There are entirely legitimate reasons to outsource manufacturing. If you have your own factory, and you get a burst of orders, you won't be able to keep up because you'll lack the needed capacity, leading to long lead times that cause you to lose customers. Conversely, if you get a lull in orders, your factory will be sitting idle, wasting money. Big companies outsource manufacturing to avoid those issues. It gives you a lot more flexibility.
The problem isn't that Apple and Microsoft and all these other companies use outsourced manufacturing... it's that they outsource the manufacturing to sweatshops. They could easily pay a bit more to have their products manufactured by a company that respects workers' rights, or pay a bit more to compel companies like Foxconn to respect workers' rights. Instead, they constantly focus on driving down prices so that they can pocket a few extra tenths of a percent of profit. And if that means some Chinese workers are getting woken up in the middle of the night to work a twelve hour shift, or some Brazilians don't have access to sufficient drinking water, who cares? The executives hanging out in Silicon Valley or Redmond or wherever will still have their billions, and that's what matters.
Hopefully the continued pressure from the media and the public will make companies like Apple push companies like Foxconn to improve conditions, but there's still a long way to go.
Congress isn't a single person. It's not hypocrisy when some congressmen vote for CISPA and others speak out for privacy. The two congressmen behind this bill both voted against CISPA and had announced their opposition to SOPA prior to the bill being withdrawn. So no, they're not being hypocritical at all.
1) Roads. Did you read that article you posted? I encourage everyone to do so, so that they can see the pure, unadulterated crazy that right-wing think tanks like the von Mises Institute churn out. "Thousands of people die in traffic accidents, therefore we should privatize the roads." Because unregulated private industry does such a great job at promoting safety. That's why organizations like the FDA and OSHA never needed to be created.
Learn some goddamn history. Corporations were quite happy to let people die to boost their bottom lines until the government stepped in and made such behavior unprofitable.
2) Schools are just, in your own words, "starter-prisons" that "indoctrinate" the youth. Corporate controlled schools, I suppose, would be beacons of free thought. That's why ITT Tech grads are so much better than UC Berkeley grads. Oh, wait, that's backwards. American education needs work, but suggesting it would be better if it was fully privatized is stupid.
Without public funds, it's not profitable to educate most people. Far better to keep them stupid and set them to work in a factory, while only providing education to the rich kids whose parents can afford it.
3) Product safety. I swear, have you ever even seen a history book? Product safety before the government got involved was nothing short of abysmal.
I notice you didn't even address his other points:
4) Regulating insurance companies and the like. Without government courts you can take them to, they could simply refuse to pay out one claim in every ten, and there'd be no downside. If they get a bad reputation, they just change their name.
5) Cops to keep you safe. I suppose you think that should be privatized as well? I'm sure they wouldn't spend all their resources defending the homes and offices of the 1%.
6) Toxic waste being dumped in public watersupplies. Are you gonna try to deny that this one happened over and over and over again? Are you going to try to deny that without government oversight, corporations have no reason not to exploit public resources for private gain?
Privatization is the mantra of the robber barons, seeking absolute authority over every aspect of our lives. They've been winning so far, taking more and more from us and giving us nothing in return. They don't need idiots cheerleading for them from the sidelines.
It is immoral to avoid taxation if you bribe congressmen to get those loopholes created. Do you think these are all just oversights? Big corporations routinely purchase carefully thought out changes in the wording of laws to create loopholes for themselves. They're robbing us blind -- the bought-off congressmen blow a hole in the side of the bank, the corporations waltz in and take what they want, and then they give the politicians their cut.
If I don't like the tax code, deal with it? Fuck that. I don't have the billions of dollars necessary to purchase a law. So I'll do what I can... vote for pols who actually understand that government shouldn't be killed off, and condemn all the corporate thieves who have been robbing us blind for decades.
From the summary, it sounds like the graphene is just a substrate for run-of-the-mill piezoelectric crystals. If so, then yes, the process should be reversible.
I'm pretty sure the first robot mayor in Asimov's universe, prior to the story you're referring to, is supposed to be elected while disguised as a human. Kinda like Mitt Romney, except the robot in the story followed the First Law.
