There's research that shows that there's a point where your salary desire is sated, and more money while nice ceases to be the primary reason you work.
This. To put it another way, one of the primary contributors to happiness is not having lots of money, it's having enough.
"The Russian" didn't make people vote for Trump. It was 8 years of Obama and the threat of 4 more years of his policies that caused reactionary voting patterns. Clinton in Merkel's pocket, aligned with globalist-Euro interests and big money, is bad for Russia. Trump is only looking out for the USA, he's not beholden to Euro masters or Wall Street, so he's the logical choice for Americans.
It's incidental that Russia favored a nationalistic US president.
You left out the part where Trump had a far more difficult relationship with the truth than Clinton. And he kept calling the media -- the only independent group with the resources to fact-check him -- he kept calling them "corrupt" and "scum of the earth." Get ready for four years of this. Trump will keep dissing the media, getting to his "people" first via Twitter, and doing everything he can with the powers of the Oval Office to control what is perceived as the truth.
As for Russia liking Trump, they hated Clinton more. That was hardly a secret.
And who is Trump beholden to? Well, we don't know. Because he didn't release his taxes.
The gig economy is nothing new. from Victorian times up to the 1930s crowds of men would push and jostle in front of the factory gates hoping to get lucky that day.
You're confusing the gig economy with underemployment. Right now, we have the former but (relatively speaking) not the latter.
It seems clear that Uber's long-term plan is to get rid of the drivers entirely. Self-driving cars are in our near future. Having humans drive them for now is a plan to achieve mindshare while they wait.
Getting rid of the drivers means they can't really externalize the cost of the car like they do now, especially fuel and maintenance. I would not be surprised in the least to see their fares go up substantially if this happens.
Who says Uber needs to own the cars? They can rent them from their owners or from car-rental companies.
Imagine taking your car to work and then instead of parking it, letting Uber "rent" it until you go home.
Again, car rental firms already have this one tied up. If you're investing in Uber expecting this outcome, you're likely a sucker.
Car-rental firms don't have the smartphone-driven hailing infrastructure that Uber has. I can see car-rental companies becoming "fuilfillment partners" with Uber, again in analogy with Amazon and other retailers.
It seems clear that Uber's long-term plan is to get rid of the drivers entirely. Self-driving cars are in our near future. Having humans drive them for now is a plan to achieve mindshare while they wait.
I wouldn't be surprised if Uber aims to become the Amazon of transportation.
If truthfulness was a determining factor in the election Trump would have lost to the third party candidates. He literally would lie about statements he had made less than an hour beforehand. I think one of the political accountability orgs did some kind of analysis of one of the debates and I think they tallied up about 10-20% of Clintons statements as misleading/somewhat untruthful, Trumps statements were closer to the 50% truthful region and most of his stuff was in the lies/blatant lies category.
You're thinking of politifact. Trump scored far worse than Clinon on tuthfulness.
As the exit polls showed, people lied to the pollsters.
No, there's no evidence of that.
The exit polls seemed to indicate that Clinton would win, but it was the vote counting from the various states, particularly the battleground ones, that ultimately demonstrated otherwise.
Granted, Clinton neglected the battleground states, obviously to her detriment. But saying the exit polls "seemed to indicate Clinton would win?" I say again: a majority of voters didn't like Clinton, and a majority of voters didn't like Trump. You can't infer a win for either candidate based on that.
The people who voted for Trump did like him, but were too pissed off at the media to give a shit about them. The ones who disliked both mainly sat out the election: that is why Clinton underperformed among groups that her campaign expected her to win w/ larger margins.
Partially, you have a point, Clinton did not connect with the Obama-revolution Democrats, and that cost her. But neither Clinton nor Trump showed a majority approval rating in the exit polls. And that means some voted for a candidate they didn't like, be it Clinton or Trump.
Ranked preference / instant-runoff voting in primaries and in the November general election
Why would the results have been any different? If you add up all the Stein/Johnson votes it's not enough to have the whole election results turn out differently, even IF all such voters listed Hillary second - many would not have.
You're right, the results might not have been different for this election, However, an instant-runoff system would increase the viability and influence of down-ballot alternatives in the long run.
* Ranked preference / instant-runoff voting in primaries and in the November general election
This. There is no perfect electoral system, but of all of them, runoff (and as a compromise, instant runoff) has been shown mathematically to be the "most" fair.
A majority of voters did not like Clinton. A majority of voters did not like Trump. (Slightly more than Clinton actually.)
That means there were people who did not like X but voted for X anyway. (X = Clinton or Trump.)
If you actually think that everyone liked Trump, then you are delusional.
