Part of the idea of Universal Basic Income is that it removes the stigma. With current welfare programs, you get the payments because you're dirt poor, and that comes with social judgments ("go get paid for real work like the rest of us, ya lazy bum!" etc). Instead, you get paid because you are a citizen of the country, and that basic payment is your dividend from it. Think of it as being paid for owning a 1/300 millionth share in the U.S.A., Inc.
In fact, we've already seen that very thing at work. If you're a resident of Alaska, you get paid simply for that, as a share of the oil revenues. It's been something around $1k~$2k per year, which, while not enough to live off of solely, is certainly not something that anyone in Alaska looks down on anyone else for receiving. After all, they get paid for it too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now, it's not human nature to sit around on our butts all day. We'll still need to find ways to occupy ourselves so that we feel like we have a purpose, but once you no longer need to worry about money, you can afford to do a lot of other things, like coach little league, volunteer at a hospital/etc, or even just stay home and raise your kids. You can also afford to work at a part time job for far less than you might otherwise, because even a minimal wage like $2 per hour would be 100% discretionary income that you can use for entertainment or luxuries.
And most importantly, the human drive to better ourselves and compete is still there, because we're never satisfied with just what we have (even when it's millions or billions). You can still educate yourself, and get a better job (say, repairing or designing robots), and earn more. You can save up and start a business, or invest, or any of the other things that make the current capitalist system work where past alternatives failed miserably.
I had basically the same experience in college. "You're not here to memorize things, you're here to learn how to look them up as needed, and what to do with them when you find them."
Rote memorization may have had more of a place in the past, where looking up information took significant amounts of time, because you'd have to go to reference books to find it, that you may or may not have on hand.
Today things are vastly different, as I have the bulk of human knowledge and information moments away with a quick series of clicks. I do not need to memorize information, so much as I need to be able to know how/where to find it, and what to do with it when I do.
Chinese is actually in an entirely different language family than Japanese. They even have entirely different sentence structure.
The language closest to Japanese is Korean, partly because they use many of the same Chinese loan words, but also because they have the same sentence structure (Subject, Object, Verb), as well as the use of markers to indicate who the subject is or what the object is. In many cases it's very easy to translate directly from one to the other. They both use Chinese numbering as well as their own, and so on. They even use many of the same loan words, and in the same context (for instance, "Arbeit", the German word for work, is used in both Japanese and Korean as the word for "part time job").
They're certainly not mutually intelligible though. It's more on the order of comparing Romance languages, like Spanish to French.
How about not assuming that my machine needs to be able to reboot itself randomly whenever I'm not there to click?
I don't care if you make that the default, but as a power user, I want the ability to change the settings because I know best for my situation, far moreso than some "one size fits all" mandated by Redmond.
In one sense, it's good to be thinking ahead and be imaginative, as many future problems could be more easily avoided with a little foresight that many of our politicians sadly lack.
That said, this really isn't something that is high on my radar as a voter, because we have so many other problems to worry about that are far more immediate and far more important. As a political candidate, you only have so much bandwidth to talk about issues while you have peoples' attention, and thus ought to use it wisely to emphasize issues that are of pressing importance to them. I'm pretty sure that most people aren't worried about a Heinlein-esque scenario at this point.
As an aside, it's sort of fascinating to unpack the way this story spreads, starting with a tweet that gets noticed and turned into a story by a major newspaper, and rebounded among a number of sites, because it's seen as clickworthy (and look at all the attention it's gotten here, just on Slashdot alone). Perhaps this is the takeaway - if you're a politician (or would-be politician), be careful what you tweet about, because you may not have a say in which part gets amplified by the media, and what you wind up commonly known for being about.
Not everything the NSA (or other agencies) do is morally questionable, unless you're somehow of the belief that the entire business of intelligence is so. I spent several years working for NSA/CSS, and I was never asked to do anything remotely questionable. That said, I did not doubt that others were likely pushed to do questionable things in the name of the War on Terror. I liked to think that I would have had the courage to stand up and so no if I had been so asked, though I never was. Should I have quit, on the basis of a hypothetical, knowing that the work I was doing was actively helping save the lives of innocent people?
