In the U.S. Constitution there is no 'right' to free speech, only a limitation on who may create laws on speech.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If you would like to see corporations have their 'speech' limited, then support the Constitution.
And to those who will argue that the 14th amendment applies to the first amendment, please read Government by Judiciary by (liberal) Raoul Berger.
“The few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons.” – Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
And this is why Google wants 'net neutrality' - so it can protect itself from competitors by writing the laws that define its industry. The concept is called a nonmarket strategy.
This is the point where the comments fork into a pure ideological discussion of the founding the Constitution and the real meaning of the magna carta and bare no resemblance to the article, OP, or even the subject.
I did not use a straw man argument. I asked questions that you clearly cannot answer. How about this question: Some people are going to be brain-damaged and otherwise disabled by the policy of requiring people to purchase a product they otherwise would not use. What if one of those people was you. How much coal is your life worth, Mr. Waffle Iron? 1000 lbs of coal? 5,000,000 lbs? Of course, you don't have to answer the question because we already know the answer: since it isn't you, the question is a straw man.
I can only speak to what I see as an importer, and nothing in that article reflects the reality of my business, my customers, my competitors, or my vendors. I wonder if those very large companies are getting some sort of tax breaks or environmental waivers for moving to the U.S. Also not explained is that China is monthly beating its own exporting records.
There are some products where labor is not the primary cost of concern. Mechanized production is generally the same price everywhere in the world as the primary costs for production are raw materials, which are the same everywhere. The costs of concern will then fall to regulatory requirements and tax policy.
What is the cost, in MJ, of the recycling of the CFL bulbs vs simple disposal of the incandescent bulbs? What is the environmental cost of the increased mercury being added to our landfills (for those who don't properly recycle)?
The easiest way is to imagine that the minimum wage is increased to $100 per hour. If this happened everyone would make $200,000 per year, right? Of course not, only employers who could afford to charge their customers high enough prices to pay for the increased wages could keep their businesses running. So increasing the minimum wage to $100 per hour has the actual effect of putting nearly everyone out of business and driving essential services underground.
If it can be agreed that at the extreme of $100 per hour most people will lose their jobs, then at lower minimums other people must be losing their jobs. The going rate for labor in the developing world is $1 to $5 per hour. The current U.S. minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, not including employer payroll taxes and employee liability costs. This difference in cost is substantial and for many businesses will mean the difference between offering a product and not offering a product (i.e. not being in business) while other businesses simply won't be able to pass up the increases in profit, although usually this is only temporary as competitors will make the same moves and profits will drop over time.
The most simple thing to look at is the mass exodus of manufacturing in the U.S. This is math that we all understand, yet the solution seems beyond most people. Nobody chooses Made in China over Made in USA out of preference; they do it out of necessity.
China exports to many more countries than just the U.S. In fact, the U.S. is China's second largest export partner behind the E.U. China is just the most visible of the developing countries. If they floated their currency on the open market, the manufacturing would simply move to some other developing nation. It would not come to the U.S.
I've been using cfls for about 10 years and I can find no observable increase in service life. If the bulb doesn't blow out after a couple years, the it gets so dim that it can no longer serve it's function. I also wonder how much more energy is used for quick trips into rooms where I'm waiting for the bulb to heat up instead of grabbing and going. I'm also not as conscious about turning the lights off because they take so long to warm up and they don't consume as much energy.
EBay is the real problem. The fact that they require payment with PayPal is what makes PayPal so popular. Nearly everybody I know uses eBay or one of their subsidiaries. Sure, there are some eccentrics here on/. that abstain, but they are a sliver of the population.
Why not just use the minimal install option? This turns the unit into an XBMC appliance, so there isn't an OS for the end user to deal with.
I actually put this on a CF card with a CF to IDE converter. I use the PicoPSU-120 power supply and I removed all the fans on the mobo and cards with large heat sinks. It's completely silent. However, I only use mine for music so I don't have any large graphics cards, but I'm pretty sure you can get fanless cards capable of 1080p since I have a fanless one in my desktop that runs at WQXGA.
I would argue that it does mean privacy is unimportant. They could easily have left that out of the bill. Whatever their goal is can be accomplished without requiring every medical decision made by a doctor to be uploaded to a central server.
Okay, there is a difference between transparency and privacy, I'll give you that. Now how about the Affordable Care Act? It requires all medical records to be kept in a centralized database run by the Federal Government. Does that equate to privacy failure? I realize not a direct attack on privacy, but the Government is awful about protecting records. I'm one of the veterans who received a letter from the Veterans Administration telling me that my medical records were insecure, then made secure again, without ever providing me with a solid explanation as to what happened and what steps were taken to prevent the same thing from happening again.
College degrees are becoming as ubiquitous and useless a weeding tool for employers as high school diplomas.
Another factor in switching to PC from Mac is that it seems unlikely most companies will pay for Macs, so the employee will have their computer and their work computer, which may or may not affect their decision buy a Mac, but my observation is that most people just use the free computer.
The only reason the colleges can even get away with that is because of the interest-free loans and other moneys that the students don't have to actually work for. My bet is that once they're out on their own, having to pay their own bills, whatever the perceived value-add that Apple has will be as obsolete as their college computers.
Actually, I'm going refute your claim. Kucinich and Lee both voted for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which excepts the SEC from FOIA requests.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be nice if slashdot resolved URL shorteners to their final address. Not that any of us have any doubt as to where this one will send us.
In the U.S. Constitution there is no 'right' to free speech, only a limitation on who may create laws on speech.
Amendment I
If you would like to see corporations have their 'speech' limited, then support the Constitution.
And to those who will argue that the 14th amendment applies to the first amendment, please read Government by Judiciary by (liberal) Raoul Berger.
