You may take these "skills" for granted but they need to be developed. This is one of the invaluable benefits of minimum wage jobs. It's the first rung on the ladder. It's not meant, nor intended to be, a role that one can have to support ones family. It's the f**king MINIMUM.
As a bleeding heart snowflake liberal, this upsets me sure, and it might not upset you. But you're nuts if you think you won't be paying for their care through taxes if they can't live on a minimum wage.
Who said the "science" was settled on the issue of minimum wage?
If you're talking about people who aren't economists, yeah, this just in, sometimes people say things that are wrong. If you're looking at professional economists who aren't regarded as cranks, I'm skeptical you'd find many saying "FACT. MINIMUM WAGE ALWAYS GOOD."
Slashdot, undergoing a fox news regression, likely prefers researchers who do their research and then politely refrain from making anything more than timid suggestions that are convenient for republican politicians to completely ignore. So I expect we'd label Paul Krugman as a "crank" given he (gasp) appears to have opinions and expresses them outside dry journal papers no one reads. So we'll take him as an example of someone who must be screaming absolute faith in minimum wages. Yetthis article was labeled "opinion" at the top, and I can't find anything like the straw man argument you're presenting. The closest I could find
Until the Card-Krueger study, most economists, myself included, assumed that raising the minimum wage would have a clear negative effect on employment. But they found, if anything, a positive effect. Their result has since been confirmed using data from many episodes. There’s just no evidence that raising the minimum wage costs jobs, at least when the starting point is as low as it is in modern America.
Evidence this and evidence that. He doesn't include the usual disclaimer of "more research is needed" that current researchers usually use to indicate the studies are not done and you should still pay them to do more research on the subject. But it's not claiming it as dogma that is proof unto itself.
Could make a better case against high frequency trading. Plus, mining is mostly neutral, just a waste of electricity. HFT on the other hand destabilizes the entire economy and sucks money out from between beneficial investors and companies.
Also, my opinion is that folding@home can find some new drugs like was done with imatinib. To "cure cancer" though would require a new technology, it's not going to be beaten across the baord with rational drug design like you get from solving protein structures. Would be more useful than bitcoin mining, sure, but I think it was misleading to imply folding@home was going to cure cancer.
I want to join in on the far-left wing nuke lover party. "Coal particulates kill more people every year than a Chernobyl would, and nuclear is the only feasible option for making our carbon goals." Bam. That converted me pretty rapidly years ago.
Perhaps OP is making a no-true-scotsman argument, if you're a left-leaning AGW zealot you must by his definition be anti-nuke? IDK, but I think most people on the left aren't really anti-nuclear power.
Perhaps OP is confusing greenpeace and other environmental groups with the majority. Much like some of us on the left tend to conflate the NRA's extremist positions with the broader right wing?
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
In theory, sure, but in reality, that's a conservative world view that seems to be missing from politics in the US at the moment. Could have something to do with the fact that the most powerful voices on the right are the Koch brothers, who own a fossil fuel empire. Could have something to do with the rise of a right wing voter who only seems concerned with opposing liberals. I dunno, but I think it's pretty clear the right wing doesn't have renewable energy as an interest and hasn't in decades.
As I understand it, they just recently added push notifications like "You have an appointment in 10 minutes" or "Your boss just e-mailed you." What's the point of a digital assistant if it can't notify you of stuff? So I guess they are updating it, but they left out so many obvious features.
1. Is google going to randomly kill it off
2. Why can't it do e-books yet
3. Why isn't this on desktop computers yet?
4. Where's the cheap competitor for the dot?
You're right, but they're generally closer to the middle east than Japan is. Also we're comparing/contrasting Japan and the US. The US DOES have military bases as well as directly opposing islamic militants Japan does not, that is why Japan is not attacked and we are. Not, as GP suggested, because they are xenophobes.
I wouldn't put it past ISIL and al qaeda to be upset about fighting pirates, sure. But the fact remains, Japan is not a target for Muslim extremism because they're not interfering in Islamic countries. The US is a target because we are.
