From what I've heard in the industry, it is. This BBC article is a little dated but is a good outline of some of the key points. Popular Mechanics did a good piece on the issue a few years back, if you're up for a longer read.
And yet, one of the USA's biggest problems is China spying on US corporations. Though, unlike China's propaganda division, I admit that the Tu Quoque fallacy is not a defense for USA's (or China's) actions.
It's just a politician's hypocrisy as usual. Whenever a politician accuses you of something you can be 99% sure it is what they themselves are guilty of.
Ftfy
I stopped caring about being popular a long time ago.
An armed guard is a good idea, but it may be cost prohibitive. The guards themselves would also be another potential point of failure.
Most shootings happen at close distances, so it would fallow that non-lethal weaponry such as tazers (with projectiles) could be effective in many scenarios. The issuance of non-lethal weaponry to staff with a breif, possibly one-time training session would have a real shot at lowering classroom shooting fatalities.
It may still seem to be cost prohibitive, but how would it compare to the proposed $200M gun buyback program? Another issue could be that like with guns, the weapon could be used against the employee. However, trading potential deaths for potential injuries sounds like a win to me.
I absolutely can elaborate on specifics, but specifically which specifics are you having trouble finding with Google?
I guess I'll just do a quick run-down:
Sentence 2 part 1: See media footage from any major tragedy. I assume you must be a small child or live in a cave for this not to be completely obvious, but just in case, an example: Hurricane Katrina was publicly touted as "Gods wrath" by several Cristian organizations. And who can forget the September 11th attacks endless media coverage of religious responses.
part 2: This is inherent in almost all religious ideologies. If you don't believe me, just ask your pastor/priest/rabbi/etc
Sentence 3 part 1: Read any "holy" text from any religion that wasn't invented yesterday and compare it with their current accepted dogma. Even (most) Christians believe that killing people by throwing stones at them for simply being gay is simply barbaric.
part 2: Track accepted dogma over the centuries and notice how they always seem to lag behind society.
Sentence 4 part 1 is a conclusion based on facts stated in sentences 2 and 3 and the knowledge that almost all religions declare their view of morality to be "absolute".
part 2 is evident every time anybody questions any religion that considers itself above questioning. This is a general attitude that can be readily experienced yourself; just try it.
I've given you all the clues you need to easily find the truth, now all you need is the will (and Google).
Gotta love religious propaganda. They often use tragic and violent events such as these to push their ideologies, and then act as though human morality is derivative of their religion. This is also despite the fact that they must ignore large portions of their holy texts for their religion to be considered morally acceptable in modern society, and their dogma must constantly be updated throughout the ages to not fall behind society's definitions of morality. No other type of ideology can bill itself as containing an absolutist definition of morality and also change so dramatically over the course of the ages, but this is what happens when you allow any subject to become offensive to question.
The utter tragedy in all of this is that the more they distract from the actual causes of the incident, and the more it is exploited by the news media, political parties, and religious organizations for monetary, political, and ideological gain, the more our children are at risk from future incidents.
Is this sarcasm? Is there even any correlation between mass murderers and illicit drug use?
If anything, we should be seeking medical help for the mentally unhinged instead of having the "its the family's problem" attitude we've taken. And god help us if we try to tell you how to raise your kid.
Its time we stop treating mental illness as some sort of shameful failure and as the medical problem it is, just like drug addiction. But that doesn't sell on the airwaves, and there is no one left in the news media with even a shred of integrity, which means we are going to have to do it all ourselves.
Once, a long time ago, Slashdot was known as "news for nerds". We've come a long way, but every once in a while one of these sciency articles will slip through.
Simply pay this article no heed, good netzien, and I'm sure we can get back to our endless Apple vs Microsoft vs Linux vs liberal vs conservative vs cut vs uncut vs AMD vs Intel vs Oprah retard flame wars in no time. Wretched hives from the chans to even the AOL forums will be green with envy.
^This. The business of music has mostly been about trying to meet a demand at optimal net profit. The industry has little incentive to look toward modern alternatives that offer them less money than they were making before; the top execs at these places actually think they can return to the old ways if they can just clamp down on the piracy issue. Their lawyers know better, but they also know better than to tell them.
British judges are not political appointments and so don't have to grandstand to keep their jobs.
