In all fields, newbies are taught all kinds of half-true simplifications. I think these are expected to suffice for people who do not move on to the more complicated but more 'true' knowledge that experts must learn.
And my mom can't get treatment for her cancer, AT ALL, because she has no insurance. I'll take a long wait over no hope for treatment any day. Just look at health outcomes versus dollars spent. We spend twice as much as the next most expensive system, which puts us around 37th in the world for health care outcomes. Our system is broken beyond belief.
Wrong. The fine should be in relation to the malfeasance AND the size of the company. A serious fine to a small company is a mere slap on the wrist to another.
You have to look at why we fine companies. Is it only to right wrongs? Or is it to deter future wrongdoing as well? Your position assumes that the purpose of fines is only to rectify a wrongdoing. This is simply not the case. In fact, the fines we assess are NOT to rectify wrongdoing at all, the fee we charge for that is called damages. Fines are entirely punitive, they are a punishment and a deterrent. A fine that does not adversely impact a company is neither a punishment or a deterrent, it is merely a cost of doing business.
Many children in our current system are not taught techniques for delayment of gratification, yet that is one of the primary skills that determines success in life. When you say, 'hard work and discipline,'you are refering to delayment of gratification. If mentors model the behavior effectively, children will understand why it is important and the will see how delayment of gratification techniques will help them. They will begin to mimic these behaviors, and develop discipline and a good work ethic. If children do not see these techniques modeled effectively, they will not realize they are important, and will not learn them, no matter what educational paradigms they learn in.
Assuming you do it, why do you delay gratification, and do things you might prefer not to do? Look closely, and you will see that, in fact, you are doing exactly what you want to do. You want the future rewards more than you want the present pleasures. Every individual in life thinks and does only what they want to do, in the moment. It might not be what they wanted to do five minutes ago, and they may hate the fact that they did it five minutes from now, but all we are capable of doing in this present moment is what we want to do.
You must unlearn what you know, before you can, uh, know what, uhm, you've unlearned? No, wait. When you unlearn what you think you know, you unthink what... crap, that's even worse. Give me a minute here...
Why should this necessarily be worse than regular schooling? If this technique teaches that every moment is a learning opportunity, and it does not teach children that learning is a chore, children who learn in this fashion may grow up to be more knowledgeable and curious than their peers. The only important thing that I see lacking in this technique is teaching children how to jump through the arbitrary hoops that life will expect them to jump through. If the parents make this lesson a part of the learning process, by teaching the children why delayment of gratification is important, and how to do it, then I see no inherent reason why children who learn this way should be any less successful.
Of course, the technique also seems tailor made for lazy parents, and it seems easy to do wrong, but I ask, if done right, and the proper 'jumping through hoops' techniques are taught, what is inherently inferior about this technique?
These are simply sets of atoms that, together, act like monopoles. What has been discovered is not a single particle with one pole. It is a place inside a material that acts like a monopole. Real 'Dirac strings' connecting real monopoles are not long chains of molecules, these long chains of molecules simply act like Dirac strings. Please. This is the most misleading title and summary I've ever read here, and that is saying A LOT.
Right. Three pieces of second hand evidence, of dubious quality, with no citations backing them up, is the same as direct experience of a phenomenon. Idiot.
Yes, you are SO right! All networkBoy did was mention Europe. That was why he was modded flamebait. And all I did was post verbal diarrhea, which is why I was modded up. The world just isn't fair, is it?
I am suggesting that anecdotal evidence mentioning a few cherry picked legal decisions is not presenting any kind of case. If he could say, 'look, here is a reputable site showing that, of the last 100 cases decided against corporations, 70 have been against American corporations,' he would have a point. As it is, he has no point because he has presented only a scant handful of carefully chosen evidence. He hasn't mentioned any cases against European companies. How many have their been? How many have been decided against the company? How does that compare to cases against American companies?
NetworkBoy's argument is entirely equivalent to the following argument:
Did you know that a cop once busted my sister for jaywalking? And then, five years later, a cop wrote my wife a ticket, for running a stop sign. The only conclusion we can reach from this data is that ALL COPS HATE WOMEN.
