Interesting that you show no concern for the consumers who get to pay less and find more of what they need in one place; saving them time, search costs, and travel costs. But of course any benefits must be ignored to fit your "evil corporation" paradigm.
Those benefits are directly tied to those same consumers being paid less and having fewer options for both shopping and employment. Its a vortex that will suck you in sooner or later. Until then, enjoy the cheap 5 gallon jars of Miracle Whip!
This would work only because then people would be forced to shop elsewhere, at higher prices, and thus able to buy less landfill-destined crap.
This assumes that whatever you pay, all you will get is landfill-destined crap. The alternative is that you will spend more to by fewer, but durable things. They might be more expensive because they require more highly skilled labor to build.
Of course, there is no money in durability if you are a manufacturer or retailer, and highly skilled workers are a liability. Thus, they flood the market with garbage and talk only about price, or at best, trendy features.
As opposed to what? Buying them from a US manufacturer and being able to afford about half of the effect due to price difference? "Buy from us, we're more expensive" doesn't work, no matter which country you're from, sorry.
At least not when the "Buy from us, we're cheaper" types give nothing back to the communities they extract their billions from.
According to Wikipedia, roller coasters were first patented in 1885. Most elderly people alive to day probably were the type to ride a roller coaster when they were younger. They may have stopped when they grew out of amusement parks, or perhaps they became worried that they would get hurt. These seem like irrelevant concerns here.
What's the bet that Walmart is importing these panels from China?
Here's another way that Walmart could reduce its carbon footprint: Walmart could go away, and take its practice of burning energy to import wasteful landfill-destined crap from countries with lax environmental standards with it.
Some day she is going to find herself wishing that she just admitted to her IT guy that she likes the Jonas Brothers and downloaded those tracks herself rather than letting this fraud story spiral out of control.
Just read around this thread and you will see how trivial it is for someone with actual malign intent to circumvent your social media check. The only people you snare are people who can't or don't want to hide anything. So you may "catch" the gambler who has done nothing wrong (gambling is not necessarily illegal) but might rip you off and be easily caught, but miss the embezzler who intends to rip you off and has a plan to get away with it.
Or, really not. That's why I have a Facebook account with a believable, but fake name. Good luck to all companies trying to find my social network presence. You get LinkedIn, and that's it. To any company that requires my social network information to hire me: No, you don't. And I'd rather not work for you, if you think you do.
That's fine until they get social networks to institute policies that, with the backing of new laws if nec., make it impossible to social network while misrepresenting your true identity. Then, companies will either have your real social networking history, or they will have a "reasonable" suspicion that you are either a misanthrope or hiding something, and in either case, a poor fit for their company culture.
Next thing you know, you will be reminded when patronizing "responsible" companies that they only hire "verified" employees, i.e. not shadowy types with unknowable motivations.
So why not legalize all drugs, tax the sh*t out of 'em like cigarettes.
Because a black market will develop to avoid the taxes and other government controls, and we will be back to square one.
The self-destructive will be able to do so, the curious ones will be able to try and the recreational users will be able to do so too. I'd be curious to see what would happen.
Controlled substances are most often controlled for good reasons, even if the enforcement is misguided. The self-destructive will drag others down with them (i.e. their own kids). Allowing easy access to satisfy curiosity is a very bad idea with highly addictive and ultimately destructive substances.
What would likely result from legalization is more addicts and more drug-related crime. Crimes like possesion and distribution might go down, but fighting the black market would offset this gain. More addicts would yield more crimes committed by people with no other means to feed their addiction.
Prohibition is no magic bullet. But neither is legalization.
First, robots were billed as a means to liberate the masses from unpleasant labor. Now they are billed as a means to liberate the few from the unpleasant masses.
Cyclists are all the way over on the other side of the road. It would take a severe misdesign to blind them
Or any situation where roads are not perfect, straight lines. Otherwise, even perfectly aligned but overly bright headlights have many opportunities to create a hazard by blinding oncoming traffic.
Most people either like, own, and use Apple products, respect but don't use Apple products, or just really don't give a fuck either way.
It it possible that some significant percentage of people have given Apple products an honest chance, and dislike the always-assumed-to-be-flawless usability? Or that they buy them for lack of credible options, but are pining for an alternative?