And it doesn't matter what you and the peanut gallery thinks. It matters what the law says.
On a discussion board? It doesn't? Well good to know, lets shut it down slashdot. All we need is a simple posting of all the laws and that's all.
FFS, this is not the supreme court right here.
The travel ban does not excluded just Muslims, it excludes all people from certain countries. I find the term "mostly Muslim" countries to be not amusing or convincing.
Trump and company outright called it a Muslim ban. The original draft of the ban excepted Christians but oddly not Muslims. The right wing can't chant "ban Muslims ban Muslims ban Muslims" and then expect the rest of us to pretend they're not trying to ban Muslims.
You're insane if you think terrorist organizations in one country can only affect us if we allow travel directly. Plus, zero of the 9/11 attackers came from countries that are the subject of the ban.
2. We don't have to even have a debate about indefinite detention or torture.
... what?
3. We have less of a reason to worry about who is talking to who.
I... what?
Japan effectively blocks immigration and most travel from Islamic countries. Maybe you think that's wrong, but at the same time, Japan has never had to have some of the post-9/11 debates we've had that have warped our national morals and values.
Japan is also very comfortable with openly discriminating against foreigners, unlike the US. To their credit, they're fairly universal about it, they don't care if you're from a Muslim country, the US, Europe, Africa, or the next Asian island over, they still don't want you there.
Additionally, last time I checked, Japan has zero military bases in Muslim countries. Which, if you recall, was a major reason the US was attacked on 9/11. Japan evidently sent a token force to Iraq after 9/11 of 600 soldiers to Iraq for two years or so. I'm sure after toppling the US, Europe, Russia, and China, the islamic extremist leaders plan on punishing Japan, but it's obviously not a high priority. Japan doesn't care much about the middle east and the feeling is mutual. That's not something the US could emulate.
Not really. It only applies to people trying to come into the US. They're not trying to claim there's a ban on Muslims traveling from other parts of the world to other parts of the world.
Isn't the issue whether or not he's establishing a national religion by targeting the ban at Muslims? Wouldn't the establishment clause be held higher than that law?
"It's not a religion ban" blah blah blah, not amusing or convincing, everyone knows what this is.
Don't worry, says right in the summary that the tickets will be reissued. The company that bribed the officials who let them put in the cameras (with steak dinners maybe) will likely be breathing down the necks of the officials until they get them reissued. Then the taxpayers will be on the hook for the costs of upgrading the systems to windows 10. And the red light cam company will use it somehow to justify lowering yellow light times.
No no, see the free market will work, customers will simply take their business elsewhere! They'll choose one of the health insurance providers that keeps their data secure!
The healing energy stuff is pure unadulterated bullshit. As a yoga / dancing around in pj thing for physical exercise, I'm sure it's nearly as effective as walking, sorry if I insulted your favorite breathing hobby.
I don't know about the diets they extol, or any other homeopathic remedies they might have,
It's in the summary, so you should. And it is clearly bullshit on the order of anti-vax conspiracy theories or "foodbabe" bullshit. Because why stick to one type of bullshit if you're already a professional bullshitter?
Just ask anyone who could barely walk into the Chiropractor's office, and walk out pain-free with a smile....I know people who've been really happy after their "adjustments."
Good, but that's anecdotal like you can easily find for qigong or crystals. Actual evidence suggests very slight help for a small number of problems. If the people who were barely walking in had chronic lower back pain and were happy and pain free afterward, it was in their head, and they'd be better off doing core exercises probably.
Did you miss the backlash against the fake news? I'm saying news has always been biased, and should never have been taken as unquestionable fact, yet people did. That there were a lot of idiots who took it seriously has remained unchanged. In the cold war, the news preached that communism was evil and needed to be opposed worldwide and the idiots didn't question it. That's not exactly "fake news" but I don't see any clear differences in effects.
You're making a lot of moronic assumptions there, but in that hypothetical situation, yes. Do you want society to evaluate whether or not you've made good choices before they pay your medical bills? Because that would be bad, but "you're poor so fuck you" is worse than even that situation, and it's what we have now.