Bing was better for a while, though the "M$"-hating manchildren would never admit it. But by now? No. All of Bing's best features have been copied by Google. Improved image search, preview panes, flight statuses at the top of results, bird's eye view in the maps (not to be confused with satellite view), the list goes on. And that's a good thing. That's how competition is supposed to work. But Bing hasn't continued to innovate. And their other big advantage -- a relative lack of link farms -- has faded. So now they're no more innovative than Google, their results aren't any better, and their market share is stuck around 15% (30% if you include Yahoo). Meanwhile Google's Android platform will ensure they continue to grow. If MS is counting on windows phones to drive traffic to Bing, they're going to be disappointed.
I'm glad Bing existed and forced Google to add new, useful features. But unless they make some big improvements, they're never going to come even remotely close to pushing out Google.
But wait a sec... Aren't you the guy who in this same thread condemned Obama as a "lying piece of shit" and "George Bush wearing a mask" because he didn't perform the futile gesture of vetoing the NDAA after it had been passed by a veto-proof majority?
To copy your two scenarios:
(1) Obama vetos the bill. He gets eviscerated in the news media and in the minds of millions of Americans for vetoing health care for wounded veterans (which was in the same bill), and it does nothing to stop the NDAA from passing anyhow.
(2) Obama skips the veto since he knows he can't stop the passage, and does what he can through signing statements and executive orders to weaken it. (Which is what he did.)
Why do you apply rational thinking towards the actions of people you like (Ron Paul) and not those you hate (Barack Obama)? Can you even really call it rational thinking, if you selectively apply it like that?
Not only would his veto have done nothing, it would have also opened the door to attack ads about how he vetoed healthcare for wounded veterans, since that's also in the bill. The man shouldn't fall on his sword just to keep you happy.
And that whole thing about taking out language regarding the bill's application to US citizens... read it for yourself. I've posted it to this site a dozen times. Here is is again. Page 266-67.
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.... Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
It was passed by a veto-proof majority. Obama subsequently weakened it by executive order stating that any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.
I swear, that "Obama supports the NDAA!" propaganda is the most devastatingly insidious lie since the "swiftboat veterans" for "truth".
Thanks to the Obama administration: 1) The stimulus and auto industry bailout saved the country from depression. Look at how austerity has turned out for Europe... It's been an unmitigated disaster for them, whereas our economy went from free fall to 10 straight quarters of continuous growth. Only a liar or a fool would claim it didn't work. 2) Credit card companies can no longer change your due date at the last minute and use the late payment as an excuse to jack up your interest rates. They can also no longer jack up your interest payments because you were late paying an unrelated third party. 3) Credit card companies have more reasonable limits placed on the amount they can charge retailers on each transaction, helping small businesses. 4) The Small Business Association has been expanded, making it easier for startups to get funding. 5) Full funding is being provided to centers to protect battered women and rape victims. The Republicans are currently trying to repeal that law (the Violence Against Women Act) because it also protects lesbian rape victims (the horror!). 6) We're not paying for permanent military bases in Iraq. The war would be over regardless, but McCain planned to keep troops there. 7) The infamous stop-loss programs are over. If you remember, under Bush, soldiers who had finished their tours of duty were being forced to stay in warzones anyway. 8) Wars are now properly recorded in the budget so we can see how they affect the deficit, rather than being hidden. Of course, this leads to him being blamed for "increasing" the deficit. 9) Torture and extreme rendition have been banned. 10) Nuclear weapon stockpiles, both in the US and overseas, have been reduced substantially. 11) Don't ask, don't tell was repealed. 12) The Ledbetter law allows women to sue employers who engage in pay discrimination. 13) We have Network Neutrality laws for the wired internet (though not for wireless). 14) Millions more people have access to health care, many of them children or chronically ill, and it was done in a manner that reduces the deficit. Single-payer would have been better, but it was barely politically possible to get through the current version.
Now, maybe if you only get your news from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, you might think that Obama hasn't done anything positive. But that's your own failing. Any intellectually honest person who has been paying attention would admit that Obama has done a damn good job.
The NDAA passed by veto proof majority, and when he tried to close Gitmo the Republicans blocked all funding for the closure.