In the US, all judges (except for a few Non-Article III judges) are appointed for life. They can't really be removed unless they get impeached by the House and then convicted by the Senate. As if those guys could agree on anything.
From wiki:
...since the constitutional provision concerning federal judges' tenure cannot be changed without the ratifications of three-fourths of the states, federal judges have perhaps the best job security available in the United States.
Taking something that is not yours is always wrong.
So is it wrong to steal a murderous mad-man's weapon just before he can use it on someone?
Or how about stealing information that could lead to the legitimate arrest of a deranged psychopath, and then releasing it to the authorities?
Or how about stealing sensitive, insecure data and then publicly posting proof of the vulnerability?
I suppose you think hacking cannot be ethical unless access is authorized. If the US govt actually believed this, then stuxnet would not exist.
According to the actual code of conduct linked above,
You will not upload, post, transmit, transfer, distribute or facilitate distribution of any content (including text, images, sound, video, data, information or software) or otherwise use the service in a way that:
incites, advocates, or expresses pornography, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, hatred, bigotry, racism, or gratuitous violence.
This means that if you text someone something as innocuous as "I think profanity is OK", then you have advocated the use of profanity, which is in violation of the code of conduct and you may have your services revoked. Fantastic.
Programmers of this recognition device should offer hidden features for specific faces or objects noticed, including the ability to program the feature itself so that I could make it go crazy at random times whenever my sister is watching alone.
Every time the article mentions "personality genes", they put it in quotes too, because, I'm assuming, "many qualities that were associated with having a positive attitude towards life" loosely associated with longevity doesn't (or shouldn't) make the news cycle, unless this is the Obvious News Network.
I see your point about employment laws being hard to enforce, but I still think is better to have them than not. I think that the rate is too high, but I agree with it's existence in principle. I also realize that too much of any potentially beneficial policy can easily become disastrous. I also very much agree that social welfare programs are already out of hand.
That video is so bad that part of me is holding out hope that it is satire.
Any law that can't be enforced shouldn't be a law.
I agree with this, but I was under the impression that employment laws were enforceable. Sure, specific people at the IRS can be bribed, just like anywhere else, but that's largely the exception, and not the rule.
Many people seem to have the notion that a society with more laws is more civilized. This is not the case. A society with more laws is a society with more criminals.
This is true only if the laws that categorize the people as criminals are unjust and/or unenforceable. The contra-positive, that a society with fewer laws is more civilized, is also false.
However, you are being evasion on certain points and it requires me to fill in the gaps.
I wasn't evasive at all. You have to ask me about my stance on the subject before you can accuse me of being evasive.
But some people love theories more then they love life. Some people love an idea but then anything else. And they'll just close their eyes, fixation on that idea, and ignore the consequences.
I could just as easily make that claim that this is what you are doing; Your theories on how to help attract companies seem to me to be at odds withe the general welfare of the populace. I am glad to see that both of us are at least trying to do what we think is right, and are open to input and conversations on the subject.
I truly have no interest in insulting you.
I never really felt insulted, and I apologize if I came off as offensive at all.
Doubtless you're one of the many advocates of massive out of control deficit spending.
I am absolutely not. The amount of money paid just on the interest to the national debt is absurd. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though.
It's the COST of employment itself which isn't entirely the wage.
That is what I meant; tax incentives do very little where employee costs are high.
You can radically lower what you spend on employees without lowering their wages.
...By doing things like freezing all hiring, removing employee training, yes, but to do so would cripple any possible growth.
A major consequence of your stupid labor laws is that teenagers are frequently priced out of the market.
This is probably best for everyone. Teenagers should be trying to maximize their potential earnings (or at least improving them) by gaining an education while they still can, not spending their time girding away at some manual labor.
And it also contributes to the use of illegal aliens which of course typically are paid below minimum wage.
We should give up on the minimum wage because people are just going to violate it anyway? Hell, why not just give up on all laws? Or is this law inherently immoral to you because it raises the cost of business?
What do you think you're accomplishing with these stupid laws?
Allow workers to have at least enough money to survive and pay bills, and raise the standard of living for the labor force, which also makes the country more attractive for investment / employment. Your precious China even has minimum wages laws. That said, I personally believe the minimum wage is slightly too high, but only just.
Because all you've done is... denied young people their early job experience, and created an environment where rampant illegal immigration and labor is the status quo.
