If you're getting struck by cars, you're not doing your job right. Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way - though requesting that they stay for the police to question was reasonable. I would attempt to not be confrontational.
While that is a fair point... Considering that both the people and the vehicle were marked as press and the security guards knew who they were, tells me that you also wouldn't expect such a thing.
I know that I would not expect reporters from the local newspaper with press-badges and a press-marked vehicle to assault me.
I worked for a large financial services firm a decade ago. At our purpose-built data centre we had anti tank guards, electric fences, remotely deployed spikes on the roads, and pressure sensors in the footpath to track movement.
The irony is that some people will read this and think you're making it up...
But I know you're not...
Nearly 20 years ago I was invited by a friend to come to his office, he worked on the 10th or so floor of an office building, while there he asked his boss if he could take me downstairs.
I wasn't sure what that meant, but he assured me it was pretty cool. In the basement, they had a massive data storage facility that I was told stored every detail of every bill and customer record of the company for the past 2 decades (this was a large Fortune 500 company).
It was secured behind a large walk through steel vault door that looked like it belonged in Wargames, on either side of the door were two armed guards with M-16 rifles in body armor. (in fairness, they probably were AR-15s, but whatever).
I had to sign a form that indicated I was not to take pictures or touch anything, they photographed me and copied my ID and warned me that I would be watched and if I touched anything, I'd be detained and searched.
They were not smiling when they said it either, but it was a massive underground computer and records room that was pretty cool, if not nearly as neat looking as the movies make such things out to be.
Prius isn't a plug in EV, and those older batteries don't hold a charge the way they once did, and vehicles twice their age are still driving with the original engine, so you frankly have no data to back up that statement.
You mean the RECONDITIONING or RECYCLING. And yes, they ARE green activities.
You keep thinking that... It is greener than throwing them out, but it isn't green.
I assume you were already treating them well. Well enough that they chose to work for you, at the wages you were paying. Weren't you? If suddenly the cost of an employee dropped by $5/hr each, there is no incentive to give that to the employee and not return it to the stockholders or investors.
Sure there is, because someone would do it, raising wages for all. It becomes a competitive environment.
Min wage is already irreverent for most companies, few places still actually pay it. I haven't paid it for more than 10 years. In fact, my current lowest paid employee is $12/hr, and that is for part-time seasonal work. I pay entry level starting employees $15/hr, and I get my pick of the better ones for that price.
Obviously Wal-mart does not need a million more applications for the jobs they have, or they'd be paying more in an attempt at attracting them. If you can't get the employees you need at the current rate of pay, that is incentive to raise the rate of pay.
While true, the question becomes, what kind of world do we wish to live in? Henry Ford had the right idea, if your employees can't afford to be your customers, then you have a problem.
Do we really want the majority of the capital held by very few people with everyone else a virtual slave to that capital?
People are fickle, and buying goodwill is a losing proposition in the long run.
I hope you're wrong, because with that worldview you have no incentive to do the right thing.
If people or companies can't change and become better to earn your goodwill back, then why bother changing?
What incentive does McDonalds have to make better food if you won't give them another try?
That is, the Phaser you mention does not exist today in real world.
No, it doesn't... but my point is that if we invent it, at some point in the future, the question becomes, why would a police officer EVER use lethal force?
If non-lethal force is ever an option, why should the cops be allowed to kill anyone?
You keep thinking that... I have a CPA prepare my taxes, this is a normal and customary way of doing business and it stands up to IRS audit all the time.
This is because I don't try and deduct 100% of anything that has cross purposes. Anyone claiming 100% business use of their only vehicle is kidding themselves.
Which is why I don't try. I also don't take ANY home office deduction, because you have to use that space ONLY for business. But I don't, my computer area at home is work and pleasure, so I don't claim it.
I make it a point to stick to the letter of the law, I just use every legally allowed option to save me on taxes.
Good business is understanding that your employees are part of your stakeholders, even if they don't own shares in the company.
Look at CostCo, they pay better than most retailers and have one of the lowest employee turnovers in the business.
They don't have to do it, they do it because they know that treating employees well is good business.
You can't run a company of any size beyond yourself without employees, so treat them well and they will return the favor.
---
Let me give you an example... If Walmart tomorrow decided to raise the base pay there to $15/hr, two things would happen.
A whole lot of people would suddenly have a different view of Walmart, and they'd get a million applications the next day.
They would be able to hire and retain good employees who care about the company and their corporate imagine would instantly improve by a mile.
I used to shop at Walmart, but I've moved most of that away because I don't like the way they run their business. I'd go back if they did the above. And keep in mind, I'm a dyed in the wool right wing conservative. But just being a Republican doesn't make me a heartless jerk (yes, I know, some of the people are, but don't paint us all that way).
Yes, but rice is pretty easy to divide up and sell, it is a commodity.