The GOP strategy for years now had been to block any and all improvement, and then complain that Obama didn't improve things. If the voters are dumb enough to fall for it, then democracy is over. Either the democrats will adopt the same tactics and we'll have no government at all, or they won't and we'll have single party rule.
The difference is the NDAA passed by veto proof majority, so Obama decided to try to weaken it via signing statements and executive orders. Not ideal, and not what he wanted, but it's all he can do.
I'm tired of people trying to blame Obama for this law. Blame your congressmen. Given how many voted for it, odds are at least one of yours is culpable.
While it's not particularly fair for Apple to take the heat for this, that's the price you pay for being the biggest and most influential company in the industry.
Besides, flamebait-y summary aside, people aren't souring on Apple. What they are doing is pressuring Apple to pressure Foxconn. Foxconn then hires more people, pays better wages, and requires shorter hours. The result is that the best workers will go there, and there will be indirect pressure on other Chinese companies to improve their conditions. I know my company is giving across the board ~30% raises to our Chinese workers this year, even though we haven't been in the news at all.
The end result is a good one -- the Chinese working class gets better pay for less work, the working class in the Western world faces less offshoring as Chinese wages rise, and the only drawback is that iGadgets and Androids will cost one or two percent more to manufacture. If Apple has to take a disproportionate amount of blame to achieve these results, so be it. I'm sure their executives are sobbing all the way to the bank.
It's your own damn fault. If business owners had policed themselves rather than playing out their god fantasies, we wouldn't need regulation. But go ahead... keep sending jobs overseas. Just remember to send your own as well, because believe me, you robber barons won't want to be caught in this country once you're done looting. It'll get ugly.
People don't oppose taking organs from the executed because of "antiquated religious nonsense". They oppose it because it gives the government a perverse incentive to execute more people.
If you're on trial, do you really want the judge or jury thinking, even subconsciously, "gee, we could sure use that guy's organs"?
By the way, in the future you might want to put the tiniest modicum of effort into understanding people's positions before launching into, "hurr hurr religious people are dumb and haven't thought this through."
Nothing, if the regulation is simply making sure that they have reasonable, human-readable privacy policies.
Stop drinking the all-regulation-is-evil koolaid. Haven't you ever noticed that the same people pushing it are the ones who make billions by abusing unregulated markets?
I spent my entire childhood not being allowed to drive or drink or own my own place, and now I do all those things.
By your logic, we shouldn't require kids to go to school at all, because it conditions them to follow rules. While such a notion makes for a great Calvin & Hobbes cartoon, in real life children are incapable of fully grasping the consequences of their actions, and they need people to watch over them.
Not true. Foxconn couldn't care less what the "western world" thinks. They raised wages because too many of their employees where quiting.
Got any source to back that up? Everything I've read indicates people line up around the block for these jobs, so I see no reason why they would particularly care about turnover. Then there's also the fact that a quick Google search shows a 30% wage hike for Foxconn workers in June of 2010, whereas the lunar new year that year was in February, so your claim that the increases are in response to workers not coming back from break seems suspect.
Foxconn's suicide rate is lower than the average rate in China.
Great soundbite, but very misleading. Foxconn workers are young, healthy, employed, and lack mental illness. All of those factors reduce their probability of committing suicide as compared to the general population. You need to compare their suicide rate to members of a similar demographic.
Furthermore, Foxconn is by all accounts one of the best employers. There are a lot of other manufacturers in China that are much worse. People just focus on Foxconn because it's the biggest, but the problem is pervasive throughout the industry.
When Foxconn employees were asked what they would like to see changed in their workplace, their number one request was LONGER shifts....The typical Foxconn employee is not you, and does not share your lifestyle and motivations. So stop trying to project your values onto them.
This attitude is exactly what lets corporations abuse people on such a horrifying scale. People are desperate to work, because they must work to survive, and so they say "I'll take the abuse, just please let me earn enough to live!" And the company abuses them, uses them up, until they can't take it anymore, and then grabs the next desperate person out of line.
Pressure from the western world has caused Foxconn and other Chinese manufacturers to raise wages for their employees. That's a good thing. The fact that rural Chinese villagers are in such dire straits that they'd take the job even without the raise doesn't mean we should just let them suffer. Either we can enrich the robber barons by racing to the bottom, or we can try to raise average quality of life around the globe. Most people would prefer the latter.