This would be at least partially true if internships did not exist. As for illegal employment, this is like saying that "rampant" illegal car theft is due to the outlawing of car theft. The companies that violate the law and employ people illegally are the ones creating said environment, not me, and not the legislators who wrote the law.
For your next trick will you blow your own feet off with a shotgun and call it progress?
Rather then coming up with more of your own basement theories
I didn't come up with the race to the bottom scenario, I'm just living in it; wages today cant keep up with inflation, let a lone rising prices. Glad to know you have absolutely no background in economic theory.
Seriously. Find a company that you feel/think/know has left the country for some reason and ask them why they left and what it would take to have them come back.
I actually have had the opportunity to do that, as I've worked for a venture capitalist firm. They all tell me that it comes down to the bottom line (obviously), but what they would "need" to come back is almost always something like "a lower minimum wage", which is unacceptable. Wages, not taxes, make up the vast majority of costs for corporations.
Just make it a two way conversation and you MIGHT have an f'ing clue what you're talking about. Maybe.
That doesn't make the companies the rulers. It merely forces you to be reasonable. If doing business in your country costs the company more money then other places then it isn't reasonable.
So there's only a couple places on Earth where it is reasonable to do business? Why don't all companies do business there?
So if you want higher wages, that's fine... it just gets added to the total cost of doing business...
Every time you add something it reduces the amount you can take in taxes before you cross the line and it becomes cheaper to do business elsewhere.
This is a sort-sighted philosophy that can turn a first-world nation into a 3rd world one. The only reason companies can sell so much crap is because people demand a high enough wage in the first place. If everyone thought this way, wages and benefits would spiral down to nothing as everyone tries to remain "competitive", just to maximize shareholder return, until the economy collapses because no one can afford to buy anything anymore.
It is a mark of maturity to know that the only way to win such a game is to not play it at all.
Whoops, I thought we were supposed to sell both sides inflammatory talking points with anecdotal evidence so we can steal from them while they're distracted:x
Slashdot Mirror
Don't joke about that, that's how lp0 died.
From what I've heard in the industry, it is. This BBC article is a little dated but is a good outline of some of the key points. Popular Mechanics did a good piece on the issue a few years back, if you're up for a longer read.
go home to your damn USA and fix your problems
And yet, one of the USA's biggest problems is China spying on US corporations. Though, unlike China's propaganda division, I admit that the Tu Quoque fallacy is not a defense for USA's (or China's) actions.
Posted from China, Texas.
It's fantastic to have so much space reclaimed that other homes have stuffed with shelf upon shelf of books, video games, movies, and albums
I still find it strange that people would not like to have shelf upon shelf of books, games, movies and albums.
It's just a politician's hypocrisy as usual. Whenever a politician accuses you of something you can be 99% sure it is what they themselves are guilty of.
Ftfy
I stopped caring about being popular a long time ago.
Then why the angsty statement about not caring?
An armed guard is a good idea, but it may be cost prohibitive. The guards themselves would also be another potential point of failure.
Most shootings happen at close distances, so it would fallow that non-lethal weaponry such as tazers (with projectiles) could be effective in many scenarios. The issuance of non-lethal weaponry to staff with a breif, possibly one-time training session would have a real shot at lowering classroom shooting fatalities.
It may still seem to be cost prohibitive, but how would it compare to the proposed $200M gun buyback program? Another issue could be that like with guns, the weapon could be used against the employee. However, trading potential deaths for potential injuries sounds like a win to me.
I absolutely can elaborate on specifics, but specifically which specifics are you having trouble finding with Google? I guess I'll just do a quick run-down:
Sentence 2 part 1: See media footage from any major tragedy. I assume you must be a small child or live in a cave for this not to be completely obvious, but just in case, an example: Hurricane Katrina was publicly touted as "Gods wrath" by several Cristian organizations. And who can forget the September 11th attacks endless media coverage of religious responses.
part 2: This is inherent in almost all religious ideologies. If you don't believe me, just ask your pastor/priest/rabbi/etc
Sentence 3 part 1: Read any "holy" text from any religion that wasn't invented yesterday and compare it with their current accepted dogma. Even (most) Christians believe that killing people by throwing stones at them for simply being gay is simply barbaric.
part 2: Track accepted dogma over the centuries and notice how they always seem to lag behind society.