Other rents are paid that way, oil being another example... Many oil leases are paid in oil rather than dollars, to allow rent to float with the price of oil.
It is up to the lease owner to sell the oil or do whatever they want with it.
They ARE doing something about the environment that you're not.
Are they? Really?
Add up the total end to end costs...
The vehicle costs more (requiring more capital, more earned income, which uses more of Earth's resources), the batteries are NOT clean to make, and the power has to come from somewhere, which largely is NOT solar/wind/hydro, not on a percentage basis.
Then in 5-8 years the batteries will need to be replaced, causing another environmental impact not present in a gas car (which shouldn't need an engine replacement in its lifetime.)
So on a total end-to-end environmental basis, I'm not convinced EVs are that much cleaner than gas cars. They might be, a bit, but not as much as is claimed.
I think the point of TFA is that facebook hid most of its profits by accounting magic rather than distribute them to employees. The figure for employee bonuses is presented to highlight the scale of profits facebook should have been making.
Hid?
How much money did Facebook Ireland or Facebook Cayman Islands make?
You realize that tax will still be paid, whether by you-the-corporation or you-the-individual. (Ultimately by you-the-individual, unless you keep the corporate profits in the bank forever and never take them as salary to you-the-person.)
Ahh, another person who doesn't understand the beauty of this system.
The company pays for my truck, it is a business expense. I reimburse the company for "personal use" of the vehicle, but it is not nearly as much as I'd pay in tax on the money.
The company pays for my cell phone, my internet connection, and 50% of my "meals and entertainment", since those are business expenses many times.
Those are "business expenses", so they are paid for with pre-tax dollars. Neither the company nor myself ever pays a dime of tax on them.
Is that a bit of a messed up system? Yes, actually I'd agree with you. But it is the system we have to work with. Don't like it? Change the system.
If you mean the company takes their NI commitment into account when deciding what to pay people then yes I agree.
This...
Every expense to a company that is tied to an employee, is money that comes out of the employee's pocket.
When I pay someone $15/hr, their real cost to me is about $20/hr, give or take.
When I budget for them, I'm really budgeting $20/hr. If they aren't worth $20/hr, I don't hire them. If I could, I'd give the whole $20/hr to the employee, but the government takes about 1/4 of it, and that is before they take part of the $15 as well directly from the employee.
So the employee might net $12/hr at the end of the day, after FICA and income tax, while it cost me $20/hr to have them, making the true tax cost MUCH higher than is obvious to most people.
There will likely come a time when directed energy weapons will replace guns.
A smart weapon that can detect what it is shooting at and adjust the power level as needed to stop, but not kill, would be a very valueable tool to have.
It could do everything from disable a car to stop a fleeing person, be it a 300lb body builder or a 10 year old child. All without killing them.
We may or may not see it in our lifetime, but I have a hard time with the word "never" when it comes to technology. That "never" has been broken too many times.
That kind of a culture needs to be stopped and reversed. If you feel that the government is not treating you fairly that is fine - the government screws everyone ove time. The response to that shouldn't be violence, though. Peaceful speech, peaceful protest, elect and support people who will help bring about the change you think is necessary.
99.9% of the time I'd agree with you...
But the American Revolution would like a word with you about the other 0.1% of the time...
The FIRST response shouldn't be violence. Heck, the second, third, and 100th shouldn't be either. But there comes a point where it is all that is going to work.
Amen... Just because someone doesn't want to go to jail or feels they are being treated unfairly doesn't mean the cop should instantly pull out a taser or gun and escalate the situation.
Point: Would a 15 year old kid who just stole a candy bar from a store, stopped by the police, but who panicked and ran, deserve a tasering?
I hope everyone's answer would be "no".
If we assume that the answer to that is "no". then you have to remove it as the "automatic" option. Clearly someone in the process of a serious crime should be stopped, with force if need be, but that is the other extreme.
You are 100% correct... Too many times police have what is called "contempt of cop" syndrome. Anyone who doesn't comply to their demands is just spitting in their face, from their point of view, and needs to be "taught a lesson".
Slashdot Mirror
If you're getting struck by cars, you're not doing your job right. Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way - though requesting that they stay for the police to question was reasonable. I would attempt to not be confrontational.
While that is a fair point... Considering that both the people and the vehicle were marked as press and the security guards knew who they were, tells me that you also wouldn't expect such a thing.
I know that I would not expect reporters from the local newspaper with press-badges and a press-marked vehicle to assault me.
I worked for a large financial services firm a decade ago. At our purpose-built data centre we had anti tank guards, electric fences, remotely deployed spikes on the roads, and pressure sensors in the footpath to track movement.
The irony is that some people will read this and think you're making it up...
But I know you're not...
Nearly 20 years ago I was invited by a friend to come to his office, he worked on the 10th or so floor of an office building, while there he asked his boss if he could take me downstairs.