As for people not being "allowed" to admit liking Trump, well what about all those people at his rallies? What about all those Republicans who supported Trump despite not being "allowed" to do so by the al-powerful and scary media?
Yes, she did. And that means she is irrelevant now. As far as politics are concerned, she's in a rocking chair with a glass of lemonade. And now it's up to you to get over that.
Trump, on the other hand, is fair game for the next four years. Bringing up Hillary in an argument regarding him is just pathetic.
I fail to understand why you think Trump will do anything about climate change.
During the campaign, he said that climate change was a hoax, perpetrated by the Chinese, to make American industry less competitive.
He has appointed a climate-change denialist to oversee the power-transition at the EPA.
Recently he has allowed that there may be some connection between climate change and CO2 emissions, and he has met with Al Gore. Encouraging, but weigh that against the above, and his mercurial tendencies when it comes to policy positions.
Even better: remove all regulations on spectrum use. Why shouldn't I be able to "innovate" with the air waves?
Because your "innovation" may cause interference with others. And the reverse.
Radio spectrum belongs to all of us, but the government has a legitimate role in regulating the use of our spectrum so that chaos does not happen. That's why there are portions of the spectrum for various uses, some of them commercial, and others private.
It's hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we're not going to have an environment, from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry
If you read this carefully, you'll see that it says the opposite of what CFO Braxton Carter intended.
Slashdot Mirror
People who disagree with your political position are not "bullies" that you need to do something like this just because you have the capability.
What about Slashdot moderators who down-mod insightful, civil, fact-based posts as "Troll" just because they disagree with them?
There's research that shows that there's a point where your salary desire is sated, and more money while nice ceases to be the primary reason you work.
This. To put it another way, one of the primary contributors to happiness is not having lots of money, it's having enough.
Rough summary of your post: instill fear in the voters, and they will flock to an authoritarian who claims to be the only one who can save them.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11...
But who watches the watchers that are watching the watchers?
Turtles?
"The Russian" didn't make people vote for Trump. It was 8 years of Obama and the threat of 4 more years of his policies that caused reactionary voting patterns. Clinton in Merkel's pocket, aligned with globalist-Euro interests and big money, is bad for Russia. Trump is only looking out for the USA, he's not beholden to Euro masters or Wall Street, so he's the logical choice for Americans.
It's incidental that Russia favored a nationalistic US president.
You left out the part where Trump had a far more difficult relationship with the truth than Clinton. And he kept calling the media -- the only independent group with the resources to fact-check him -- he kept calling them "corrupt" and "scum of the earth." Get ready for four years of this. Trump will keep dissing the media, getting to his "people" first via Twitter, and doing everything he can with the powers of the Oval Office to control what is perceived as the truth.
As for Russia liking Trump, they hated Clinton more. That was hardly a secret.
And who is Trump beholden to? Well, we don't know. Because he didn't release his taxes.
Don't presume to tell me what I'm confusing, asshat.
I just gained a new understanding of your username.
You wouldn't be suggesting that paki-boy just made shit up, would you?
I'm not aware of the reference. Kindly enlighten me, but without the racist terms.
Contractors are representatives of the company they contract for. There are no restrictions on requesting them to behave in a certain manner.
I think you might want to qualify that.
The gig economy is nothing new. from Victorian times up to the 1930s crowds of men would push and jostle in front of the factory gates hoping to get lucky that day.
You're confusing the gig economy with underemployment. Right now, we have the former but (relatively speaking) not the latter.
If they arrange a meeting by old fashioned letter writing does that create a liability for Parker, Basildon Bond & The Royal Mail?
No. No more than the manufacturers of the car and the constructors of the roads would be liable in the case of Uber.
It seems clear that Uber's long-term plan is to get rid of the drivers entirely. Self-driving cars are in our near future. Having humans drive them for now is a plan to achieve mindshare while they wait.
Getting rid of the drivers means they can't really externalize the cost of the car like they do now, especially fuel and maintenance. I would not be surprised in the least to see their fares go up substantially if this happens.
Who says Uber needs to own the cars? They can rent them from their owners or from car-rental companies.
Imagine taking your car to work and then instead of parking it, letting Uber "rent" it until you go home.
Again, car rental firms already have this one tied up. If you're investing in Uber expecting this outcome, you're likely a sucker.
Car-rental firms don't have the smartphone-driven hailing infrastructure that Uber has. I can see car-rental companies becoming "fuilfillment partners" with Uber, again in analogy with Amazon and other retailers.
It seems clear that Uber's long-term plan is to get rid of the drivers entirely. Self-driving cars are in our near future. Having humans drive them for now is a plan to achieve mindshare while they wait.