Why do you think we were so interested in space in the first place, including the moon? Here's a hint - it wasn't because of peaceful science exploration, or even just about propaganda. It was about military advantage, between rocket development (aka ICBMs), satellites, and positioning weapons. Space is the literal "High Ground," and there was a very real fear that the Soviets were going to position nukes or other weapons in orbit, or on the moon, and we considered doing the same. Eventually, everyone involved agreed to sign a treaty banning weapons in space, which ended a lot of the concern.
But that doesn't change the fact that it's possible, and we probably still have planners at the Pentagon looking at the possibility of China or others placing weapons in orbit, whether it be nukes, "rods from god", or something else.
We could also have the government instead open up real competition into the ISP market by mandating local loop unbundling, thus separating the natural monopoly of owning the physical infrastructure from operating an ISP over that infrastructure. If there were minimal barriers to entry (which isn't the case, when even Google runs into problems trying to start one), then we could have enough competition that if Comcast or Verizon start playing favorites with traffic, we just switch. It also helps with other problems, like poor customer service (*cough*Comcast*cough*).
I'm fine with taking the interests of companies' shareholders and such into account, but the public interest in vigorous, real competition, alternative options, and not getting defrauded (among other things) should not be overridden in a mindless quest for "growth" (by which he means "growth of executive bonuses and shareholder dividends").
That depends on the AI I'll be entertaining. I certainly wouldn't mind entertaining a Model 6, Model 8, or a Model 3, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hence why I referred to Adam Smith, who argued that the primary role of the government (in terms of the market/corporations) was to ensure that it was competitive, by doing things like breaking up monopolies, preventing cartelization, and so on. The government needs to be enforcing and applying the laws (many of which are already on the books, just not enforced vigorously) to make sure that competition can exist. You can't just sit back and be completely hands off, because history has shown that's liable to lead to shenanigans, either one company leveraging advantages to squeeze competitors out, then exploiting the resulting monopoly or near-monopoly, or collusion, where the small number of players get together and agree to all raise prices or the like.
Think about this: what would happen here if AMD had gone out of business at some point, or had fallen from its spot to not be a viable competitor? Who could really step up to compete? Or consider the other recent story about the mobile market finally moving back to unlimited data, after years of the top two trying to restrict data plans and increase costs. It was only because the weaker player broke ranks to try and woo customers, that eventually forced Verizon/AT&T to reverse course. What if Sprint and T-Mobile had instead elected to play along and raise costs via data restriction? What recourse would we, the consumers have, other than to get the government to step in and restore competition to the market?
And this is really what I'd like to see happen in the broadband market, too. Local Loop unbundling would enable real competition in the ISP market, which would fix the problems we're having regarding (lack of) Net Neutrality, and obviate the need for regulations requiring it.
The answer isn't to abolish corporations. You're right in that corporations who are left completely unchecked will act like the worst sorts of human beings, but that holds true for humans as well - if you leave them completely unchecked, a lot of people will do utterly horrible things too. That's why we invented things like laws, society, moral codes, etc, and more importantly, we enforce those (or we try to).
What we need is to have laws and regulations that are applied to corporations, with the purpose of protecting competition/competitive markets, and that are vigorously enforced. I'm talking about Adam Smith style regulations, mind you, not some right-wing fever dream of government drunk with power regulating every last detail (though areas that are natural monopolies are going to need more stringent regulation, by their very nature). Think instead of Teddy Roosevelt style trust-busting, breaking up cartels and fighting for real competition and alternatives.
And we used to have that, too. The problem is that we grew complacent, and enforcement of those laws has grown lax - mostly because the worst among the corporations have lobbied heavily for it, and their wealthy owners have done the same. Part of the answer is probably to find ways to diminish the influence of money in politics (though I'm not aware of any easy solutions for that), but more realistically, people just need to start paying attention and voting with this in mind.
Not at this time, perhaps - but it's worth noting that Bigelow aerospace is owned by a hotel magnate, because he's interested in hotels in space.
And why would you want to stay at a hotel on the moon? Well, besides the view and bragging rights, the swimming pool would be awesome: https://what-if.xkcd.com/124/
If I want to open my own pizzeria, that costs an entirely reasonable amount of money. People open new restaurants all the time, because all you need is a building, some local permits, and the appropriate ovens/etc and ingredients that are all readily available. It's easily doable in the tens of thousands of dollar range - which isn't cheap, but the sort of thing a regular joe could save up for, or get a loan to do.