Obama has raised around $750M over the course of his political career, primarily from small (less than $4000) donations. Only about 0.3% of that came from those companies you highlighted, which, I might add, aren't all media companies. Skadden et al is a law firm that specializes in mergers and acquisitions... they may do some copyright law for all I know, but it's hardly a major business for them. GE sold NBC to Comcast a while back, so they aren't a media company anymore.
Furthermore, I don't think you understand what those numbers (which I assume you got from Open Secrets) mean. If you were to pick up the phone right now and call the DNC and give them a donation for $300, a few things would happen. First, they would take your name, number, and address, so that they could ask for more donations in the future. Second, they would take your job title and employer, so it could be reported on their financial disclosure forms. So let's say that you end up giving $600 a year for four years, and that you work for Widgets, Inc. That would mean that sites like Open Secrets would now show "Widgets, Inc" as having donated an additional $2400 to the DNC. If a hundred of your coworkers (out of the thousands that the company employs) do the same, it will look like Widgets, Inc has paid $240,000 to the DNC, and people would get on Slashdot demanding to know what widget-favoring laws are being passed in response.
But even setting that aside, even if we assume that all these donations are coordinated by the business in exchange for favors, do you really think that providing 0.3% of the presidents's money is enough to buy him off? Sorry to be so blunt, but that's stupid.
These laws are happening because politicians don't have a good understanding of the issues. Or maybe they're happening because the politicians legitimately disagree with you. But they are NOT being bought, and you do a disservice to our democracy when you throw that accusation around so loosely.
You're mixing up "Psychonauts 2" with "Double Fine Adventure" (a working title). The former, Notch offered to be an investor, but the amount he offered isn't enough on its own to actually get the game made. The latter is a different game by the same developers, and is the one that was funded by Kickstarter.
Slashdot Mirror
There are entirely legitimate reasons to outsource manufacturing. If you have your own factory, and you get a burst of orders, you won't be able to keep up because you'll lack the needed capacity, leading to long lead times that cause you to lose customers. Conversely, if you get a lull in orders, your factory will be sitting idle, wasting money. Big companies outsource manufacturing to avoid those issues. It gives you a lot more flexibility.
The problem isn't that Apple and Microsoft and all these other companies use outsourced manufacturing... it's that they outsource the manufacturing to sweatshops. They could easily pay a bit more to have their products manufactured by a company that respects workers' rights, or pay a bit more to compel companies like Foxconn to respect workers' rights. Instead, they constantly focus on driving down prices so that they can pocket a few extra tenths of a percent of profit. And if that means some Chinese workers are getting woken up in the middle of the night to work a twelve hour shift, or some Brazilians don't have access to sufficient drinking water, who cares? The executives hanging out in Silicon Valley or Redmond or wherever will still have their billions, and that's what matters.
Hopefully the continued pressure from the media and the public will make companies like Apple push companies like Foxconn to improve conditions, but there's still a long way to go.
Congress isn't a single person. It's not hypocrisy when some congressmen vote for CISPA and others speak out for privacy. The two congressmen behind this bill both voted against CISPA and had announced their opposition to SOPA prior to the bill being withdrawn. So no, they're not being hypocritical at all.
Everything the GP said is correct.
1) Roads. Did you read that article you posted? I encourage everyone to do so, so that they can see the pure, unadulterated crazy that right-wing think tanks like the von Mises Institute churn out. "Thousands of people die in traffic accidents, therefore we should privatize the roads." Because unregulated private industry does such a great job at promoting safety. That's why organizations like the FDA and OSHA never needed to be created.
Learn some goddamn history. Corporations were quite happy to let people die to boost their bottom lines until the government stepped in and made such behavior unprofitable.
2) Schools are just, in your own words, "starter-prisons" that "indoctrinate" the youth. Corporate controlled schools, I suppose, would be beacons of free thought. That's why ITT Tech grads are so much better than UC Berkeley grads. Oh, wait, that's backwards. American education needs work, but suggesting it would be better if it was fully privatized is stupid.