I found there's plenty of places that serve food just as fast and cheap and are both healthier for you and taste better.
Speed, price, and health are three big concerns with food. McDonalds is what it is because it's been relentless in improving two of those. You're suggesting there are restaurants out there that do better than McDonalds at one of those factors? Of course, that's a given. Two of those factors? There are probably some. All three? Gonna need some proof and an explanation why those restaurants you speak of aren't eating McD's lunch worldwide.
I agree, however it would demolish all three branches of our government at all levels for a while if we opened it up to that too. If we didn't subject the government to it as well, what would be the point? We'd be able to knock down some insignificant celebrities... that's about it...
Given the prequels, "a solid movie with few surprises" would be an improvement. It's star wars, not some arthouse film.
Also, how many surprises are possible? Spolier alerts: we know Lando, Han, the millennium falcon, and chewie are going to live through whatever happens in the movie unless his goth son shows up. At least we're pretty sure. I'd be interested to see a movie where they unexpectedly die before the events of the original trilogy, sure, but not in a good way.
Also, I know I'll probably lose some of my hard-earned cool indie movie cred here on slashdot by saying this but I enjoyed the two recent Disney star wars far better than the other films. Even the original trilogy! They're grandfathered in! They are considered important films because of the historical context there, not because "I got a bad feeling about this" is really quality dialogue.
Finally and more specifically, the previous directors on the film left. The alternative isn't a movie that could turn out to be solid gold under a riskier director, the alternatives are no movie or an absolute train wreck of a movie.
Slashdot Mirror
You may take these "skills" for granted but they need to be developed. This is one of the invaluable benefits of minimum wage jobs. It's the first rung on the ladder. It's not meant, nor intended to be, a role that one can have to support ones family. It's the f**king MINIMUM.
I don't know who decided it's "meant" to be a stepping stone to real jobs, but a good number of people in the parenting age do appear to be stuck there. They're going to be a drain on the system when they're too old to work but can't retire. Their kids aren't getting an equal start either.
As a bleeding heart snowflake liberal, this upsets me sure, and it might not upset you. But you're nuts if you think you won't be paying for their care through taxes if they can't live on a minimum wage.
If you're talking about people who aren't economists, yeah, this just in, sometimes people say things that are wrong. If you're looking at professional economists who aren't regarded as cranks, I'm skeptical you'd find many saying "FACT. MINIMUM WAGE ALWAYS GOOD."
Slashdot, undergoing a fox news regression, likely prefers researchers who do their research and then politely refrain from making anything more than timid suggestions that are convenient for republican politicians to completely ignore. So I expect we'd label Paul Krugman as a "crank" given he (gasp) appears to have opinions and expresses them outside dry journal papers no one reads. So we'll take him as an example of someone who must be screaming absolute faith in minimum wages. Yetthis article was labeled "opinion" at the top, and I can't find anything like the straw man argument you're presenting. The closest I could find
Until the Card-Krueger study, most economists, myself included, assumed that raising the minimum wage would have a clear negative effect on employment. But they found, if anything, a positive effect. Their result has since been confirmed using data from many episodes. There’s just no evidence that raising the minimum wage costs jobs, at least when the starting point is as low as it is in modern America.
Evidence this and evidence that. He doesn't include the usual disclaimer of "more research is needed" that current researchers usually use to indicate the studies are not done and you should still pay them to do more research on the subject. But it's not claiming it as dogma that is proof unto itself.
So... who said it's settled?
Could make a better case against high frequency trading. Plus, mining is mostly neutral, just a waste of electricity. HFT on the other hand destabilizes the entire economy and sucks money out from between beneficial investors and companies.
Also, my opinion is that folding@home can find some new drugs like was done with imatinib. To "cure cancer" though would require a new technology, it's not going to be beaten across the baord with rational drug design like you get from solving protein structures. Would be more useful than bitcoin mining, sure, but I think it was misleading to imply folding@home was going to cure cancer.