On the other hand, to start an ISP right now means you need to build physical infrastructure, to every POTENTIAL customer, at costs running easily into the millions of dollars or more, against an entrenched competitor who will do everything in their power to make sure they don't ever have to compete with you, from suing the city over granting permits to you, or trying to get the state legislature to enact lots of laws that make it more expensive for you. Put another way, even Google with their near-bottomless buckets of money has said it's too hard for them. And you expect someone else to do so? That's also before you even turn a single dime of profit, too.
That's not entirely true. Not all human labor is equivalent. Otherwise we'd already have a flatter distribution of pay, because who would want to work as a store clerk when you could get paid as a plastic surgeon?
Now, certainly having more unemployed people is going to create more interest in the remaining positions, but it takes a lot of time and money to do that training. Joe the truck driver needs a lot of education, nevermind practical work experience in the field, before he can reasonably compete for those jobs. And certainly, if every professional truck/taxi/etc driver gets laid off, some of them are going to manage to go back to school and learn to become doctors, programmers, etc. But not all of them - because for most of the lower-skilled workers, if they could go back to school and get a higher paying job, they already would.
The people who are going to get hit hardest are those employed in low-skill positions, because it's much easier to switch to them, thus the competition for whatever is left will be insane.
Yes, because the only thing protecting the consumer is the Government.
Yes, because we have so much robust competition in the ISP market now! We don't need any government intervention, my local monopoly ISP has all my best interests at heart. If they provide poor service or screw me over, I can just switch to - oh, wait, I can't.
Your guy Trump sure is sticking it to the corporations
By making it less likely that an ISP will be (frivolously) sued for violating the nebulously unclear standard to take "reasonable" measure measures, Trump's government lowers the cost of the legal insurance, which lowers the total cost of doing business. And that's a good thing for both producers and the customers alike.
Of course, because Comcast/Verizon/etc are totally going to pass those savings on to me, the consumer, rather than pad their executives' bonuses or pay more dividends to stockholders.
The problem is that there are presently too many Republicans co-opted by corporate money, and not enough that care more about the principles to call them on it. Part of this is due to the fact that US politics has become more like rooting for your Sports team, and thus all about "beating the other side no matter what." That phenomenon exists on both sides, though I think it's more powerful on the right, since the right tends to value order, authority, and cohesion moreso than the left.
Thus, instead of Republicans arguing that we need to introduce actual competition into the market by advocating policies such as local loop unbundling and removing the current state of affairs where your ISP has a monopoly on provision of services because they own of the local physical transport infrastructure. To make a shorter version of that argument, "more competition will lead to better service via free market principles." This would provide a counterpart to the opposing idea of enforcing network neutrality via federal regulation. We would have debate and compromise, and eventually come up with something that takes the best from both, and that everyone could live with.
It probably doesn't get highlighted in the hiring process. Most people don't brag about that in interviews - the misbehavior comes out later.
In most companies, someone pulls a stunt like any of the ones listed here, and they're quickly smacked down, or fired outright (depending on the incident). Judging by the rumors and reports of incidents at Uber, that wasn't the case there. Instead, HR seems to have been told to ignore and protect "high performers" in a penny-wise/pound-foolish policy that leads to the sort of culture like you see described. What happens is that when people don't get punished for the first few things, they start to realize that the normal limits don't apply, and the bad sorts start pushing the envelope. Eventually you get a workplace culture where all sorts of stuff is tolerated, and you wind up with a toxic work environment.
First, you shouldn't be surprised if you get modded Troll for deliberately using a flamebait/trolling example that is wholly unrelated to the topic.
Second, you're deliberately confusing the issue. If I operate a business, and I sell pork products, and you buy a steak from me, you're not paying for pork, no matter how much you scream about marginal costs and fungible funds.
Third, you're creating a strawman argument, because Planned Parenthood does not primarily provide abortion services, attempts to play cute with the numbers aside. At most the number of PP patients who received an abortion was 12% of the total, and that's assuming none had more than 1.
Reference: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...
DHS is the primary government agency responsible for protecting the country's civilian infrastructure, including the internet and computer networks. I feel so much better knowing that they're so good at keeping their own systems secure, that even their own workers can't access them.