“The few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons.” – Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
And this is why Google wants 'net neutrality' - so it can protect itself from competitors by writing the laws that define its industry. The concept is called a nonmarket strategy.
This is the point where the comments fork into a pure ideological discussion of the founding the Constitution and the real meaning of the magna carta and bare no resemblance to the article, OP, or even the subject.
What could possibly go wrong?
For job security, he might consider teaching.
Ah, yes, the Laffer Curve. Similar concept and yet another reason that many firms choose to domicile their headquarters in other countries.
Based on current U.S. Government manipulation of the energy industry, yes, based on French Government manipulation of the energy industry, no.
I just picked up an 8 letter and a 5 letter .com domain, both totally easy. As far as women, it could be that SpzToid lives in the Man Jose Area.
I'm no security expert, but as far as I can tell GoDaddy SSL is as good as anyone's SSL, except it's way cheaper.
I did not use a straw man argument. I asked questions that you clearly cannot answer. How about this question: Some people are going to be brain-damaged and otherwise disabled by the policy of requiring people to purchase a product they otherwise would not use. What if one of those people was you. How much coal is your life worth, Mr. Waffle Iron? 1000 lbs of coal? 5,000,000 lbs? Of course, you don't have to answer the question because we already know the answer: since it isn't you, the question is a straw man.
I can only speak to what I see as an importer, and nothing in that article reflects the reality of my business, my customers, my competitors, or my vendors. I wonder if those very large companies are getting some sort of tax breaks or environmental waivers for moving to the U.S. Also not explained is that China is monthly beating its own exporting records.
There are some products where labor is not the primary cost of concern. Mechanized production is generally the same price everywhere in the world as the primary costs for production are raw materials, which are the same everywhere. The costs of concern will then fall to regulatory requirements and tax policy.
What is the cost, in MJ, of the recycling of the CFL bulbs vs simple disposal of the incandescent bulbs? What is the environmental cost of the increased mercury being added to our landfills (for those who don't properly recycle)?
The easiest way is to imagine that the minimum wage is increased to $100 per hour. If this happened everyone would make $200,000 per year, right? Of course not, only employers who could afford to charge their customers high enough prices to pay for the increased wages could keep their businesses running. So increasing the minimum wage to $100 per hour has the actual effect of putting nearly everyone out of business and driving essential services underground.
If it can be agreed that at the extreme of $100 per hour most people will lose their jobs, then at lower minimums other people must be losing their jobs. The going rate for labor in the developing world is $1 to $5 per hour. The current U.S. minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, not including employer payroll taxes and employee liability costs. This difference in cost is substantial and for many businesses will mean the difference between offering a product and not offering a product (i.e. not being in business) while other businesses simply won't be able to pass up the increases in profit, although usually this is only temporary as competitors will make the same moves and profits will drop over time.
The most simple thing to look at is the mass exodus of manufacturing in the U.S. This is math that we all understand, yet the solution seems beyond most people. Nobody chooses Made in China over Made in USA out of preference; they do it out of necessity.
China exports to many more countries than just the U.S. In fact, the U.S. is China's second largest export partner behind the E.U. China is just the most visible of the developing countries. If they floated their currency on the open market, the manufacturing would simply move to some other developing nation. It would not come to the U.S.
I've been using cfls for about 10 years and I can find no observable increase in service life. If the bulb doesn't blow out after a couple years, the it gets so dim that it can no longer serve it's function. I also wonder how much more energy is used for quick trips into rooms where I'm waiting for the bulb to heat up instead of grabbing and going. I'm also not as conscious about turning the lights off because they take so long to warm up and they don't consume as much energy.
EBay is the real problem. The fact that they require payment with PayPal is what makes PayPal so popular. Nearly everybody I know uses eBay or one of their subsidiaries. Sure, there are some eccentrics here on /. that abstain, but they are a sliver of the population.
Why not just use the minimal install option? This turns the unit into an XBMC appliance, so there isn't an OS for the end user to deal with.
I actually put this on a CF card with a CF to IDE converter. I use the PicoPSU-120 power supply and I removed all the fans on the mobo and cards with large heat sinks. It's completely silent. However, I only use mine for music so I don't have any large graphics cards, but I'm pretty sure you can get fanless cards capable of 1080p since I have a fanless one in my desktop that runs at WQXGA.
I would argue that it does mean privacy is unimportant. They could easily have left that out of the bill. Whatever their goal is can be accomplished without requiring every medical decision made by a doctor to be uploaded to a central server.
Okay, there is a difference between transparency and privacy, I'll give you that. Now how about the Affordable Care Act? It requires all medical records to be kept in a centralized database run by the Federal Government. Does that equate to privacy failure? I realize not a direct attack on privacy, but the Government is awful about protecting records. I'm one of the veterans who received a letter from the Veterans Administration telling me that my medical records were insecure, then made secure again, without ever providing me with a solid explanation as to what happened and what steps were taken to prevent the same thing from happening again.
College degrees are becoming as ubiquitous and useless a weeding tool for employers as high school diplomas.
Another factor in switching to PC from Mac is that it seems unlikely most companies will pay for Macs, so the employee will have their computer and their work computer, which may or may not affect their decision buy a Mac, but my observation is that most people just use the free computer.
My favorite George Burns quote, "I like 'em young - you know, before their skin starts falling off."
The only reason the colleges can even get away with that is because of the interest-free loans and other moneys that the students don't have to actually work for. My bet is that once they're out on their own, having to pay their own bills, whatever the perceived value-add that Apple has will be as obsolete as their college computers.
Actually, I'm going refute your claim. Kucinich and Lee both voted for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which excepts the SEC from FOIA requests.
And so does Ron Paul, but they are only two.