Oh no. Big companies aren't allowed to get bigger. What IS the world coming to when we don't allow huge corporations that don't give a crap about anything but the bottom line to get even bigger and more powerful?
No privately owned company should own more than 50% of the market. We have laws to force bad people to do good things. This is one example of that. We do not need more corporate feudalism. Look where unbridled greed got us.
I am a Yank, you know. Just not a screaming psuedo libertarian fascist Yank who thinks unelected, unaccountable corporations are a better model for society than democracy. Some of us Yanks believe in freedom for citizens, not only for corporations.
The corporation is the most dangerous invention humankind has ever come up with. It is a tool for amassing personal profit without personal responsibility. That is why corporations were so limited by careful laws in their early days. Over the years, power hungry sociopaths have changed the laws and crafted corporations into the perfect weapons for oppressing the masses.
I'm not presenting any side, I am merely pointing out that all you are doing is spouting ungrounded, unverified opinions backed up by cherry picked anecdotes of uncertain provenance and veracity.
You are trying to make your case by presenting one side. You've shown absolutely nothing to prove that the EU does not do the same thing to EU companies. You have also not shown that the US companies did not deserve the criminal and civil sanctions they received.
Oh, and Boeing doesn't need Airbus flight software, Boeing's is better. Yet we don't see Boeing getting hit by the EU.
Just out of curiosity, your citations are so one sided, where are you getting your data from? Does Fox News have a Two Minute Hate spot on the nasty socialist EU nowadays?
Yes. Shipping WMP with Windows was a crime, as was not providing a browser choice tool. Anti-competitive actions taken by a monopoly are a crime in most jurisdictions. The EU has gone after plenty of European companies for the same things.
I asked for a numerical analysis of numbers of American companies versus number of European companies and he gives me a few more cherry picked anecdotes. You, in your infinite wisdom, consider this having my ass handed to me. Did you even take debate in high school? Do you know how this is supposed to work? Thought not.
Compare that to fines levied against European companies and you will see that there is no difference. You were flagged troll for your content-free angry pro-American karma pandering. You thought you'd get a quick karma boost from anti-socialist, libertarian, and pro-American moderators, which you may yet get if you stop whining and present some actual facts. Cherry-picked anecdotes don't count, give us some figures to back up your butt-hurt position.
So, are you saying American businesses are too stupid to avoid bad business situations? You make it sound as if you think of Europe as our enemy, rather than our staunchest allies. I mean, how DARE they provide better health care for less money than we do and make our capitalist health care system look bad? How DARE they get 32 hour work weeks with minimum one month of vacation. Here we are, working our asses off, and we aren't any happier than them for it. The bottom 80% of our society aren't any richer for it, either. That's just not fair, and obviously, they are evil for not fellating their owning class like we do. Why, if they aren't stopped, our peasantry might just get uppity ideas on their heads and start thinking they should get a share in our increase in GDP.
Evidence in the form of the number of actions taken against American firms, as opposed to actions taken against European firms would really help make your case. For bonus points, show that American firms don't actually deserve the 'abuse' by committing more crimes than their European counterparts. Without some sort of evidence, your post is simply pro-American, anti-European jingoism. Probably boiling down to either 'Capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD!' or simple flag waving nationalism, rather than any kind of logical thought process.
My mutant super power is my ability to get depressed and lose focus. Oh man, I wish I'd gotten that cool one that gives you resistance to malaria and painfully inflamed fingers and toes. Mine seems kinda useless by comparison.
These amphibious tours use vehicles known as a DUKW, pronounced 'duck.' The tours have been known as 'duck tours' ever since the military sold off these surplus amphibious vehicles and people started using them for tours. Pretty generic if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
In all fields, newbies are taught all kinds of half-true simplifications. I think these are expected to suffice for people who do not move on to the more complicated but more 'true' knowledge that experts must learn.
Oh, hey, no problem. I get overly feisty like ALL THE TIME. I thought that was what the Internet was for...
I'm not a physicist either, but slashdot poster ajs is and he backs me up on this, so I think I read it right.