Reading the whole post, the author definitely described a lot of sh*tty things that Uber allowed bosses to get away with that had nothing to do with gender, because they were "high performers". The example of secretly altering the employee's review after the fact, to prevent them from transferring out of the group, is a clear example. The guy who was bragging about actively sandbagging his boss to steal his job was another. In a corporate environment like that, once people learn that there's a group for whom the rules don't apply, all bets are off, including sexism and harrassment of all forms.
Why does this happen? Probably because the higher-ups put pressure on HR in a few cases, and stressed that they wanted those people kept/protected at all costs. Probably because the company's legal department wasn't being involved, or being told to ignore it. Eventually the individual bosses in question realize they're not going to be punished for it, and start doing whatever they want. Their peers and others see it, and the problems expand from there.
Yes, let's be clear, because nobody claimed that actual voting machines were hacked. This was merely a strawman/canard thrown out to confuse the issue.
First, why we care that the DNC was being hacked is because that's the exact same thing Watergate was about, except that Watergate was a physical break-in to wiretap the DNC, rather than hacking their emails, but for the same exact purpose - to look for anything that could be released that would make the political opposition look bad. The fact that it was Russian hackers doing it is just another layer on the cake.
Second, I voted for Sanders, but there is ZERO proof the DNC "rigged" anything. The rules for the contest were laid out well in advance, and were pretty much in keeping with the way the rules have always been, and that never changed. That individual DNC staffers favored the long-time party stalwart over a long-time independent who came in just to run? Everyone knew that. That Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tried to set a debate schedule that favored Clinton? We knew that in 2015, and we made a stink about it then, and forced more debates. Not shocking.
In fact, the only accusation I've heard that could even come close is that the DNC vice-chair gave Clinton advance knowledge of a debate question, except that she 1) did so in her CNN contributor capacity (and got fired from it over), 2) it was a blatantly obvious question that anyone should have seen coming (Debate in Flint MI, gee, think they're gonna ask about the water crisis? Duh), and 3) CLINTON FLUBBED THE QUESTION ANYWAY.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the idea of Universal Basic Income is that it removes the stigma. With current welfare programs, you get the payments because you're dirt poor, and that comes with social judgments ("go get paid for real work like the rest of us, ya lazy bum!" etc). Instead, you get paid because you are a citizen of the country, and that basic payment is your dividend from it. Think of it as being paid for owning a 1/300 millionth share in the U.S.A., Inc.
In fact, we've already seen that very thing at work. If you're a resident of Alaska, you get paid simply for that, as a share of the oil revenues. It's been something around $1k~$2k per year, which, while not enough to live off of solely, is certainly not something that anyone in Alaska looks down on anyone else for receiving. After all, they get paid for it too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now, it's not human nature to sit around on our butts all day. We'll still need to find ways to occupy ourselves so that we feel like we have a purpose, but once you no longer need to worry about money, you can afford to do a lot of other things, like coach little league, volunteer at a hospital/etc, or even just stay home and raise your kids. You can also afford to work at a part time job for far less than you might otherwise, because even a minimal wage like $2 per hour would be 100% discretionary income that you can use for entertainment or luxuries.
And most importantly, the human drive to better ourselves and compete is still there, because we're never satisfied with just what we have (even when it's millions or billions). You can still educate yourself, and get a better job (say, repairing or designing robots), and earn more. You can save up and start a business, or invest, or any of the other things that make the current capitalist system work where past alternatives failed miserably.
They've responded saying that they won't, thus far at least. We'll see if it lasts.
I had basically the same experience in college. "You're not here to memorize things, you're here to learn how to look them up as needed, and what to do with them when you find them."
Rote memorization may have had more of a place in the past, where looking up information took significant amounts of time, because you'd have to go to reference books to find it, that you may or may not have on hand.
Today things are vastly different, as I have the bulk of human knowledge and information moments away with a quick series of clicks. I do not need to memorize information, so much as I need to be able to know how/where to find it, and what to do with it when I do.
Chinese is actually in an entirely different language family than Japanese. They even have entirely different sentence structure.
The language closest to Japanese is Korean, partly because they use many of the same Chinese loan words, but also because they have the same sentence structure (Subject, Object, Verb), as well as the use of markers to indicate who the subject is or what the object is. In many cases it's very easy to translate directly from one to the other. They both use Chinese numbering as well as their own, and so on. They even use many of the same loan words, and in the same context (for instance, "Arbeit", the German word for work, is used in both Japanese and Korean as the word for "part time job").