That Apple is only disliked by nerds who don't understand the "common man", poor people and other assorted fringe "haters" is no more credible than the "only status-seeking sheeple with money to burn like Apple" arguments.
I have several Apple products, some that I bought, some provided by employers, and some hand-me-downs. They are all serviceable, but also suffer from idiosyncrasies and constraints that reasonable people could have perfectly legitimate but vastly different opinions about.
It is Apple's job to monitor its suppliers business practices.
I'm guessing by the rest of your post that you meant to write that this is not Apple's job. Perhaps not in a strictly legal sense. From an ethical perspective I think it is (even if that is just my opinion). However, if the costs saved by a "not our job" mentality are ever eclipsed by the costs of bad PR, it will certainly become someone at Apple's job to make sure that their contractors are responsible.
If you're going to design a guitar or drum set to be played on a iPad screen, why would you draw them exactly like their real life counterparts?
Because garageband is primarily a toy, not a tool.
Does that mean that you can not create interesting and complex music with garageband? No. People compose music for toy pianos, but they are still toy pianos, which are ultimately limited to mimicking the real thing. Working around the universally acknowledged constraints is part of the fun/challenge, but I doubt anyone would claim that a toy piano is just a good for composing music in general.
And you can bet that the extra jobs created will be featured on some politician's resume.
This is just another way to roll a progressive system that, while not perfect, has been massively successful, into a regressive system that will further enslave working families to their employers. Parents will have to grovel in front of their employers for the flexibility to accomodate these oddball hours, likely sacrifice pay and/or advancement in exchange for this "perk" and more of their income will be spent on childcare. Being poorer, they will have to spend more time working (if they can find extra work) and be more stressed out, which while likely be detrimental to their domestic situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Any cost concessions they extract will ultimately come out of some Chinese solar panel plant workers paycheck.
Interesting that you show no concern for the consumers who get to pay less and find more of what they need in one place; saving them time, search costs, and travel costs. But of course any benefits must be ignored to fit your "evil corporation" paradigm.
Those benefits are directly tied to those same consumers being paid less and having fewer options for both shopping and employment. Its a vortex that will suck you in sooner or later. Until then, enjoy the cheap 5 gallon jars of Miracle Whip!
This would work only because then people would be forced to shop elsewhere, at higher prices, and thus able to buy less landfill-destined crap.
This assumes that whatever you pay, all you will get is landfill-destined crap. The alternative is that you will spend more to by fewer, but durable things. They might be more expensive because they require more highly skilled labor to build.
Of course, there is no money in durability if you are a manufacturer or retailer, and highly skilled workers are a liability. Thus, they flood the market with garbage and talk only about price, or at best, trendy features.
As opposed to what? Buying them from a US manufacturer and being able to afford about half of the effect due to price difference? "Buy from us, we're more expensive" doesn't work, no matter which country you're from, sorry.
At least not when the "Buy from us, we're cheaper" types give nothing back to the communities they extract their billions from.
According to Wikipedia, roller coasters were first patented in 1885. Most elderly people alive to day probably were the type to ride a roller coaster when they were younger. They may have stopped when they grew out of amusement parks, or perhaps they became worried that they would get hurt. These seem like irrelevant concerns here.
The poor lethality of the .22 has been a crime drama cliche for as long as I can remember.
What's the bet that Walmart is importing these panels from China?
Here's another way that Walmart could reduce its carbon footprint: Walmart could go away, and take its practice of burning energy to import wasteful landfill-destined crap from countries with lax environmental standards with it.
The reporter posed a non-sequitur question, to which the AG provided a boilerplate "uh, we'll probably be looking in to that" response.
. . .she will use her uncommon influence to resolve her own problem and thus conclude that the legal system works "as-is".
Some day she is going to find herself wishing that she just admitted to her IT guy that she likes the Jonas Brothers and downloaded those tracks herself rather than letting this fraud story spiral out of control.
Just read around this thread and you will see how trivial it is for someone with actual malign intent to circumvent your social media check. The only people you snare are people who can't or don't want to hide anything. So you may "catch" the gambler who has done nothing wrong (gambling is not necessarily illegal) but might rip you off and be easily caught, but miss the embezzler who intends to rip you off and has a plan to get away with it.
Its not yet "common sense" to assume that employers are going to rummage through your personal life, even if they can.
After all, that is just a damned creepy thing for an employer to do to its employees, even if it is feasible and legal.