Sentence 4 part 1 is a conclusion based on facts stated in sentences 2 and 3 and the knowledge that almost all religions declare their view of morality to be "absolute".
part 2 is evident every time anybody questions any religion that considers itself above questioning. This is a general attitude that can be readily experienced yourself; just try it.
I've given you all the clues you need to easily find the truth, now all you need is the will (and Google).
Gotta love religious propaganda. They often use tragic and violent events such as these to push their ideologies, and then act as though human morality is derivative of their religion. This is also despite the fact that they must ignore large portions of their holy texts for their religion to be considered morally acceptable in modern society, and their dogma must constantly be updated throughout the ages to not fall behind society's definitions of morality. No other type of ideology can bill itself as containing an absolutist definition of morality and also change so dramatically over the course of the ages, but this is what happens when you allow any subject to become offensive to question.
The utter tragedy in all of this is that the more they distract from the actual causes of the incident, and the more it is exploited by the news media, political parties, and religious organizations for monetary, political, and ideological gain, the more our children are at risk from future incidents.
Is this sarcasm? Is there even any correlation between mass murderers and illicit drug use?
If anything, we should be seeking medical help for the mentally unhinged instead of having the "its the family's problem" attitude we've taken. And god help us if we try to tell you how to raise your kid.
Its time we stop treating mental illness as some sort of shameful failure and as the medical problem it is, just like drug addiction. But that doesn't sell on the airwaves, and there is no one left in the news media with even a shred of integrity, which means we are going to have to do it all ourselves.
I detest drama, not "noise". But I do love AC trolls (:
Once, a long time ago, Slashdot was known as "news for nerds". We've come a long way, but every once in a while one of these sciency articles will slip through.
Simply pay this article no heed, good netzien, and I'm sure we can get back to our endless Apple vs Microsoft vs Linux vs liberal vs conservative vs cut vs uncut vs AMD vs Intel vs Oprah retard flame wars in no time. Wretched hives from the chans to even the AOL forums will be green with envy.
^This. The business of music has mostly been about trying to meet a demand at optimal net profit. The industry has little incentive to look toward modern alternatives that offer them less money than they were making before; the top execs at these places actually think they can return to the old ways if they can just clamp down on the piracy issue. Their lawyers know better, but they also know better than to tell them.
British judges are not political appointments and so don't have to grandstand to keep their jobs.
In the US, all judges (except for a few Non-Article III judges) are appointed for life. They can't really be removed unless they get impeached by the House and then convicted by the Senate. As if those guys could agree on anything. From wiki:
...since the constitutional provision concerning federal judges' tenure cannot be changed without the ratifications of three-fourths of the states, federal judges have perhaps the best job security available in the United States.
Taking something that is not yours is always wrong.
So is it wrong to steal a murderous mad-man's weapon just before he can use it on someone? Or how about stealing information that could lead to the legitimate arrest of a deranged psychopath, and then releasing it to the authorities? Or how about stealing sensitive, insecure data and then publicly posting proof of the vulnerability?
I suppose you think hacking cannot be ethical unless access is authorized. If the US govt actually believed this, then stuxnet would not exist.
Its more like reading a free newspaper but not reading the advertisements. Wait, what was the moral dilemma again?
You will not upload, post, transmit, transfer, distribute or facilitate distribution of any content (including text, images, sound, video, data, information or software) or otherwise use the service in a way that:
incites, advocates, or expresses pornography, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, hatred, bigotry, racism, or gratuitous violence.
This means that if you text someone something as innocuous as "I think profanity is OK", then you have advocated the use of profanity, which is in violation of the code of conduct and you may have your services revoked. Fantastic.
Programmers of this recognition device should offer hidden features for specific faces or objects noticed, including the ability to program the feature itself so that I could make it go crazy at random times whenever my sister is watching alone.
^ this ^
Every time the article mentions "personality genes", they put it in quotes too, because, I'm assuming, "many qualities that were associated with having a positive attitude towards life" loosely associated with longevity doesn't (or shouldn't) make the news cycle, unless this is the Obvious News Network.
I see your point about employment laws being hard to enforce, but I still think is better to have them than not. I think that the rate is too high, but I agree with it's existence in principle. I also realize that too much of any potentially beneficial policy can easily become disastrous. I also very much agree that social welfare programs are already out of hand.
That video is so bad that part of me is holding out hope that it is satire.