They're certainly not mutually intelligible though. It's more on the order of comparing Romance languages, like Spanish to French.
How about not assuming that my machine needs to be able to reboot itself randomly whenever I'm not there to click?
I don't care if you make that the default, but as a power user, I want the ability to change the settings because I know best for my situation, far moreso than some "one size fits all" mandated by Redmond.
In one sense, it's good to be thinking ahead and be imaginative, as many future problems could be more easily avoided with a little foresight that many of our politicians sadly lack.
That said, this really isn't something that is high on my radar as a voter, because we have so many other problems to worry about that are far more immediate and far more important. As a political candidate, you only have so much bandwidth to talk about issues while you have peoples' attention, and thus ought to use it wisely to emphasize issues that are of pressing importance to them. I'm pretty sure that most people aren't worried about a Heinlein-esque scenario at this point.
As an aside, it's sort of fascinating to unpack the way this story spreads, starting with a tweet that gets noticed and turned into a story by a major newspaper, and rebounded among a number of sites, because it's seen as clickworthy (and look at all the attention it's gotten here, just on Slashdot alone). Perhaps this is the takeaway - if you're a politician (or would-be politician), be careful what you tweet about, because you may not have a say in which part gets amplified by the media, and what you wind up commonly known for being about.
Not everything the NSA (or other agencies) do is morally questionable, unless you're somehow of the belief that the entire business of intelligence is so. I spent several years working for NSA/CSS, and I was never asked to do anything remotely questionable. That said, I did not doubt that others were likely pushed to do questionable things in the name of the War on Terror. I liked to think that I would have had the courage to stand up and so no if I had been so asked, though I never was. Should I have quit, on the basis of a hypothetical, knowing that the work I was doing was actively helping save the lives of innocent people?
Why do you think we were so interested in space in the first place, including the moon? Here's a hint - it wasn't because of peaceful science exploration, or even just about propaganda. It was about military advantage, between rocket development (aka ICBMs), satellites, and positioning weapons. Space is the literal "High Ground," and there was a very real fear that the Soviets were going to position nukes or other weapons in orbit, or on the moon, and we considered doing the same. Eventually, everyone involved agreed to sign a treaty banning weapons in space, which ended a lot of the concern.
But that doesn't change the fact that it's possible, and we probably still have planners at the Pentagon looking at the possibility of China or others placing weapons in orbit, whether it be nukes, "rods from god", or something else.
We could also have the government instead open up real competition into the ISP market by mandating local loop unbundling, thus separating the natural monopoly of owning the physical infrastructure from operating an ISP over that infrastructure. If there were minimal barriers to entry (which isn't the case, when even Google runs into problems trying to start one), then we could have enough competition that if Comcast or Verizon start playing favorites with traffic, we just switch. It also helps with other problems, like poor customer service (*cough*Comcast*cough*).
I'm fine with taking the interests of companies' shareholders and such into account, but the public interest in vigorous, real competition, alternative options, and not getting defrauded (among other things) should not be overridden in a mindless quest for "growth" (by which he means "growth of executive bonuses and shareholder dividends").
That depends on the AI I'll be entertaining. I certainly wouldn't mind entertaining a Model 6, Model 8, or a Model 3, for instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hence why I referred to Adam Smith, who argued that the primary role of the government (in terms of the market/corporations) was to ensure that it was competitive, by doing things like breaking up monopolies, preventing cartelization, and so on. The government needs to be enforcing and applying the laws (many of which are already on the books, just not enforced vigorously) to make sure that competition can exist. You can't just sit back and be completely hands off, because history has shown that's liable to lead to shenanigans, either one company leveraging advantages to squeeze competitors out, then exploiting the resulting monopoly or near-monopoly, or collusion, where the small number of players get together and agree to all raise prices or the like.
Think about this: what would happen here if AMD had gone out of business at some point, or had fallen from its spot to not be a viable competitor? Who could really step up to compete? Or consider the other recent story about the mobile market finally moving back to unlimited data, after years of the top two trying to restrict data plans and increase costs. It was only because the weaker player broke ranks to try and woo customers, that eventually forced Verizon/AT&T to reverse course. What if Sprint and T-Mobile had instead elected to play along and raise costs via data restriction? What recourse would we, the consumers have, other than to get the government to step in and restore competition to the market?