I want to join in on the far-left wing nuke lover party. "Coal particulates kill more people every year than a Chernobyl would, and nuclear is the only feasible option for making our carbon goals." Bam. That converted me pretty rapidly years ago.
Perhaps OP is making a no-true-scotsman argument, if you're a left-leaning AGW zealot you must by his definition be anti-nuke? IDK, but I think most people on the left aren't really anti-nuclear power.
Perhaps OP is confusing greenpeace and other environmental groups with the majority. Much like some of us on the left tend to conflate the NRA's extremist positions with the broader right wing?
Why do you have to be 'left' to support renewable energy? Renewable energy gives back control of your energy sources and localises them. This fully compatible with a conservative world view.
In theory, sure, but in reality, that's a conservative world view that seems to be missing from politics in the US at the moment. Could have something to do with the fact that the most powerful voices on the right are the Koch brothers, who own a fossil fuel empire. Could have something to do with the rise of a right wing voter who only seems concerned with opposing liberals. I dunno, but I think it's pretty clear the right wing doesn't have renewable energy as an interest and hasn't in decades.
Sure, no one is saying the free market just works better in the US than Europe. Probably works worse. We just BELIEVE in it more.
As I understand it, they just recently added push notifications like "You have an appointment in 10 minutes" or "Your boss just e-mailed you." What's the point of a digital assistant if it can't notify you of stuff? So I guess they are updating it, but they left out so many obvious features.
1. Is google going to randomly kill it off
2. Why can't it do e-books yet
3. Why isn't this on desktop computers yet?
4. Where's the cheap competitor for the dot?
You're right, but they're generally closer to the middle east than Japan is. Also we're comparing/contrasting Japan and the US. The US DOES have military bases as well as directly opposing islamic militants Japan does not, that is why Japan is not attacked and we are. Not, as GP suggested, because they are xenophobes.
I wouldn't put it past ISIL and al qaeda to be upset about fighting pirates, sure. But the fact remains, Japan is not a target for Muslim extremism because they're not interfering in Islamic countries. The US is a target because we are.
And it doesn't matter what you and the peanut gallery thinks. It matters what the law says.
On a discussion board? It doesn't? Well good to know, lets shut it down slashdot. All we need is a simple posting of all the laws and that's all.
FFS, this is not the supreme court right here.
The travel ban does not excluded just Muslims, it excludes all people from certain countries. I find the term "mostly Muslim" countries to be not amusing or convincing.
Trump and company outright called it a Muslim ban. The original draft of the ban excepted Christians but oddly not Muslims. The right wing can't chant "ban Muslims ban Muslims ban Muslims" and then expect the rest of us to pretend they're not trying to ban Muslims.
1. We don't have to surveil them.
You're insane if you think terrorist organizations in one country can only affect us if we allow travel directly. Plus, zero of the 9/11 attackers came from countries that are the subject of the ban.
2. We don't have to even have a debate about indefinite detention or torture.
... what?
3. We have less of a reason to worry about who is talking to who.
I... what?
Japan effectively blocks immigration and most travel from Islamic countries. Maybe you think that's wrong, but at the same time, Japan has never had to have some of the post-9/11 debates we've had that have warped our national morals and values.
Japan is also very comfortable with openly discriminating against foreigners, unlike the US. To their credit, they're fairly universal about it, they don't care if you're from a Muslim country, the US, Europe, Africa, or the next Asian island over, they still don't want you there.
Additionally, last time I checked, Japan has zero military bases in Muslim countries. Which, if you recall, was a major reason the US was attacked on 9/11. Japan evidently sent a token force to Iraq after 9/11 of 600 soldiers to Iraq for two years or so. I'm sure after toppling the US, Europe, Russia, and China, the islamic extremist leaders plan on punishing Japan, but it's obviously not a high priority. Japan doesn't care much about the middle east and the feeling is mutual. That's not something the US could emulate.