And my mom can't get treatment for her cancer, AT ALL, because she has no insurance. I'll take a long wait over no hope for treatment any day. Just look at health outcomes versus dollars spent. We spend twice as much as the next most expensive system, which puts us around 37th in the world for health care outcomes. Our system is broken beyond belief.
Coalar energy, let's hope it has the efficiency of coal with the environmental impact of solar, and not the other way around.
Wrong. The fine should be in relation to the malfeasance AND the size of the company. A serious fine to a small company is a mere slap on the wrist to another.
You have to look at why we fine companies. Is it only to right wrongs? Or is it to deter future wrongdoing as well? Your position assumes that the purpose of fines is only to rectify a wrongdoing. This is simply not the case. In fact, the fines we assess are NOT to rectify wrongdoing at all, the fee we charge for that is called damages. Fines are entirely punitive, they are a punishment and a deterrent. A fine that does not adversely impact a company is neither a punishment or a deterrent, it is merely a cost of doing business.
Many children in our current system are not taught techniques for delayment of gratification, yet that is one of the primary skills that determines success in life. When you say, 'hard work and discipline,'you are refering to delayment of gratification. If mentors model the behavior effectively, children will understand why it is important and the will see how delayment of gratification techniques will help them. They will begin to mimic these behaviors, and develop discipline and a good work ethic. If children do not see these techniques modeled effectively, they will not realize they are important, and will not learn them, no matter what educational paradigms they learn in.
Assuming you do it, why do you delay gratification, and do things you might prefer not to do? Look closely, and you will see that, in fact, you are doing exactly what you want to do. You want the future rewards more than you want the present pleasures. Every individual in life thinks and does only what they want to do, in the moment. It might not be what they wanted to do five minutes ago, and they may hate the fact that they did it five minutes from now, but all we are capable of doing in this present moment is what we want to do.
You must unlearn what you know, before you can, uh, know what, uhm, you've unlearned? No, wait. When you unlearn what you think you know, you unthink what... crap, that's even worse. Give me a minute here...
Why should this necessarily be worse than regular schooling? If this technique teaches that every moment is a learning opportunity, and it does not teach children that learning is a chore, children who learn in this fashion may grow up to be more knowledgeable and curious than their peers. The only important thing that I see lacking in this technique is teaching children how to jump through the arbitrary hoops that life will expect them to jump through. If the parents make this lesson a part of the learning process, by teaching the children why delayment of gratification is important, and how to do it, then I see no inherent reason why children who learn this way should be any less successful.
Of course, the technique also seems tailor made for lazy parents, and it seems easy to do wrong, but I ask, if done right, and the proper 'jumping through hoops' techniques are taught, what is inherently inferior about this technique?
These are simply sets of atoms that, together, act like monopoles. What has been discovered is not a single particle with one pole. It is a place inside a material that acts like a monopole. Real 'Dirac strings' connecting real monopoles are not long chains of molecules, these long chains of molecules simply act like Dirac strings. Please. This is the most misleading title and summary I've ever read here, and that is saying A LOT.
Right. Three pieces of second hand evidence, of dubious quality, with no citations backing them up, is the same as direct experience of a phenomenon. Idiot.
Yes, you are SO right! All networkBoy did was mention Europe. That was why he was modded flamebait. And all I did was post verbal diarrhea, which is why I was modded up. The world just isn't fair, is it?
Oh. Well now I see what you are getting at. Kind of a truism, isn't it? I agree though.
I am suggesting that anecdotal evidence mentioning a few cherry picked legal decisions is not presenting any kind of case. If he could say, 'look, here is a reputable site showing that, of the last 100 cases decided against corporations, 70 have been against American corporations,' he would have a point. As it is, he has no point because he has presented only a scant handful of carefully chosen evidence. He hasn't mentioned any cases against European companies. How many have their been? How many have been decided against the company? How does that compare to cases against American companies?
NetworkBoy's argument is entirely equivalent to the following argument:
Did you know that a cop once busted my sister for jaywalking? And then, five years later, a cop wrote my wife a ticket, for running a stop sign. The only conclusion we can reach from this data is that ALL COPS HATE WOMEN.
