That's not the real question to me. To me the real question is "Is he an expert in the field?". This time nobody seems to be saying either yes or no.
FWIW, I think picking the head of a government department by a popularity contest is mindbogglingly stupid, but I can't really think of a better way. The guy needs political support to do his job, but he also needs to understand the job, and the jobs are all different, so a standardized test would be worthless.
The "content companies" being the bad guys doesn't make the pirates the good guys. AFAIKT they're nearly neutral. If their actions harmed the MPAA or the RIAA, then I might consider them good guys.
Aren't water buffalo larger than cows? I rather think that they are, and they are clearly not on their way out.
That said, the "red list" is clearly an underestimate of the threatened animal species. It's more a list of "those in imminent danger this decade". It's really hard to figure out which species are in more distant danger of extinction. This partially depends on how the climate changes, and what unexpected events this causes. Someone above mentioned moose. They don't currently seem to be in danger, but they depend on a certain ecology, IIRC, they are browsers rather than grazers, so they need trees and shrubs they can eat, etc. If a warming climate dries out the territory where they're living and turns it into a grassland, they'll need to migrate, and often it turns out that new migration routes are blocked. That's not likely a "this decade" kind of danger, but it's an "if this goes on..." kind of danger.
A lot of animals would do a lot better if people and fences didn't block their path to a better territory. But unlike most animals, people are even territorial about other species passing through their territory. (There are, of course, good reasons, but that doesn't change the problem.)
Why should I believe even your first claim? If you're going to make claims that seem strange, you really ought to offer at least some evidence.
To start with, if I were to accept that you were American, why should I believe your contention that it's being taken politically? I will agree that you didn't actually assert that it *was* politically motivated, but why should I presume that people are taking it that way? Most of the comments seem to assume economic motives of one sort or another.
You're neglecting that a lot of the control comes from monopolization of information. E.g., if you don't know how profitable the company is, you are at a sever disadvantage when bargaining.
I don't know about the comparison, but many different companies have had stories about paying some of their employees so little that they had to live off some form of welfare. This implies that the problem is something in the design of the system.
That said, some companies definitely appear to be worse. I've already been boycotting Amazon for years for other reasons, but this is an additional one that confirms me in my decision.
While you've got some good points, I think they belong to a different story. E.g., many of the workers talked about (summary didn't say what proportion) are temps, and definitely wouldn't have health care through their employer.
FWIW, I oppose the minimum wage, and instead support the "possibly negative income tax". In the simple form your tax burden is: tax = income * rate - base The base should be set so that if your income is zero, you are paid a "minimum wage". There should be NO exclusions, capital gains, or any other fripperies. Income is all the money you take in from every source, including gifts of food. (That makes it a bit difficult to figure, of course. Perhaps gifts with a value of less than some amount shouldn't be counted.) If they want to pay some business to stimulate their business, do it separately, and keep it out of the tax code. (But payments by the government for any reason, except as a tax refund, are themselves income, and thus taxable.)
1, Political Friends 2. Legal bribery 3. People who believe that big corporations are good 4. Illegal bribery
For over a decade Amazon lost money every year. I never actually heard that they ever became profitable, I just assumed it. So possibly it's being supported by some TLA that wants to track people. That would explain the government subsidy.
Please note: This is a hypothesis, not a theory, not a belief. It's merely an idea that's consistent with all the information I have. Don't start believing it just because I threw it out as a possibility.
I had a card where the chip wouldn't read in some meters. You couldn't tell whether it would or not without trying it. After a bit of hassling they sent me a new card, but it took a couple of weeks. But the thing is, that time it was predictable, after the first trial. No guarantees that the failure mode will always be that considerate.
If you've got a residential road with houses on both sides, what is your proposal for improving the road? Condemn one set of houses so there's room? Double deck the road?
Roads are always designed to accommodate some maximum amount of traffic. When too much traffic is routed through them, it causes problems. When massively too much traffic is routed through them, it causes massive problems.
