If the Chinese workers can manufacture more efficiently than US workers, why should consumers be forced to support US workers? The products would have to cost more.
If the efficiency disparity is an effect of US companies participating in the unfair treatment of Chinese workers, or the exorbitant cost of doing business in the US, perhaps due to certain union activities or ridiculous health care cost, then those are in themselves issues to be surfaced and addressed, and not simply that Chinese workers are getting jobs and US workers are not.
Yes, Grove's position sounds like a populist one to me.
"As punishment for not doing your homework, go out and play at the Play pump for one hour so that your brother, who did his homework, can play Halo. Make sure you play hard."
Government anti-trust law action against companies purportedly level the playing field and empowers everyone to compete equally, giving more power to consumers. However, the anti-trust laws are vague and it is hard to tell when a company has violated them. Thus, the government itself gets broad powers to interpret the laws. If the government were really interested in leveling the playing field and empowering many industry players and consumers, instead of itself, it would do something to make those laws clearer. By maintaining vague laws, the government keeps for itself the monopoly to rule on a case-by-case basis what's allowed and what's not. The government itself is guilty of violating the principles of the anti-trust laws.
If the fossil is so complete, why does the article lack a picture of the fossil itself? Without pictures of the fossil, how can you believe what they say about whatever they find or postulate?
...a lot of these companies are publicly traded, which means that the public already own a share directly (e.g. stocks) or indirectly (e.g. mutual or pension funds).
So, Obama is going to force them to pay more taxes for overseas operation hoping somehow that jobs will reappear in the US. Even if this works, it will hurt the people who own the stocks because profitability and thus stock price will drop. Obama should consider the total impact, and not just one side of the equation. It can be easily be construed that his hidden agenda is really to expand his socialistic agenda by further increasing government control, and the tax haven argument is just an excuse.
Now, suppose I guess from the username the opposite gender (e.g. for Alice, I guess that its gender is male), and then for displaying the avatar, I intentionally display a gender that in the code is described as male/female, but in reality (the picture), looks like the opposite, i.e. female/male. Two wrongs make one right, and the effect is the same, but by the letter of the patent, I haven't infringed their patent, right?
...for Libertarians. Libertarians stand for minimal government intervention. Printing money and manipulating interest rates is intervention as much as regulation. Libertarians would not stand for what the government did--manipulating interest rates despite the appearance of non-intervention from deregulation.
People blame the fiasco on deregulation. The problem was not deregulaton itself, as if regulation itself is the solution. The solution is proper regulation (the socialist approach) or non-intervention (no regulations and no printing of money, the free market approach).
Firstly, ESV has: "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now."
NIV is one translation is ESV is another. The ESV doesn't say the guests are drunk, so just using the NIV is not enough to prove that the original Greek is saying that the guests were drunk.
Secondly, even if some of the guests were drunk, providing more wine is not necessarily so that the drunk guests can get even more drunk, because the guests who are not drunk also get to drink the wine. In other words, this reasoning has the same flaw as saying that selling guns/knives is condoning killing since some people use guns/knives for killing.
Thirdly, I think you can at least say that Jesus approves of drinking, at least under certain circumstances, contrary to what some people would have you believe. Otherwise, he probably wouldn't have made the wine. A little alcohol, a lot of alcohol--it's still alcohol. If you drink a lot of a weak wine, you still get drunk.
Slashdot Mirror
If the Chinese workers can manufacture more efficiently than US workers, why should consumers be forced to support US workers? The products would have to cost more. If the efficiency disparity is an effect of US companies participating in the unfair treatment of Chinese workers, or the exorbitant cost of doing business in the US, perhaps due to certain union activities or ridiculous health care cost, then those are in themselves issues to be surfaced and addressed, and not simply that Chinese workers are getting jobs and US workers are not. Yes, Grove's position sounds like a populist one to me.
Replace the digits with numbers? 0->A, 1->B, 2->C, ...?
Alas, there must be those who don't know the English alphabet.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/March/21031001.asp
"As punishment for not doing your homework, go out and play at the Play pump for one hour so that your brother, who did his homework, can play Halo. Make sure you play hard."
Government anti-trust law action against companies purportedly level the playing field and empowers everyone to compete equally, giving more power to consumers. However, the anti-trust laws are vague and it is hard to tell when a company has violated them. Thus, the government itself gets broad powers to interpret the laws. If the government were really interested in leveling the playing field and empowering many industry players and consumers, instead of itself, it would do something to make those laws clearer. By maintaining vague laws, the government keeps for itself the monopoly to rule on a case-by-case basis what's allowed and what's not. The government itself is guilty of violating the principles of the anti-trust laws.
If the fossil is so complete, why does the article lack a picture of the fossil itself? Without pictures of the fossil, how can you believe what they say about whatever they find or postulate?
...a lot of these companies are publicly traded, which means that the public already own a share directly (e.g. stocks) or indirectly (e.g. mutual or pension funds). So, Obama is going to force them to pay more taxes for overseas operation hoping somehow that jobs will reappear in the US. Even if this works, it will hurt the people who own the stocks because profitability and thus stock price will drop. Obama should consider the total impact, and not just one side of the equation. It can be easily be construed that his hidden agenda is really to expand his socialistic agenda by further increasing government control, and the tax haven argument is just an excuse.
Now, suppose I guess from the username the opposite gender (e.g. for Alice, I guess that its gender is male), and then for displaying the avatar, I intentionally display a gender that in the code is described as male/female, but in reality (the picture), looks like the opposite, i.e. female/male. Two wrongs make one right, and the effect is the same, but by the letter of the patent, I haven't infringed their patent, right?
...for Libertarians. Libertarians stand for minimal government intervention. Printing money and manipulating interest rates is intervention as much as regulation. Libertarians would not stand for what the government did--manipulating interest rates despite the appearance of non-intervention from deregulation. People blame the fiasco on deregulation. The problem was not deregulaton itself, as if regulation itself is the solution. The solution is proper regulation (the socialist approach) or non-intervention (no regulations and no printing of money, the free market approach).
Firstly, ESV has:
"Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now."
NIV is one translation is ESV is another. The ESV doesn't say the guests are drunk, so just using the NIV is not enough to prove that the original Greek is saying that the guests were drunk.
Secondly, even if some of the guests were drunk, providing more wine is not necessarily so that the drunk guests can get even more drunk, because the guests who are not drunk also get to drink the wine. In other words, this reasoning has the same flaw as saying that selling guns/knives is condoning killing since some people use guns/knives for killing.
Thirdly, I think you can at least say that Jesus approves of drinking, at least under certain circumstances, contrary to what some people would have you believe. Otherwise, he probably wouldn't have made the wine. A little alcohol, a lot of alcohol--it's still alcohol. If you drink a lot of a weak wine, you still get drunk.