How about bonuses for mortgage-backed assets that are so risk-free you can book future profits today, and get your millions of dollars based on future cash flows...then the future cash flows disappear, but you still got your bonus!
Why is it perfectly fine for big corps to get millions of dollars for nothing, but a poor person can't for suffering something at the hands of those corps?
Where does it say anything about the safety seals being breached? That seems to have been invented by some poster and repeated as if it were fact. The article says nothing about safety seals being breached.
Are you being paid to be a corporate shill, or does it just come naturally?
Maybe those employees will do themselves a favor and quit. Costco's always boasting about how well-off their employees are compared to Wal-Mart, so I'm not crying over those pampered whiners.
Corps don't reason very well. If there's any perceived threat, they'll bail. If it's possible even one of their precious peanut butter sales would be compromised by the free give-away, they won't allow the bankrupted company to give the pb away.
Why wouldn't Costco tell us themselves? Maybe they know there are enough corporate shills out there to defend whatever selfish act they might do, so why bother?
No, no, we love corps. They always provide clear reasons why they want to destroy food, and succeed in communicating them rapidly. Also corps are people, and to err is human, so corps fuck up and shouldn't we just love them all the more for that.
The Greeks must have said about the same to Aristarchus of Samos in the third century BC. There was no evidence of parallax motion of the stars, therefore the earth didn't move around the sun. But their instruments just weren't sensitive enough to detect the parallax.
And of course it was wildly implausible that the earth was not the center of the universe. So even though Aristarchus was right, he was dismissed and science was set back some two millenia. That's the risk you run by being so dismissive. Instead, the Greeks could have spent energy trying to develop more sensitive instruments, than in refining their fundamentally incorrect epicyclic model.
I don't think the Singularity means what you think it means. It isn't intersecting with infinity, but with human intelligence. It is not claimed that human intelligence is infinite.
If as the speed of anything increases, so does the resistance, why are galaxies speeding away from each other at an ever-increasing rate?
I think you mean social, not physical reality. Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric theory was more "real" than the epicyclists; yet he had trouble getting anyone to accept it, because the social reality of the time was so fixated on geocentrism.
In the same way, Mendel's ideas correlated with reality, but the social reality of his time prevented him from getting stuff done.
Wegener is another example.
I think you're guilty of naive realism, which fails when it comes to quantum physics, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
How about bonuses for mortgage-backed assets that are so risk-free you can book future profits today, and get your millions of dollars based on future cash flows...then the future cash flows disappear, but you still got your bonus!
Why is it perfectly fine for big corps to get millions of dollars for nothing, but a poor person can't for suffering something at the hands of those corps?
Where does it say anything about the safety seals being breached? That seems to have been invented by some poster and repeated as if it were fact. The article says nothing about safety seals being breached.
Are you being paid to be a corporate shill, or does it just come naturally?
So let the food banks check? They were willing to expend the energy to remove the labels; they could have checked for leaking while doing that.
Isn't it time to admit that there is no real scarcity of food, and cutting food stamps has nothing to do with economics but with pure cruelty?
You don't have to eat it. But give others a choice?
The article notes that the trucks drove by the food bank on the way to the dump.
Like the time in jail when the guy offered me his dinner because he didn't want it. Oh noes! Lawsuit!
Maybe those employees will do themselves a favor and quit. Costco's always boasting about how well-off their employees are compared to Wal-Mart, so I'm not crying over those pampered whiners.
Corps don't reason very well. If there's any perceived threat, they'll bail. If it's possible even one of their precious peanut butter sales would be compromised by the free give-away, they won't allow the bankrupted company to give the pb away.
Have you heard of high frequency trading algorithms?
Why can't they be up front, open, honest: "We wouldn't eat these jars of peanut butter, but they've tested safe. Take them at your own risk."
The article notes that food banks remove the labels anyway.
How's the decision to destroy it working in the court of public opinion?
Why wouldn't Costco tell us themselves? Maybe they know there are enough corporate shills out there to defend whatever selfish act they might do, so why bother?
Dang, states' rights makes the problem worse yet again.
I wonder how corps manage to remove tax liability so thoroughly?
No, no, we love corps. They always provide clear reasons why they want to destroy food, and succeed in communicating them rapidly. Also corps are people, and to err is human, so corps fuck up and shouldn't we just love them all the more for that.
They should do it because they like to code and produce something. When they start thinking about profit, they become control freaks.
I hope Steve Jobs is enjoying all that hard-earned money! oh wait
The point is, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And plausibility relies on social reality, not what's really going on.
So that's all you're doing, making unsubstantiated claims.
The laws of physics are statistical. Why can't we learn to exploit the statistics?
The Greeks must have said about the same to Aristarchus of Samos in the third century BC. There was no evidence of parallax motion of the stars, therefore the earth didn't move around the sun. But their instruments just weren't sensitive enough to detect the parallax.
And of course it was wildly implausible that the earth was not the center of the universe. So even though Aristarchus was right, he was dismissed and science was set back some two millenia. That's the risk you run by being so dismissive. Instead, the Greeks could have spent energy trying to develop more sensitive instruments, than in refining their fundamentally incorrect epicyclic model.
I don't think the Singularity means what you think it means. It isn't intersecting with infinity, but with human intelligence. It is not claimed that human intelligence is infinite.
If as the speed of anything increases, so does the resistance, why are galaxies speeding away from each other at an ever-increasing rate?
I think you mean social, not physical reality. Aristarchus of Samos's heliocentric theory was more "real" than the epicyclists; yet he had trouble getting anyone to accept it, because the social reality of the time was so fixated on geocentrism.
In the same way, Mendel's ideas correlated with reality, but the social reality of his time prevented him from getting stuff done.
Wegener is another example.
I think you're guilty of naive realism, which fails when it comes to quantum physics, for example.
I guess you don't believe you've fallen into the trap of "naive reality"?