Without public funds, it's not profitable to educate most people. Far better to keep them stupid and set them to work in a factory, while only providing education to the rich kids whose parents can afford it.
3) Product safety. I swear, have you ever even seen a history book? Product safety before the government got involved was nothing short of abysmal.
I notice you didn't even address his other points:
4) Regulating insurance companies and the like. Without government courts you can take them to, they could simply refuse to pay out one claim in every ten, and there'd be no downside. If they get a bad reputation, they just change their name.
5) Cops to keep you safe. I suppose you think that should be privatized as well? I'm sure they wouldn't spend all their resources defending the homes and offices of the 1%.
6) Toxic waste being dumped in public watersupplies. Are you gonna try to deny that this one happened over and over and over again? Are you going to try to deny that without government oversight, corporations have no reason not to exploit public resources for private gain?
Privatization is the mantra of the robber barons, seeking absolute authority over every aspect of our lives. They've been winning so far, taking more and more from us and giving us nothing in return. They don't need idiots cheerleading for them from the sidelines.
To answer your first point in three words: "free speech zones". Yes, we really have come that far.
It is immoral to avoid taxation if you bribe congressmen to get those loopholes created. Do you think these are all just oversights? Big corporations routinely purchase carefully thought out changes in the wording of laws to create loopholes for themselves. They're robbing us blind -- the bought-off congressmen blow a hole in the side of the bank, the corporations waltz in and take what they want, and then they give the politicians their cut.
If I don't like the tax code, deal with it? Fuck that. I don't have the billions of dollars necessary to purchase a law. So I'll do what I can... vote for pols who actually understand that government shouldn't be killed off, and condemn all the corporate thieves who have been robbing us blind for decades.
Fanboys aren't capable of performing cognitive tasks, such as arithmetic, when the love of their life is involved.
From the summary, it sounds like the graphene is just a substrate for run-of-the-mill piezoelectric crystals. If so, then yes, the process should be reversible.
I'm pretty sure the first robot mayor in Asimov's universe, prior to the story you're referring to, is supposed to be elected while disguised as a human. Kinda like Mitt Romney, except the robot in the story followed the First Law.
Bing was better for a while, though the "M$"-hating manchildren would never admit it. But by now? No. All of Bing's best features have been copied by Google. Improved image search, preview panes, flight statuses at the top of results, bird's eye view in the maps (not to be confused with satellite view), the list goes on. And that's a good thing. That's how competition is supposed to work. But Bing hasn't continued to innovate. And their other big advantage -- a relative lack of link farms -- has faded. So now they're no more innovative than Google, their results aren't any better, and their market share is stuck around 15% (30% if you include Yahoo). Meanwhile Google's Android platform will ensure they continue to grow. If MS is counting on windows phones to drive traffic to Bing, they're going to be disappointed.
I'm glad Bing existed and forced Google to add new, useful features. But unless they make some big improvements, they're never going to come even remotely close to pushing out Google.
Very reasonable.
But wait a sec... Aren't you the guy who in this same thread condemned Obama as a "lying piece of shit" and "George Bush wearing a mask" because he didn't perform the futile gesture of vetoing the NDAA after it had been passed by a veto-proof majority?
To copy your two scenarios:
(1) Obama vetos the bill. He gets eviscerated in the news media and in the minds of millions of Americans for vetoing health care for wounded veterans (which was in the same bill), and it does nothing to stop the NDAA from passing anyhow.
(2) Obama skips the veto since he knows he can't stop the passage, and does what he can through signing statements and executive orders to weaken it. (Which is what he did.)
Why do you apply rational thinking towards the actions of people you like (Ron Paul) and not those you hate (Barack Obama)? Can you even really call it rational thinking, if you selectively apply it like that?
Not only would his veto have done nothing, it would have also opened the door to attack ads about how he vetoed healthcare for wounded veterans, since that's also in the bill. The man shouldn't fall on his sword just to keep you happy.
And that whole thing about taking out language regarding the bill's application to US citizens... read it for yourself. I've posted it to this site a dozen times. Here is is again. Page 266-67.
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. ... Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
It was passed by a veto-proof majority. Obama subsequently weakened it by executive order stating that any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.
I swear, that "Obama supports the NDAA!" propaganda is the most devastatingly insidious lie since the "swiftboat veterans" for "truth".