I wasn't sure what that meant, but he assured me it was pretty cool. In the basement, they had a massive data storage facility that I was told stored every detail of every bill and customer record of the company for the past 2 decades (this was a large Fortune 500 company).
It was secured behind a large walk through steel vault door that looked like it belonged in Wargames, on either side of the door were two armed guards with M-16 rifles in body armor. (in fairness, they probably were AR-15s, but whatever).
I had to sign a form that indicated I was not to take pictures or touch anything, they photographed me and copied my ID and warned me that I would be watched and if I touched anything, I'd be detained and searched.
They were not smiling when they said it either, but it was a massive underground computer and records room that was pretty cool, if not nearly as neat looking as the movies make such things out to be.
They might be...
Sadly, most houses have lots of roof and little land... sure, exceptions exist, but not very many of them...
Today, yes it is...
In the future, it should be easy peasy...
Flying used to be hard, today is it easy... time moves on...
You're wrong, as Prius batteries already do.
Prius isn't a plug in EV, and those older batteries don't hold a charge the way they once did, and vehicles twice their age are still driving with the original engine, so you frankly have no data to back up that statement.
You mean the RECONDITIONING or RECYCLING. And yes, they ARE green activities.
You keep thinking that... It is greener than throwing them out, but it isn't green.
I assume you were already treating them well. Well enough that they chose to work for you, at the wages you were paying. Weren't you? If suddenly the cost of an employee dropped by $5/hr each, there is no incentive to give that to the employee and not return it to the stockholders or investors.
Sure there is, because someone would do it, raising wages for all. It becomes a competitive environment.
Min wage is already irreverent for most companies, few places still actually pay it. I haven't paid it for more than 10 years. In fact, my current lowest paid employee is $12/hr, and that is for part-time seasonal work. I pay entry level starting employees $15/hr, and I get my pick of the better ones for that price.
Obviously Wal-mart does not need a million more applications for the jobs they have, or they'd be paying more in an attempt at attracting them. If you can't get the employees you need at the current rate of pay, that is incentive to raise the rate of pay.
While true, the question becomes, what kind of world do we wish to live in? Henry Ford had the right idea, if your employees can't afford to be your customers, then you have a problem.
Do we really want the majority of the capital held by very few people with everyone else a virtual slave to that capital?
People are fickle, and buying goodwill is a losing proposition in the long run.
I hope you're wrong, because with that worldview you have no incentive to do the right thing.
If people or companies can't change and become better to earn your goodwill back, then why bother changing?
What incentive does McDonalds have to make better food if you won't give them another try?
I'm strangely ok with that...
Can I have a copy?
No one wants to carry something of unproven technology with unknown reliability when it could be a matter of life-and-death that it functions.
They aren't going to, the day after they are invented... but time and technology marches on and both concerns would be addressed at some point.
Yes.
Fuck him, and fuck those who taught the kid that behavior.
I feel very sorry for you...
That is, the Phaser you mention does not exist today in real world.
No, it doesn't... but my point is that if we invent it, at some point in the future, the question becomes, why would a police officer EVER use lethal force?
If non-lethal force is ever an option, why should the cops be allowed to kill anyone?
That was my point.
You keep thinking that... I have a CPA prepare my taxes, this is a normal and customary way of doing business and it stands up to IRS audit all the time.
This is because I don't try and deduct 100% of anything that has cross purposes. Anyone claiming 100% business use of their only vehicle is kidding themselves.
Which is why I don't try. I also don't take ANY home office deduction, because you have to use that space ONLY for business. But I don't, my computer area at home is work and pleasure, so I don't claim it.
I make it a point to stick to the letter of the law, I just use every legally allowed option to save me on taxes.
What they hell do you expect?
That the police not TASER a child over a candy bar... that is what I expect...
Yes, they should chase them down, find their parents, and give them the "fear of God" speech...
That's not cynical, that's good business.
Good business is understanding that your employees are part of your stakeholders, even if they don't own shares in the company.
Look at CostCo, they pay better than most retailers and have one of the lowest employee turnovers in the business.
They don't have to do it, they do it because they know that treating employees well is good business.
You can't run a company of any size beyond yourself without employees, so treat them well and they will return the favor.
---
Let me give you an example... If Walmart tomorrow decided to raise the base pay there to $15/hr, two things would happen.
A whole lot of people would suddenly have a different view of Walmart, and they'd get a million applications the next day.
They would be able to hire and retain good employees who care about the company and their corporate imagine would instantly improve by a mile.
I used to shop at Walmart, but I've moved most of that away because I don't like the way they run their business. I'd go back if they did the above. And keep in mind, I'm a dyed in the wool right wing conservative. But just being a Republican doesn't make me a heartless jerk (yes, I know, some of the people are, but don't paint us all that way).