Any law that can't be enforced shouldn't be a law.
I agree with this, but I was under the impression that employment laws were enforceable. Sure, specific people at the IRS can be bribed, just like anywhere else, but that's largely the exception, and not the rule.
Many people seem to have the notion that a society with more laws is more civilized. This is not the case. A society with more laws is a society with more criminals.
This is true only if the laws that categorize the people as criminals are unjust and/or unenforceable. The contra-positive, that a society with fewer laws is more civilized, is also false.
However, you are being evasion on certain points and it requires me to fill in the gaps.
I wasn't evasive at all. You have to ask me about my stance on the subject before you can accuse me of being evasive.
But some people love theories more then they love life. Some people love an idea but then anything else. And they'll just close their eyes, fixation on that idea, and ignore the consequences.
I could just as easily make that claim that this is what you are doing; Your theories on how to help attract companies seem to me to be at odds withe the general welfare of the populace. I am glad to see that both of us are at least trying to do what we think is right, and are open to input and conversations on the subject.
I truly have no interest in insulting you.
I never really felt insulted, and I apologize if I came off as offensive at all.
Doubtless you're one of the many advocates of massive out of control deficit spending.
I am absolutely not. The amount of money paid just on the interest to the national debt is absurd. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though.
It's the COST of employment itself which isn't entirely the wage.
That is what I meant; tax incentives do very little where employee costs are high.
You can radically lower what you spend on employees without lowering their wages.
A major consequence of your stupid labor laws is that teenagers are frequently priced out of the market.
This is probably best for everyone. Teenagers should be trying to maximize their potential earnings (or at least improving them) by gaining an education while they still can, not spending their time girding away at some manual labor.
And it also contributes to the use of illegal aliens which of course typically are paid below minimum wage.
We should give up on the minimum wage because people are just going to violate it anyway? Hell, why not just give up on all laws? Or is this law inherently immoral to you because it raises the cost of business?
What do you think you're accomplishing with these stupid laws?
Allow workers to have at least enough money to survive and pay bills, and raise the standard of living for the labor force, which also makes the country more attractive for investment / employment. Your precious China even has minimum wages laws. That said, I personally believe the minimum wage is slightly too high, but only just.
Because all you've done is ... denied young people their early job experience, and created an environment where rampant illegal immigration and labor is the status quo.
This would be at least partially true if internships did not exist. As for illegal employment, this is like saying that "rampant" illegal car theft is due to the outlawing of car theft. The companies that violate the law and employ people illegally are the ones creating said environment, not me, and not the legislators who wrote the law.
For your next trick will you blow your own feet off with a shotgun and call it progress?
Stay classy.
Rather then coming up with more of your own basement theories
I didn't come up with the race to the bottom scenario, I'm just living in it; wages today cant keep up with inflation, let a lone rising prices. Glad to know you have absolutely no background in economic theory.
Seriously. Find a company that you feel/think/know has left the country for some reason and ask them why they left and what it would take to have them come back.
I actually have had the opportunity to do that, as I've worked for a venture capitalist firm. They all tell me that it comes down to the bottom line (obviously), but what they would "need" to come back is almost always something like "a lower minimum wage", which is unacceptable. Wages, not taxes, make up the vast majority of costs for corporations.
Just make it a two way conversation and you MIGHT have an f'ing clue what you're talking about. Maybe.
Stay classy.
That doesn't make the companies the rulers. It merely forces you to be reasonable. If doing business in your country costs the company more money then other places then it isn't reasonable.
So there's only a couple places on Earth where it is reasonable to do business? Why don't all companies do business there?
So if you want higher wages, that's fine... it just gets added to the total cost of doing business ...
Every time you add something it reduces the amount you can take in taxes before you cross the line and it becomes cheaper to do business elsewhere.
This is a sort-sighted philosophy that can turn a first-world nation into a 3rd world one. The only reason companies can sell so much crap is because people demand a high enough wage in the first place. If everyone thought this way, wages and benefits would spiral down to nothing as everyone tries to remain "competitive", just to maximize shareholder return, until the economy collapses because no one can afford to buy anything anymore.
It is a mark of maturity to know that the only way to win such a game is to not play it at all.
Whoops, I thought we were supposed to sell both sides inflammatory talking points with anecdotal evidence so we can steal from them while they're distracted :x