You're being willfully ignorant.
Thanks to the Obama administration:
1) The stimulus and auto industry bailout saved the country from depression. Look at how austerity has turned out for Europe... It's been an unmitigated disaster for them, whereas our economy went from free fall to 10 straight quarters of continuous growth. Only a liar or a fool would claim it didn't work.
2) Credit card companies can no longer change your due date at the last minute and use the late payment as an excuse to jack up your interest rates. They can also no longer jack up your interest payments because you were late paying an unrelated third party.
3) Credit card companies have more reasonable limits placed on the amount they can charge retailers on each transaction, helping small businesses.
4) The Small Business Association has been expanded, making it easier for startups to get funding.
5) Full funding is being provided to centers to protect battered women and rape victims. The Republicans are currently trying to repeal that law (the Violence Against Women Act) because it also protects lesbian rape victims (the horror!).
6) We're not paying for permanent military bases in Iraq. The war would be over regardless, but McCain planned to keep troops there.
7) The infamous stop-loss programs are over. If you remember, under Bush, soldiers who had finished their tours of duty were being forced to stay in warzones anyway.
8) Wars are now properly recorded in the budget so we can see how they affect the deficit, rather than being hidden. Of course, this leads to him being blamed for "increasing" the deficit.
9) Torture and extreme rendition have been banned.
10) Nuclear weapon stockpiles, both in the US and overseas, have been reduced substantially.
11) Don't ask, don't tell was repealed.
12) The Ledbetter law allows women to sue employers who engage in pay discrimination.
13) We have Network Neutrality laws for the wired internet (though not for wireless).
14) Millions more people have access to health care, many of them children or chronically ill, and it was done in a manner that reduces the deficit. Single-payer would have been better, but it was barely politically possible to get through the current version.
Now, maybe if you only get your news from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, you might think that Obama hasn't done anything positive. But that's your own failing. Any intellectually honest person who has been paying attention would admit that Obama has done a damn good job.
No, they didn't. Not really, anyway. Because aside from a stretch of a few months, Republicans always had the filibuster, and that's all they needed.
The NDAA passed by veto proof majority, and when he tried to close Gitmo the Republicans blocked all funding for the closure.
The GOP strategy for years now had been to block any and all improvement, and then complain that Obama didn't improve things. If the voters are dumb enough to fall for it, then democracy is over. Either the democrats will adopt the same tactics and we'll have no government at all, or they won't and we'll have single party rule.
The difference is the NDAA passed by veto proof majority, so Obama decided to try to weaken it via signing statements and executive orders. Not ideal, and not what he wanted, but it's all he can do.
I'm tired of people trying to blame Obama for this law. Blame your congressmen. Given how many voted for it, odds are at least one of yours is culpable.
While it's not particularly fair for Apple to take the heat for this, that's the price you pay for being the biggest and most influential company in the industry.
Besides, flamebait-y summary aside, people aren't souring on Apple. What they are doing is pressuring Apple to pressure Foxconn. Foxconn then hires more people, pays better wages, and requires shorter hours. The result is that the best workers will go there, and there will be indirect pressure on other Chinese companies to improve their conditions. I know my company is giving across the board ~30% raises to our Chinese workers this year, even though we haven't been in the news at all.
The end result is a good one -- the Chinese working class gets better pay for less work, the working class in the Western world faces less offshoring as Chinese wages rise, and the only drawback is that iGadgets and Androids will cost one or two percent more to manufacture. If Apple has to take a disproportionate amount of blame to achieve these results, so be it. I'm sure their executives are sobbing all the way to the bank.
It's your own damn fault. If business owners had policed themselves rather than playing out their god fantasies, we wouldn't need regulation. But go ahead... keep sending jobs overseas. Just remember to send your own as well, because believe me, you robber barons won't want to be caught in this country once you're done looting. It'll get ugly.
People don't oppose taking organs from the executed because of "antiquated religious nonsense". They oppose it because it gives the government a perverse incentive to execute more people.
If you're on trial, do you really want the judge or jury thinking, even subconsciously, "gee, we could sure use that guy's organs"?