And this is really what I'd like to see happen in the broadband market, too. Local Loop unbundling would enable real competition in the ISP market, which would fix the problems we're having regarding (lack of) Net Neutrality, and obviate the need for regulations requiring it.
The answer isn't to abolish corporations. You're right in that corporations who are left completely unchecked will act like the worst sorts of human beings, but that holds true for humans as well - if you leave them completely unchecked, a lot of people will do utterly horrible things too. That's why we invented things like laws, society, moral codes, etc, and more importantly, we enforce those (or we try to).
What we need is to have laws and regulations that are applied to corporations, with the purpose of protecting competition/competitive markets, and that are vigorously enforced. I'm talking about Adam Smith style regulations, mind you, not some right-wing fever dream of government drunk with power regulating every last detail (though areas that are natural monopolies are going to need more stringent regulation, by their very nature). Think instead of Teddy Roosevelt style trust-busting, breaking up cartels and fighting for real competition and alternatives.
And we used to have that, too. The problem is that we grew complacent, and enforcement of those laws has grown lax - mostly because the worst among the corporations have lobbied heavily for it, and their wealthy owners have done the same. Part of the answer is probably to find ways to diminish the influence of money in politics (though I'm not aware of any easy solutions for that), but more realistically, people just need to start paying attention and voting with this in mind.
It certainly couldn't be a typo in the summary. This is Slashdot, after all - that never happens here. ;)
Not at this time, perhaps - but it's worth noting that Bigelow aerospace is owned by a hotel magnate, because he's interested in hotels in space.
And why would you want to stay at a hotel on the moon? Well, besides the view and bragging rights, the swimming pool would be awesome: https://what-if.xkcd.com/124/
If I want to open my own pizzeria, that costs an entirely reasonable amount of money. People open new restaurants all the time, because all you need is a building, some local permits, and the appropriate ovens/etc and ingredients that are all readily available. It's easily doable in the tens of thousands of dollar range - which isn't cheap, but the sort of thing a regular joe could save up for, or get a loan to do.
On the other hand, to start an ISP right now means you need to build physical infrastructure, to every POTENTIAL customer, at costs running easily into the millions of dollars or more, against an entrenched competitor who will do everything in their power to make sure they don't ever have to compete with you, from suing the city over granting permits to you, or trying to get the state legislature to enact lots of laws that make it more expensive for you. Put another way, even Google with their near-bottomless buckets of money has said it's too hard for them. And you expect someone else to do so? That's also before you even turn a single dime of profit, too.
That's not entirely true. Not all human labor is equivalent. Otherwise we'd already have a flatter distribution of pay, because who would want to work as a store clerk when you could get paid as a plastic surgeon?
Now, certainly having more unemployed people is going to create more interest in the remaining positions, but it takes a lot of time and money to do that training. Joe the truck driver needs a lot of education, nevermind practical work experience in the field, before he can reasonably compete for those jobs. And certainly, if every professional truck/taxi/etc driver gets laid off, some of them are going to manage to go back to school and learn to become doctors, programmers, etc. But not all of them - because for most of the lower-skilled workers, if they could go back to school and get a higher paying job, they already would.
The people who are going to get hit hardest are those employed in low-skill positions, because it's much easier to switch to them, thus the competition for whatever is left will be insane.
Yes, because the only thing protecting the consumer is the Government.
Yes, because we have so much robust competition in the ISP market now! We don't need any government intervention, my local monopoly ISP has all my best interests at heart. If they provide poor service or screw me over, I can just switch to - oh, wait, I can't.
By making it less likely that an ISP will be (frivolously) sued for violating the nebulously unclear standard to take "reasonable" measure measures, Trump's government lowers the cost of the legal insurance, which lowers the total cost of doing business. And that's a good thing for both producers and the customers alike.
Of course, because Comcast/Verizon/etc are totally going to pass those savings on to me, the consumer, rather than pad their executives' bonuses or pay more dividends to stockholders.