Not really. It only applies to people trying to come into the US. They're not trying to claim there's a ban on Muslims traveling from other parts of the world to other parts of the world.
Isn't the issue whether or not he's establishing a national religion by targeting the ban at Muslims? Wouldn't the establishment clause be held higher than that law?
"It's not a religion ban" blah blah blah, not amusing or convincing, everyone knows what this is.
Don't worry, says right in the summary that the tickets will be reissued. The company that bribed the officials who let them put in the cameras (with steak dinners maybe) will likely be breathing down the necks of the officials until they get them reissued. Then the taxpayers will be on the hook for the costs of upgrading the systems to windows 10. And the red light cam company will use it somehow to justify lowering yellow light times.
No no, see the free market will work, customers will simply take their business elsewhere! They'll choose one of the health insurance providers that keeps their data secure!
(this is sarcasm)
The healing energy stuff is pure unadulterated bullshit. As a yoga / dancing around in pj thing for physical exercise, I'm sure it's nearly as effective as walking, sorry if I insulted your favorite breathing hobby.
I don't know about the diets they extol, or any other homeopathic remedies they might have,
It's in the summary, so you should. And it is clearly bullshit on the order of anti-vax conspiracy theories or "foodbabe" bullshit. Because why stick to one type of bullshit if you're already a professional bullshitter?
Just ask anyone who could barely walk into the Chiropractor's office, and walk out pain-free with a smile....I know people who've been really happy after their "adjustments."
Good, but that's anecdotal like you can easily find for qigong or crystals. Actual evidence suggests very slight help for a small number of problems. If the people who were barely walking in had chronic lower back pain and were happy and pain free afterward, it was in their head, and they'd be better off doing core exercises probably.
Did you miss the backlash against the fake news? I'm saying news has always been biased, and should never have been taken as unquestionable fact, yet people did. That there were a lot of idiots who took it seriously has remained unchanged. In the cold war, the news preached that communism was evil and needed to be opposed worldwide and the idiots didn't question it. That's not exactly "fake news" but I don't see any clear differences in effects.
One work of fiction is more realistic than another work of fiction...
... okay? And that proves what?
You're making a lot of moronic assumptions there, but in that hypothetical situation, yes. Do you want society to evaluate whether or not you've made good choices before they pay your medical bills? Because that would be bad, but "you're poor so fuck you" is worse than even that situation, and it's what we have now.
Being smart, dumb, rich, or poor has fuck all to do with this type of delusional nonsense.
Example one
Example two
I found there's plenty of places that serve food just as fast and cheap and are both healthier for you and taste better.
Speed, price, and health are three big concerns with food. McDonalds is what it is because it's been relentless in improving two of those. You're suggesting there are restaurants out there that do better than McDonalds at one of those factors? Of course, that's a given. Two of those factors? There are probably some. All three? Gonna need some proof and an explanation why those restaurants you speak of aren't eating McD's lunch worldwide.
I agree, however it would demolish all three branches of our government at all levels for a while if we opened it up to that too. If we didn't subject the government to it as well, what would be the point? We'd be able to knock down some insignificant celebrities... that's about it...
You're ignoring the history of star wars movies.
Given the prequels, "a solid movie with few surprises" would be an improvement. It's star wars, not some arthouse film.
Also, how many surprises are possible? Spolier alerts: we know Lando, Han, the millennium falcon, and chewie are going to live through whatever happens in the movie unless his goth son shows up. At least we're pretty sure. I'd be interested to see a movie where they unexpectedly die before the events of the original trilogy, sure, but not in a good way.
Also, I know I'll probably lose some of my hard-earned cool indie movie cred here on slashdot by saying this but I enjoyed the two recent Disney star wars far better than the other films. Even the original trilogy! They're grandfathered in! They are considered important films because of the historical context there, not because "I got a bad feeling about this" is really quality dialogue.
Finally and more specifically, the previous directors on the film left. The alternative isn't a movie that could turn out to be solid gold under a riskier director, the alternatives are no movie or an absolute train wreck of a movie.