IIUC, the current road structure of LA is such that buses wouldn't help much. It's designed around individually targeted trips, and the only reasonable bus approach would involve taking the bus into the city center from the origin, and then another bus back out to your destination. This is a much longer trip at a much slower speed, and also involves a transfer at a complex.
The alternative would be a mass transit system that ignores the current road map combined with a bus system that links each transit station to the local destinations. This could be done, but it would be quite expensive, and require lots of maintenance.
Basically the whole city road structure was designed with the assumption that all trips would be made by car. I don't think any easy fix is available. But if I lived on a residential street, I certainly wouldn't want lots of through traffic. It's quite dangerous for pedestrians, and even for bicyclists. Not to mention noisy.
A solution that has worked in some places if to make most streets "not a through street", but with cut-outs of sufficient height that cars can't go over them, but low enough that fire engines have no problem. This still requires enforcement, however, as some people essentially put their cars on stilts, and some of those are into rather reckless driving for residential areas. (If they choose to kill themselves, that's one thing. They don't have the right to include others.) Please note: I'm talking about enforcement of "you can't drive through a 'fire engines and emergency vehicles only' slot unless you are a fire engine or an emergency vehicle". Other traffic laws should also be enforced, but are irrelevant to this point.
You clearly don't understand difficult working conditions. I've worked at several different jobs, and yes, after work I was always tired. That's not the same. I once worked 4 24 hour days as a programmer. (Well, I was in my late 20's, and didn't realize how poorly I was probably performing at the end of it. Walking home the last day I literally fell asleep while crossing the street. Fortunately it was a small quiet street, and nobody drove by.) But that wasn't as draining as the job in that factory warehouse. And the job in the factory warehouse was constant stress rather than constant work. The work wasn't the problem, exactly. If I could have done the same amount of work in four hours (well, maybe five) it would have been a lot easier, but you can't work either faster or slower than the stage ahead of you. (I didn't have a stage behind, as I was loading pallets, but that might have made things worse.)
That's a interesting thought. There was a time when US legislator (I forget whether Senator or Representative) went to prison and continued to hold his office. Would the same be true of a President? It's not the same as impeaching him. Would the Vice-President be allowed to sign and veto bills if the President were in prison? Or would someone need to cart the bill over to the prison for me to sign?
Well, it *has* had an impact in various times and places. But it needs the support, if not participation, of not only most of the populace, but many of those handling the distribution of power. It was effective, over time, in Ireland, India, Union of South Africa, a few other places.
But I'll admit that those were extreme cases. I, personally, boycott Amazon and Walmart for my own well being. I prefer to practice what I believe to be "right livelihood". And no, I'm not a vegan. Perhaps I should be, but I've never wanted to be. I have a sister who's some sort of vegetarian, but I don't know what sort. (Oddly, it's not the sister that's a Buddhist.)
If you're working at a job like that, do you think you'll be *able* to look for another job after work?
I worked at a place much less worse (I don't want to say better) than that during a summer vacation during college, and after a shift I wasn't up for much of anything. I sure couldn't have looked for another job. If you haven't done a job like that, you have no idea how draining it can be.
I don't think the cost figures are correct, but with proper design a solar system should survive a hurricane without problems. OTOH, this wouldn't be a normal roof-top system. I don't know enough about wind power to comment on that, but I believe I've seen designs that were *claimed* to be durable enough to survive hurricanes. I have no idea how efficient they were under low wind conditions.
So your recommendation is to let a bunch of con-men take your last resources on promises they can't deliver on?
It wasn't just cronyism, though that was pretty blatant, but it was also incompetence. They *couldn't* have delivered on their promises, but they could have charged a fortune to try.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the real question to me. To me the real question is "Is he an expert in the field?". This time nobody seems to be saying either yes or no.
FWIW, I think picking the head of a government department by a popularity contest is mindbogglingly stupid, but I can't really think of a better way. The guy needs political support to do his job, but he also needs to understand the job, and the jobs are all different, so a standardized test would be worthless.