I wouldn't be surprised if Uber aims to become the Amazon of transportation.
If truthfulness was a determining factor in the election Trump would have lost to the third party candidates. He literally would lie about statements he had made less than an hour beforehand. I think one of the political accountability orgs did some kind of analysis of one of the debates and I think they tallied up about 10-20% of Clintons statements as misleading/somewhat untruthful, Trumps statements were closer to the 50% truthful region and most of his stuff was in the lies/blatant lies category.
You're thinking of politifact. Trump scored far worse than Clinon on tuthfulness.
Obama has gone far beyond and above in de-legitimizing his own Presidency, he doesn't need help!
Really? What did he do that was "far beyond and above in de-legitimizing his own Presidency" when compared to the birther movement?
And let's not talk about who fed that conspiracy.
As the exit polls showed, people lied to the pollsters.
No, there's no evidence of that.
The exit polls seemed to indicate that Clinton would win, but it was the vote counting from the various states, particularly the battleground ones, that ultimately demonstrated otherwise.
Granted, Clinton neglected the battleground states, obviously to her detriment. But saying the exit polls "seemed to indicate Clinton would win?" I say again: a majority of voters didn't like Clinton, and a majority of voters didn't like Trump. You can't infer a win for either candidate based on that.
The people who voted for Trump did like him, but were too pissed off at the media to give a shit about them. The ones who disliked both mainly sat out the election: that is why Clinton underperformed among groups that her campaign expected her to win w/ larger margins.
Partially, you have a point, Clinton did not connect with the Obama-revolution Democrats, and that cost her. But neither Clinton nor Trump showed a majority approval rating in the exit polls. And that means some voted for a candidate they didn't like, be it Clinton or Trump.
Ranked preference / instant-runoff voting in primaries and in the November general election
Why would the results have been any different? If you add up all the Stein/Johnson votes it's not enough to have the whole election results turn out differently, even IF all such voters listed Hillary second - many would not have.
You're right, the results might not have been different for this election, However, an instant-runoff system would increase the viability and influence of down-ballot alternatives in the long run.
Arrow's Impossibility Theorem shows that it is impossible to devise a voting system that will not fail in some situations. However, there is evidence that some systems are better than others, and instant-runoff is one of the better ones.
* Ranked preference / instant-runoff voting in primaries and in the November general election
This. There is no perfect electoral system, but of all of them, runoff (and as a compromise, instant runoff) has been shown mathematically to be the "most" fair.
Wrong. Everyone liked Trump, they just weren't allowed to admit it because the media would turn people against them.
That's not what the exit polls said.
A majority of voters did not like Clinton.
A majority of voters did not like Trump. (Slightly more than Clinton actually.)
That means there were people who did not like X but voted for X anyway. (X = Clinton or Trump.)
If you actually think that everyone liked Trump, then you are delusional.
As for people not being "allowed" to admit liking Trump, well what about all those people at his rallies? What about all those Republicans who supported Trump despite not being "allowed" to do so by the al-powerful and scary media?
Your post is a pile of steaming nonsense.
Alas, PopeRatzo forgot to add a /sarcasm tag, and was modded down.
Or maybe the moderator is a victim of Poe's Law.
Or maybe the moderator is not a victim of Poe's Law, but just doesn't like the fact that the essential practice of science is not political.
Woosh!
Tell that to the moderator who scored Desler's post as +1 Insightful.
Hillary lost. Get over it.
Yes, she did. And that means she is irrelevant now. As far as politics are concerned, she's in a rocking chair with a glass of lemonade. And now it's up to you to get over that.
Trump, on the other hand, is fair game for the next four years. Bringing up Hillary in an argument regarding him is just pathetic.
I fail to understand why you think Trump will do anything about climate change.
During the campaign, he said that climate change was a hoax, perpetrated by the Chinese, to make American industry less competitive.
He has appointed a climate-change denialist to oversee the power-transition at the EPA.
Recently he has allowed that there may be some connection between climate change and CO2 emissions, and he has met with Al Gore. Encouraging, but weigh that against the above, and his mercurial tendencies when it comes to policy positions.
Even better: remove all regulations on spectrum use. Why shouldn't I be able to "innovate" with the air waves?
Because your "innovation" may cause interference with others. And the reverse.
Radio spectrum belongs to all of us, but the government has a legitimate role in regulating the use of our spectrum so that chaos does not happen. That's why there are portions of the spectrum for various uses, some of them commercial, and others private.
It's hard to imagine, with the way the election turned out, that we're not going to have an environment, from several aspects, that is not going to be more positive for my industry
If you read this carefully, you'll see that it says the opposite of what CFO Braxton Carter intended.