The problem is that there are presently too many Republicans co-opted by corporate money, and not enough that care more about the principles to call them on it. Part of this is due to the fact that US politics has become more like rooting for your Sports team, and thus all about "beating the other side no matter what." That phenomenon exists on both sides, though I think it's more powerful on the right, since the right tends to value order, authority, and cohesion moreso than the left.
Thus, instead of Republicans arguing that we need to introduce actual competition into the market by advocating policies such as local loop unbundling and removing the current state of affairs where your ISP has a monopoly on provision of services because they own of the local physical transport infrastructure. To make a shorter version of that argument, "more competition will lead to better service via free market principles." This would provide a counterpart to the opposing idea of enforcing network neutrality via federal regulation. We would have debate and compromise, and eventually come up with something that takes the best from both, and that everyone could live with.
It probably doesn't get highlighted in the hiring process. Most people don't brag about that in interviews - the misbehavior comes out later.
In most companies, someone pulls a stunt like any of the ones listed here, and they're quickly smacked down, or fired outright (depending on the incident). Judging by the rumors and reports of incidents at Uber, that wasn't the case there. Instead, HR seems to have been told to ignore and protect "high performers" in a penny-wise/pound-foolish policy that leads to the sort of culture like you see described. What happens is that when people don't get punished for the first few things, they start to realize that the normal limits don't apply, and the bad sorts start pushing the envelope. Eventually you get a workplace culture where all sorts of stuff is tolerated, and you wind up with a toxic work environment.
That's a terrible name for a spaceship. Seriously, "Apple Park"?
They should change it to something better, like "Very Little Gravitas Indeed".
First, you shouldn't be surprised if you get modded Troll for deliberately using a flamebait/trolling example that is wholly unrelated to the topic.
Second, you're deliberately confusing the issue. If I operate a business, and I sell pork products, and you buy a steak from me, you're not paying for pork, no matter how much you scream about marginal costs and fungible funds.
Third, you're creating a strawman argument, because Planned Parenthood does not primarily provide abortion services, attempts to play cute with the numbers aside. At most the number of PP patients who received an abortion was 12% of the total, and that's assuming none had more than 1.
Reference: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...
DHS is the primary government agency responsible for protecting the country's civilian infrastructure, including the internet and computer networks. I feel so much better knowing that they're so good at keeping their own systems secure, that even their own workers can't access them.
Reading the whole post, the author definitely described a lot of sh*tty things that Uber allowed bosses to get away with that had nothing to do with gender, because they were "high performers". The example of secretly altering the employee's review after the fact, to prevent them from transferring out of the group, is a clear example. The guy who was bragging about actively sandbagging his boss to steal his job was another. In a corporate environment like that, once people learn that there's a group for whom the rules don't apply, all bets are off, including sexism and harrassment of all forms.
Why does this happen? Probably because the higher-ups put pressure on HR in a few cases, and stressed that they wanted those people kept/protected at all costs. Probably because the company's legal department wasn't being involved, or being told to ignore it. Eventually the individual bosses in question realize they're not going to be punished for it, and start doing whatever they want. Their peers and others see it, and the problems expand from there.
Yes, let's be clear, because nobody claimed that actual voting machines were hacked. This was merely a strawman/canard thrown out to confuse the issue.
First, why we care that the DNC was being hacked is because that's the exact same thing Watergate was about, except that Watergate was a physical break-in to wiretap the DNC, rather than hacking their emails, but for the same exact purpose - to look for anything that could be released that would make the political opposition look bad. The fact that it was Russian hackers doing it is just another layer on the cake.
Second, I voted for Sanders, but there is ZERO proof the DNC "rigged" anything. The rules for the contest were laid out well in advance, and were pretty much in keeping with the way the rules have always been, and that never changed. That individual DNC staffers favored the long-time party stalwart over a long-time independent who came in just to run? Everyone knew that. That Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tried to set a debate schedule that favored Clinton? We knew that in 2015, and we made a stink about it then, and forced more debates. Not shocking.
In fact, the only accusation I've heard that could even come close is that the DNC vice-chair gave Clinton advance knowledge of a debate question, except that she 1) did so in her CNN contributor capacity (and got fired from it over), 2) it was a blatantly obvious question that anyone should have seen coming (Debate in Flint MI, gee, think they're gonna ask about the water crisis? Duh), and 3) CLINTON FLUBBED THE QUESTION ANYWAY.