The "content companies" being the bad guys doesn't make the pirates the good guys. AFAIKT they're nearly neutral. If their actions harmed the MPAA or the RIAA, then I might consider them good guys.
Aren't water buffalo larger than cows? I rather think that they are, and they are clearly not on their way out.
That said, the "red list" is clearly an underestimate of the threatened animal species. It's more a list of "those in imminent danger this decade". It's really hard to figure out which species are in more distant danger of extinction. This partially depends on how the climate changes, and what unexpected events this causes. Someone above mentioned moose. They don't currently seem to be in danger, but they depend on a certain ecology, IIRC, they are browsers rather than grazers, so they need trees and shrubs they can eat, etc. If a warming climate dries out the territory where they're living and turns it into a grassland, they'll need to migrate, and often it turns out that new migration routes are blocked. That's not likely a "this decade" kind of danger, but it's an "if this goes on..." kind of danger.
A lot of animals would do a lot better if people and fences didn't block their path to a better territory. But unlike most animals, people are even territorial about other species passing through their territory. (There are, of course, good reasons, but that doesn't change the problem.)
Why should I believe even your first claim?
If you're going to make claims that seem strange, you really ought to offer at least some evidence.
To start with, if I were to accept that you were American, why should I believe your contention that it's being taken politically? I will agree that you didn't actually assert that it *was* politically motivated, but why should I presume that people are taking it that way? Most of the comments seem to assume economic motives of one sort or another.
You're neglecting that a lot of the control comes from monopolization of information. E.g., if you don't know how profitable the company is, you are at a sever disadvantage when bargaining.
I don't know about the comparison, but many different companies have had stories about paying some of their employees so little that they had to live off some form of welfare. This implies that the problem is something in the design of the system.
That said, some companies definitely appear to be worse. I've already been boycotting Amazon for years for other reasons, but this is an additional one that confirms me in my decision.
While you've got some good points, I think they belong to a different story. E.g., many of the workers talked about (summary didn't say what proportion) are temps, and definitely wouldn't have health care through their employer.
FWIW, I oppose the minimum wage, and instead support the "possibly negative income tax". In the simple form your tax burden is: tax = income * rate - base
The base should be set so that if your income is zero, you are paid a "minimum wage". There should be NO exclusions, capital gains, or any other fripperies. Income is all the money you take in from every source, including gifts of food. (That makes it a bit difficult to figure, of course. Perhaps gifts with a value of less than some amount shouldn't be counted.) If they want to pay some business to stimulate their business, do it separately, and keep it out of the tax code. (But payments by the government for any reason, except as a tax refund, are themselves income, and thus taxable.)
1, Political Friends
2. Legal bribery
3. People who believe that big corporations are good
4. Illegal bribery
For over a decade Amazon lost money every year. I never actually heard that they ever became profitable, I just assumed it. So possibly it's being supported by some TLA that wants to track people. That would explain the government subsidy.
Please note: This is a hypothesis, not a theory, not a belief. It's merely an idea that's consistent with all the information I have. Don't start believing it just because I threw it out as a possibility.
It's not supply and demand, or only partially that. It's mainly power and control.
Means of production? This is about Amazon. At best you could claim means of distribution.
They also have requirements for identification at point of purchase. I don't know whether those are enforced or not, though.
I had a card where the chip wouldn't read in some meters. You couldn't tell whether it would or not without trying it. After a bit of hassling they sent me a new card, but it took a couple of weeks. But the thing is, that time it was predictable, after the first trial. No guarantees that the failure mode will always be that considerate.
If you've got a residential road with houses on both sides, what is your proposal for improving the road? Condemn one set of houses so there's room? Double deck the road?
Roads are always designed to accommodate some maximum amount of traffic. When too much traffic is routed through them, it causes problems. When massively too much traffic is routed through them, it causes massive problems.
Which is why suing the company might be the appropriate step.
OTOH, in this case I don't know what they've already tried. So perhaps they need to try the lower levels of approach first.
OTOH, often what is done is that the lawyer sends a nastygram to the company saying "change this or be sued". Then the either change it or get sued.