You're welcome to brush the comment under the rug, but it doesn't make it any less of a valid point.
The batteries will not in fact last as long as the gas engine will in a normal car.
The replacement of that battery is not a green event.
The production of the power to drive the car is not green either.
Yes, but rice is pretty easy to divide up and sell, it is a commodity.
Other rents are paid that way, oil being another example... Many oil leases are paid in oil rather than dollars, to allow rent to float with the price of oil.
It is up to the lease owner to sell the oil or do whatever they want with it.
They ARE doing something about the environment that you're not.
Are they? Really?
Add up the total end to end costs...
The vehicle costs more (requiring more capital, more earned income, which uses more of Earth's resources), the batteries are NOT clean to make, and the power has to come from somewhere, which largely is NOT solar/wind/hydro, not on a percentage basis.
Then in 5-8 years the batteries will need to be replaced, causing another environmental impact not present in a gas car (which shouldn't need an engine replacement in its lifetime.)
So on a total end-to-end environmental basis, I'm not convinced EVs are that much cleaner than gas cars. They might be, a bit, but not as much as is claimed.
I think the point of TFA is that facebook hid most of its profits by accounting magic rather than distribute them to employees. The figure for employee bonuses is presented to highlight the scale of profits facebook should have been making.
Hid?
How much money did Facebook Ireland or Facebook Cayman Islands make?
You might find it there.
You realize that tax will still be paid, whether by you-the-corporation or you-the-individual. (Ultimately by you-the-individual, unless you keep the corporate profits in the bank forever and never take them as salary to you-the-person.)
Ahh, another person who doesn't understand the beauty of this system.
The company pays for my truck, it is a business expense. I reimburse the company for "personal use" of the vehicle, but it is not nearly as much as I'd pay in tax on the money.
The company pays for my cell phone, my internet connection, and 50% of my "meals and entertainment", since those are business expenses many times.
Those are "business expenses", so they are paid for with pre-tax dollars. Neither the company nor myself ever pays a dime of tax on them.
Is that a bit of a messed up system? Yes, actually I'd agree with you. But it is the system we have to work with. Don't like it? Change the system.
They're either lying to HMRC or they're lying to their investors!
Neither... FB exists as a company outside of the UK, so you're only looking at a small slice of it...
If you mean the company takes their NI commitment into account when deciding what to pay people then yes I agree.
This...
Every expense to a company that is tied to an employee, is money that comes out of the employee's pocket.
When I pay someone $15/hr, their real cost to me is about $20/hr, give or take.
When I budget for them, I'm really budgeting $20/hr. If they aren't worth $20/hr, I don't hire them. If I could, I'd give the whole $20/hr to the employee, but the government takes about 1/4 of it, and that is before they take part of the $15 as well directly from the employee.
So the employee might net $12/hr at the end of the day, after FICA and income tax, while it cost me $20/hr to have them, making the true tax cost MUCH higher than is obvious to most people.
There will likely come a time when directed energy weapons will replace guns.
A smart weapon that can detect what it is shooting at and adjust the power level as needed to stop, but not kill, would be a very valueable tool to have.
It could do everything from disable a car to stop a fleeing person, be it a 300lb body builder or a 10 year old child. All without killing them.
We may or may not see it in our lifetime, but I have a hard time with the word "never" when it comes to technology. That "never" has been broken too many times.
That kind of a culture needs to be stopped and reversed. If you feel that the government is not treating you fairly that is fine - the government screws everyone ove time. The response to that shouldn't be violence, though. Peaceful speech, peaceful protest, elect and support people who will help bring about the change you think is necessary.
99.9% of the time I'd agree with you...
But the American Revolution would like a word with you about the other 0.1% of the time...
The FIRST response shouldn't be violence. Heck, the second, third, and 100th shouldn't be either. But there comes a point where it is all that is going to work.
Sad to say.
Picture that instead of a taser, the police officer has a Star Trek type Phaser.
Why would he use a gun, and why would he ever use the "lethal setting" on the Phaser?
If you can just stun the person who has a gun, do that. Why ever kill them?
Amen... Just because someone doesn't want to go to jail or feels they are being treated unfairly doesn't mean the cop should instantly pull out a taser or gun and escalate the situation.
Point: Would a 15 year old kid who just stole a candy bar from a store, stopped by the police, but who panicked and ran, deserve a tasering?
I hope everyone's answer would be "no".
If we assume that the answer to that is "no". then you have to remove it as the "automatic" option. Clearly someone in the process of a serious crime should be stopped, with force if need be, but that is the other extreme.
Where do you draw the line?
You are 100% correct... Too many times police have what is called "contempt of cop" syndrome. Anyone who doesn't comply to their demands is just spitting in their face, from their point of view, and needs to be "taught a lesson".