You know? I thought it was five minutes, too. But then I thought, 'Wait, was it five minuets or two minutes?' So I looked it up.
Oh no. Big companies aren't allowed to get bigger. What IS the world coming to when we don't allow huge corporations that don't give a crap about anything but the bottom line to get even bigger and more powerful?
No privately owned company should own more than 50% of the market. We have laws to force bad people to do good things. This is one example of that. We do not need more corporate feudalism. Look where unbridled greed got us.
I am a Yank, you know. Just not a screaming psuedo libertarian fascist Yank who thinks unelected, unaccountable corporations are a better model for society than democracy. Some of us Yanks believe in freedom for citizens, not only for corporations.
The corporation is the most dangerous invention humankind has ever come up with. It is a tool for amassing personal profit without personal responsibility. That is why corporations were so limited by careful laws in their early days. Over the years, power hungry sociopaths have changed the laws and crafted corporations into the perfect weapons for oppressing the masses.
I'm not presenting any side, I am merely pointing out that all you are doing is spouting ungrounded, unverified opinions backed up by cherry picked anecdotes of uncertain provenance and veracity.
You are trying to make your case by presenting one side. You've shown absolutely nothing to prove that the EU does not do the same thing to EU companies. You have also not shown that the US companies did not deserve the criminal and civil sanctions they received.
Oh, and Boeing doesn't need Airbus flight software, Boeing's is better. Yet we don't see Boeing getting hit by the EU.
Just out of curiosity, your citations are so one sided, where are you getting your data from? Does Fox News have a Two Minute Hate spot on the nasty socialist EU nowadays?
Yes. Shipping WMP with Windows was a crime, as was not providing a browser choice tool. Anti-competitive actions taken by a monopoly are a crime in most jurisdictions. The EU has gone after plenty of European companies for the same things.
Your post is yet more fact free jingoism.
I asked for a numerical analysis of numbers of American companies versus number of European companies and he gives me a few more cherry picked anecdotes. You, in your infinite wisdom, consider this having my ass handed to me. Did you even take debate in high school? Do you know how this is supposed to work? Thought not.
Compare that to fines levied against European companies and you will see that there is no difference. You were flagged troll for your content-free angry pro-American karma pandering. You thought you'd get a quick karma boost from anti-socialist, libertarian, and pro-American moderators, which you may yet get if you stop whining and present some actual facts. Cherry-picked anecdotes don't count, give us some figures to back up your butt-hurt position.
So, are you saying American businesses are too stupid to avoid bad business situations? You make it sound as if you think of Europe as our enemy, rather than our staunchest allies. I mean, how DARE they provide better health care for less money than we do and make our capitalist health care system look bad? How DARE they get 32 hour work weeks with minimum one month of vacation. Here we are, working our asses off, and we aren't any happier than them for it. The bottom 80% of our society aren't any richer for it, either. That's just not fair, and obviously, they are evil for not fellating their owning class like we do. Why, if they aren't stopped, our peasantry might just get uppity ideas on their heads and start thinking they should get a share in our increase in GDP.
Evidence in the form of the number of actions taken against American firms, as opposed to actions taken against European firms would really help make your case. For bonus points, show that American firms don't actually deserve the 'abuse' by committing more crimes than their European counterparts. Without some sort of evidence, your post is simply pro-American, anti-European jingoism. Probably boiling down to either 'Capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD!' or simple flag waving nationalism, rather than any kind of logical thought process.
My mutant super power is my ability to get depressed and lose focus. Oh man, I wish I'd gotten that cool one that gives you resistance to malaria and painfully inflamed fingers and toes. Mine seems kinda useless by comparison.
These amphibious tours use vehicles known as a DUKW, pronounced 'duck.' The tours have been known as 'duck tours' ever since the military sold off these surplus amphibious vehicles and people started using them for tours. Pretty generic if you ask me.
The duck quack is a generic sound, used by hunters for hundreds of years.
Also, I think ducks used it even before that.
Yes, but they used it to advertise sex with ducks, theoretically a very different market than amphibious tours.