IIUC, the current road structure of LA is such that buses wouldn't help much. It's designed around individually targeted trips, and the only reasonable bus approach would involve taking the bus into the city center from the origin, and then another bus back out to your destination. This is a much longer trip at a much slower speed, and also involves a transfer at a complex.
The alternative would be a mass transit system that ignores the current road map combined with a bus system that links each transit station to the local destinations. This could be done, but it would be quite expensive, and require lots of maintenance.
Basically the whole city road structure was designed with the assumption that all trips would be made by car. I don't think any easy fix is available. But if I lived on a residential street, I certainly wouldn't want lots of through traffic. It's quite dangerous for pedestrians, and even for bicyclists. Not to mention noisy.
A solution that has worked in some places if to make most streets "not a through street", but with cut-outs of sufficient height that cars can't go over them, but low enough that fire engines have no problem. This still requires enforcement, however, as some people essentially put their cars on stilts, and some of those are into rather reckless driving for residential areas. (If they choose to kill themselves, that's one thing. They don't have the right to include others.)
Please note: I'm talking about enforcement of "you can't drive through a 'fire engines and emergency vehicles only' slot unless you are a fire engine or an emergency vehicle". Other traffic laws should also be enforced, but are irrelevant to this point.
You clearly don't understand difficult working conditions. I've worked at several different jobs, and yes, after work I was always tired. That's not the same. I once worked 4 24 hour days as a programmer. (Well, I was in my late 20's, and didn't realize how poorly I was probably performing at the end of it. Walking home the last day I literally fell asleep while crossing the street. Fortunately it was a small quiet street, and nobody drove by.) But that wasn't as draining as the job in that factory warehouse. And the job in the factory warehouse was constant stress rather than constant work. The work wasn't the problem, exactly. If I could have done the same amount of work in four hours (well, maybe five) it would have been a lot easier, but you can't work either faster or slower than the stage ahead of you. (I didn't have a stage behind, as I was loading pallets, but that might have made things worse.)
I did use it, but I didn't catch the slip on first read-through.
would someone need to cart the bill over to the prison for him to sign?
That's a interesting thought. There was a time when US legislator (I forget whether Senator or Representative) went to prison and continued to hold his office. Would the same be true of a President? It's not the same as impeaching him. Would the Vice-President be allowed to sign and veto bills if the President were in prison? Or would someone need to cart the bill over to the prison for me to sign?
Well, it *has* had an impact in various times and places. But it needs the support, if not participation, of not only most of the populace, but many of those handling the distribution of power. It was effective, over time, in Ireland, India, Union of South Africa, a few other places.
But I'll admit that those were extreme cases. I, personally, boycott Amazon and Walmart for my own well being. I prefer to practice what I believe to be "right livelihood". And no, I'm not a vegan. Perhaps I should be, but I've never wanted to be. I have a sister who's some sort of vegetarian, but I don't know what sort. (Oddly, it's not the sister that's a Buddhist.)
If you're working at a job like that, do you think you'll be *able* to look for another job after work?
I worked at a place much less worse (I don't want to say better) than that during a summer vacation during college, and after a shift I wasn't up for much of anything. I sure couldn't have looked for another job. If you haven't done a job like that, you have no idea how draining it can be.
I don't think the cost figures are correct, but with proper design a solar system should survive a hurricane without problems. OTOH, this wouldn't be a normal roof-top system. I don't know enough about wind power to comment on that, but I believe I've seen designs that were *claimed* to be durable enough to survive hurricanes. I have no idea how efficient they were under low wind conditions.
So your recommendation is to let a bunch of con-men take your last resources on promises they can't deliver on?
It wasn't just cronyism, though that was pretty blatant, but it was also incompetence. They *couldn't* have delivered on their promises, but they could have charged a fortune to try.
How about "Hawaii isn't in the normal path of Hurricanes" or "Hawaii doesn't have it's trade with the rest of the world restricted"?
Only if the customers have the money to pay for the product.