By the way, in the future you might want to put the tiniest modicum of effort into understanding people's positions before launching into, "hurr hurr religious people are dumb and haven't thought this through."
Nothing, if the regulation is simply making sure that they have reasonable, human-readable privacy policies.
Stop drinking the all-regulation-is-evil koolaid. Haven't you ever noticed that the same people pushing it are the ones who make billions by abusing unregulated markets?
I spent my entire childhood not being allowed to drive or drink or own my own place, and now I do all those things.
By your logic, we shouldn't require kids to go to school at all, because it conditions them to follow rules. While such a notion makes for a great Calvin & Hobbes cartoon, in real life children are incapable of fully grasping the consequences of their actions, and they need people to watch over them.
Not true. Foxconn couldn't care less what the "western world" thinks. They raised wages because too many of their employees where quiting.
Got any source to back that up? Everything I've read indicates people line up around the block for these jobs, so I see no reason why they would particularly care about turnover. Then there's also the fact that a quick Google search shows a 30% wage hike for Foxconn workers in June of 2010, whereas the lunar new year that year was in February, so your claim that the increases are in response to workers not coming back from break seems suspect.
Foxconn's suicide rate is lower than the average rate in China.
Great soundbite, but very misleading. Foxconn workers are young, healthy, employed, and lack mental illness. All of those factors reduce their probability of committing suicide as compared to the general population. You need to compare their suicide rate to members of a similar demographic.
Furthermore, Foxconn is by all accounts one of the best employers. There are a lot of other manufacturers in China that are much worse. People just focus on Foxconn because it's the biggest, but the problem is pervasive throughout the industry.
When Foxconn employees were asked what they would like to see changed in their workplace, their number one request was LONGER shifts....The typical Foxconn employee is not you, and does not share your lifestyle and motivations. So stop trying to project your values onto them.
This attitude is exactly what lets corporations abuse people on such a horrifying scale. People are desperate to work, because they must work to survive, and so they say "I'll take the abuse, just please let me earn enough to live!" And the company abuses them, uses them up, until they can't take it anymore, and then grabs the next desperate person out of line.
Pressure from the western world has caused Foxconn and other Chinese manufacturers to raise wages for their employees. That's a good thing. The fact that rural Chinese villagers are in such dire straits that they'd take the job even without the raise doesn't mean we should just let them suffer. Either we can enrich the robber barons by racing to the bottom, or we can try to raise average quality of life around the globe. Most people would prefer the latter.
Obama has raised around $750M over the course of his political career, primarily from small (less than $4000) donations. Only about 0.3% of that came from those companies you highlighted, which, I might add, aren't all media companies. Skadden et al is a law firm that specializes in mergers and acquisitions... they may do some copyright law for all I know, but it's hardly a major business for them. GE sold NBC to Comcast a while back, so they aren't a media company anymore.
Furthermore, I don't think you understand what those numbers (which I assume you got from Open Secrets) mean. If you were to pick up the phone right now and call the DNC and give them a donation for $300, a few things would happen. First, they would take your name, number, and address, so that they could ask for more donations in the future. Second, they would take your job title and employer, so it could be reported on their financial disclosure forms. So let's say that you end up giving $600 a year for four years, and that you work for Widgets, Inc. That would mean that sites like Open Secrets would now show "Widgets, Inc" as having donated an additional $2400 to the DNC. If a hundred of your coworkers (out of the thousands that the company employs) do the same, it will look like Widgets, Inc has paid $240,000 to the DNC, and people would get on Slashdot demanding to know what widget-favoring laws are being passed in response.
But even setting that aside, even if we assume that all these donations are coordinated by the business in exchange for favors, do you really think that providing 0.3% of the presidents's money is enough to buy him off? Sorry to be so blunt, but that's stupid.
These laws are happening because politicians don't have a good understanding of the issues. Or maybe they're happening because the politicians legitimately disagree with you. But they are NOT being bought, and you do a disservice to our democracy when you throw that accusation around so loosely.
You're mixing up "Psychonauts 2" with "Double Fine Adventure" (a working title). The former, Notch offered to be an investor, but the amount he offered isn't enough on its own to actually get the game made. The latter is a different game by the same developers, and is the one that was funded by Kickstarter.