Or, really not. That's why I have a Facebook account with a believable, but fake name. Good luck to all companies trying to find my social network presence. You get LinkedIn, and that's it. To any company that requires my social network information to hire me: No, you don't. And I'd rather not work for you, if you think you do.
That's fine until they get social networks to institute policies that, with the backing of new laws if nec., make it impossible to social network while misrepresenting your true identity. Then, companies will either have your real social networking history, or they will have a "reasonable" suspicion that you are either a misanthrope or hiding something, and in either case, a poor fit for their company culture.
Next thing you know, you will be reminded when patronizing "responsible" companies that they only hire "verified" employees, i.e. not shadowy types with unknowable motivations.
Think it can't happen?
Just say "benchmarking" and you won't need to explain that "bake-off" means "benchmarking". Wait, what was the question?
So why not legalize all drugs, tax the sh*t out of 'em like cigarettes.
Because a black market will develop to avoid the taxes and other government controls, and we will be back to square one.
The self-destructive will be able to do so, the curious ones will be able to try and the recreational users will be able to do so too. I'd be curious to see what would happen.
Controlled substances are most often controlled for good reasons, even if the enforcement is misguided. The self-destructive will drag others down with them (i.e. their own kids). Allowing easy access to satisfy curiosity is a very bad idea with highly addictive and ultimately destructive substances.
What would likely result from legalization is more addicts and more drug-related crime. Crimes like possesion and distribution might go down, but fighting the black market would offset this gain. More addicts would yield more crimes committed by people with no other means to feed their addiction.
Prohibition is no magic bullet. But neither is legalization.
First, robots were billed as a means to liberate the masses from unpleasant labor. Now they are billed as a means to liberate the few from the unpleasant masses.
Cyclists are all the way over on the other side of the road. It would take a severe misdesign to blind them
Or any situation where roads are not perfect, straight lines. Otherwise, even perfectly aligned but overly bright headlights have many opportunities to create a hazard by blinding oncoming traffic.
Most people either like, own, and use Apple products, respect but don't use Apple products, or just really don't give a fuck either way.
It it possible that some significant percentage of people have given Apple products an honest chance, and dislike the always-assumed-to-be-flawless usability? Or that they buy them for lack of credible options, but are pining for an alternative?
That Apple is only disliked by nerds who don't understand the "common man", poor people and other assorted fringe "haters" is no more credible than the "only status-seeking sheeple with money to burn like Apple" arguments.
I have several Apple products, some that I bought, some provided by employers, and some hand-me-downs. They are all serviceable, but also suffer from idiosyncrasies and constraints that reasonable people could have perfectly legitimate but vastly different opinions about.
It is Apple's job to monitor its suppliers business practices.
I'm guessing by the rest of your post that you meant to write that this is not Apple's job. Perhaps not in a strictly legal sense. From an ethical perspective I think it is (even if that is just my opinion). However, if the costs saved by a "not our job" mentality are ever eclipsed by the costs of bad PR, it will certainly become someone at Apple's job to make sure that their contractors are responsible.
If you're going to design a guitar or drum set to be played on a iPad screen, why would you draw them exactly like their real life counterparts?
Because garageband is primarily a toy, not a tool.
Does that mean that you can not create interesting and complex music with garageband? No. People compose music for toy pianos, but they are still toy pianos, which are ultimately limited to mimicking the real thing. Working around the universally acknowledged constraints is part of the fun/challenge, but I doubt anyone would claim that a toy piano is just a good for composing music in general.
exploiting a probably very huge gaping race condition in the bank's software. . .
hence "cyber".
Hence, "cyber".
I have to wonder what the masses did the first guy who brought home fire.
You won't hazard even one guess?
Day care facilities must be booming!
And you can bet that the extra jobs created will be featured on some politician's resume.
This is just another way to roll a progressive system that, while not perfect, has been massively successful, into a regressive system that will further enslave working families to their employers. Parents will have to grovel in front of their employers for the flexibility to accomodate these oddball hours, likely sacrifice pay and/or advancement in exchange for this "perk" and more of their income will be spent on childcare. Being poorer, they will have to spend more time working (if they can find extra work) and be more stressed out, which while likely be detrimental to their domestic situation.
People are really bad at being random. I'm sure many criminals already think they're picking random targets.
Evading expected patterns does not require randomness.