".
. It makes a lot of sense to me to expect (maybe even require) companies not to pick moral sides.
Companies are run by people who have certain beliefs. Are you saying that if there is an advice hotline, and you are totally anti-abortion, you should be required to advise someone on the best way to perform an abortion? Or that news stations should be required to run certain pieces? I absolutely expect businesses to make choices of right and wrong, and to decide that they will not aid in practices they consider wrong.
Im not sure how liability works with a bank, but Im fairly certain that if you make a ruckus in their lobby they are free to tell you to leave the premises and deny you the use of their services.
However, as you've noted yourself, even the literal interpretation prefers to describe it as Solomon and his wife,
I should clarify that Im not clear that is the consensus view; I am by no means an expert, and dont know whether the view is generally that it is specifically Solomon and his wife, or simply a lover; that was an assumption on my part.
The point of it is that "sex is a good thing" with the condition "in the proper context". And I think that is relevant, as it mirrors the OT's stance that "violence is permissible, in the proper context", the context being "just war", or judicial sentence ("But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.", Romans 13). That by no means is the same thing as a blanket authorization for violence. It simply means that, if the Lord commands you to enact a sentence that he has decreed, there is no guilt in it, any more than a bailiff or executioner shares guilt for enacting a sentence on a convict (assuming said sentence were just, and the executioner believed it to be so...).
Im really not sure what you mean by
The second amendment is a really, really bad example as it wasn't ever ratified
Are you arguing that SCOTUS has been wrong all this time, and that there ARE no 2nd amendment protections? That their reasoning on striking down the DC handgun ban was wrong? That the Bill of Rights was not ratified on (according to wikipedia) December 15, 1791?
Please clarify.
If you had said "many" or "some", I would agree with you, but as a member of an SBC church, I disagree, and can in fact state that you are wrong.
For starters, there is no central authority in baptist churches (we have no general assembly nor presbytery), so there IS no "official baptist position"-- this isnt a doctrinal issue on which the denomination is grounded. I am sure there are other similar, non-centralized denominations.
Second, Im sure that the PCA church would disagree with you, as would many many "bible churches".
And generally, when a denomination starts declaring everything symbolic when it clearly is not (all commentaries Ive seen understand that Song of Solomon describes 2 lovers), we call that "liberal"; and generally when you start declaring that the entire foundation of a religion is entirely subjective, all consistency and sanity flies out the window (much like what happens, in fact, when the entire constitution is declared "subjective" and "living").
Please tell me youre not going to pretend that all private market software is inferior to OSS. I would remark the other way around, that market pressures force privately developed software to apply a good layer of polish.
I mean, Vista was bad, but I dont think Microsoft in the last 10 years has had a Unity-sized failure (a failure, that is, to give a hoot about what your users actually want). Without monetary incentives, you get all the sorts of complaints that users of firefox and gnome and all the rest have-- that the developer only cares about their needs so long as it fits their vision.
Try that with commercial software, and you rapidly lose your customers.
Thats not to say things are peachy on the commercial side; Symantec makes some truely awful software; but people are buying it, so clearly theyre doing SOMETHING right (even if its just polishing a turd-- at least that polish is there).
if you adjust the comment level sliders, it will expand all the parents as well.
Disable Javascript's ability to change or disable context menus, and everything works again. Hurrah!
Yes, you can! I just figured out how.
Go into options of whatever browser you have, and block "javascript can change or disable context menus".
Works in firefox, not only can I now rightclick/copy link, but normal left click also miraculously works.
And the regulators are constrained by their masters, the politicians who are beholden to generally do what will make their voters happy (unless they simply dont care about reelection).
I have the right to bear arms not only in the United States, but in Japan, in Europe, and in China.
Youre free to try to exercise them whenever and however and wherever you want, but I think you may want to think about what is meant by "right" before you find yourself in a chinese reeducation camp whilst declaring your inalienable right to free speech. I think you would quickly find that the chinese government would have no problem whatsoever alienating you from your right to speech.
If everything in the Bill of Rights were "inalienable", please explain the FCC, the arguments over handgun restrictions, the ability for law enforcement to seize property with court order, etc.
Those so-called "rights" can be abridged under certain circumstances-- just not by congress, and usually not by state legislation.
No, if there were a right involved it would follow that it could not be violated on any level of government in the nation. That is not the case, and court battles have been fought over what the state gov't can and cant restrict-- can they restrict speech? Can they house soldiers in your house? Handgun laws?
In the case of handgun laws, for example, there was a big battle over that recently in the district. It came down to the fact that SOME of the BoR is "incorporated" at the state level.
But the 2nd amendment is not a "Right to bear arms", because if it were it could never be restricted in any way by regulation, which is simply not the case. The 1st amendment is not a "right to free speech", because if it were the FCC would never have had any ground to regulate television (some would argue that the FCC goes against the spirit of the first amendment, but it certainly is technically in compliance).